{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-5:six-interviews-on-talmage",
  "slug": "six-interviews-on-talmage",
  "title": "Six Interviews on Talmage",
  "subtitle": "A reply to the Reverend Thomas De Witt Talmage of Brooklyn.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's longest single work of religious polemic — six newspaper interviews methodically dismantling the sermons that the Reverend T. DeWitt Talmage of Brooklyn had preached against him.",
  "year": 1882,
  "volume": 5,
  "category": "Discussion",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/six-interviews-on-talmage/",
  "wordCount": 73670,
  "body": "SEVERAL people, having read the sermons of\nMr. Talmage in which he reviews some of my\nlectures, have advised me not to pay the slightest\nattention to the Brooklyn divine. They think that\nno new arguments have been brought forward, and\nthey have even gone so far as to say that some of\nthe best of the old ones have been left out.\n\nAfter thinking the matter over, I became satisfied\nthat my friends were mistaken, that they had been car-\nried away by the general current of modern thought,\nand were not in a frame of mind to feel the force\nof the arguments of Mr. Talmage, or to clearly see\nthe candor that characterizes his utterances.\n\nAt the first reading, the logic of these sermons does\nnot impress you. The style is of a character calculated\n\nVI\n\nto throw the searcher after facts and arguments off\nhis guard. The imagination of the preacher is so\nlurid; he is so free from the ordinary forms of ex-\npression; his statements are so much stranger than\ntruth, and his conclusions so utterly independent of\nhis premises, that the reader is too astonished to\nbe convinced. Not until I had read with great care\nthe six discourses delivered for my benefit had I any\nclear and well-defined idea of the logical force of\nMr. Talmage. I had but little conception of his\ncandor, was almost totally ignorant of his power to\nrender the simple complex and the plain obscure by\nthe mutilation of metaphor and the incoherence\nof inspired declamation. Neither did I know the\ngenerous accuracy with which he states the position\nof an opponent, and the fairness he exhibits in a\nreligious discussion.\n\nHe has without doubt studied the Bible as closely\nand critically as he has the works of Buckle and\nDarwin, and he seems to have paid as much attention\nto scientific subjects as most theologians. His theory\nof light and his views upon geology are strikingly\noriginal, and his astronomical theories are certainly as\nprofound as practical. If his statements can be relied\nupon, he has successfully refuted the teachings of\n\nVII\n\nHumboldt and Haeckel, and exploded the blunders of\nSpencer and Tyndall. Besides all this, he has the\ncourage of his convictions—he does not quail before a\nfact, and he does not strike his colors even to a dem-\nonstration. He cares nothing for human experience.\nHe cannot be put down with statistics, nor driven\nfrom his position by the certainties of science. He\ncares neither for the persistence of force, nor the\nindestructibility of matter.\n\nHe believes in the Bible, and he has the bravery\nto defend his belief. In this, he proudly stands\nalmost alone. He knows that the salvation of the\nworld depends upon a belief in his creed. He\nknows that what are called \"the sciences\" are of\nno importance in the other world. He clearly sees\nthat it is better to live and die ignorant here, if you\ncan wear a crown of glory hereafter. He knows it\nis useless to be perfectly familiar with all the sciences\nin this world, and then in the next \"lift up your eyes,\nbeing in torment.\" He knows, too, that God will\nnot punish any man for denying a fact in science.\nA man can deny the rotundity of the earth, the\nattraction of gravitation, the form of the earths orbit,\nor the nebular hypothesis, with perfect impunity.\nHe is not bound to be correct upon any philo-\n\nViii\n\nsophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridi-\ncule the rule of three, conic sections, and even the\nmultiplication table. God permits every human\nbeing to be mistaken upon every subject but one.\nNo man can lose his soul by denying physical facts.\nJehovah does not take the slightest pride in his geology,\n\nor in his astronomy, or in mathematics, or in\nany school of philosophy—he is jealous only of his\nreputation as the author of the Bible. You may deny\neverything else in the universe except that book.\nThis being so, Mr. Talmage takes the safe side, and\ninsists that the Bible is inspired. He knows that at\nthe day of judgment, not a scientific question will be\nasked. He knows that the Haeckels and Huxleys\nwill, on that terrible day, regret that they ever\nlearned to read. He knows that there is no \"saving\ngrace\" in any department of human knowledge; that\nmathematics and all the exact sciences and all the\nphilosophies will be worse than useless. He knows\nthat inventors, discoverers, thinkers and investigators,\nhave no claim upon the mercy of Jehovah; that the\neducated will envy the ignorant, and that the writers\nand thinkers will curse their books.\n\nHe knows that man cannot be saved through\nwhat he knows—but only by means of what he\n\nIX\n\nbelieves. Theology is not a science. If it were,\nGod would forgive his children for being mistaken\nabout it. If it could be proved like geology, or\nastronomy, there would be no merit in believing it.\nFrom a belief in the Bible, Mr. Talmage is not to be\ndriven by uninspired evidence. He knows that his\nlogic is liable to lead him astray, and that his reason\ncannot be depended upon. He believes that scien-\ntific men are no authority in matters concerning\nwhich nothing can be known, and he does not wish\nto put his soul in peril, by examining by the light of\nreason, the evidences of the supernatural.\n\nHe is perfectly consistent with his creed. What\nhappens to us here is of no consequence compared\nwith eternal joy or pain. The ambitions, honors,\nglories and triumphs of this world, compared with\neternal things, are less than naught.\n\nBetter a cross here and a crown there, than a feast\nhere and a fire there.\n\nLazarus was far more fortunate than Dives. The\npurple and fine linen of this short life are as nothing\ncompared with the robes of the redeemed.\n\nMr. Talmage knows that philosophy is unsafe—\nthat the sciences are sirens luring souls to eternal\nwreck. He knows that the deluded searchers after\n\nX\n\nfacts are planting thorns in their own pillows—that\nthe geologists are digging pits for themselves, and\nthat the astronomers are robbing their souls of the\nheaven they explore. He knows that thought, capa-\ncity, and intellectual courage are dangerous, and this\nbelief gives him a feeling of personal security.\n\nThe Bible is adapted to the world as it is. Most\npeople are ignorant, and but few have the capacity to\ncomprehend philosophical and scientific subjects, and\nif salvation depended upon understanding even one\nof the sciences, nearly everybody would be lost.\nMr. Talmage sees that it was exceedingly merciful in\nGod to base salvation on belief instead of on brain.\nMillions can believe, while only a few can understand.\nEven the effort to understand is a kind of treason\nborn of pride and ingratitude. This being so, it is far\nsafer, far better, to be credulous than critical. You are\noffered an infinite reward for believing the Bible. If\nyou examine it you may find it impossible for you to\nbelieve it. Consequently, examination is dangerous.\nMr. Talmage knows that it is not necessary to under-\nstand the Bible in order to believe it. You must be-\nlieve it first. Then, if on reading it you find anything\nthat appears false, absurd, or impossible, you may\nbe sure that it is only an appearance, and that the real\n\nXI\n\nfault is in yourself. It is certain that persons wholly\nincapable of reasoning are absolutely safe, and that\nto be born brainless is to be saved in advance.\n\nMr. Talmage takes the ground,—and certainly from\nhis point of view nothing can be more reasonable\n—that thought should be avoided, after one has\n\"experienced religion\" and has been the subject of\n\"regeneration.\" Every sinner should listen to ser-\nmons, read religious books, and keep thinking, until\nhe becomes a Christian. Then he should stop. After\nthat, thinking is not the road to heaven. The real\npoint and the real difficulty is to stop thinking just at\nthe right time. Young Christians, who have no idea\nof what they are doing, often go on thinking after\njoining the church, and in this way heresy is born, and\nheresy is often the father of infidelity. If Christians\nwould follow the advice and example of Mr. Talmage\nall disagreements about doctrine would be avoided.\nIn this way the church could secure absolute in-\ntellectual peace and all the disputes, heartburnings,\njealousies and hatreds born of thought, discussion\nand reasoning, would be impossible.\n\nIn the estimation of Mr. Talmage, the man who\ndoubts and examines is not fit for the society of\nangels. There are no disputes, no discussions in\n\nXII\n\nheaven. The angels do not think; they believe,\nthey enjoy. The highest form of religion is re-\npression. We should conquer the passions and\ndestroy desire. We should control the mind and\nstop thinking. In this way we \"offer ourselves a\n\"living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.\" When\ndesire dies, when thought ceases, we shall be pure.\n—This is heaven.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nWashington, D. C,\n\nApril; 1882.\n\nIngersoll's Interviews on Talmage\n\nFirst Interview\n\n_Polonius. My lord, I will use them according to\ntheir desert.\n\nHamlet. God's bodikins, man, much better: use\nevery man after his desert, and who should 'scape\nwhipping? Use them after your own honor and\ndignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is\nin your bounty._\n\nQuestion. Have you read the sermon of\n\nMr. Talmage, in which he exposes your mis-\nrepresentations?\n\nAnswer. I have read such reports as appeared in\nsome of the New York papers.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of what he has\nto say?\n\nAnswer. Some time ago I gave it as my opinion\nof Mr. Talmage that, while he was a man of most\nexcellent judgment, he was somewhat deficient in\nimagination. I find that he has the disease that seems\n\n16\n\nto afflict most theologians, and that is, a kind of intel-\nlectual toadyism, that uses the names of supposed great\nmen instead of arguments. It is perfectly astonishing\nto the average preacher that any one should have the\ntemerity to differ, on the subject of theology, with\nAndrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and other gentlemen\neminent for piety during their lives, but who,\nas a rule, expressed their theological opinions a few\nminutes before dissolution. These ministers are per-\nfectly delighted to have some great politician, some\njudge, soldier, or president, certify to the truth of the\nBible and to the moral character of Jesus Christ.\n\nMr. Talmage insists that if a witness is false in one\nparticular, his entire testimony must be thrown away.\nDaniel Webster was in favor of the Fugitive Slave\nLaw, and thought it the duty of the North to capture\nthe poor slave-mother. He was willing to stand\nbetween a human being and his freedom. He was\nwilling to assist in compelling persons to work without\nany pay except such marks of the lash as they might\nreceive. Yet this man is brought forward as a witness\nfor the truth of the gospel. If he was false in his\ntestimony as to liberty, what is his affidavit worth as\nto the value of Christianity? Andrew Jackson was a\nbrave man, a good general, a patriot second to none,\n\n17\n\nan excellent judge of horses, and a brave duelist. I\nadmit that in his old age he relied considerably upon\nthe atonement. I think Jackson was really a very great\nman, and probably no President impressed himself\nmore deeply upon the American people than the hero\nof New Orleans, but as a theologian he was, in my\njudgment, a most decided failure, and his opinion as\nto the authenticity of the Scriptures is of no earthly\nvalue. It was a subject upon which he knew probably\nas little as Mr. Talmage does about modern infidelity.\nThousands of people will quote Jackson in favor of\nreligion, about which he knew nothing, and yet have\nno confidence in his political opinions, although he\ndevoted the best part of his life to politics.\n\nNo man should quote the words of another, in place\nof an argument, unless he is willing to accept all the\nopinions of that man. Lord Bacon denied the Copernican\n\nsystem of astronomy, and, according to Mr.\nTalmage, having made that mistake, his opinions upon\nother subjects are equally worthless. Mr. Wesley\nbelieved in ghosts, witches, and personal devils, yet\nupon many subjects I have no doubt his opinions were\ncorrect. The truth is, that nearly everybody is right\nabout some things and wrong about most things; and\nif a man's testimony is not to be taken until he is\n\n18\n\nright on every subject, witnesses will be extremely\nscarce.\n\nPersonally, I care nothing about names. It makes\nno difference to me what the supposed great men of\nthe past have said, except as what they have said\ncontains an argument; and that argument is worth to\nme the force it naturally has upon my mind. Chris-\ntians forget that in the realm of reason there are no\nserfs and no monarchs. When you submit to an\nargument, you do not submit to the man who made it.\nChristianity demands a certain obedience, a certain\nblind, unreasoning faith, and parades before the eyes\nof the ignorant, with great pomp and pride, the names\nof kings, soldiers, and statesmen who have admitted\nthe truth of the Bible. Mr. Talmage introduces as a\nwitness the Rev. Theodore Parker. This same The-\nodore Parker denounced the Presbyterian creed as\nthe most infamous of all creeds, and said that the worst\nheathen god, wearing a necklace of live snakes, was a\nrepresentation of mercy when compared with the God\nof John Calvin. Now, if this witness is false in any\nparticular, of course he cannot be believed, according\nto Mr. Talmage, upon any subject, and yet Mr.\nTalmage introduces him upon the stand as a good\nwitness.\n\n19\n\nAlthough I care but little for names, still I will sug-\ngest that, in all probability, Humboldt knew more upon\nthis subject than all the pastors in the world. I cer-\ntainly would have as much confidence in the opinion\nof Goethe as in that of William H. Seward; and as\nbetween Seward and Lincoln, I should take Lincoln;\nand when you come to Presidents, for my part, if I\nwere compelled to pin my faith on the sleeve of any-\nbody, I should take Jefferson's coat in preference to\nJackson's. I believe that Haeckel is, to say the least,\nthe equal of any theologian we have in this country,\nand the late John W. Draper certainly knew as much\nupon these great questions as the average parson. I\nbelieve that Darwin has investigated some of these\nthings, that Tyndall and Huxley have turned their\nminds somewhat in the same direction, that Helmholtz\nhas a few opinions, and that, in fact, thousands of able,\nintelligent and honest men differ almost entirely with\nWebster and Jackson.\n\nSo far as I am concerned, I think more of reasons\nthan of reputations, more of principles than of persons,\nmore of nature than of names, more of facts, than of\nfaiths.\n\nIt is the same with books as with persons. Proba-\nbly there is not a book in the world entirely destitute\n\n20\n\nof truth, and not one entirely exempt from error.\nThe Bible is like other books. There are mistakes in\nit, side by side with truths,—passages inculcating\nmurder, and others exalting mercy; laws devilish and\ntyrannical, and others filled with wisdom and justice.\nIt is foolish to say that if you accept a part, you must\naccept the whole. You must accept that which com-\nmends itself to your heart and brain. There never was\na doctrine that a witness, or a book, should be thrown\nentirely away, because false in one particular. If in\nany particular the book, or the man, tells the truth, to\nthat extent the truth should be accepted.\n\nTruth is made no worse by the one who tells it,\nand a lie gets no real benefit from the reputation of its\nauthor.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the statement\nthat a general belief in your teachings would fill all\nthe penitentiaries, and that in twenty years there\nwould be a hell in this world worse than the one\nexpected in the other?\n\nAnswer. My creed is this:\n\n1. Happiness is the only good.\n\n2. The way to be happy, is to make others happy.\n\n21\n\nOther things being equal, that man is happiest who is\nnearest just—who is truthful, merciful and intelligent—\nin other words, the one who lives in accordance with\nthe conditions of life.\n\n3. The time to be happy is now, and the place to\nbe happy, is here.\n\n4. Reason is the lamp of the mind—the only torch\nof progress; and instead of blowing that out and de-\npending upon darkness and dogma, it is far better to\nincrease that sacred light.\n\n5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietor\nof himself, honest with himself, and intellectually\nhospitable; and upon every brain reason should be\nenthroned as king.\n\n6. Every man must bear the consequences, at\nleast of his own actions. If he puts his hands in\nthe fire, his hands must smart, and not the hands of\nanother. In other words: each man must eat the\nfruit of the tree he plants.\n\nI can not conceive that the teaching of these doc-\ntrines would fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows.\nThe doctrine of forgiveness—the idea that somebody\nelse can suffer in place of the guilty—the notion that\njust at the last the whole account can be settled—\nthese ideas, doctrines, and notions are calculated to fill\n\n22\n\npenitentiaries. Nothing breeds extravagance like the\ncredit system.\n\nMost criminals of the present day are orthodox be-\nlievers, and the gallows seems to be the last round of\nthe ladder reaching from earth to heaven. The Rev.\nDr. Sunderland, of this city, in his sermon on the assas-\nsination of Garfield, takes the ground that God per-\nmitted the murder for the purpose of opening the eyes\nof the people to the evil effects of infidelity. Accord-\ning to this minister, God, in order to show his hatred\nof infidelity, \"inspired,\" or allowed, one Christian to\nassassinate another.\n\nReligion and morality do not necessarily go together.\nMr. Talmage will insist to-day that morality is not\nsufficient to save any man from eternal punishment.\nAs a matter of fact, religion has often been the enemy\nof morality. The moralist has been denounced by the\ntheologians. He sustains the same relation to Chris-\ntianity that the moderate drinker does to the total-\nabstinence society. The total-abstinence people say\nthat the example of the moderate drinker is far worse\nupon the young than that of the drunkard—that the\ndrunkard is a warning, while the moderate drinker is\na perpetual temptation. So Christians say of moral-\nists. According to them, the moralist sets a worse\n\n23\n\nexample than the criminal. The moralist not only in-\nsists that a man can be a good citizen, a kind husband,\nan affectionate father, without religion, but demon-\nstrates the truth of his doctrine by his own life;\nwhereas the criminal admits that in and of himself he\nis nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needs\nassistance from the church and its ministers.\n\nThe worst criminals of the modern world have been\nChristians—I mean by that, believers in Christianity—\nand the most monstrous crimes of the modern world\nhave been committed by the most zealous believers.\nThere is nothing in orthodox religion, apart from the\nmorality it teaches, to prevent the commission oF crime.\nOn the other hand, the perpetual proffer of forgiveness\nis a direct premium upon what Christians are pleased\nto call the commission of sin.\n\nChristianity has produced no greater character than\nEpictetus, no greater sovereign than Marcus Aurelius.\nThe wickedness of the past was a good deal like that\nof the present. As a rule, kings have been wicked in\ndirect proportion to their power—their power having\nbeen lessened, their crimes have decreased. As a\nmatter of fact, paganism, of itself, did not produce any\ngreat men; neither has Christianity. Millions of in-\nfluences determine individual character, and the re-\n\n24\n\nligion of the country in which a man happens to be\nborn may determine many of his opinions, without\ninfluencing, to any great extent, his real character.\n\nThere have been brave, honest, and intelligent men\nin and out of every church.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage says that you insist that,\naccording to the Bible, the universe was made out of\nnothing, and he denounces your statement as a gross\nmisrepresentation. What have you stated upon that\nsubject?\n\nAnswer. What I said was substantially this: \"We\n\"are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the\n\"beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\n\"If this means anything, it means that God pro-\n\"duced—caused to exist, called into being—the\n\"heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that\n\"God formed the heaven and the earth of previously\n\"existing matter. Moses conveys, and intended to\n\"convey, the idea that the matter of which the\n\"universe is composed was created.\"\n\nThis has always been my position. I did not sup-\npose that nothing was used as the raw material; but\n\nif the Mosaic account means anything, it means that\nwhereas there was nothing, God caused something to\n\n25\n\nexist—created what we know as matter. I can not\nconceive of something being made, created, without\nanything to make anything with. I have no more\nconfidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat money.\nMr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the uni-\nverse out of nothing, but out of \"omnipotence.\"\nExactly how God changed \"omnipotence\" into matter\nis not stated. If there was nothing in the universe,\nomnipotence could do you no good. The weakest man\nin the world can lift as much nothing as God.\n\nMr. Talmage seems to think that to create something\nfrom nothing is simply a question of strength—that it\nrequires infinite muscle—that it is only a question of\nbiceps. Of course, omnipotence is an attribute, not an\nentity, not a raw material; and the idea that something\ncan be made out of omnipotence—using that as the\nraw material—is infinitely absurd. It would have\nbeen equally logical to say that God made the universe\nout of his omniscience, or his omnipresence, or his\nunchangeableness, or out of his honesty, his holiness,\nor his incapacity to do evil. I confess my utter in-\nability to understand, or even to suspect, what the\nreverend gentleman means, when he says that God\ncreated the universe out of his \"omnipotence.\"\n\nI admit that the Bible does not tell when God created\n\n26\n\nthe universe. It is simply said that he did this \"in the\nbeginning.\" We are left, however, to infer that \"the\nbeginning\" was Monday morning, and that on the\nfirst Monday God created the matter in an exceedingly\nchaotic state; that on Tuesday he made a firmament\nto divide the waters from the waters; that on Wednes-\nday he gathered the waters together in seas and\nallowed the dry land to appear. We are also told that\non that day \"the earth brought forth grass and herb\n\"yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding\n\"fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.\" This\nwas before the creation of the sun, but Mr. Talmage\ntakes the ground that there are many other sources of\nlight; that \"there may have been volcanoes in active\noperation on other planets.\" I have my doubts,\nhowever, about the light of volcanoes being sufficient\nto produce or sustain vegetable life, and think it a\nlittle doubtful about trees growing only by \"volcanic\nglare.\" Neither do I think one could depend upon\n\"three thousand miles of liquid granite\" for the pro-\nduction of grass and trees, nor upon \"light that rocks\nmight emit in the process of crystallization.\" I doubt\nwhether trees would succeed simply with the assistance\nof the \"Aurora Borealis or the Aurora Australis.\"\nThere are other sources of light, not mentioned by\n\n27\n\nMr. Talmage—lightning-bugs, phosphorescent beetles,\nand fox-fire. I should think that it would be humili-\nating, in this age, for an orthodox preacher to insist\nthat vegetation could exist upon this planet without the\nlight of the sun—that trees could grow, blossom and\nbear fruit, having no light but the flames of volcanoes,\nor that emitted by liquid granite, or thrown off by the\ncrystallization of rocks.\n\nThere is another thing, also, that should not be for-\ngotten, and that is, that there is an even balance for-\never kept between the totals of animal and vegetable\nlife—that certain forms of animal life go with certain\nforms of vegetable life. Mr. Haeckel has shown that\n\"in the first epoch, algae and skull-less vertebrates\nwere found together; in the second, ferns and fishes;\nin the third, pines and reptiles; in the fourth, foliaceous\n\nforests and mammals.\" Vegetable and animal\nlife sustain a necessary relation; they exist together;\nthey act and interact, and each depends upon the other.\nThe real point of difference between Mr. Talmage and\nmyself is this: He says that God made the universe\nout of his \"omnipotence,\" and I say that, although I\nknow nothing whatever upon the subject, my opinion\nis, that the universe has existed from eternity—that it\ncontinually changes in form, but that it never was\n\n28\n\ncreated or called into being by any power. I think\nthat all that is, is all the God there is.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges you with having\nmisrepresented the Bible story of the deluge. Has he\ncorrectly stated your position?\n\nAnswer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that the\nflood was only partial, and was, after all, not much of a\nflood. The Bible tells us that God said he would\n\"destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from\n\"under heaven, and that everything that is in the\n\"earth shall die;\" that God also said: \"I will destroy\n\"man, whom I have created, from the face of the\n\"earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing\n\"and the fowls of the air, and every living substance\n\"that I have made will I destroy from off the face of\n\"the earth.\"\n\nI did not suppose that there was any miracle in the\nBible larger than the credulity of Mr. Talmage. The\nflood story, however, seems to be a little more than\nhe can bear. He is like the witness who stated that\nhe had read Gullivers Travels, the _Stories of Mun-\nchausen, and the Flying Wife, including Robinson\nCrusoe, and believed them all; but that Wirt's Life of\nPatrick Henry_ was a litde more than he could stand.\n\n29\n\nIt is strange that a man who believes that God\ncreated the universe out of \"omnipotence\" should\nbelieve that he had not enough omnipotence left to\ndrown a world the size of this. Mr. Talmage seeks\nto make the story of the flood reasonable. The\nmoment it is reasonable, it ceases to be miraculous.\nCertainly God cannot afford to reward a man with\neternal joy for believing a reasonable story. Faith is\nonly necessary when the story is unreasonable, and if\nthe flood only gets small enough, I can believe it\nmyself. I ask for evidence, and Mr. Talmage seeks\nto make the story so little that it can be believed\nwithout evidence. He tells us that it was a kind of\n\"local option\" flood—a little wet for that part of the\ncountry.\n\nWhy was it necessary to save the birds? They\ncertainly could have gotten out of the way of a real\nsmall flood. Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of each\nspecies. He was commanded to take of the fowls of the\nair by sevens—seven of each sex—and, as there are\nat least 12,500 species, Noah collected an aviary of\nabout 175,000 birds, provided the flood was general.\nIf it was local, there are no means of determining the\nnumber. But why, if the flood was local, should he\nhave taken any of the fowls of the air into his ark?\n\n30\n\nAll they had to do was to fly away, or \"roost high;\"\nand it would have been just as easy for God to have\nimplanted in them, for the moment, the instinct of\ngetting out of the way as the instinct of hunting the ark.\nIt would have been quite a saving of room and pro-\nvisions, and would have materially lessened the labor\nand anxiety of Noah and his sons.\n\nBesides, if it had been a partial flood, and great\nenough to cover the highest mountains in that country,\nthe highest mountain being about seventeen thousand\nfeet, the flood would have been covered with a sheet\nof ice several thousand feet in thickness. If a column\nof water could have been thrown seventeen thousand\nfeet high and kept stationary, several thousand feet\nof the upper end would have frozen. If, however,\nthe deluge was general, then the atmosphere would\nhave been forced out the same on all sides, and the\nclimate remained substantially normal.\n\nNothing can be more absurd than to attempt to\nexplain the flood by calling it partial.\n\nMr. Talmage also says that the window ran clear\nround the ark, and that if I had only known as much\nHebrew as a man could put on his little finger, I\nwould have known that the window went clear round.\nTo this I reply that, if his position is correct, then the\n\n31\n\noriginal translators of King James' edition did not\nknow as much Hebrew as they could have put on\ntheir little fingers; and yet I am obliged to believe\ntheir translation or be eternally damned. If the\nwindow went clear round, the inspired writer should\nhave said so, and the learned translators should have\ngiven us the truth. No one pretends that there was\nmore than one door, and yet the same language is\nused about the door, except this—that the exact size\nof the window is given, and the only peculiarity men-\ntioned as to the door is that it shut from the outside.\nFor any one to see that Mr. Talmage is wrong on the\nwindow question, it is only necessary to read the story\nof the deluge.\n\nMr. Talmage also endeavors to decrease the depth\nof the flood. If the flood did not cover the highest\nhills, many people might have been saved. He also\ninsists that all the water did not come from the rains,\nbut that \"the fountains of the great deep were broken\n\"up.\" What are \"the fountains of the great deep\"?\nHow would their being \"broken up\" increase the\ndepth of the water? He seems to imagine that these\n\"fountains\" were in some way imprisoned—anxious\nto get to the surface, and that, at that time, an oppor-\ntunity was given for water to run up hill, or in some\n\n32\n\nmysterious way to rise above its level. According to\nthe account, the ark was at the mercy of the waves for\nat least seven months. If this flood was only partial,\nit seems a little curious that the water did not seek its\nlevel in less than seven months. With anything like\na fair chance, by that time most of it would have\nfound its way to the sea again.\n\nThere is in the literature of ignorance no more\nperfectly absurd and cruel story than that of the\ndeluge.\n\nI am very sorry that Mr. Talmage should disagree\nwith some of the great commentators. Dr. Scott\ntells us that, in all probability, the angels assisted in\ngetting the animals into the ark. Dr. Henry insists\nthat the waters in the bowels of the earth, at God's\ncommand, sprung up and flooded the earth. Dr.\nClark tells us that it would have been much easier\nfor God to have destroyed all the people and made\nsome new ones, but that he did not want to waste\nanything. Dr. Henry also tells us that the lions, while\nin the ark, ate straw like oxen. Nothing could be\nmore amusing than to see a few lions eating good,\ndry straw. This commentator assures us that the\nwaters rose so high that the loftiest mountains were\noverflowed fifteen cubits, so that salvation was not\n\n33\n\nhoped for from any hills or mountains. He tells us\nthat some of the people got on top of the ark, and\nhoped to shift for themselves, but that, in all proba-\nbility, they were washed off by the rain. When we\nconsider that the rain must have fallen at the rate of\nabout eight hundred feet a day, I am inclined to think\nthat they were washed off.\n\nMr. Talmage has clearly misrepresented the Bible.\nHe is not prepared to believe the story as it is told.\nThe seeds of infidelity seem to be germinating in his\nmind. His position no doubt will be a great relief to\nmost of his hearers. After this, their credulity will\nnot be strained. They can say that there was probably\nquite a storm, some rain, to an extent that rendered it\nnecessary for Noah and his family—his dogs, cats,\nand chickens—to get in a boat. This would not be\nunreasonable. The same thing happens almost every\nyear on the shores of great rivers, and consequently\nthe story of the flood is an exceedingly reasonable\none.\n\nMr. Talmage also endeavors to account for the\nmiraculous collection of the animals in the ark by\nthe universal instinct to get out of the rain. There\nare at least two objections to this: 1. The animals\nwent into the ark before the rain commenced; 2. I\n\n34\n\nhave never noticed any great desire on the part of\nducks, geese, and loons to get out of the water. Mr.\nTalmage must have been misled by a line from an old\nnursery book that says: \"And the little fishes got\n\"under the bridge to keep out of the rain.\" He tells\nus that Noah described what he saw. He is the first\ntheologian who claims that Genesis was written by\nNoah, or that Noah wrote any account of the flood.\nMost Christians insist that the account of the flood\nwas written by Moses, and that he was inspired to\nwrite it. Of course, it will not do for me to say that\nMr. Talmage has misrepresented the facts.\n\nQuestion. You are also charged with misrepresen-\ntation in your statement as to where the ark at last\nrested. It is claimed by Mr. Talmage that there is\nnothing in the Bible to show that the ark rested on\nthe highest mountains.\n\nAnswer. Of course I have no knowledge as to\nwhere the ark really came to anchor, but after it struck\nbottom, we are told that a dove was sent out, and\nthat the dove found no place whereon to rest her\nfoot. If the ark touched ground in the low country,\nsurely the mountains were out of water, and an or-\ndinary mountain furnishes, as a rule, space enough\n\n35\n\nfor a dove's foot. We must infer that the ark rested\non the only land then above water, or near enough\nabove water to strike the keel of Noah's boat. Mount\nArarat is about seventeen thousand feet high; so I\ntake it that the top of that mountain was where Noah\nran aground—otherwise, the account means nothing.\n\nHere Mr. Talmage again shows his tendency to\nbelittle the miracles of the Bible. I am astonished\nthat he should doubt the power of God to keep an\nark on a mountain seventeen thousand feet high.\nHe could have changed the climate for that occasion.\nHe could have made all the rocks and glaciers pro-\nduce wheat and corn in abundance. Certainly God,\nwho could overwhelm a world with a flood, had the\npower to change every law and fact in nature.\n\nI am surprised that Mr. Talmage is not willing to\nbelieve the story as it is told. What right has he to\nquestion the statements of an inspired writer? Why\nshould he set up his judgment against the Websters\nand Jacksons? Is it not infinitely impudent in him\nto contrast his penny-dip with the sun of inspiration?\nWhat right has he to any opinion upon the subject?\nHe must take the Bible as it reads. He should\nremember that the greater the miracle the greater\nshould be his faith.\n\n36\n\nQuestion. You do not seem to have any great\nopinion of the chemical, geological, and agricultural\nviews expressed by Mr. Talmage?\n\nAnswer. You must remember that Mr. Talmage\nhas a certain thing to defend. He takes the Bible as\nactually true, and with the Bible as his standard, he\ncompares and measures all sciences. He does not\nstudy geology to find whether the Mosaic account is\ntrue, but he reads the Mosaic account for the purpose\nof showing that geology can not be depended upon.\nHis idea that \"one day is as a thousand years with\n\"God,\" and that therefore the \"days\" mentioned in the\nMosaic account are not days of twenty-four hours, but\nlong periods, is contradicted by the Bible itself. The\ngreat reason given for keeping the Sabbath day is, that\n\"God rested on the seventh day and was refreshed.\"\nNow, it does not say that he rested on the \"seventh\n\"period,\" or the \"seventh good—while,\" or the\n\"seventh long-time,\" but on the \"seventh day.\" In\nimitation of this example we are also to rest—not on\nthe seventh good-while, but on the seventh day.\nNothing delights the average minister more than to\nfind that a passage of Scripture is capable of several\ninterpretations. Nothing in the inspired book is so\n\n37\n\ndangerous as accuracy. If the holy writer uses\ngeneral terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize\na seemingly preposterous statement with the most\nobdurate fact. An \"inspired\" book should contain\nneither statistics nor dates—as few names as possible,\nand not one word about geology or astronomy. Mr.\nTalmage is doing the best he can to uphold the fables\nof the Jews. They are the foundation of his faith.\nHe believes in the water of the past and the fire of the\nfuture—in the God of flood and flame—the eternal\ntorturer of his helpless children.\n\nIt is exceedingly unfortunate that Mr. Talmage does\nnot appreciate the importance of good manners, that\nhe does not rightly estimate the convincing power of\nkindness and good nature. It is unfortunate that a\nChristian, believing in universal forgiveness, should\nexhibit so much of the spirit of detraction, that he\nshould run so easily and naturally into epithets, and\nthat he should mistake vituperation for logic. Thou-\nsands of people, knowing but little of the mysteries of\nChristianity—never having studied theology,—may\nbecome prejudiced against the church, and doubt the\ndivine origin of a religion whose defenders seem to\nrely, at least to a great degree, upon malignant per-\nsonalities. Mr. Talmage should remember that in a\n\n38\n\ndiscussion of this kind, he is supposed to represent a\nbeing of infinite wisdom and goodness. Surely, the\nrepresentative of the infinite can afford to be candid,\ncan afford to be kind. When he contemplates the\ncondition of a fellow-being destitute of religion, a\nfellow-being now travelling the thorny path to eternal\nfire, he should be filled with pity instead of hate.\nInstead of deforming his mouth with scorn, his eyes\nshould be filled with tears. He should take into\nconsideration the vast difference between an infidel\nand a minister of the gospel,—knowing, as he does,\nthat a crown of glory has been prepared for the\nminister, and that flames are waiting for the soul\nof the unbeliever. He should bear with philosophic\nfortitude the apparent success of the skeptic, for a\nfew days in this brief life, since he knows that in a\nlittle while the question will be eternally settled in\nhis favor, and that the humiliation of a day is as\nnothing compared with the victory of eternity. In\nthis world, the skeptic appears to have the best\nof the argument; logic seems to be on the side\nof blasphemy; common sense apparently goes hand\nin hand with infidelity, and the few things we are\nabsolutely certain of, seem inconsistent with the\nChristian creeds.\n\n39\n\nThis, however, as Mr. Talmage well knows, is but\napparent. God has arranged the world in this way\nfor the purpose of testing the Christian's faith.\nBeyond all these facts, beyond logic, beyond reason,\nMr. Talmage, by the light of faith, clearly sees the\neternal truth. This clearness of vision should give\nhim the serenity of candor and the kindness born of\nabsolute knowledge. He, being a child of the light,\nshould not expect the perfect from the children of\ndarkness. He should not judge Humboldt and\nWesley by the same standard. He should remember\nthat Wesley was especially set apart and illuminated\nby divine wisdom, while Humboldt was left to grope\nin the shadows of nature. He should also remember\nthat ministers are not like other people. They have\nbeen \"called.\" They have been \"chosen\" by infinite\nwisdom. They have been \"set apart,\" and they\nhave bread to eat that we know not of. While\nother people are forced to pursue the difficult paths\nof investigation, they fly with the wings of faith.\n\nMr. Talmage is perfectly aware of the advantages\nhe enjoys, and yet he deems it dangerous to be fair.\nThis, in my judgment, is his mistake. If he cannot\neasily point out the absurdities and contradictions in\ninfidel lectures, surely God would never have selected\n\n40\n\nhim for that task. We cannot believe that imperfect\ninstruments would be chosen by infinite wisdom.\nCertain lambs have been entrusted to the care of Mr.\nTalmage, the shepherd. Certainly God would not\nselect a shepherd unable to cope with an average\nwolf. Such a shepherd is only the appearance of\nprotection. When the wolf is not there, he is a\nuseless expense, and when the wolf comes, he goes.\nI cannot believe that God would select a shepherd\nof that kind. Neither can the shepherd justify his\nselection by abusing the wolf when out of sight.\nThe fear ought to be on the other side. A divinely\nappointed shepherd ought to be able to convince his\nsheep that a wolf is a dangerous animal, and ought\nto be able to give his reasons. It may be that the\nshepherd has a certain interest in exaggerating the\ncruelty and ferocity of the wolf, and even the number\nof the wolves. Should it turn out that the wolves\nexist only in the imagination of the shepherd, the\nsheep might refuse to pay the salary of their pro-\ntector. It will, however, be hard to calculate the\nextent to which the sheep will lose confidence in a\nshepherd who has not even the courage to state the\nfacts about the wolf. But what must be the result\nwhen the sheep find that the supposed wolf is, in\n\n41\n\nfact, their friend, and that he is endeavoring to rescue\nthem from the exactions of the pretended shepherd,\nwho creates, by falsehood, the fear on which he\nlives?\n\nSecond Interview\n\n_Por. Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tear\nyour hair.\n\nSir Hugh. I have been beaten in a discussion,\noverwhelmed and humiliated.\n\nPor. Why didn't you call your adversary a fool?\n\nSir Hugh. My God! I forgot it!_\n\nQuestion. I want to ask you a few questions\nabout the second sermon of Mr. Talmage;\nhave you read it, and what do you think of it?\n\nAnswer. The text taken by the reverend gentle-\nman is an insult, and was probably intended as such:\n\"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.\"\nMr. Talmage seeks to apply this text to any one\nwho denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and is\nthe infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is per-\nfectly satisfied that any man who differs with him on\nthis question is a \"fool,\" and he has the Christian\nforbearance and kindness to say so. I presume he\n\n46\n\nis honest in this opinion, and no doubt regards Bruno,\nSpinoza and Humboldt as driveling imbeciles. He\nentertains the same opinion of some of the greatest,\nwisest and best of Greece and Rome.\n\nNo man is fitted to reason upon this question who\nhas not the intelligence to see the difficulties in all\ntheories. No man has yet evolved a theory that\nsatisfactorily accounts for all that is. No matter\nwhat his opinion may be, he is beset by a thousand\ndifficulties, and innumerable things insist upon an\nexplanation. The best that any man can do is to\ntake that theory which to his mind presents the\nfewest difficulties. Mr. Talmage has been educated\nin a certain way—has a brain of a certain quantity,\nquality and form—and accepts, in spite it may be,\nof himself, a certain theory. Others, formed differ-\nently, having lived under different circumstances,\ncannot accept the Talmagian view, and thereupon he\ndenounces them as fools. In this he follows the\nexample of David the murderer; of David, who\nadvised one of his children to assassinate another;\nof David, whose last words were those of hate and\ncrime. Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especial\nbrain to reason out a \"design\" in Nature, and in a\nmoment afterward says that \"when the world slew\n\n47\n\n\"Jesus, it showed what it would do with the eternal\n\"God, if once it could get its hands on Him.\" Why\nshould a God of infinite wisdom create people who\nwould gladly murder their Creator? Was there any\nparticular \"design\" in that? Does the existence\nof such people conclusively prove the existence of a\ngood Designer? It seems to me—and I take it that\nmy thought is natural, as I have only been born\nonce—that an infinitely wise and good God would\nnaturally create good people, and if he has not, cer-\ntainly the fault is his. The God of Mr. Talmage\nknew, when he created Guiteau, that he would\nassassinate Garfield. Why did he create him? Did\nhe want Garfield assassinated? Will somebody be\nkind enough to show the \"design\" in this trans-\naction? Is it possible to see \"design\" in earth-\nquakes, in volcanoes, in pestilence, in famine, in\nruthless and relentless war? Can we find \"design\" in\nthe fact that every animal lives upon some other—\nthat every drop of every sea is a battlefield where\nthe strong devour the weak? Over the precipice\nof cruelty rolls a perpetual Niagara of blood. Is\nthere \"design\" in this? Why should a good God\npeople a world with men capable of burning their\nfellow-men—and capable of burning the greatest and\n\n48\n\nbest? Why does a good God permit these things?\nIt is said of Christ that he was infinitely kind and\ngenerous, infinitely merciful, because when on earth\nhe cured the sick, the lame and blind. Has he not\nas much power now as he had then? If he was and\nis the God of all worlds, why does he not now give\nback to the widow her son? Why does he with-\nhold light from the eyes of the blind? And why\ndoes one who had the power miraculously to feed\nthousands, allow millions to die for want of food?\nDid Christ only have pity when he was part human?\nAre we indebted for his kindness to the flesh that\nclothed his spirit? Where is he now? Where has he\nbeen through all the centuries of slavery and crime?\nIf this universe was \"designed,\" then all that\nhappens was \"designed.\" If a man constructs an\nengine, the boiler of which explodes, we say either\nthat he did not know the strength of his materials, or\nthat he was reckless of human life. If an infinite being\nshould construct a weak or imperfect machine, he must\nbe held accountable for all that happens. He cannot\nbe permitted to say that he did not know the strength\nof the materials. He is directly and absolutely re-\nsponsible. So, if this world was designed by a being\nof infinite power and wisdom, he is responsible for\n\n49\n\nthe result of that design. My position is this: I do\nnot know. But there are so many objections to the\npersonal-God theory, that it is impossible for me to\naccept it. I prefer to say that the universe is all the\nGod there is. I prefer to make no being responsible.\nI prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, man\nmust clothe them; if the hungry are fed, man must\nfeed them. I prefer to rely upon human endeavor,\nupon human intelligence, upon the heart and brain\nof man. There is no evidence that God has ever\ninterfered in the affairs of man. The hand of earth\nis stretched uselessly toward heaven. From the\nclouds there comes no help. In vain the shipwrecked\ncry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for liberty\nand light—the world moves on, and the heavens are\ndeaf and dumb and blind. The frost freezes, the fire\nburns, slander smites, the wrong triumphs, the good\nsuffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges you with being\n\"the champion blasphemer of America\"—what do\nyou understand blasphemy to be?\n\nAnswer. Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by su-\nperstition upon common sense. Whoever investi-\ngates a religion as he would any department of\n\n50\n\nscience, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradicts\na priest, whoever has the impudence to use his own\nreason, whoever is brave enough to express his\nhonest thought, is a blasphemer in the eyes of the\nreligionist. When a missionary speaks slightingly of\nthe wooden god of a savage, the savage regards him\nas a blasphemer. To laugh at the pretensions of\nMohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy. To say\nin St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet of\nGod is also blasphemy. There was a time when to\nacknowledge the divinity of Christ in Jerusalem was\nblasphemy. To deny his divinity is now blasphemy\nin New York. Blasphemy is to a considerable extent\na geographical question. It depends not only on what\nyou say, but where you are when you say it. Blas-\nphemy is what the old calls the new,—what last\nyear's leaf says to this year's bud. The founder of\nevery religion was a blasphemer. The Jews so re-\ngarded Christ, and the Athenians had the same\nopinion of Socrates. Catholics have always looked\nupon Protestants as blasphemers, and Protestants have\nalways held the same generous opinion of Catholics.\nTo deny that Mary is the Mother of God is blas-\nphemy. To say that she is the Mother of God is\nblasphemy. Some savages think that a dried snake-\n\n51\n\nskin stuffed with leaves is sacred, and he who thinks\notherwise is a blasphemer. It was once blasphemy\nto laugh at Diana, of the Ephesians. Many people\nthink that it is blasphemous to tell your real opinion\nof the Jewish Jehovah. Others imagine that words\ncan be printed upon paper, and the paper bound into\na book covered with sheepskin, and that the book is\nsacred, and that to question its sacredness is blas-\nphemy. Blasphemy is also a crime against God, but\nnothing can be more absurd than a crime against\nGod. If God is infinite, you cannot injure him. You\ncannot commit a crime against any being that you\ncannot injure. Of course, the infinite cannot be in-\njured. Man is a conditioned being. By changing\nhis conditions, his surroundings, you can injure him;\nbut if God is infinite, he is conditionless. If he is\nconditionless, he cannot by any possibility be injured.\nYou can neither increase, nor decrease, the well-being\nof the infinite. Consequently, a crime against God\nis a demonstrated impossibility. The cry of blasphemy\nmeans only that the argument of the blasphemer can-\nnot be answered. The sleight-of-hand performer,\nwhen some one tries to raise the curtain behind which\nhe operates, cries \"blasphemer!\" The priest, find-\ning that he has been attacked by common sense,—\n\n52\n\nby a fact,—resorts to the same cry. Blasphemy is the\nblack flag of theology, and it means: No argument\nand no quarter! It is an appeal to prejudice, to\npassions, to ignorance. It is the last resort of a\ndefeated priest. Blasphemy marks the point where\nargument stops and slander begins. In old times, it\nwas the signal for throwing stones, for gathering\nfagots and for tearing flesh; now it means falsehood\nand calumny.\n\nQuestion. Then you think that there is no such\nthing as the crime of blasphemy, and that no such\noffence can be committed?\n\nAnswer. Any one who knowingly speaks in favor\nof injustice is a blasphemer. Whoever wishes to\ndestroy liberty of thought,—the honest expression of\nideas,—is a blasphemer. Whoever is willing to malign\nhis neighbor, simply because he differs with him upon\na subject about which neither of them knows anything\nfor certain, is a blasphemer. If a crime can be com-\nmitted against God, he commits it who imputes to\nGod the commission of crime. The man who says\nthat God ordered the assassination of women and\nbabes, that he gave maidens to satisfy the lust of\nsoldiers, that he enslaved his own children,—that man\n\n53\n\nis a blasphemer. In my judgment, it would be far\nbetter to deny the existence of God entirely. It\nseems to me that every man ought to give his honest\nopinion. No man should suppose that any infinite\nGod requires him to tell as truth that which he knows\nnothing about.\n\nMr. Talmage, in order to make a point against\ninfidelity, states from his pulpit that I am in favor of\npoisoning the minds of children by the circulation of\nimmoral books. The statement is entirely false. He\nought to have known that I withdrew from the Liberal\nLeague upon the very question whether the law should\nbe repealed or modified. I favored a modification\nof that law, so that books and papers could not be\nthrown from the mails simply because they were\n\"infidel.\"\n\nI was and am in favor of the destruction of\nevery immoral book in the world. I was and am\nin favor, not only of the law against the circulation\nof such filth, but want it executed to the letter in every\nState of this Union. Long before he made that state-\nment, I had introduced a resolution to that effect, and\nsupported the resolution in a speech. Notwithstand-\ning these facts, hundreds of clergymen have made\nhaste to tell the exact opposite of the truth. This\n\n54\n\nthey have done in the name of Christianity, under the\npretence of pleasing their God. In my judgment, it\nis far better to tell your honest opinions, even upon\nthe subject of theology, than to knowingly tell a false-\nhood about a fellow-man. Mr. Talmage may have\nbeen ignorant of the truth. He may have been misled\nby other ministers, and for his benefit I make this ex-\nplanation. I wanted the laws modified so that bigotry\ncould not interfere with the literature of intelligence;\nbut I did not want, in any way, to shield the writers or\npublishers of immoral books. Upon this subject I\nused, at the last meeting of the Liberal League that\nI attended, the following language:\n\n\"But there is a distinction wide as the Mississippi,\n\"yes, wider than the Atlantic, wider than all oceans,\n\"between the literature of immorality and the litera-\n\"ture of free thought. One is a crawling, slimy lizard,\n\"and the other an angel with wings of light. Let us\n\"draw this distinction. Let us understand ourselves.\n\"Do not make the wholesale statement that all these\n\"laws ought to be repealed. They ought not to be\n\"repealed. Some of them are good, and the law\n\"against sending instruments of vice through the\n\"mails is good. The law against sending obscene\n\"pictures and books is good. The law against send-\n\n55\n\n\"ing bogus diplomas through the mails, to allow a\n\"lot of ignorant hyenas to prey upon the sick people\n\"of the world, is a good law. The law against rascals\n\"who are getting up bogus lotteries, and sending their\n\"circulars in the mails is a good law. You know, as\n\"well as I, that there are certain books not fit to go\n\"through the mails. You know that. You know there\n\"are certain pictures not fit to be transmitted, not fit\n\"to be delivered to any human being. When these\n\"books and pictures come into the control of the\n\"United States, I say, burn them up! And when any\n\"man has been indicted who has been trying to make\n\"money by pandering to the lowest passions in the\n\"human breast, then I say, prosecute him! let the\n\"law take its course.\"\n\nI can hardly convince myself that when Mr.\nTalmage made the charge, he was acquainted with\nthe facts. It seems incredible that any man, pre-\ntending to be governed by the law of common\nhonesty, could make a charge like this knowing\nit to be untrue. Under no circumstances, would\nI charge Mr. Talmage with being an infamous\nman, unless the evidence was complete and over-\nwhelming. Even then, I should hesitate long before\nmaking the charge. The side I take on theological\n\n56\n\nquestions does not render a resort to slander or\ncalumny a necessity. If Mr. Talmage is an honor-\nable man, he will take back the statement he has\nmade. Even if there is a God, I hardly think that\nhe will reward one of his children for maligning\nanother; and to one who has told falsehoods about\n\"infidels,\" that having been his only virtue, I doubt\nwhether he will say: \"Well done good and faithful\n\"servant.\"\n\nQuestion. What have you to say to the charge\nthat you are endeavoring to \"assassinate God,\"\nand that you are \"far worse than the man who at-\n\"tempts to kill his father, or his mother, or his sister,\n\"or his brother\"?\n\nAnswer. Well, I think that is about as reason-\nable as anything he says. No one wishes, so far as I\nknow, to assassinate God. The idea of assassinating\nan infinite being is of course infinitely absurd. One\nwould think Mr. Talmage had lost his reason! And\nyet this man stands at the head of the Presbyterian\nclergy. It is for this reason that I answer him. He\nis the only Presbyterian minister in the United\nStates, so far as I know, able to draw an audience.\nHe is, without doubt, the leader of that denomination.\n\n57\n\nHe is orthodox and conservative. He believes im-\nplicitly in the \"Five Points\" of Calvin, and says\nnothing simply for the purpose of attracting attention.\nHe believes that God damns a man for his own glory;\nthat he sends babes to hell to establish his mercy,\nand that he filled the world with disease and crime\nsimply to demonstrate his wisdom. He believes that\nbillions of years before the earth was, God had made\nup his mind as to the exact number that he would\neternally damn, and had counted his saints. This\ndoctrine he calls \"glad tidings of great joy.\" He\nreally believes that every man who is true to himself\nis waging war against God; that every infidel is a\nrebel; that every Freethinker is a traitor, and that\nonly those are good subjects who have joined the\nPresbyterian Church, know the Shorter Catechism by\nheart, and subscribe liberally toward lifting the mort-\ngage on the Brooklyn Tabernacle. All the rest are\nendeavoring to assassinate God, plotting the murder\nof the Holy Ghost, and applauding the Jews for the\ncrucifixion of Christ. If Mr. Talmage is correct in\nhis views as to the power and wisdom of God, I\nimagine that his enemies at last will be overthrown,\nthat the assassins and murderers will not succeed, and\nthat the Infinite, with Mr. Talmage s assistance, will\n\n58\n\nfinally triumph. If there is an infinite God, certainly\nhe ought to have made man grand enough to have\nand express an opinion of his own. Is it possible\nthat God can be gratified with the applause of moral\ncowards? Does he seek to enhance his glory by\nreceiving the adulation of cringing slaves? Is God\nsatisfied with the adoration of the frightened?\n\nQuestion. You notice that Mr. Talmage finds\nnearly all the inventions of modern times mentioned\nin the Bible?\n\nAnswer: Yes; Mr. Talmage has made an ex-\nceedingly important discovery. I admit that I am\nsomewhat amazed at the wisdom of the ancients.\nThis discovery has been made just in the nick of\ntime. Millions of people were losing their respect\nfor the Old Testament. They were beginning to\nthink that there was some discrepancy between the\nprophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel and the latest devel-\nopments in physical science. Thousands of preachers\nwere telling their flocks that the Bible is not a\nscientific book; that Joshua was not an inspired as-\ntronomer, that God never enlightened Moses about\ngeology, and that Ezekiel did not understand the\nentire art of cookery. These admissions caused\n\n59\n\nsome young people to suspect that the Bible, after all,\nwas not inspired; that the prophets of antiquity did\nnot know as much as the discoverers of to-day. The\nBible was falling into disrepute. Mr. Talmage has\nrushed to the rescue. He shows, and shows conclu-\nsively as anything can be shown from the Bible, that\nJob understood all the laws of light thousands of\nyears before Newton lived; that he anticipated the\ndiscoveries of Descartes, Huxley and Tyndall; that\nhe was familiar with the telegraph and telephone;\nthat Morse, Bell and Edison simply put his discov-\neries in successful operation; that Nahum was, in\nfact, a master-mechanic; that he understood perfectly\nthe modern railway and described it so accurately\nthat Trevethick, Foster and Stephenson had no diffi-\nculty in constructing a locomotive. He also has\ndiscovered that Job was well acquainted with the\ntrade winds, and understood the mysterious currents,\ntides and pulses of the sea; that Lieutenant Maury\nwas a plagiarist; that Humboldt was simply a biblical\nstudent. He finds that Isaiah and Solomon were\nfar in advance of Galileo, Morse, Meyer and Watt.\nThis is a discovery wholly unexpected to me. If\nMr. Talmage is right, I am satisfied the Bible is an\ninspired book. If it shall turn out that Joshua was\n\n60\n\nsuperior to Laplace, that Moses knew more about\ngeology than Humboldt, that Job as a scientist was\nthe superior of Kepler, that Isaiah knew more than\nCopernicus, and that even the minor prophets ex-\ncelled the inventors and discoverers of our time—\nthen I will admit that infidelity must become speech-\nless forever. Until I read this sermon, I had never\neven suspected that the inventions of modern times\nwere known to the ancient Jews. I never supposed\nthat Nahum knew the least thing about railroads, or\nthat Job would have known a telegraph if he had seen\nit. I never supposed that Joshua comprehended the\nthree laws of Kepler. Of course I have not read\nthe Old Testament with as much care as some other\npeople have, and when I did read it, I was not looking\nfor inventions and discoveries. I had been told so\noften that the Bible was no authority upon scientific\nquestions, that I was lulled into a state of lethargy.\nWhat is amazing to me is, that so many men did\nread it without getting the slightest hint of the\nsmallest invention. To think that the Jews read that\nbook for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet\nwent to their graves without the slightest notion of\nastronomy, or geology, of railroads, telegraphs, or\nsteamboats! And then to think that the early fathers\n\n61\n\nmade it the study of their lives and died without in-\nventing anything! I am astonished that Mr. Talmage\nhimself does not figure in the records of the Patent\nOffice. I cannot account for this, except upon the\nsupposition that he is too honest to infringe on the\npatents of the patriarchs. After this, I shall read\nthe Old Testament with more care.\n\nQuestion. Do you see that Mr. Talmage endeav-\nors to convict you of great ignorance in not knowing\nthat the word translated \"rib\" should have been\ntranslated \"side,\" and that Eve, after all, was not\nmade out of a rib, but out of Adam's side?\n\nAnswer. I may have been misled by taking the\nBible as it is translated. The Bible account is simply\nthis: \"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall\n\"upon Adam, and he slept. And he took one of\n\"his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof;\n\"and the rib which the Lord God had taken from\n\"man made he a woman, and brought her unto the\n\"man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my\n\"bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called\n\"woman, because she was taken out of man.\" If\nMr. Talmage is right, then the account should be as\nfollows: \"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep\n\n62\n\n\"to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one\n\"of his sides, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;\n\"and the side which the Lord God had taken from\n\"man made he a woman, and brought her unto the\n\"man. And Adam said: This is now side of my\n\"side, and flesh of my flesh.\" I do not see that the\nstory is made any better by using the word \"side\"\ninstead of \"rib.\" It would be just as hard for God\nto make a woman out of a man's side as out of a\nrib. Mr. Talmage ought not to question the power\nof God to make a woman out of a bone, and he must\nrecollect that the less the material the greater the\nmiracle.\n\nThere are two accounts of the creation of man,\nin Genesis, the first being in the twenty-first verse\nof the first chapter and the second being in the\ntwenty-first and twenty-second verses of the sec-\nond chapter.\n\nAccording to the second account, \"God formed\n\"man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into\n\"his nostrils the breath of life.\" And after this,\n\"God planted a garden eastward in Eden and put\n\"the man\" in this garden. After this, \"He made\n\"every tree to grow that was good for food and\n\"pleasant to the sight,\" and, in addition, \"the tree\n\n63\n\n\"of life in the midst of the garden,\" beside \"the tree\n\"of the knowledge of good and evil.\" And he \"put\n\"the man in the garden to dress it and keep it,\"\ntelling him that he might eat of everything he saw\nexcept of \"the tree of the knowledge of good and\n\"evil.\"\n\nAfter this, God having noticed that it \"was not\n\"good for man to be alone, formed out of the ground\n\"every beast of the field, every fowl of the air, and\n\"brought them to Adam to see what he would call\n\"them, and Adam gave names to all cattle, and to\n\"the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.\n\"But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for\n\"him.\"\n\nWe are not told how Adam learned the language,\nor how he understood what God said. I can hardly\nbelieve that any man can be created with the know-\nledge of a language. Education cannot be ready\nmade and stuffed into a brain. Each person must\nlearn a language for himself. Yet in this account we\nfind a language ready made for man's use. And not\nonly man was enabled to speak, but a serpent also\nhas the power of speech, and the woman holds a\nconversation with this animal and with her husband;\nand yet no account is given of how any language was\n\n64\n\nlearned. God is described as walking in the garden\nin the cool of the day, speaking like a man—holding\nconversations with the man and woman, and occa-\nsionally addressing the serpent.\n\nIn the nursery rhymes of the world there is\nnothing more childish than this \"inspired\" account\nof the creation of man and woman.\n\nThe early fathers of the church held that woman\nwas inferior to man, because man was not made for\nwoman, but woman for man; because Adam was\nmade first and Eve afterward. They had not the\ngallantry of Robert Burns, who accounted for the\nbeauty of woman from the fact that God practiced\non man first, and then gave woman the benefit of\nhis experience. Think, in this age of the world,\nof a well-educated, intelligent gentleman telling his\nlittle child that about six thousand years ago a\nmysterious being called God made the world out of\nhis \"omnipotence;\" then made a man out of some\ndust which he is supposed to have moulded into\nform; that he put this man in a garden for the pur-\npose of keeping the trees trimmed; that after a little\nwhile he noticed that the man seemed lonesome, not\nparticularly happy, almost homesick; that then it oc-\ncurred to this God, that it would be a good thing for\n\n65\n\nthe man to have some company, somebody to help\nhim trim the trees, to talk to him and cheer him up\non rainy days; that, thereupon, this God caused\na deep sleep to fall on the man, took a knife, or a\nlong, sharp piece of \"omnipotence,\" and took out one\nof the man's sides, or a rib, and of that made a\nwoman; that then this man and woman got along\nreal well till a snake got into the garden and induced\nthe woman to eat of the tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil; that the woman got the man to take\na bite; that afterwards both of them were detected by\nGod, who was walking around in the cool of the\nevening, and thereupon they were turned out of the\ngarden, lest they should put forth their hands and eat\nof the tree of life, and live forever.\n\nThis foolish story has been regarded as the sacred,\ninspired truth; as an account substantially written by\nGod himself; and thousands and millions of people\nhave supposed it necessary to believe this childish\nfalsehood, in order to save their souls. Nothing\nmore laughable can be found in the fairy tales and\nfolk-lore of savages. Yet this is defended by the\nleading Presbyterian divine, and those who fail to\nbelieve in the truth of this story are called \"brazen\n\"faced fools,\" \"deicides,\" and \"blasphemers.\"\n\n66\n\nBy this story woman in all Christian countries was\ndegraded. She was considered too impure to preach\nthe gospel, too impure to distribute the sacramental\nbread, too impure to hand about the sacred wine,\ntoo impure to step within the \"holy of holies,\" in the\nCatholic Churches, too impure to be touched by a\npriest. Unmarried men were considered purer than\nhusbands and fathers. Nuns were regarded as su-\nperior to mothers, a monastery holier than a home, a\nnunnery nearer sacred than the cradle. And through\nall these years it has been thought better to love\nGod than to love man, better to love God than to\nlove your wife and children, better to worship an\nimaginary deity than to help your fellow-men.\n\nI regard the rights of men and women equal. In\nLove's fair realm, husband and wife are king and\nqueen, sceptered and crowned alike, and seated on\nthe self-same throne.\n\nQuestion. Do you still insist that the Old Testa-\nment upholds polygamy? Mr. Talmage denies this\ncharge, and shows how terribly God punished those\nwho were not satisfied with one wife.\n\nAnswer. I see nothing in what Mr. Talmage has\nsaid calculated to change my opinion. It has been\n\n67\n\nadmitted by thousands of theologians that the Old\nTestament upholds polygamy. Mr. Talmage is\namong the first to deny it. It will not do to say that\nDavid was punished for the crime of polygamy\nor concubinage. He was \"a man after God's own\n\"heart.\" He was made a king. He was a successful\ngeneral, and his blood is said to have flowed in the\nveins of God. Solomon was, according to the ac-\ncount, enriched with wisdom above all human beings.\nWas that a punishment for having had so many\nwives? Was Abraham pursued by the justice of\nGod because of the crime against Hagar, or for the\ncrime against his own wife? The verse quoted by\nMr. Talmage to show that God was opposed to\npolygamy, namely, the eighteenth verse of the eight-\neenth chapter of Leviticus, cannot by any ingenuity\nbe tortured into a command against polygamy. The\nmost that can be possibly said of it is, that you shall\nnot marry the sister of your wife, while your wife is\nliving. Yet this passage is quoted by Mr. Talmage\nas \"a thunder of prohibition against having more\n\"than one wife.\" In the twentieth chapter of\nLeviticus it is enacted: \"That if a man take a wife\n\"and her mother they shall be burned with fire.\" A\ncommandment like this shows that he might take his\n\n68\n\nwife and somebody else's mother. These passages\nhave nothing to do with polygamy. They show\nwhom you may marry, not how many; and there is\nnot in Leviticus a solitary word against polygamy—\nnot one. Nor is there such a word in Genesis, nor\nExodus, nor in the entire Pentateuch—not one\nword. These books are filled with the most minute\ndirections about killing sheep, and goats and doves;\nabout making clothes for priests, about fashioning\ntongs and snuffers; and yet, they contain not one\nword against polygamy. It never occurred to the in-\nspired writers that polygamy was a crime. Polygamy\nwas accepted as a matter of course. Women were\nsimple property.\n\nMr. Talmage, however, insists that, although God\nwas against polygamy, he permitted it, and at the\nsame time threw his moral influence against it.\nUpon this subject he says: \"No doubt God per-\n\"mitted polygamy to continue for sometime, just\n\"as he permits murder and arson, theft and gam-\n\"bling to-day to continue, although he is against\n\"them.\" If God is the author of the Ten Com-\nmandments, he prohibited murder and theft, but\nhe said nothing about polygamy. If he was so\nterribly against that crime, why did he forget to\n\n69\n\nmention it? Was there not room enough on the\ntables of stone for just one word on this subject?\nHad he no time to give a commandment against\nslavery? Mr. Talmage of course insists that God\nhad to deal with these things gradually, his idea being\nthat if God had made a commandment against them all\nat once, the Jews would have had nothing more to do\nwith him.\n\nFor instance: if we wanted to break cannibals\nof eating missionaries, we should not tell them all\nat once that it was wrong, that it was wicked, to\neat missionaries raw; we should induce them first\nto cook the missionaries, and gradually wean them\nfrom raw flesh. This would be the first great step.\nWe would stew the missionaries, and after a time\nput a little mutton in the stew, not enough to excite\nthe suspicion of the cannibal, but just enough to get\nhim in the habit of eating mutton without knowing it.\nDay after day we would put in more mutton and less\nmissionary, until finally, the cannibal would be perfectly\nsatisfied with clear mutton. Then we would tell him\nthat it was wrong to eat missionary. After the can-\nnibal got so that he liked mutton, and cared nothing\nfor missionary, then it would be safe to have a law\nupon the subject.\n\n70\n\nMr. Talmage insists that polygamy cannot exist\namong people who believe the Bible. In this he is\nmistaken. The Mormons all believe the Bible. There\nis not a single polygamist in Utah who does not insist\nupon the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic consu-\nlar theologian, once had a discussion, I believe, with\nElder Orson Pratt, at Salt Lake City, upon the question\nof polygamy. It is sufficient to say of this discussion\nthat it is now circulated by the Mormons as a campaign\ndocument. The elder overwhelmed the parson.\nPassages of Scripture in favor of polygamy were\nquoted by the hundred. The lives of all the patriarchs\nwere brought forward, and poor parson Newman was\ndriven from the field. The truth is, the Jews at that\ntime were much like our forefathers. They were\nbarbarians, and many of their laws were unjust\nand cruel. Polygamy was the right of all; practiced,\nas a matter of fact, by the rich and powerful, and the\nrich and powerful were envied by the poor. In such\nesteem did the ancient Jews hold polygamy, that the\nnumber of Solomons wives was given, simply to en-\nhance his glory. My own opinion is, that Solomon\nhad very few wives, and that polygamy was not\ngeneral in Palestine. The country was too poor, and\n\n71\n\nSolomon, in all his glory was hardly able to support\none wife. He was a poor barbarian king with a\nlimited revenue, with a poor soil, with a sparse popu-\nlation, without art, without science and without power.\nHe sustained about the same relation to other kings\nthat Delaware does to other States. Mr. Talmage\nsays that God persecuted Solomon, and yet, if he will\nturn to the twenty-second chapter of First Chronicles,\nhe will find what God promised to Solomon. God,\nspeaking to David, says: \"Behold a son shall be born\n\"to thee, who shall be a man of rest, and I will give him\n\"rest from his enemies around about; for his name shall\n\"be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness\n\"unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house in my\n\"name, and he shall be my son and I will be his father,\n\"and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over\n\"Israel forever.\" Did God keep his promise?\n\nSo he tells us that David was persecuted by\nGod, on account of his offences, and yet I find in\nthe twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-ninth chapter\nof First Chronicles, the following account of the death\nof David: \"And he died in a good old age, full of\n\"days, riches and honor.\" Is this true?\n\nQuestion. What have you to say to the charge\nthat you were mistaken in the number of years that\n\n72\n\nthe Hebrews were in Egypt? Mr. Talmage says that\nthey were there 430 years, instead of 215 years.\n\nAnswer. If you will read the third chapter of\nGalatians, sixteenth and seventeenth verses, you will\nfind that it was 430 years from the time God made the\npromise to Abraham to the giving of the law from\nMount Sinai. The Hebrews did not go to Egypt for\n215 years after the promise was made to Abraham,\nand consequently did not remain in Egypt more than\n215 years. If Galatians is true, I am right.\n\nStrange that Mr. Talmage should belittle the mira-\ncles. The trouble with this defender of the faith is that\nhe cares nothing for facts. He makes the strangest\nstatements, and cares the least for proof, of any\nman I know. I can account for what he says of me\nonly upon the supposition that he has not read my\nlectures. He may have been misled by the pirated\neditions; Persons have stolen my lectures, printed the\nsame ones under various names, and filled them with\nmistakes and things I never said. Mr. C. P. Farrell,\nof Washington, is my only authorized publisher.\nYet Mr. Talmage prefers to answer the mistakes of\nliterary thieves, and charge their ignorance to me.\n\nQuestion. Did you ever attack the character of\nQueen Victoria, or did you draw any parallel between\n\n73\n\nher and George Eliot, calculated to depreciate the\nreputation of the Queen?\n\nAnswer. I never said a word against Victoria.\nThe fact is, I am not acquainted with her—never met\nher in my life, and know but little of her. I never\nhappened to see her \"in plain clothes, reading the\n\"Bible to the poor in the lane,\"—neither did I ever\nhear her sing. I most cheerfully admit that her\nreputation is good in the neighborhood where she\nresides. In one of my lectures I drew a parallel\nbetween George Eliot and Victoria. I was showing\nthe difference between a woman who had won her\nposition in the world of thought, and one who was\nqueen by chance. This is what I said:\n\n\"It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man\n\"to be a king or emperor. The last Napoleon was\n\"not satisfied with being the Emperor of the French.\n\"He was not satisfied with having a circlet of gold\n\"about his head—he wanted some evidence that he\n\"had something of value in his head. So he wrote\n\"the life of Julius Caesar that he might become a\n\"member of the French Academy. The emperors,\n\"the kings, the popes, no longer tower above their\n\"fellows. Compare King William with the philoso-\n\"pher Haeckel. The king is one of the 'anointed\n\n74\n\n\"'of the Most High'—as they claim—one upon\n\"whose head has been poured the divine petroleum\n\"of authority. Compare this king with Haeckel, who\n\"towers an intellectual Colossus above the crowned\n\"mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with Queen\n\"Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments given\n\"her by blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while\n\"George Eliot wears robes of glory, woven in the\n\"loom of her own genius. The world is beginning\n\"to pay homage to intellect, to genius, to heart.\"\nI said not one word against Queen Victoria, and did\nnot intend to even intimate that she was not an ex-\ncellent woman, wife and mother. I was simply trying\nto show that the world was getting great enough to\nplace a genius above an accidental queen. Mr. Tal-\nmage, true to the fawning, cringing spirit of ortho-\ndoxy, lauds the living queen and cruelly maligns the\ngenius dead. He digs open the grave of George Eliot,\nand tries to stain the sacred dust of one who was the\ngreatest woman England has produced. He calls her\n\"an adultress.\" He attacks her because she was an\natheist—because she abhorred Jehovah, denied the\ninspiration of the Bible, denied the dogma of eternal\npain, and with all her heart despised the Presbyterian\ncreed. He hates her because she was great and brave\n\n75\n\nand free—because she lived without \"faith\" and died\nwithout fear—because she dared to give her honest\nthought, and grandly bore the taunts and slanders of\nthe Christian world.\n\nGeorge Eliot tenderly carried in her heart the\nburdens of our race. She looked through pity's tears\nupon the faults and frailties of mankind. She knew\nthe springs and seeds of thought and deed, and saw,\nwith cloudless eyes, through all the winding ways of\ngreed, ambition and deceit, where folly vainly plucks\nwith thorn-pierced hands the fading flowers of selfish\njoy—the highway of eternal right. Whatever her\nrelations may have been—no matter what I think, or\nothers say, or how much all regret the one mistake in\nall her self-denying, loving life—I feel and know that\nin the court where her own conscience sat as judge, she\nstood acquitted—pure as light and stainless as a star.\n\nHow appropriate here, with some slight change,\nthe wondrously poetic and pathetic words of Laertes\nat Ophelia's grave:\n    _Leave her i' the earth;\n    And from her fair and unpolluted flesh\n    May violets spring!\n    I tell thee, churlish priest,\n    A ministering angel shall this woman be,\n    When thou liest howling!_\n\nI have no words with which to tell my loathing for\na man who violates a noble woman's grave.\n\n76\n\nQuestion. Do you think that the spirit in which\nMr. Talmage reviews your lectures is in accordance\nwith the teachings of Christianity?\n\nAnswer. I think that he talks like a true Presby-\nterian. If you will read the arguments of Calvin\nagainst the doctrines of Castalio and Servetus, you will\nsee that Mr. Talmage follows closely in the footsteps\nof the founder of his church. Castalio was such a\nwicked and abandoned wretch, that he taught the\ninnocence of honest error. He insisted that God\nwould not eternally damn a man for being honestly\nmistaken. For the utterance of such blasphemous\nsentiments, abhorrent to every Christian mind, Calvin\ncalled him \"a dog of Satan, and a child of hell.\" In\nshort, he used the usual arguments. Castalio was\nbanished, and died in exile. In the case of Servetus,\nafter all the epithets had been exhausted, an appeal\nwas made to the stake, and the blasphemous wretch\nwas burned to ashes.\n\nIf you will read the life of John Knox, you will find\nthat Mr. Talmage is as orthodox in his methods of\ndealing with infidels, as he is in his creed. In my\nopinion, he would gladly treat unbelievers now, as the\nPuritans did the Quakers, as the Episcopalians did the\nPresbyterians, as the Presbyterians did the Baptists,\n\n77\n\nand as the Catholics have treated all heretics. Of\ncourse, all these sects will settle their differences in\nheaven. In the next world, they will laugh at the\ncrimes they committed in this.\n\nThe course pursued by Mr. Talmage is consistent.\nThe pulpit cannot afford to abandon the weapons of\nfalsehood and defamation. Candor sows the seeds of\ndoubt. Fairness is weakness. The only way to suc-\ncessfully uphold the religion of universal love, is to\ndenounce all Freethinkers as blasphemers, adulterers,\nand criminals. No matter how generous they may\nappear to be, no matter how fairly they may deal with\ntheir fellow-men, rest assured that they are actuated\nby the lowest and basest motives. Infidels who out-\nwardly live honest and virtuous lives, are inwardly\nvicious, virulent and vile. After all, morality is only\na veneering. God is not deceived with the varnish of\ngood works. We know that the natural man is\ntotally depraved, and that until he has been regene-\nrated by the spirit of God, he is utterly incapable of a\ngood action. The generosity of the unbeliever is, in\nfact, avarice. His honesty is only a form of larceny.\nHis love is only hatred. No matter how sincerely\nhe may love his wife,—how devoted he may be to\nhis children,—no matter how ready he may be 'to\n\n78\n\nsacrifice even his life for the good of mankind, God,\nlooking into his very heart, finds it only a den of\nhissing snakes, a lair of wild, ferocious beasts, a cage\nof unclean birds.\n\nThe idea that God will save a man simply because\nhe is honest and generous, is almost too preposterous\nfor serious refutation. No man should rely upon his\nown goodness. He should plead the virtue of another.\nGod, in his infinite justice, damns a good man on his\nown merits, and saves a bad man on the merits of\nanother. The repentant murderer will be an angel\nof light, while his honest and unoffending victim will\nbe a fiend in hell.\n\nA little while ago, a ship, disabled, was blown about\nthe Atlantic for eighty days. Everything had been\neaten. Nothing remained but bare decks and hunger.\nThe crew consisted of Captain Kruger and nine others.\nFor nine days, nothing had been eaten. The captain,\ntaking a revolver in his hand, said: \"Mates, some\n\"one must die for the rest. I am willing to sacrifice\n\"myself for you.\" One of his comrades grasped his\nhand, and implored him to wait one more day. The\nnext morning, a sail was seen upon the horizon, and\nthe dying men were rescued.\n\nTo an ordinary man,—to one guided by the light of\n\n79\n\nreason,—it is perfectly clear that Captain Kruger was\nabout to do an infinitely generous action. Yet Mr.\nTalmage will tell us that if that captain was not a\nChristian, and if he had sent the bullet crashing\nthrough his brain in order that his comrades might eat\nhis body, and live to reach their wives and homes,—\nhis soul, from that ship, would have gone, by dark\nand tortuous ways, down to the prison of eternal pain.\n\nIs it possible that Christ would eternally damn a\nman for doing exactly what Christ would have done,\nhad he been infinitely generous, under the same cir-\ncumstances? Is not self-denial in a man as praise-\nworthy as in a God? Should a God be worshiped,\nand a man be damned, for the same action?\n\nAccording to Mr. Talmage, every soldier who fought\nfor our country in the Revolutionary war, who was\nnot a Christian, is now in hell. Every soldier, not a\nChristian, who carried the flag of his country to vic-\ntory—either upon the land or sea, in the war of 1812,\nis now in hell. Every soldier, not a Christian, who\nfought for the preservation of this Union,—to break\nthe chains of slavery—to free four millions of people\n—to keep the whip from the naked back—every man\nwho did this—every one who died at Andersonville\nand Libby, dreaming that his death would help make\n\n80\n\nthe lives of others worth living, is now a lost and\nwretched soul. These men are now in the prison of\nGod,—a prison in which the cruelties of Libby and\nAndersonville would be regarded as mercies,—in\nwhich famine would be a joy.\n\nThird Interview\n\n_Sinner. Is God infinite in wisdom and power?\n\nParson. He is.\n\nSinner. Does he at all times know just what ought\nto be done?\n\nParson. He does.\n\nSinner. Does he always do just what ought to be\ndone?\n\nParson. He does.\n\nSinner. Why do you pray to him?\n\nParson. Because he is unchangeable._\n\nQuestion. I want to ask you a few questions\nabout Mr. Talmage's third sermon. What do\nyou think of it?\n\nAnswer. I often ask myself the questions: Is\nthere anything in the occupation of a minister,—any-\nthing in his surroundings, that makes him incapable\nof treating an opponent fairly, or decently? Is there\nanything in the doctrine of universal forgiveness that\ncompels a man to speak of one who differs with him\nonly in terms of disrespect and hatred? Is it neces-\nsary for those who profess to love the whole world,\nto hate the few they come in actual contact with?\n\n84\n\nMr. Talmage, no doubt, professes to love all man-\nkind,—Jew and Gentile, Christian and Pagan. No\ndoubt, he believes in the missionary effort, and thinks\nwe should do all in our power to save the soul of the\nmost benighted savage; and yet he shows anything\nbut affection for the \"heathen\" at home. He loves\nthe ones he never saw,—is real anxious for their wel-\nfare,—but for the ones he knows, he exhibits only\nscorn and hatred. In one breath, he tells us that\nChrist loves us, and in the next, that we are \"wolves\n\"and dogs.\" We are informed that Christ forgave\neven his murderers, but that now he hates an honest\nunbeliever with all his heart. He can forgive the\nones who drove the nails into his hands and feet,—\nthe one who thrust the spear through his quivering\nflesh,—but he cannot forgive the man who entertains\nan honest doubt about the \"scheme of salvation.\"\nHe regards the man who thinks, as a \"mouth-maker\n\"at heaven.\" Is it possible that Christ is less for-\ngiving in heaven than he was in Jerusalem? Did he\nexcuse murderers then, and does he damn thinkers\nnow? Once he pitied even thieves; does he now\nabhor an intellectually honest man?\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage seems to think that you\nhave no right to give your opinion about the Bible.\n\n85\n\nDo you think that laymen have the same right as\nministers to examine the Scriptures?\n\nAnswer. If God only made a revelation for\npreachers, of course we will have to depend on the\npreachers for information. But the preachers have\nmade the mistake of showing the revelation. They\nask us, the laymen, to read it, and certainly there is\nno use of reading it, unless we are permitted to think\nfor ourselves while we read. If after reading the Bible\nwe believe it to be true, we will say so, if we are\nhonest. If we do not believe it, we will say so, if we\nare honest.\n\nBut why should God be so particular about our\nbelieving the stories in his book? Why should God\nobject to having his book examined? We do not\nhave to call upon legislators, or courts, to protect\nShakespeare from the derision of mankind. Was not\nGod able to write a book that would command the\nlove and admiration of the world? If the God of\nMr. Talmage is infinite, he knew exactly how the\nstories of the Old Testament would strike a gentle-\nman of the nineteenth century. He knew that many\nwould have their doubts,—that thousands of them—\nand I may say most of them,—would refuse to believe\nthat a miracle had ever been performed.\n\n86\n\nNow, it seems to me that he should either have left\nthe stories out, or furnished evidence enough to con-\nvince the world. According to Mr. Talmage, thou-\nsands of people are pouring over the Niagara of\nunbelief into the gulf of eternal pain. Why does not\nGod furnish more evidence? Just in proportion as\nman has developed intellectually, he has demanded\nadditional testimony. That which satisfies a barbarian,\nexcites only the laughter of a civilized man. Cer-\ntainly God should furnish evidence in harmony with\nthe spirit of the age. If God wrote his Bible for the\naverage man, he should have written it in such a way\nthat it would have carried conviction to the brain and\nheart of the average man; and he should have\nmade no man in such a way that he could not, by any\npossibility, believe it. There certainly should be a\nharmony between the Bible and the human brain. If\nI do not believe the Bible, whose fault is it? Mr.\nTalmage insists that his God wrote the Bible for me.\nand made me. If this is true, the book and the man\nshould agree. There is no sense in God writing\na book for me and then making me in such a way that\nI cannot believe his book.\n\nQuestion. But Mr. Talmage says the reason why\nyou hate the Bible is, that your soul is poisoned; that\n\n87\n\nthe Bible \"throws you into a rage precisely as pure\n\"water brings on a paroxysm of hydrophobia.\"\n\nAnswer. Is it because the mind of the infidel is\npoisoned, that he refuses to believe that an infinite\nGod commanded the murder of mothers, maidens and\nbabes? Is it because their minds are impure, that\nthey refuse to believe that a good God established\nthe institution of human slavery, or that he protected\nit when established? Is it because their minds are\nvile, that they refuse to believe that an infinite God\nestablished or protected polygamy? Is it a sure\nsign of an impure mind, when a man insists that\nGod never waged wars of extermination against his\nhelpless children? Does it show that a man has\nbeen entirely given over to the devil, because he\nrefuses to believe that God ordered a father to sacri-\nfice his son? Does it show that a heart is entirely\nwithout mercy, simply because a man denies the\njustice of eternal pain?\n\nI denounce many parts of the Old Testament\nbecause they are infinitely repugnant to my sense\nof justice,—because they are bloody, brutal and in-\nfamous,—because they uphold crime and destroy\nhuman liberty. It is impossible for me to imagine\na greater monster than the God of the Old Testa-\n\n88\n\nment. He is unworthy of my worship. He com-\nmands only my detestation, my execration, and my\npassionate hatred. The God who commanded the\nmurder of children is an infamous fiend. The God\nwho believed in polygamy, is worthy only of con-\ntempt. The God who established slavery should be\nhated by every free man. The Jehovah of the Jews\nwas simply a barbarian, and the Old Testament is\nmostly the barbarous record of a barbarous people.\n\nIf the Jehovah of the Jews is the real God, I do\nnot wish to be his friend. From him I neither ask,\nnor expect, nor would I be willing to receive, even an\neternity of joy. According to the Old Testament,\nhe established a government,—a political state,—and\nyet, no civilized country to-day would re-enact these\nlaws of God.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the explanation\ngiven by Mr. Talmage of the stopping of the sun and\nmoon in the time of Joshua, in order that a battle\nmight be completed?\n\nAnswer. Of course, if there is an infinite God,\nhe could have stopped the sun and moon. No one\npretends to prescribe limits to the power of the\ninfinite. Even admitting that such a being existed,\nthe question whether he did stop the sun and moon,\n\n89\n\nor not, still remains. According to the account, these\nplanets were stopped, in order that Joshua might con-\ntinue the pursuit of a routed enemy. I take it for\ngranted that a being of infinite wisdom would not\nwaste any force,—that he would not throw away any\n\"omnipotence,\" and that, under ordinary circum-\nstances, he would husband his resources. I find that\nthis spirit exists, at least in embryo, in Mr. Talmage.\nHe proceeds to explain this miracle. He does not\nassert that the earth was stopped on its axis, but sug-\ngests \"refraction\" as a way out of the difficulty. Now,\nwhile the stopping of the earth on its axis accounts for\nthe sun remaining in the same relative position, it does\nnot account for the stoppage of the moon. The moon\nhas a motion of its own, and even if the earth had been\nstopped in its rotary motion, the moon would have gone\non. The Bible tells us that the moon was stopped. One\nwould suppose that the sun would have given sufficient\nlight for all practical purposes. Will Mr. Talmage be\nkind enough to explain the stoppage of the moon?\nEvery one knows that the moon is somewhat obscure\nwhen the sun is in the midst of the heavens. The moon\nwhen compared with the sun at such a time, is much\nlike one of the discourses of Mr. Talmage side by side\nwith a chapter from Humboldt;—it is useless.\n\n90\n\nIn the same chapter in which the account of the\nstoppage of the sun and moon is given, we find that\nGod cast down from heaven great hailstones on\nJoshua's enemies. Did he get out of hailstones?\nHad he no \"omnipotence\" left? Was it necessary\nfor him to stop the sun and moon and depend entirely\nupon the efforts of Joshua? Would not the force\nemployed in stopping the rotary motion of the earth\nhave been sufficient to destroy the enemy? Would\nnot a millionth part of the force necessary to stop the\nmoon, have pierced the enemy's centre, and rolled up\nboth his flanks? A resort to lightning would have\nbeen, in my judgment, much more economical and\nrather more effective. If he had simply opened the\nearth, and swallowed them, as he did Korah and his\ncompany, it would have been a vast saving of\n\"omnipotent\" muscle. Yet, the foremost orthodox\nminister of the Presbyterian Church,—the one who\ncalls all unbelievers \"wolves and dogs,\" and \"brazen\n\"fools,\" in his effort to account for this miracle, is\ndriven to the subterfuge of an \"optical illusion.\"\nWe are seriously informed that \"God probably\n\"changed the nature of the air,\" and performed this\nfeat of ledgerdemain through the instrumentality of\n\"refraction.\" It seems to me it would have been fully\n\n91\n\nas easy to have changed the nature of the air breathed\nby the enemy, so that it would not have supported\nlife. He could have accomplished this by changing\nonly a little air, in that vicinity; whereas, according\nto the Talmagian view, he changed the atmosphere\nof the world. Or, a small \"local flood\" might have\ndone the work. The optical illusion and refraction\nview, ingenious as it may appear, was not original\nwith Mr. Talmage. The Rev. Henry M. Morey, of\nSouth Bend, Indiana, used, upon this subject, the fol-\nlowing language; \"The phenomenon was simply\n\"optical. The rotary motion of the earth was not\n\"disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by\n\"the same laws of refraction and reflection by which\n\"the sun now appears to be above the horizon when\n\"it is really below. The medium through which the\n\"sun's rays passed, might have been miraculously\n\"influenced so as to have caused the sun to linger\n\"above the horizon long after its usual time for dis-\n\"appearance.\"\n\nI pronounce the opinion of Mr. Morey to be the\nripest product of Christian scholarship. According to\nthe Morey-Talmage view, the sun lingered somewhat\nabove the horizon. But this is inconsistent with the\nBible account. We are not told in the Scriptures that\n\n92\n\nthe sun \"lingered above the horizon,\" but that it \"stood\n\"still in the midst of heaven for about a whole day.\"\nThe trouble about the optical-illusion view is, that it\nmakes the day too long. If the air was miraculously\nchanged, so that it refracted the rays of the sun, while\nthe earth turned over as usual for about a whole day,\nthen, at the end of that time, the sun must have been\nagain visible in the east. It would then naturally\nshine twelve hours more, so that this miraculous day\nmust have been at least thirty-six hours in length.\nThere were first twelve hours of natural light, then\ntwelve hours of refracted and reflected light, and then\ntwelve hours more of natural light. This makes the\nday too long. So, I say to Mr. Talmage, as I said to\nMr. Morey: If you will depend a little less on\nrefraction, and a little more on reflection, you will see\nthat the whole story is a barbaric myth and foolish\nfable.\n\nFor my part, I do not see why God should be\npleased to have me believe a story of this character.\nI can hardly think that there is great joy in heaven\nover another falsehood swallowed. I can imagine\nthat a man may deny this story, and still be an excel-\nlent citizen, a good father, an obliging neighbor, and\nin all respects a just and truthful man. I can also\n\n93\n\nimagine that a man may believe this story, and yet\nassassinate a President of the United States.\n\nI am afraid that Mr. Talmage is beginning to be\ntouched, in spite of himself, with some new ideas. He\ntells us that worlds are born and that worlds die.\nThis is not exactly the Bible view. You would think\nthat he imagined that a world was naturally pro-\nduced,—that the aggregation of atoms was natural,\nand that disintegration came to worlds, as to men,\nthrough old age. Yet this is not the Bible view.\nAccording to the Bible, these worlds were not born,—\nthey were created out of \"nothing,\" or out of\n\"omnipotence,\" which is much the same. According\nto the Bible, it took this infinite God six days to make\nthis atom called earth; and according to the account,\nhe did not work nights,—he worked from the morn-\nings to the evenings,—and I suppose rested nights,\nas he has since that time on Sundays.\n\nAdmitting that the battle which Joshua fought\nwas exceedingly important—which I do not think—\nis it not a little strange that this God, in all subse-\nquent battles of the world's history, of which we\nknow anything, has maintained the strictest neu-\ntrality? The earth turned as usual at Yorktown,\nand at Gettysburg the moon pursued her usual\n\n94\n\ncourse; and so far as I know, neither at Waterloo\nnor at Sedan were there any peculiar freaks of \"re-\n\"fraction\" or \"reflection.\"\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage tells us that there was in\nthe early part of this century a dark day, when\nworkmen went home from their fields, and legis-\nlatures and courts adjourned, and that the darkness\nof that day has not yet been explained. What is\nyour opinion about that?\n\nAnswer. My opinion is, that if at that time we\nhad been at war with England, and a battle had\nbeen commenced in the morning, and in the after-\nnoon the American forces had been driven from their\nposition and were hard pressed by the enemy, and\nif the day had become suddenly dark, and so dark\nthat the Americans were thereby enabled to escape,\nthousands of theologians of the calibre of Mr. Tal-\nmage would have honestly believed that there had\nbeen an interposition of divine Providence. No\nbattle was fought that day, and consequently, even\nthe ministers are looking for natural causes. In\nolden times, when the heavens were visited by\ncomets, war, pestilence and famine were predicted.\nIf wars came, the prediction was remembered; if\n\n95\n\nnothing happened, it was forgotten. When eclipses\nvisited the sun and moon, the barbarian fell upon his\nknees, and accounted for the phenomena by the\nwickedness of his neighbor. Mr. Talmage tells us\nthat his father was terrified by the meteoric shower\nthat visited our earth in 1833. The terror of the\nfather may account for the credulity of the son.\nAstronomers will be surprised to read the declaration\nof Mr. Talmage that the meteoric shower has never\nbeen explained. Meteors visit the earth every year\nof its life, and in a certain portion of the orbit they\nare always expected, and they always come. Mr.\nNewcomb has written a work on astronomy that\nall ministers ought to read.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage also charges you with\n\"making light of holy things,\" and seems to be aston-\nished that you should ridicule the anointing oil of\nAaron?\n\nAnswer. I find that the God who had no time to\nsay anything on the subject of slavery, and who found\nno room upon the tables of stone to say a word\nagainst polygamy, and in favor of the rights of\nwoman, wife and mother, took time to give a recipe\nfor making hair oil. And in order that the priests\n\n96\n\nmight have the exclusive right to manufacture this oil,\ndecreed the penalty of death on all who should\ninfringe. I admit that I am incapable of seeing the\nbeauty of this symbol. Neither could I ever see the\nnecessity of Masons putting oil on the corner-stone\nof a building. Of course, I do not know the exact\nchemical effect that oil has on stone, and I see no harm\nin laughing at such a ceremony. If the oil does good,\nthe laughter will do no harm; and if the oil will do no\nharm, the laughter will do no good. Personally, I am\nwilling that Masons should put oil on all stones; but,\nif Masons should insist that I must believe in the effi-\ncacy of the ceremony, or be eternally damned, I\nwould have about the same feeling toward the\nMasons that I now have toward Mr. Talmage. I\npresume that at one time the putting of oil on a\ncorner-stone had some meaning; but that it ever did\nany good, no sensible man will insist. It is a custom\nto break a bottle of champagne over the bow of\na newly-launched ship, but I have never considered\nthis ceremony important to the commercial interests\nof the world.\n\nI have the same opinion about putting oil on\nstones, as about putting water on heads. For my\npart, I see no good in the rite of baptism. Still, it\n\n97\n\nmay do no harm, unless people are immersed during\ncold weather. Neither have I the slightest objection\nto the baptism of anybody; but if people tell me that\nI must be baptized or suffer eternal agony, then I deny\nit. If they say that baptism does any earthly good, I\ndeny it. No one objects to any harmless ceremony;\nbut the moment it is insisted that a ceremony is neces-\nsary, the reason of which no man can see, then the\npractice of the ceremony becomes hurtful, for the\nreason that it is maintained only at the expense of\nintelligence and manhood.\n\nIt is hurtful for people to imagine that they can\nplease God by any ceremony whatever. If there is\nany God, there is only one way to please him, and\nthat is, by a conscientious discharge of your obliga-\ntions to your fellow-men. Millions of people imagine\nthat they can please God by wearing certain kinds\nof cloth. Think of a God who can be pleased with\na coat of a certain cut! Others, to earn a smile of\nheaven, shave their heads, or trim their beards, or\nperforate their ears or lips or noses. Others maim\nand mutilate their bodies. Others think to please\nGod by simply shutting their eyes, by swinging\ncensers, by lighting candles, by repeating poor Latin,\nby making a sign of the cross with holy water, by\n\n98\n\nringing bells, by going without meat, by eating fish,\nby getting hungry, by counting beads, by making\nthemselves miserable Sundays, by looking solemn,\nby refusing to marry, by hearing sermons; and\nothers imagine that they can please God by calumni-\nating unbelievers.\n\nThere is an old story of an Irishman who, when\ndying, sent for a priest. The reputation of the\ndying man was so perfectly miserable, that the priest\nrefused to administer the rite of extreme unction.\nThe priest therefore asked him if he could recollect\nany decent action that he had ever done. The dying\nman said that he could not. \"Very well,\" said the\npriest, \"then you will have to be damned.\" In a\nmoment, the pinched and pale face brightened, and\nhe said to the priest: \"I have thought of one good\n\"action.\" \"What is it?\" asked the priest. And the\ndying man said, \"Once I killed a gauger.\"\n\nI suppose that in the next world some ministers,\ndriven to extremes, may reply: \"Once I told a lie\n\"about an infidel.\"\n\nQuestion. You see that Mr. Talmage still sticks to\nthe whale and Jonah story. What do you think of\nhis argument, or of his explanation, rather, of that\nmiracle?\n\n99\n\nAnswer. The edge of his orthodoxy seems to be\ncrumbling. He tells us that \"there is in the mouth\n\"of the common whale a cavity large enough for a\n\"man to live in without descent into his stomach,\"—\nand yet Christ says, that Jonah was in the whale's\nbelly, not in his mouth. But why should Mr. Tal-\nmage say that? We are told in the sacred account\nthat \"God prepared a great fish\" for the sole pur-\npose of having Jonah swallowed. The size of the\npresent whale has nothing to do with the story. No\nmatter whether the throat of the whale of to-day is\nlarge or small,—that has nothing to do with it. The\nsimple story is, that God prepared a fish and had\nJonah swallowed. And yet Mr. Talmage throws out\nthe suggestion that probably this whale held Jonah\nin his mouth for three days and nights. I admit that\nJonah's chance for air would have been a little better\nin his mouth, and his chance for water a little worse.\nProbably the whale that swallowed Jonah was the\nsame fish spoken of by Procopius,—both accounts\nbeing entitled, in my judgment, to equal credence.\nI am a little surprised that Mr. Talmage forgot\nto mention the fish spoken of by Munchausen—an\nequally reliable author,—and who has given, not\nsimply the bald fact that a fish swallowed a ship, but\n\n100\n\nwas good enough to furnish the details. Mr. Talmage\nshould remember that out of Jonah's biography\ngrew the habit of calling any remarkable lie, \"a fish\n\"story.\" There is one thing that Mr. Talmage\nshould not forget; and that is, that miracles should\nnot be explained. Miracles are told simply to be\nbelieved, not to be understood.\n\nSomebody suggested to Mr. Talmage that, in\nall probability, a person in the stomach of a whale\nwould be digested in less than three days. Mr. Tal-\nmage, again showing his lack of confidence in God,\nrefusing to believe that God could change the nature\nof gastric juice,—having no opportunity to rely\nupon \"refraction or reflection,\" frankly admits that\nJonah had to save himself by keeping on the\nconstant go and jump. This gastric-juice theory of\nMr. Talmage is an abandonment of his mouth hy-\npothesis. I do not wonder that Mr. Talmage thought\nof the mouth theory. Possibly, the two theories had\nbetter be united—so that we may say that Jonah,\nwhen he got tired of the activity necessary to\navoid the gastric juice, could have strolled into\nthe mouth for a rest. What a picture! Jonah\nsitting on the edge of the lower jaw, wiping the\nperspiration and the gastric juice from his anxious\n\n101\n\nface, and vainly looking through the open mouth\nfor signs of land!\n\nIn this story of Jonah, we are told that \"the Lord\n\"spake unto the fish.\" In what language? It must\nbe remembered that this fish was only a few hours\nold. He had been prepared during the storm, for\nthe sole purpose of swallowing Jonah. He was a\nfish of exceedingly limited experience. He had no\nhereditary knowledge, because he did not spring\nfrom ancestors; consequently, he had no instincts.\nWould such a fish understand any language? It\nmay be contended that the fish, having been made\nfor the occasion, was given a sufficient knowledge\nof language to understand an ordinary command-\nment; but, if Mr. Talmage is right, I think an order\nto the fish would have been entirely unnecessary.\nWhen we take into consideration that a thing the\nsize of a man had been promenading up and down\nthe stomach of this fish for three days and three\nnights, successfully baffling the efforts of gastric\njuice, we can readily believe that the fish was as\nanxious to have Jonah go, as Jonah was to leave.\n\nBut the whale part is, after all, not the most won-\nderful portion of the book of Jonah. According to\nthis wonderful account, \"the word of the Lord came\n\n102\n\n\"to Jonah,\" telling him to \"go and cry against the\n\"city of Nineveh;\" but Jonah, instead of going,\nendeavored to evade the Lord by taking ship for\nTarshish. As soon as the Lord heard of this, he\n\"sent out a great wind into the sea,\" and frightened\nthe sailors to that extent that after assuring them-\nselves, by casting lots, that Jonah was the man, they\nthrew him into the sea. After escaping from the\nwhale, he went to Nineveh, and delivered his pre-\ntended message from God. In consequence of his\nmessage, Jonah having no credentials from God,—\nnothing certifying to his official character, the King\nof Nineveh covered himself with sack-cloth and sat\ndown in some ashes. He then caused a decree to\nbe issued that every man and beast should abstain\nfrom food and water; and further, that every man and\nbeast should be covered with sack-cloth. This was\ndone in the hope that Jonah's God would repent, and\nturn away his fierce anger. When we take into con-\nsideration the fact that the people of Nineveh were\nnot Hebrews, and had not the slightest confidence in\nthe God of the Jews—knew no more of, and cared no\nmore for, Jehovah than we now care for Jupiter, or\nNeptune; the effect produced by the proclamation of\nJonah is, to say the least of it, almost incredible.\n\n103\n\nWe are also informed, in this book, that the\nmoment God saw all the people sitting in the ashes,\nand all the animals covered with sack-cloth, he\nrepented. This failure on the part of God to destroy\nthe unbelievers displeased Jonah exceedingly, and\nhe was very angry. Jonah was much like the\nmodern minister, who seems always to be personally\naggrieved if the pestilence and famine prophesied by\nhim do not come. Jonah was displeased to that\ndegree, that he asked God to kill him. Jonah then\nwent out of the city, even after God had repented,\nmade him a booth and sat under it, in the shade,\nwaiting to see what would become of the city. God\nthen \"prepared a gourd, and made it to come up\n\"over Jonah that it might be a shadow over his\n\"head to deliver him from his grief.\" And then we\nhave this pathetic line: \"So Jonah was exceedingly\n\"glad of the gourd.\"\n\nGod having prepared a fish, and also prepared\na gourd, proposed next morning to prepare a worm.\nAnd when the sun rose next day, the worm that\nGod had prepared, \"smote the gourd, so that\n\"it withered.\" I can hardly believe that an in-\nfinite being prepared a worm to smite a gourd\nso that it withered, in order to keep the sun from\n\n104\n\nthe bald head of a prophet. According to the\naccount, after sunrise, and after the worm had\nsmitten the gourd, \"God prepared a vehement east\n\"wind.\" This was not an ordinary wind, but one\nprepared expressly for that occasion. After the wind\nhad been prepared, \"the sun beat upon the head of\n\"Jonah, and he fainted, and wished in himself to\n\"die.\" All this was done in order to convince\nJonah that a man who would deplore the loss of a\ngourd, ought not to wish for the destruction of a city.\n\nIs it possible for any intelligent man now to\nbelieve that the history of Jonah is literally true?\nFor my part, I cannot see the necessity either of\nbelieving it, or of preaching it. It has nothing to do\nwith honesty, with mercy, or with morality. The\nbad may believe it, and the good may hold it in\ncontempt. I do not see that civilization has the\nslightest interest in the fish, the gourd, the worm, or\nthe vehement east wind.\n\nDoes Mr. Talmage think that it is absolutely neces-\nsary to believe all the story? Does he not think it\nprobable that a God of infinite mercy, rather than\ndamn the soul of an honest man to hell forever, would\nwaive, for instance, the worm,—provided he believed\nin the vehement east wind, the gourd and the fish?\n\n105\n\nMr. Talmage, by insisting on the literal truth of\nthe Bible stories, is doing Christianity great harm.\nThousands of young men will say: \"I can't become\n\"a Christian if it is necessary to believe the adven-\n\"tures of Jonah.\" Mr. Talmage will put into the\npaths of multitudes of people willing to do right,\nanxious to make the world a little better than it is,—\nthis stumbling block. He could have explained it,\ncalled it an allegory, poetical license, a child of the\noriental imagination, a symbol, a parable, a poem, a\ndream, a legend, a myth, a divine figure, or a great\ntruth wrapped in the rags and shreds and patches of\nseeming falsehood. His efforts to belittle the miracle,\nto suggest the mouth instead of the stomach,—to\nsuggest that Jonah took deck passage, or lodged in\nthe forecastle instead of in the cabin or steerage,—\nto suggest motion as a means of avoiding digestion,\nis a serious theological blunder, and may cause the\nloss of many souls.\n\nIf Mr. Talmage will consult with other ministers,\nthey will tell him to let this story alone—that he will\nsimply \"provoke investigation and discussion\"—two\nthings to be avoided. They will tell him that they\nare not willing their salary should hang on so slender\na thread, and will advise him not to bother his gourd\n\n106\n\nabout Jonah's. They will also tell him that in this\nage of the world, arguments cannot be answered by\n\"a vehement east wind.\"\n\nSome people will think that it would have been\njust as easy for God to have pulled the gourd up, as\nto have prepared a worm to bite it.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges that you have\nsaid there are indecencies in the Bible. Are you\nstill of that opinion?\n\nAnswer. Mr. Talmage endeavors to evade the\ncharge, by saying that \"there are things in the Bible\n\"not intended to be read, either in the family circle,\n\"or in the pulpit, but nevertheless they are to be\n\"read.\" My own judgment is, that an infinite being\nshould not inspire the writing of indecent things.\nIt will not do to say, that the Bible description of sin\n\"warns and saves.\" There is nothing in the history\nof Tamar calculated to \"warn and save and the\nsame may be said of many other passages in the\nOld Testament. Most Christians would be glad\nto know that all such passages are interpolations.\nI regret that Shakespeare ever wrote a line that\ncould not be read any where, and by any person.\nBut Shakespeare, great as he was, did not rise en-\n\n107\n\ntirely above his time. So of most poets. Nearly all\nhave stained their pages with some vulgarity; and I\nam sorry for it, and hope the time will come when\nwe shall have an edition of all the great writers and\npoets from which every such passage is elimi-\nnated.\n\nIt is with the Bible as with most other books. It\nis a mingling of good and bad. There are many\nexquisite passages in the Bible,—many good laws,—\nmany wise sayings,—and there are many passages\nthat should never have been written. I do not pro-\npose to throw away the good on account of the\nbad, neither do I propose to accept the bad on\naccount of the good. The Bible need not be taken\nas an entirety. It is the business of every man who\nreads it, to discriminate between that which is good\nand that which is bad. There are also many passages\nneither good nor bad,—wholly and totally indifferent\n—conveying 110 information—utterly destitute of\nideas,—and as to these passages, my only objection\nto them is that they waste time and paper.\n\nI am in favor of every passage in the Bible that\nconveys information. I am in favor of every wise\nproverb, of every verse coming from human ex-\nperience and that appeals to the heart of man. I am\n\n108\n\nin favor of every passage that inculcates justice,\ngenerosity, purity, and mercy. I am satisfied that\nmuch of the historical part is false. Some of it\nis probably true. Let us have the courage to take\nthe true, and throw the false away. I am satisfied\nthat many of the passages are barbaric, and many of\nthem are good. Let us have the wisdom to accept\nthe good and to reject the barbaric.\n\nNo system of religion should go in partnership\nwith barbarism. Neither should any Christian feel\nit his duty to defend the savagery of the past. The\nphilosophy of Christ must stand independently of the\nmistakes of the Old Testament. We should do jus-\ntice whether a woman was made from a rib or from\n\"omnipotence.\" We should be merciful whether\nthe flood was general, or local. We should be kind\nand obliging whether Jonah was swallowed by a fish\nor not. The miraculous has nothing to do with the\nmoral. Intelligence is of more value than inspiration.\nBrain is better than Bible. Reason is above all\nreligion. I do not believe that any civilized human\nbeing clings to the Bible on account of its barbaric\npassages. I am candid enough to believe that every\nChristian in the world would think more of the Bible,\nif it had not upheld slavery, if it had denounced\n\n109\n\npolygamy, if it had cried out against wars of exter-\nmination, if it had spared women and babes, if it had\nupheld everywhere, and at all times, the standard of\njustice and mercy. But when it is claimed that the\nbook is perfect, that it is inspired, that it is, in fact,\nthe work of an infinitely wise and good God,—then\nit should be without a defect. There should not be\nwithin its lids an impure word; it should not express\nan impure thought. There should not be one word\nin favor of injustice, not one word in favor of slavery,\nnot one word in favor of wars of extermination.\nThere must be another revision of the Scriptures.\nThe chaff must be thrown away. The dross must\nbe rejected; and only that be retained which is in\nexact harmony with the brain and heart of the\ngreatest and the best.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges you with unfair-\nness, because you account for the death of art in\nPalestine, by the commandment which forbids the\nmaking of graven images.\n\nAnswer. I have said that that commandment was\nthe death of art, and I say so still. I insist that by\nreason of that commandment, Palestine produced no\npainter and no sculptor until after the destruction of\n\n110\n\nJerusalem. Mr. Talmage, in order to answer that\nstatement, goes on to show that hundreds and thou-\nsands of pictures were produced in the Middle Ages.\nThat is a departure in pleading. Will he give us the\nnames of the painters that existed in Palestine from\nMount Sinai to the destruction of the temple? Will\nhe give us the names of the sculptors between those\ntimes? Mohammed prohibited his followers from\nmaking any representation of human or animal life,\nand as a result, Mohammedans have never produced\na painter nor a sculptor, except in the portrayal and\nchiseling of vegetable forms. They were confined\nto trees and vines, and flowers. No Mohammedan\nhas portrayed the human face or form. But the\ncommandment of Jehovah went farther than that of\nMomammed, and prevented portraying the image of\nanything. The assassination of art was complete.\n\nThere is another thing that should not be forgotten.\n\nWe are indebted for the encouragement of\nart, not to the Protestant Church; if indebted to any,\nit is to the Catholic. The Catholic adorned the cathedral\n\nwith painting and statue—not the Protestant.\nThe Protestants opposed music and painting, and\nrefused to decorate their temples. But if Mr. Tal-\nmage wishes to know to whom we are indebted for\n\n111\n\nart, let him read the mythology of Greece and Rome.\nThe early Christians destroyed paintings and statues.\nThey were the enemies of all beauty. They hated\nand detested every expression of art. They looked\nupon the love of statues as a form of idolatry. They\nlooked upon every painting as a remnant of Pagan-\nism. They destroyed all upon which they could lay\ntheir ignorant hands. Hundred of years afterwards,\nthe world was compelled to search for the fragments\nthat Christian fury had left. The Greeks filled the\nworld with beauty. For every stream and mountain\nand cataract they had a god or goddess. Their\nsculptors impersonated every dream and hope, and\ntheir mythology feeds, to-day, the imagination of\nmankind. The Venus de Milo is the impersonation\nof beauty, in ruin—the sublimest fragment of the\nancient world. Our mythology is infinitely unpoetic\nand barren—our deity an old bachelor from eternity,\nwho once believed in indiscriminate massacre. Upon\nthe throne of our heaven, woman finds no place.\nOur mythology is destitute of the maternal.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage denies your statement\nthat the Old Testament humiliates woman. He also\ndenies that the New Testament says anything\nagainst woman. How is it?\n\n112\n\nAnswer. Of course, I never considered a book up-\nholding polygamy to be the friend of woman. Eve,\naccording to that book, is the mother of us all, and\nyet the inspired writer does not tell us how long she\nlived,—does not even mention her death,—makes\nnot the slightest reference as to what finally became\nof her. Methuselah lived nine hundred and sixty-\nnine years, and yet, there is not the slightest mention\nmade of Mrs. Methuselah. Enoch was translated,\nand his widow is not mentioned. There is not a\nword about Mrs. Seth, or Mrs. Enos, or Mrs. Cainan,\nor Mrs. Mahalaleel, or Mrs. Jared. We do not\nknow the name of Mrs. Noah, and I believe not the\nname of a solitary woman is given from the creation\nof Eve—with the exception of two of Lamech's\nwives—until Sarai is mentioned as being the wife\nof Abram.\n\nIf you wish really to know the Bible estimation of\nwoman, turn to the fourth and fifth verses of the\ntwelfth chapter of Leviticus, in which a woman, for\nthe crime of having borne a son, is unfit to touch a\nhallowed thing, or to come in the holy sanctuary for\nthirty-three days; but if a woman was the mother\nof a girl, then she became totally unfit to enter the\nsanctuary, or pollute with her touch a hallowed thing,\n\n113\n\nfor sixty-six days. The pollution was twice as great\nwhen she had borne a daughter.\n\nIt is a little difficult to see why it is a greater crime\nto give birth to a daughter than to a son. Surely, a\nlaw like that did not tend to the elevation of woman.\nYou will also find in the same chapter that a woman\nhad to offer a pigeon, or a turtle-dove, as a sin offer-\ning, in order to expiate the crime of having become a\nmother. By the Levitical law, a mother was unclean.\nThe priest had to make an atonement for her.\n\nIf there is, beneath the stars, a figure of complete\nand perfect purity, it is a mother holding in her arms\nher child. The laws respecting women, given by\ncommandment of Jehovah to the Jews, were born of\nbarbarism, and in this day and age should be re-\ngarded only with detestation and contempt. The\ntwentieth and twenty-first verses of the nineteenth\nchapter of Leviticus show that the same punishment\nwas not meted to men and women guilty of the\nsame crime.\n\nThe real explanation of what we find in the Old\nTestament degrading to woman, lies in the fact, that\nthe overflow of Love's mysterious Nile—the sacred\nsource of life—was, by its savage authors, deemed\nunclean.\n\n114\n\nQuestion. But what have you to say about the\nwomen of the Bible, mentioned by Mr. Talmage,\nand held up as examples for all time of all that is\nsweet and womanly?\n\nAnswer. I believe that Esther is his principal\nheroine. Let us see who she was.\n\nAccording to the book of Esther, Ahasuerus who\nwas king of Persia, or some such place, ordered\nVashti his queen to show herself to the people\nand the princes, because she was \"exceedingly fair\n\"to look upon.\" For some reason—modesty per-\nhaps—she refused to appear. And thereupon the\nking \"sent letters into all his provinces and to every\n\"people after their language, that every man should\n\"bear rule in his own house;\" it being feared that\nif it should become public that Vashti had disobeyed,\nall other wives might follow her example. The king\nalso, for the purpose of impressing upon all women\nthe necessity of obeying their husbands, issued a\ndecree that \"Vashti should come no more before\n\"him,\" and that he would \"give her royal estate\n\"unto another.\" This was done that \"all the\n\"wives should give to their husbands honor, both to\n\"great and small.\"\n\nAfter this, \"the king appointed officers in all the\n\n115\n\n\"provinces of his kingdom that they might gather\n\"together all the fair young virgins,\" and bring\nthem to his palace, put them in the custody of\nhis chamberlain, and have them thoroughly washed.\nThen the king was to look over the lot and take\neach day the one that pleased him best until he found\nthe one to put in the place of Vashti. A fellow by\nthe name of Mordecai, living in that part of the\ncountry, hearing of the opportunity to sell a girl,\nbrought Esther, his uncle's daughter,—she being an\norphan, and very beautiful—to see whether she\nmight not be the lucky one.\n\nThe remainder of the second chapter of this\nbook, I do not care to repeat. It is sufficient to say\nthat Esther at last was chosen.\n\nThe king at this time did not know that Esther\nwas a Jewess. Mordecai her kinsman, however,\ndiscovered a plot to assassinate the king, and Esther\ntold the king, and the two plotting gentlemen were\nhanged on a tree.\n\nAfter a while, a man by the name of Haman was\nmade Secretary of State, and everybody coming in\nhis presence bowed except Mordecai. Mordecai was\nprobably depending on the influence of Esther.\nHaman finally became so vexed, that he made up\n\n116\n\nhis mind to have all the Jews in the kingdom\ndestroyed. (The number of Jews at that time\nin Persia must have been immense.) Haman there-\nupon requested the king to have an order issued to\ndestroy all the Jews, and in consideration of the\norder, proposed to pay ten thousand talents of silver.\nAnd thereupon, letters were written to the governors\nof the various provinces, sealed with the king's ring,\nsent by post in all directions, with instructions to kill\nall the Jews, both young and old—little children and\nwomen,—in one day. (One would think that the\nking copied this order from another part of the Old\nTestament, or had found an original by Jehovah.) The\npeople immediately made preparations for the killing.\nMordecai clothed himself with sack-cloth, and Esther\ncalled upon one of the king's chamberlains, and she\nfinally got the history of the affair, as well as a copy\nof the writing, and thereupon made up her mind to\ngo in and ask the king to save her people.\n\nAt that time, Bismarck's idea of government being\nin full force, any one entering the king's presence with-\nout an invitation, was liable to be put to death. And\nin case any one did go in to see the king, if the king\nfailed to hold out his golden sceptre, his life was not\nspared. Notwithstanding this order, Esther put on\n\n117\n\nher best clothes, and stood in the inner court of the\nking's house, while the king sat on his royal throne.\nWhen the king saw her standing in the court, he\nheld out his sceptre, and Esther drew near, and he\nasked her what she wished; and thereupon she\nasked that the king and Haman might take dinner\nwith her that day, and it was done. While they were\nfeasting, the king again asked Esther what she\nwanted; and her second request was, that they\nwould come and dine with her once more. When\nHaman left the palace that day, he saw Mordecai\nagain at the gate, standing as stiffly as usual, and it\nfilled Haman with indignation. So Haman, taking\nthe advice of his wife, made a gallows fifty cubits\nhigh, for the special benefit of Mordecai. The next\nday, when Haman went to see the king, the king,\nhaving the night before refreshed his memory in\nrespect to the service done him by Mordecai, asked\nHaman what ought to be done for the man whom\nthe king wished to honor. Haman, supposing of\ncourse that the king referred to him, said that royal\npurple ought to be brought forth, such as the king\nwore, and the horse that the king rode on, and the\ncrown-royal should be set on the man's head;—that\none of the most noble princes should lead the horse,\n\n118\n\nand as he went through the streets, proclaim: \"Thus\n\"shall it be done to the man whom the king de-\n\"lighteth to honor.\"\n\nThereupon the king told Haman that Mordecai\nwas the man that the king wished to honor. And\nHaman was forced to lead this horse, backed by\nMordecai, through the streets, shouting: \"This shall\n\"be done to the man whom the king delighteth to\n\"honor.\" Immediately afterward, he went to the\nbanquet that Esther had prepared, and the king\nagain asked Esther her petition. She then asked\nfor the salvation of her people; stating at the same\ntime, that if her people had been sold into slavery,\nshe would have held her tongue; but since they\nwere about to be killed, she could not keep silent.\nThe king asked her who had done this thing; and\nEsther replied that it was the wicked Haman.\n\nThereupon one of the chamberlains, remembering\nthe gallows that had been made for Mordecai, men-\ntioned it, and the king immediately ordered that\nHaman be hanged thereon; which was done. And\nMordecai immediately became Secretary of State.\nThe order against the Jews was then rescinded; and\nAhasuerus, willing to do anything that Esther de-\nsired, hanged all of Haman's folks. He not only did\n\n119\n\nthis, but he immediately issued an order to all the\nJews allowing them to kill the other folks. And the\nJews got together throughout one hundred and\ntwenty-seven provinces, \"and such was their power,\n\"that no man could stand against them; and there-\n\"upon the Jews smote all their enemies with the\n\"stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and de-\n\"struction, and did whatever they pleased to those\n\"who hated them.\" And in the palace of the king,\nthe Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men, besides\nten sons of Haman; and in the rest of the provinces,\nthey slew seventy-five thousand people. And after\nthis work of slaughter, the Jews had a day of glad-\nness and feasting.\n\nOne can see from this, what a beautiful Bible\ncharacter Esther was—how filled with all that is\nwomanly, gentle, kind and tender!\n\nThis story is one of the most unreasonable, as well\nas one of the most heartless and revengeful, in the\nwhole Bible. Ahasuerus was a monster, and Esther\nequally infamous; and yet, this woman is held up for\nthe admiration of mankind by a Brooklyn pastor.\nThere is this peculiarity about the book of Esther:\nthe name of God is not mentioned in it, and the\ndeity is not referred to, directly or indirectly;—yet\n\n120\n\nit is claimed to be an inspired book. If Jehovah\nwrote it, he certainly cannot be charged with\negotism.\n\nI most cheerfully admit that the book of Ruth is\nquite a pleasant story, and the affection of Ruth for\nher mother-in-law exceedingly touching, but I am of\nopinion that Ruth did many things that would be re-\ngarded as somewhat indiscreet, even in the city of\nBrooklyn.\n\nAll I can find about Hannah is, that she made a\nlittle coat for her boy Samuel, and brought it to him\nfrom year to year. Where he got his vest and\npantaloons we are not told. But this fact seems\nhardly enough to make her name immortal.\n\nSo also Mr. Talmage refers us to the wonderful\nwoman Abigail. The story about Abigail, told in\nplain English, is this: David sent some of his fol-\nlowers to Nabal, Abigail's husband, and demanded\nfood. Nabal, who knew nothing about David, and\ncared less, refused. Abigail heard about it, and took\nfood to David and his servants. She was very much\nstruck, apparently, with David and David with her.\nA few days afterward Nabal died—supposed to have\nbeen killed by the Lord—but probably poisoned;\nand thereupon David took Abigail to wife. The\n\n121\n\nwhole matter should have been investigated by the\ngrand jury.\n\nWe are also referred to Dorcas, who no doubt was a\ngood woman—made clothes for the poor and gave\nalms, as millions have done since then. It seems\nthat this woman died. Peter was sent for, and there-\nupon raised her from the dead, and she is never men-\ntioned any more. Is it not a little strange that a\nwoman who had been actually raised from the dead,\nshould have so completely passed out of the memory\nof her time, that when she died the second time, she\nwas entirely unnoticed?\n\nIs it not astonishing that so little is in the New\nTestament concerning the mother of Christ? My\nown opinion is, that she was an excellent woman, and\nthe wife of Joseph; and that Joseph was the actual\nfather of Christ. I think there can be no reasonable\ndoubt that such was the opinion of the authors of the\noriginal gospels. Upon any other hypothesis, it is\nimpossible to account for their having given the\ngenealogy of Joseph to prove that Christ was of the\nblood of David. The idea that he was the Son of\nGod, or in any way miraculously produced, was an\nafterthought, and is hardly entitled now to serious\nconsideration. The gospels were written so long after\n\n122\n\nthe death of Christ, that very little was known of him,\nand substantially nothing of his parents. How is it\nthat not one word is said about the death of Mary—\nnot one word about the death of Joseph? How did\nit happen that Christ did not visit his mother after his\nresurrection? The first time he speaks to his mother\nis when he was twelve years old. His mother having\ntold him that she and his father had been seeking\nhim, he replied: \"How is it that ye sought me: wist\n\"ye not that I must be about my Father s business?\"\n\nThe second time was at the marriage feast in Cana,\nwhen he said to her: \"Woman, what have I to do\n\"with thee?\" And the third time was at the cross,\nwhen \"Jesus, seeing his mother standing by the\n\"disciple whom he loved, said to her: Woman, be-\n\"hold thy son;\" and to the disciple: \"Behold thy\n\"mother.\" And this is all.\n\nThe best thing about the Catholic Church is\nthe deification of Mary,—and yet this is denounced\nby Protestantism as idolatry. There is something\nin the human heart that prompts man to tell his faults\nmore freely to the mother than to the father. The\ncruelty of Jehovah is softened by the mercy of\nMary.\n\nIs it not strange that none of the disciples of Christ\n\n123\n\nsaid anything about their parents,—that we know\nabsolutely nothing of them? Is there any evidence\nthat they showed any particular respect even for the\nmother of Christ?\n\nMary Magdalen is, in many respects, the tenderest\nand most loving character in the New Testament.\nAccording to the account, her love for Christ knew\nno abatement,—no change—true even in the hopeless\nshadow of the cross. Neither did it die with his\ndeath. She waited at the sepulchre; she hasted in\nthe early morning to his tomb, and yet the only\ncomfort Christ gave to this true and loving soul lies\nin these strangely cold and heartless words: \"Touch\n\"me not.\"\n\nThere is nothing tending to show that the women\nspoken of in the Bible were superior to the ones we\nknow. There are to-day millions of women making\ncoats for their sons,—hundreds of thousands of\nwomen, true not simply to innocent people, falsely\naccused, but to criminals. Many a loving heart is\nas true to the gallows as Mary was to the cross.\nThere are hundreds of thousands of women accept-\ning poverty and want and dishonor, for the love they\nbear unworthy men; hundreds and thousands, hun-\ndreds and thousands, working day and night, with\n\n124\n\nstrained eyes and tired hands, for husbands and\nchildren,—clothed in rags, housed in huts and hovels,\nhoping day after day for the angel of death. There are\nthousands of women in Christian England, working in\niron, laboring in the fields and toiling in mines. There\nare hundreds and thousands in Europe, everywhere,\ndoing the work of men—deformed by toil, and who\nwould become simply wild and ferocious beasts,\nexcept for the love they bear for home and child.\n\nYou need not go back four thousand years for\nheroines. The world is filled with them to-day.\nThey do not belong to any nation, nor to any religion,\nnor exclusively to any race. Wherever woman is\nfound, they are found.\n\nThere is no description of any women in the Bible\nthat equal thousands and thousands of women known\nto-day. The women mentioned by Mr. Talmage fall\nalmost infinitely below, not simply those in real life, but\nthe creations of the imagination found in the world of\nfiction. They will not compare with the women born\nof Shakespeare's brain. You will find none like\nIsabella, in whose spotless life, love and reason\nblended into perfect truth; nor Juliet, within whose\nheart passion and purity met, like white and red within\nthe bosom of a rose; nor Cordelia, who chose to\n\n125\n\nsuffer loss rather than show her wealth of love with\nthose who gilded dross with golden words in hope\nof gain; nor Miranda, who told her love as freely\nas a flower gives its bosom to the kisses of the sun;\nnor Imogene, who asked: \"What is it to be false?\"\nnor Hermione, who bore with perfect faith and hope\nthe cross of shame, and who at last forgave with all\nher heart; nor Desdemona, her innocence so perfect\nand her love so pure, that she was incapable of sus-\npecting that another could suspect, and sought with\ndying words to hide her lover's crime.\n\nIf we wish to find what the Bible thinks of\nwoman, all that is necessary to do is to read it.\nWe will find that everywhere she is spoken of\nsimply as property,—as belonging absolutely to the\nman. We will find that whenever a man got tired\nof his wife, all he had to do was to give her a writing\nof divorcement, and that then the mother of his\nchildren became a houseless and a homeless wanderer.\nWe will find that men were allowed to have as\nmany wives as they could get, either by courtship,\npurchase, or conquest. The Jewish people in the\nolden time were in many respects like their barbarian\nneighbors.\n\nIf we read the New Testament, we will find in the\n\n126\n\nepistle of Paul to Timothy, the following gallant\npassages:\n\n\"Let the woman learn in silence, with all\n\"subjection.\"\n\n\"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp\n\"authority over the man, but to be in silence.\"\n\nAnd for these kind, gentle and civilized remarks,\nthe apostle Paul gives the following reasons:\n\n\"For Adam was first formed, then Eve.\"\n\n\"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman\n\"being deceived was in the transgression.\"\n\nCertainly women ought to feel under great obli-\ngation to the apostle Paul.\n\nIn the fifth chapter of the same epistle, Paul,\nadvising Timothy as to what kind of people he\nshould admit into his society or church, uses the\nfollowing language:\n\n\"Let not a widow be taken into the number under\n\"threescore years old, having been the wife of one\n\"man.\"\n\n\"But the younger widows refuse, for when they\n\"have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will\n\"marry.\"\n\nThis same Paul did not seem to think polygamy\nwrong, except in a bishop. He tells Timothy that:\n\n127\n\n\"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one\n\"wife.\"\n\nHe also lays down the rule that a deacon should be\nthe husband of one wife, leaving us to infer that the\nother members might have as many as they could get.\n\nIn the second epistle to Timothy, Paul speaks of\n\"grandmother Lois,\" who was referred to in such\nextravagant language by Mr. Talmage, and nothing\nis said touching her character in the least. All her\nvirtues live in the imagination, and in the imagina-\ntion alone.\n\nPaul, also, in his epistle to the Ephesians, says:\n\n\"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own hus-\n\"bands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the\n\"head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the\n\"church.\"\n\n\"Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ,\n\"so let the wives be to their own husbands, in\n\"everything.\"\n\nYou will find, too, that in the seventh chapter of\nFirst Corinthians, Paul laments that all men are not\nbachelors like himself, and in the second verse of\nthat chapter he gives the only reason for which he\nwas willing that men and women should marry. He\nadvised all the unmarried, and all widows, to remain\n\n128\n\nas he was. In the ninth verse of this same chapter\nis a slander too vulgar for repetition,—an estimate\nof woman and of woman's love so low and vile, that\nevery woman should hold the inspired author in\ninfinite abhorrence.\n\nPaul sums up the whole matter, however, by telling\nthose who have wives or husbands, to stay with\nthem—as necessary evils only to be tolerated—but\nsincerely regrets that anybody was ever married;\nand finally says that:\n\n\"They that have wives should be as though they\n\"had none;\" because, in his opinion:\n\n\"He that is unmarried careth for the things that\n\"belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord;\n\"but he that is married careth for the things that are\n\"of the world, how he may please his wife.\"\n\n\"There is this difference also,\" he tells us, \"be-\n\"tween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman\n\"careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be\n\"holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is\n\"married careth for the things of the world, how she\n\" may please her husband.\"\n\nOf course, it is contended that these things have\ntended to the elevation of woman.\n\nThe idea that it is better to love the Lord than to\n\n129\n\nlove your wife, or your husband, is infinitely absurd.\nNobody ever did love the Lord,—nobody can—until\nhe becomes acquainted with him.\n\nSaint Paul also tells us that \"Man is the image\n\"and glory of God; but woman is the glory of\n\"man;\" and for the purpose of sustaining this posi-\ntion, says:\n\n\"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman\n\"of the man; neither was the man created for the\n\"woman, but the woman for the man.\"\n\nOf course, we can all see that man could have\ngotten along well enough without woman, but woman,\nby no possibility, could have gotten along without\nman. And yet, this is called \"inspired;\" and this\napostle Paul is supposed to have known more than\nall the people now upon the earth. No wonder Paul\nat last was constrained to say: \"We are fools for\n\"Christ's sake.\"\n\nQuestion. How do you account for the present\ncondition of woman in what is known as \"the civilized\n\"world,\" unless the Bible has bettered her condition?\n\nAnswer. We must remember that thousands of\nthings enter into the problem of civilization. Soil,\nclimate, and geographical position, united with count-\n\n130\n\nless other influences, have resulted in the civilization\nof our time. If we want to find what the influence of\nthe Bible has been, we must ascertain the condition\nof Europe when the Bible was considered as abso-\nlutely true, and when it wielded its greatest influence.\n\nChristianity as a form of religion had actual posses-\nsion of Europe during the Middle Ages. At that\ntime, it exerted its greatest power. Then it had the\nopportunity of breaking the shackles from the limbs\nof woman. Christianity found the Roman matron a\nfree woman. Polygamy was never known in Rome;\nand although divorces were allowed by law, the\nRoman state had been founded for more than five\nhundred years before either a husband or a wife\nasked for a divorce. From the foundation of Chris-\ntianity,—I mean from the time it became the force in\nthe Roman state,—woman, as such, went down in\nthe scale of civilization. The sceptre was taken from\nher hands, and she became once more the slave and\nserf of man. The men also were made slaves, and\nwoman has regained her liberty by the same means\nthat man has regained his,—by wresting authority\nfrom the hands of the church. While the church had\npower, the wife and mother was not considered as\ngood as the begging nun; the husband and father\nwas far below the vermin-covered monk; homes\nwere of no value compared with the cathedral; for\nGod had to have a house, no matter how many of\nhis children were wanderers. During all the years in\nwhich woman has struggled for equal liberty with\nman, she has been met with the Bible doctrine that\nshe is the inferior of the man; that Adam was made\nfirst, and Eve afterwards; that man was not made for\nwoman, but that woman was made for man.\n\nI find that in this day and generation, the meanest\nmen have the lowest estimate of woman; that the\ngreater the man is, the grander he is, the more he\nthinks of mother, wife and daughter. I also find that\njust in the proportion that he has lost confidence in the\npolygamy of Jehovah and in the advice and philosophy\nof Saint Paul, he believes in the rights and liberties of\nwoman. As a matter of fact, men have risen from a\nperusal of the Bible, and murdered their wives. They\nhave risen from reading its pages, and inflicted cruel\nand even mortal blows upon their children. Men\nhave risen from reading the Bible and torn the flesh\nof others with red-hot pincers. They have laid\ndown the sacred volume long enough to pour molten\nlead into the ears of others. They have stopped\nreading the sacred Scriptures for a sufficient time to\n\n132\n\nincarcerate their fellow-men, to load them with chains,\nand then they have gone back to their reading,\nallowing their victims to die in darkness and despair.\nMen have stopped reading the Old Testament long\nenough to drive a stake into the ground and collect a\nfew fagots and burn an honest man. Even ministers\nhave denied themselves the privilege of reading the\nsacred book long enough to tell falsehoods about\ntheir fellow-men. There is no crime that Bible\nreaders and Bible believers and Bible worshipers and\nBible defenders have not committed. There is no\nmeanness of which some Bible reader, believer, and\ndefender, has not been guilty. Bible believers and\nBible defenders have filled the world with calumnies\nand slanders. Bible believers and Bible defenders\nhave not only whipped their wives, but they have\nmurdered them; they have murdered their children.\nI do not say that reading the Bible will necessarily\nmake men dishonest, but I do say, that reading the\nBible will not prevent their committing crimes. I do\nnot say that believing the Bible will necessarily make\nmen commit burglary, but I do say that a belief in the\nBible has caused men to persecute each other, to\nimprison each other, and to burn each other.\n\nOnly a little while ago, a British clergyman mur-\n\n133\n\ndered his wife. Only a little while ago, an American\nProtestant clergyman whipped his boy to death be-\ncause the boy refused to say a prayer.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Crowley not only believed the Bible,\nbut was licensed to expound it. He had been\n\"called\" to the ministry, and upon his head had\nbeen laid the holy hands; and yet, he deliberately\nstarved orphans, and while looking upon their\nsunken eyes and hollow cheeks, sung pious hymns\nand quoted with great unction: \"Suffer little chil-\n\"dren to come unto me.\"\n\nAs a matter of fact, in the last twenty years,\nmore money has been stolen by Christian cashiers,\nChristian presidents, Christian directors, Christian\ntrustees and Christian statesmen, than by all other\nconvicts in all the penitentiaries in all the Christian\nworld.\n\nThe assassin of Henry the Fourth was a Bible reader\nand a Bible believer. The instigators of the massacre\nof St. Bartholomew were believers in your sacred\nScriptures. The men who invested their money in the\nslave-trade believed themselves filled with the Holy\nGhost, and read with rapture the Psalms of David and\nthe Sermon on the Mount. The murderers of Scotch\nPresbyterians were believers in Revelation, and the\n\n134\nPresbyterians, when they murdered others, were also\nbelievers. Nearly every man who expiates a crime\nupon the gallows is a believer in the Bible. For a\nthousand years, the daggers of assassination and the\nswords of war were blest by priests—by the believers\nin the sacred Scriptures. The assassin of President\nGarfield is a believer in the Bible, a hater of infidelity,\na believer in personal inspiration, and he expects in a\nfew weeks to join the winged and redeemed in\nheaven.\n\nIf a man would follow, to-day, the teachings of the\nOld Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would\nfollow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be\ninsane.\n\nFourth Interview\n\n_Son. There is no devil.\n\nMother. I know there is.\n\nSon. How do you know?\n\nMother. Because they make pictures that look just\nlike him.\n\nSon. But, mother—\n\nMother. Don't \"mother\" me! You are trying to\ndisgrace your parents._\n\nQuestion. I want to ask you a few questions about\nMr. Talmage's fourth sermon against you, entitled:\n\"The Meanness of Infidelity,\" in which he compares\nyou to Jehoiakim, who had the temerity to throw\nsome of the writings of the weeping Jeremiah into\nthe fire?\n\nAnswer. So far as I am concerned, I really re-\ngret that a second edition of Jeremiah's roll was\ngotten out. It would have been far better for us all,\nif it had been left in ashes. There was nothing but\ncurses and prophecies of evil, in the sacred roll that\n\n138\n\nJehoiakim burned. The Bible tells us that Jehovah\nbecame exceedingly wroth because of the destruction\nof this roll, and pronounced a curse upon Jehoiakim\nand upon Palestine. I presume it was on account of\nthe burning of that roll that the king of Babylon\ndestroyed the chosen people of God. It was on\naccount of that sacrilege that the Lord said of\nJehoiakim: \"He shall have none to sit upon the\n\"throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast\n\"out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the\n\"frost.\" Any one can see how much a dead body\nwould suffer under such circumstances. Imagine an\ninfinitely wise, good and powerful God taking ven-\ngeance on the corpse of a barbarian king! What\njoy there must have been in heaven as the angels\nwatched the alternate melting and freezing of the\ndead body of Jehoiakim!\n\nJeremiah was probably the most accomplished\ncroaker of all time. Nothing satisfied him. He was\na prophetic pessimist,—an ancient Bourbon. He\nwas only happy when predicting war, pestilence and\nfamine. No wonder Jehoiakim despised him, and\nhated all he wrote.\n\nOne can easily see the character of Jeremiah from\nthe following occurrence: When the Babylonians\n\n139\n\nhad succeeded in taking Jerusalem, and in sacking\nthe city, Jeremiah was unfortunately taken prisoner;\nbut Captain Nebuzaradan came to Jeremiah, and told\nhim that he would let him go, because he had pro-\nphesied against his own country. He was regarded\nas a friend by the enemy.\n\nThere was, at that time, as now, the old fight\nbetween the church and the civil power. Whenever\na king failed to do what the priests wanted, they\nimmediately prophesied overthrow, disaster, and de-\nfeat. Whenever the kings would hearken to their\nvoice, and would see to it that the priests had plenty\nto eat and drink and wear, then they all declared\nthat Jehovah would love that king, would let him live\nout all his days, and allow his son to reign in his\nstead. It was simply the old conflict that is still being\nwaged, and it will be carried on until universal civil-\nization does away with priestcraft and superstition.\n\nThe priests in the days of Jeremiah were the same\nas now. They sought to rule the State. They pre-\ntended that, at their request, Jehovah would withhold\nor send the rain; that the seasons were within their\npower; that they with bitter words could blight the\nfields and curse the land with want and death. They\ngloried then, as now, in the exhibition of God's wrath.\n\n140\n\nIn prosperity, the priests were forgotten. Success\nscorned them; Famine flattered them; Health laughed\nat them; Pestilence prayed to them; Disaster was\ntheir only friend.\n\nThese old prophets prophesied nothing but evil,\nand consequently, when anything bad happened, they\nclaimed it as a fulfillment, and pointed with pride to\nthe fact that they had, weeks or months, or years\nbefore, foretold something of that kind. They were\nreally the originators of the phrase, \"I told you so!\"\n\nThere was a good old Methodist class-leader that\nlived down near a place called Liverpool, on the\nIllinois river. In the spring of 1861 the old man,\ntelling his experience, among other things said, that he\nhad lived there by the river for more than thirty\nyears, and he did not believe that a year had passed\nthat there were not hundreds of people during the\nhunting season shooting ducks on Sunday; that he\nhad told his wife thousands of times that no good\nwould come of it; that evil would come of it; \"And\n\"now, said the old man, raising his voice with the\nimportance of the announcement, \"war is upon us!\"\n\nQuestion. Do you wish, as Mr. Talmage says, to de-\nstroy the Bible—to have all the copies burned to ashes?\nWhat do you wish to have done with the Bible?\n\n141\n\nAnswer. I want the Bible treated exactly as we\ntreat other books—preserve the good and throw\naway the foolish and the hurtful. I am fighting the\ndoctrine of inspiration. As long as it is believed that\nthe Bible is inspired, that book is the master—no\nmind is free. With that belief, intellectual liberty is\nimpossible. With that belief, you can investigate\nonly at the risk of losing your soul. The Catholics\nhave a pope. Protestants laugh at them, and yet the\npope is capable of intellectual advancement. In\naddition to this, the pope is mortal, and the church\ncannot be afflicted with the same idiot forever. The\nProtestants have a book for their pope. The book\ncannot advance. Year after year, and century after\ncentury, the book remains as ignorant as ever. It is\nonly made better by those who believe in its inspira-\ntion giving better meanings to the words than their\nancestors did. In this way it may be said that the\nBible grows a little better.\n\nWhy should we have a book for a master? That\nwhich otherwise might be a blessing, remains a curse.\nIf every copy of the Bible were destroyed, all that is\ngood in that book would be reproduced in a single\nday. Leave every copy of the Bible as it is, and\nhave every human being believe in its inspiration,\n\n142\n\nand intellectual liberty would cease to exist. The\nwhole race, from that moment, would go back to-\nward the night of intellectual death.\n\nThe Bible would do more harm if more people\nreally believed it, and acted in accordance with its\nteachings. Now and then a Freeman puts the knife\nto the heart of his child. Now and then an assassin\nrelies upon some sacred passage; but, as a rule, few\nmen believe the Bible to be absolutely true.\n\nThere are about fifteen hundred million people in\nthe world. There are not two million who have read\nthe Bible through. There are not two hundred\nmillion who ever saw the Bible. There are not five\nhundred million who ever heard that such a book\nexists.\n\nChristianity is claimed to be a religion for all\nmankind. It was founded more than eighteen cen-\nturies ago; and yet, not one human being in three\nhas ever heard of it. As a matter of fact, for more\nthan fourteen centuries and-a-half after the crucifixion\nof Christ, this hemisphere was absolutely unknown.\nThere was not a Christian in the world who knew\nthere was such a continent as ours, and all the\ninhabitants of this, the New World, were deprived\nof the gospel for fourteen centuries and-a-half, and\n\n143\n\nknew nothing of its blessings until they were in-\nformed by Spanish murderers and marauders. Even\nin the United States, Christianity is not keeping pace\nwith the increase of population. When we take\ninto consideration that it is aided by the momentum\nof eighteen centuries, is it not wonderful that it is not\nto-day holding its own? The reason of this is, that\nwe are beginning to understand the Scriptures. We\nare beginningto see, and to see clearly, that they are\nsimply of human origin, and that the Bible bears\nthe marks of the barbarians who wrote it. The best\neducated among the clergy admit that we know but\nlittle as to the origin of the gospels; that we do not\npositively know the author of one of them; that it is\nreally a matter of doubt as to who wrote the five\nbooks attributed to Moses. They admit now, that\nIsaiah was written by more than one person; that\nSolomon's Song was not written by that king; that\nJob is, in all probability, not a Jewish book; that\nEcclesiastes must have been written by a Freethinker,\nand by one who had his doubts about the immortality\nof the soul. The best biblical students of the so-\ncalled orthodox world now admit that several stories\nwere united to make the gospel of Saint Luke; that\nHebrews is a selection from many fragments, and\n\n144\n\nthat no human being, not afflicted with delirium\ntremens, can understand the book of Revelation.\n\nI am not the only one engaged in the work of\ndestruction. Every Protestant who expresses a doubt\nas to the genuineness of a passage, is destroying the\nBible. The gentlemen who have endeavored to treat\nhell as a question of syntax, and to prove that eternal\npunishment depends upon grammar, are helping to\nbring the Scriptures into contempt. Hundreds of\nyears ago, the Catholics told the Protestant world that\nit was dangerous to give the Bible to the people.\nThe Catholics were right; the Protestants were\nwrong. To read is to think. To think is to investi-\ngate. To investigate is, finally, to deny. That book\nshould have been read only by priests. Every copy\nshould have been under the lock and key of bishop,\ncardinal and pope. The common people should have\nreceived the Bible from the lips of the ministers.\nThe world should have been kept in ignorance. In\nthat way, and in that way only, could the pulpit have\nmaintained its power. He who teaches a child\nthe alphabet sows the seeds of heresy. I have lived\nto see the schoolhouse in many a village larger than\nthe church. Every man who finds a fact, is the\nenemy of theology. Every man who expresses an\n\n145\n\nhonest thought is a soldier in the army of intellectual\nliberty.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage thinks that you laugh too\nmuch,—that you exhibit too much mirth, and that no\none should smile at sacred things?\n\nAnswer. The church has always feared ridicule.\nThe minister despises laughter. He who builds upon\nignorance and awe, fears intelligence and mirth. The\ntheologians always begin by saying: \"Let us be\n\"solemn.\" They know that credulity and awe are\ntwins. They also know that while Reason is the\npilot of the soul, Humor carries the lamp. Whoever\nhas the sense of humor fully developed, cannot, by\nany possibility, be an orthodox theologian. He would\nbe his own laughing stock. The most absurd stories,\nthe most laughable miracles, read in a solemn, stately\nway, sound to the ears of ignorance and awe like\ntruth. It has been the object of the church for\neighteen hundred years to prevent laughter.\n\nA smile is the dawn of a doubt.\n\nMinisters are always talking about death, and\ncoffins, and dust, and worms,—the cross in this life,\nand the fires of another. They have been the\nenemies of human happiness. They hate to hear\n\n146\n\neven the laughter of children. There seems to have\nbeen a bond of sympathy between divinity and\ndyspepsia, between theology and indigestion. There\nis a certain pious hatred of pleasure, and those who\nhave been \"born again\" are expected to despise\n\"the transitory joys of this fleeting life.\" In this,\nthey follow the example of their prophets, of whom\nthey proudly say: \"They never smiled.\"\n\nWhoever laughs at a holy falsehood, is called a\n\"scoffer.\" Whoever gives vent to his natural feel-\nings is regarded as a \"blasphemer,\" and whoever\nexamines the Bible as he examines other books, and\nrelies upon his reason to interpret it, is denounced\nas a \"reprobate.\"\n\nLet us respect the truth, let us laugh at miracles,\nand above all, let us be candid with each other.\n\n'Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have, in\nyour lectures, satirized your early home; that you\nhave described with bitterness the Sundays that were\nforced upon you in your youth; and that in various\nways you have denounced your father as a \"tyrant,\"\nor a \"bigot,\" or a \"fool\"?\n\nAnswer. I have described the manner in which\nSunday was kept when I was a boy. My father for\n\n147\n\nmany years regarded the Sabbath as a sacred day.\nWe kept Sunday as most other Christians did. I think\nthat my father made a mistake about that day. I\nhave no doubt he was honest about it, and really\nbelieved that it was pleasing to God for him to keep\nthe Sabbath as he did.\n\nI think that Sunday should not be a day of gloom,\nof silence and despair, or a day in which to hear that\nthe chances are largely in favor of your being eternally\ndamned. That day, in my opinion, should be one of\njoy; a day to get acquainted with your wife and\nchildren; a day to visit the woods, or the sea, or the\nmurmuring stream; a day to gather flowers, to visit\nthe graves of your dead, to read old poems, old\nletters, old books; a day to rekindle the fires of\nfriendship and love.\n\nMr. Talmage says that my father was a Christian,\nand he then proceeds to malign his memory. It\nseems to me that a living Christian should at least\ntell the truth about one who sleeps the silent sleep\nof death.\n\nI have said nothing, in any of my lectures, about\nmy father, or about my mother, or about any of my\nrelatives. I have not the egotism to bring them\nforward. They have nothing to do with the subject\n\n148\n\nin hand. That my father was mistaken upon the\nsubject of religion, I have no doubt. He was a good,\na brave and honest man. I loved him living, and\nI love him dead. I never said to him an unkind\nword, and in my heart there never was of him an\nunkind thought. He was grand enough to say to\nme, that I had the same right to my opinion that he\nhad to his. He was great enough to tell me to read\nthe Bible for myself, to be honest with myself, and if\nafter reading it I concluded it was not the word of\nGod, that it was my duty to say so.\n\nMy mother died when I was but a child; and from\nthat day—the darkest of my life—her memory has\nbeen within my heart a sacred thing, and I have felt,\nthrough all these years, her kisses on my lips.\n\nI know that my parents—if they are conscious now\n—do not wish me to honor them at the expense of\nmy manhood. I know that neither my father nor my\nmother would have me sacrifice upon their graves my\nhonest thought. I know that I can only please them by\nbeing true to myself, by defending what I believe is\ngood, by attacking what I believe is bad. Yet this min-\nister of Christ is cruel enough, and malicious enough,\nto attack the reputation of the dead. What he says\nabout my father is utterly and unqualifiedly false.\n\n149\n\nRight here, it may be well enough for me to say,\nthat long before my father died, he threw aside, as\nunworthy of a place in the mind of an intelligent\nman, the infamous dogma of eternal fire; that he\nregarded with abhorrence many passages in the Old\nTestament; that he believed man, in another world,\nwould have the eternal opportunity of doing right,\nand that the pity of God would last as long as the\nsuffering of man. My father and my mother were\ngood, in spite of the Old Testament. They were mer-\nciful, in spite of the one frightful doctrine in the New.\nThey did not need the religion of Presbyterianism.\nPresbyterianism never made a human being better.\nIf there is anything that will freeze the generous\ncurrent of the soul, it is Calvinism. If there is any\ncreed that will destroy charity, that will keep the\ntears of pity from the cheeks of men and women, it\nis Presbyterianism. If there is any doctrine calcu-\nlated to make man bigoted, unsympathetic, and\ncruel, it is the doctrine of predestination. Neither\nmy father, nor my mother, believed in the damnation\nof babes, nor in the inspiration of John Calvin.\n\nMr. Talmage professes to be a Christian. What\neffect has the religion of Jesus Christ had upon him?\nIs he the product—the natural product—of Chris-\n\n150\n\ntianity? Does the real Christian violate the sanctity\nof death? Does the real Christian malign the\nmemory of the dead? Does the good Christian\ndefame unanswering and unresisting dust?\n\nBut why should I expect kindness from a Chris-\ntian? Can a minister be expected to treat with\nfairness a man whom his God intends to damn? If\na good God is going to burn an infidel forever, in\nthe world to come, surely a Christian should have\nthe right to persecute him a little here.\n\nWhat right has a Christian to ask anybody to love\nhis father, or mother, or wife, or child? According\nto the gospels, Christ offered a reward to any one\nwho would desert his father or his mother. He\noffered a premium to gentlemen for leaving their\nwives, and tried to bribe people to abandon their\nlittle children. He offered them happiness in this\nworld, and a hundred fold in the next, if they would\nturn a deaf ear to the supplications of a father, the\nbeseeching cry of a wife, and would leave the out-\nstretched arms of babes. They were not even\nallowed to bury their fathers and their mothers. At\nthat time they were expected to prefer Jesus to their\nwives and children. And now an orthodox minister\nsays that a man ought not to express his honest\n\n151\n\nthoughts, because they do not happen to be in accord\nwith the belief of his father or mother.\n\nSuppose Mr. Talmage should read the Bible care-\nfully and without fear, and should come to the honest\nconclusion that it is not inspired, what course would\nhe pursue for the purpose of honoring his parents?\nWould he say, \"I cannot tell the truth, I must lie,\n\"for the purpose of shedding a halo of glory around\n\"the memory of my mother\"? Would he say: \"Of\n\"course, my father and mother would a thousand\n\"times rather have their son a hypocritical Christian\n\"than an honest, manly unbeliever\"? This might\nplease Mr. Talmage, and accord perfectly with his\nview, but I prefer to say, that my father wished me to\nbe an honest man. If he is in \"heaven\" now, I am\nsure that he would rather hear me attack the\n\"inspired\" word of God, honestly and bravely, than\nto hear me, in the solemn accents of hypocrisy, defend\nwhat I believe to be untrue.\n\nI may be mistaken in the estimate angels put upon\nhuman beings. It may be that God likes a pretended\nfollower better than an honest, outspoken man—one\nwho is an infidel simply because he does not under-\nstand this God. But it seems to me, in my unregenerate\ncondition, touched and tainted as I am by original sin,\n\n152\n\nthat a God of infinite power and wisdom ought to be\nable to make a man brave enough to have an opinion\nof his own. I cannot conceive of God taking any\nparticular pride in any hypocrite he has ever made.\nWhatever he may say through his ministers, or\nwhatever the angels may repeat, a manly devil\nstands higher in my estimation than an unmanly\nangel. I do not mean by this, that there are any\nunmanly angels, neither do I pretend that there\nare any manly devils. My meaning is this: If I have\na Creator, I can only honor him by being true to\nmyself, and kind and just to my fellow-men. If I wish\nto shed lustre upon my father and mother, I can\nonly do so by being absolutely true to myself.\nNever will I lay the wreath of hypocrisy upon the\ntombs of those I love.\n\nMr. Talmage takes the ground that we must defend\nthe religious belief of our parents. He seems to\nforget that all parents do not believe exactly alike,\nand that everybody has at least two parents. Now,\nsuppose that the father is an infidel, and the mother\na Christian, what must the son do? Must he \"drive\n\"the ploughshare of contempt through the grave of\n\"the father,\" for the purpose of honoring the mother;\nor must he drive the ploughshare through the grave\n\n153\n\nof the mother to honor the father; or must he com-\npromise, and talk one way and believe another? If\nMr. Talmage's doctrine is correct, only persons who\nhave no knowledge of their parents can have liberty\nof opinion. Foundlings would be the only free\npeople. I do not suppose that Mr. Talmage would\ngo so far as to say that a child would be bound by\nthe religion of the person upon whose door-steps he\nwas found. If he does not, then over every foundling\nhospital should be these words: \"Home of Intel-\n\"lectual Liberty.\"\n\nQuestion. Do you suppose that we will care\nnothing in the next world for those we loved in this?\nIs it worse in a man than in an angel, to care nothing\nfor his mother?\n\nAnswer. According to Mr. Talmage, a man can\nbe perfectly happy in heaven, with his mother in hell.\nHe will be so entranced with the society of Christ,\nthat he will not even inquire what has become of his\nwife. The Holy Ghost will keep him in such a state\nof happy wonder, of ecstatic joy, that the names,\neven, of his children will never invade his memory.\nIt may be that I am lacking in filial affection, but\nI would much rather be in hell, with my parents\n\n154\n\nin heaven, than be in heaven with my parents in hell.\nI think a thousand times more of my parents than I\ndo of Christ. They knew me, they worked for me,\nthey loved me, and I can imagine no heaven, no\nstate of perfect bliss for me, in which they have no\nshare. If God hates me, because I love them,\nI cannot love him.\n\nI cannot truthfully say that I look forward with any\ngreat degree of joy, to meeting with Haggai and\nHabakkuk; with Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Obadiah,\nZechariah or Zephaniah; with Ezekiel, Micah, or\nMalachi; or even with Jonah. From what little\nI have read of their writings, I have not formed a\nvery high opinion of the social qualities of these\ngentlemen.\n\nI want to meet the persons I have known; and if\nthere is another life, I want to meet the really and\nthe truly great—men who have been broad enough to\nbe tender, and great enough to be kind.\n\nBecause I differ with my parents, because I am\nconvinced that my father was wrong in some of\nhis religious opinions, Mr. Talmage insists that I dis-\ngrace my parents. How did the Christian religion\ncommence? Did not the first disciples advocate\ntheories that their parents denied? Were they\n\n155\n\nnot false,—in his sense of the word,—to their\nfathers and mothers? How could there have been\nany progress in this world, if children had not\ngone beyond their parents? Do you consider that\nthe inventor of a steel plow cast a slur upon his\nfather who scratched the ground with a wooden\none? I do not consider that an invention by the\nson is a slander upon the father; I regard each\ninvention simply as an improvement; and every\nfather should be exceedingly proud of an ingenious\nson. If Mr. Talmage has a son, it will be impossible\nfor him to honor his father except by differing with\nhim.\n\nIt is very strange that Mr. Talmage, a believer in\nChrist, should object to any man for not loving his\nmother and his father, when his Master, according\nto the gospel of Saint Luke, says: \"If any man\n\"come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,\n\"and wife, and children, and brethren, and sis-\n\"ters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my\n\"disciple.\"\n\nAccording to this, I have to make my choice be-\ntween my wife, my children, and Jesus Christ. I have\nconcluded to stand by my folks—both in this world,\nand in \"the world to come.\"\n\n156\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage asks you whether, in your\njudgment, the Bible was a good, or an evil, to your\nparents?\n\nAnswer. I think it was an evil. The worst thing\nabout my father was his religion. He would have\nbeen far happier, in my judgment, without it. I\nthink I get more real joy out of life than he did.\nHe was a man of a very great and tender heart. He\nwas continually thinking—for many years of his\nlife—of the thousands and thousands going down to\neternal fire. That doctrine filled his days with\ngloom, and his eyes with tears. I think that my\nfather and mother would have been far happier had\nthey believed as I do. How any one can get any\njoy out of the Christian religion is past my compre-\nhension. If that religion is true, hundreds of mil-\nlions are now in hell, and thousands of millions yet\nunborn will be. How such a fact can form any part\nof the \"glad tidings of great joy,\" is amazing to me.\nIt is impossible for me to love a being who would\ncreate countless millions for eternal pain. It is\nimpossible for me to worship the God of the Bible,\nor the God of Calvin, or the God of the Westminster\nCatechism.\n\n157\n\nQuestion. I see that Mr. Talmage challenges you\nto read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John. Are\nyou willing to accept the challenge; or have you\never read that chapter?\n\nAnswer. I do not claim to be very courageous,\nbut I have read that chapter, and am very glad that\nMr. Talmage has called attention to it. According\nto the gospels, Christ did many miracles. He healed\nthe sick, gave sight to the blind, made the lame\nwalk, and raised the dead. In the fourteenth chapter\nof Saint John, twelfth verse, I find the following:\n\n\"Verily, verily, I say unto you: He that believeth\n\"on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and\n\"greater works than these shall he do, because I go\n\"unto my Father.\"\n\nI am willing to accept that as a true test of a\nbeliever. If Mr. Talmage really believes in Jesus\nChrist, he ought to be able to do at least as great\nmiracles as Christ is said to have done. Will Mr.\nTalmage have the kindness to read the fourteenth\nchapter of John, and then give me some proof, in\naccordance with that chapter, that he is a believer in\nJesus Christ? Will he have the kindness to perform\na miracle?—for instance, produce a \"local flood,\"\nmake a worm to smite a gourd, or \"prepare a fish\"?\n\n158\n\nCan he do anything of that nature? Can he even\ncause a \"vehement east wind\"? What evidence,\naccording to the Bible, can Mr. Talmage give of his\nbelief? How does he prove that he is a Christian?\nBy hating infidels and maligning Christians? Let\nMr. Talmage furnish the evidence, according to the\nfourteenth chapter of Saint John, or forever after\nhold his peace.\n\nHe has my thanks for calling my attention to the\nfourteenth chapter of Saint John.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges that you are at-\ntempting to destroy the \"chief solace of the world,\"\nwithout offering any substitute. How do you answer\nthis?\n\nAnswer. If he calls Christianity the \"chief solace\n\"of the world,\" and if by Christianity he means that all\nwho do not believe in the inspiration of the Scrip-\ntures, and have no faith in Jesus Christ, are to be\neternally damned, then I admit that I am doing the\nbest I can to take that \"solace\" from the human\nheart. I do not believe that the Bible, when prop-\nerly understood, is, or ever has been, a comfort to\nany human being. Surely, no good man can be\ncomforted by reading a book in which he finds that\n\n159\n\na large majority of mankind have been sentenced to\neternal fire. In the doctrine of total depravity there\nis no \"solace.\" In the doctrine of \"election\" there can\nbe no joy until the returns are in, and a majority\nfound for you.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage says that you are taking\naway the world's medicines, and in place of anaes-\nthetics, in place of laudanum drops, you read an\nessay to the man in pain, on the absurdities of mor-\nphine and nervines in general.\n\nAnswer. It is exactly the other way. I say, let\nus depend upon morphine, not upon prayer. Do\nnot send for the minister—take a little laudanum.\nDo not read your Bible,—chloroform is better. Do\nnot waste your time listening to meaningless ser-\nmons, but take real, genuine soporifics.\n\nI regard the discoverer of ether as a benefactor.\nI look upon every great surgeon as a blessing to\nmankind. I regard one doctor, skilled in his profes-\nsion, of more importance to the world than all the\northodox ministers.\n\nMr. Talmage should remember that for hundreds\nof years, the church fought, with all its power, the\nscience of medicine. Priests used to cure diseases\n\n160\n\nby selling little pieces of paper covered with cabalistic\nmarks. They filled their treasuries by the sale of\nholy water. They healed the sick by relics—the teeth\nand ribs of saints, the finger-nails of departed wor-\nthies, and the hair of glorified virgins. Infidelity\nsaid: \"Send for the doctor.\" Theology said: \"Stick\n\"to the priest.\" Infidelity,—that is to say, science,—\nsaid: \"Vaccinate him.\" The priest said: \"Pray;—\n\"I will sell you a charm.\" The doctor was regarded\nas a man who was endeavoring to take from God his\nmeans of punishment. He was supposed to spike\nthe artillery of Jehovah, to wet the powder of the\nAlmighty, and to steal the flint from the musket of\nheavenly retribution.\n\nInfidelity has never relied upon essays, it has\nnever relied upon words, it has never relied upon\nprayers, it has never relied upon angels or gods; it\nhas relied upon the honest efforts of men and women.\nIt has relied upon investigation, observation, experi-\nence, and above all, upon human reason.\n\nWe, in America, know how much prayers are\nworth. We have lately seen millions of people upon\ntheir knees. What was the result?\n\nIn the olden times, when a plague made its ap-\npearance, the people fell upon their knees and died.\n\n161\n\nWhen pestilence came, they rushed to their ca-\nthedrals, they implored their priests—and died. God\nhad no pity upon his ignorant children. At last,\nScience came to the rescue. Science,—not in the\nattitude of prayer, with closed eyes, but in the atti-\ntude of investigation, with open eyes,—looked for and\ndiscovered some of the laws of health. Science\nfound that cleanliness was far better than godliness. It\nsaid: Do not spend your time in praying;—clean your\nhouses, clean your streets, clean yourselves. This pest-\nilence is not a punishment. Health is not simply a favor\nof the gods. Health depends upon conditions, and\nwhen the conditions are violated, disease is inevitable,\nand no God can save you. Health depends upon\nyour surroundings, and when these are favorable,\nthe roses are in your cheeks.\n\nWe find in the Old Testament that God gave\nto Moses a thousand directions for ascertaining\nthe presence of leprosy. Yet it never occurred\nto this God to tell Moses how to cure the disease.\nWithin the lids of the Old Testament, we have no\ninformation upon a subject of such vital importance\nto mankind.\n\nIt may, however, be claimed by Mr. Talmage, that\nthis statement is a little too broad, and I will therefore\n\n162\n\ngive one recipe that I find in the fourteenth chapter\nof Leviticus:\n\n\"Then shall the priest command to take for him\n\" that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and\n\"cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and the priest\n\"shall command that one of the birds be killed in an\n\"earthen vessel over running water. As for the\n\"living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood,\n\"and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them\n\"and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was\n\"killed over the running water. And he shall\n\"sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the\n\"leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean,\n\"and shall let the living bird loose into the open\n\"field.\"\n\nProphets were predicting evil—filling the country\nwith their wails and cries, and yet it never occurred\nto them to tell one solitary thing of the slightest\nimportance to mankind. Why did not these inspired\nmen tell us how to cure some of the diseases that\nhave decimated the world? Instead of spending\nforty days and forty nights with Moses, telling him\nhow to build a large tent, and how to cut the gar-\nments of priests, why did God not give him a little\nuseful information in respect to the laws of health?\n\n163\n\nMr. Talmage must remember that the church has\ninvented no anodynes, no anaesthetics, no medicines,\nand has affected no cures. The doctors have not\nbeen inspired. All these useful things men have\ndiscovered for themselves, aided by no prophet and\nby no divine Savior. Just to the extent that man\nhas depended upon the other world, he has failed to\nmake the best of this. Just in the proportion that he\nhas depended on his own efforts, he has advanced.\nThe church has always said:\n\n\"Consider the lilies of the field; they toil not,\n\"neither do they spin.\" \"Take no thought for the\n\"morrow.\" Whereas, the real common sense of this\nworld has said: \"No matter whether lilies toil and\nspin, or not, if you would succeed, you must work;\nyou must take thought for the morrow, you must\nlook beyond the present day, you must provide for\nyour wife and your children.\"\n\nWhat can I be expected to give as a substitute for\nperdition? It is enough to show that it does not\nexist. What does a man want in place of a disease?\nHealth. And what is better calculated to increase\nthe happiness of mankind than to know that the\ndoctrine of eternal pain is infinitely and absurdly\nfalse?\n\n164\n\nTake theology from the world, and natural Love\nremains, Science is still here, Music will not be lost,\nthe page of History will still be open, the walls of\nthe world will still be adorned with Art, and the\nniches rich with Sculpture.\n\nTake theology from the world, and we all shall\nhave a common hope,—and the fear of hell will be\nremoved from every human heart.\n\nTake theology from the world, and millions of\nmen will be compelled to earn an honest living.\nImpudence will not tax credulity. The vampire of\nhypocrisy will not suck the blood of honest toil.\n\nTake theology from the world, and the churches\ncan be schools, and the cathedrals universities.\n\nTake theology from the world, and the money\nwasted on superstition will do away with want.\n\nTake theology from the world, and every brain\nwill find itself without a chain.\n\nThere is a vast difference between what is called\ninfidelity and theology.\n\nInfidelity is honest. When it reaches the confines\nof reason, it says: \"I know no further.\"\n\nInfidelity does not palm its guess upon an ignorant\nworld as a demonstration.\n\n165\n\nInfidelity proves nothing by slander—establishes\nnothing by abuse.\n\nInfidelity has nothing to hide. It has no \"holy\n\"of holies,\" except the abode of truth. It has no\ncurtain that the hand of investigation has not the\nright to draw aside. It lives in the cloudless light,\nin the very noon, of human eyes.\n\nInfidelity has no bible to be blasphemed. It does\nnot cringe before an angry God.\n\nInfidelity says to every man: Investigate for\nyourself. There is no punishment for unbelief.\n\nInfidelity asks no protection from legislatures. It\nwants no man fined because he contradicts its doc-\ntrines.\n\nInfidelity relies simply upon evidence—not evi-\ndence of the dead, but of the living.\n\nInfidelity has no infallible pope. It relies only\nupon infallible fact. It has no priest except the\ninterpreter of Nature. The universe is its church.\nIts bible is everything that is true. It implores every\nman to verify every word for himself, and it implores\nhim to say, if he does not believe it, that he does\nnot.\n\nInfidelity does not fear contradiction. It is not\nafraid of being laughed at. It invites the scrutiny\n\n166\n\nof all doubters, of all unbelievers. It does not rely\nupon awe, but upon reason. It says to the whole\nworld: It is dangerous not to think. It is dan-\ngerous not to be honest. It is dangerous not to\ninvestigate. It is dangerous not to follow where\nyour reason leads.\n\nInfidelity requires every man to judge for himself.\nInfidelity preserves the manhood of man.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage also says that you are\ntrying to put out the light-houses on the coast of the\nnext world; that you are \"about to leave everybody\n\"in darkness at the narrows of death\"?\n\nAnswer. There can be no necessity for these\nlight-houses, unless the God of Mr. Talmage has\nplanted rocks and reefs within that unknown sea.\nIf there is no hell, there is no need of any light-\nhouse on the shores of the next world; and only\nthose are interested in keeping up these pretended\nlight-houses who are paid for trimming invisible\nwicks and supplying the lamps with allegorical oil.\nMr. Talmage is one of these light-house keepers,\nand he knows that if it is ascertained that the coast\nis not dangerous, the light-house will be abandoned,\nand the keeper will have to find employment else-\n\n167\n\nwhere. As a matter of fact, every church is a use-\nless light-house. It warns us only against breakers\nthat do not exist. Whenever a mariner tells one of\nthe keepers that there is no danger, then all the\nkeepers combine to destroy the reputation of that\nmariner.\n\nNo one has returned from the other world to tell\nus whether they have light-houses on that shore or\nnot; or whether the light-houses on this shore—one\nof which Mr. Talmage is tending—have ever sent a\ncheering ray across the sea.\n\nNature has furnished every human being with\na light more or less brilliant, more or less powerful.\nThat light is Reason; and he who blows that light\nout, is in utter darkness. It has been the business of\nthe church for centuries to extinguish the lamp of the\nmind, and to convince the people that their own\nreason is utterly unreliable. The church has asked\nall men to rely only upon the light of the church.\n\nEvery priest has been not only a light-house but\na guide-board. He has threatened eternal damna-\ntion to all who travel on some other road. These\nguide-boards have been toll-gates, and the principal\nreason why the churches have wanted people to go\ntheir road is, that tolls might be collected. They\n\n168\n\nhave regarded unbelievers as the owners of turnpikes\ndo people who go 'cross lots. The toll-gate man\nalways tells you that other roads are dangerous—\nfilled with quagmires and quicksands.\n\nEvery church is a kind of insurance society, and\nproposes, for a small premium, to keep you from\neternal fire. Of course, the man who tells you that\nthere is to be no fire, interferes with the business,\nand is denounced as a malicious meddler and blas-\nphemer. The fires of this world sustain the same\nrelation to insurance companies that the fires of the\nnext do to the churches.\n\nMr. Talmage also insists that I am breaking up the\n\"life-boats.\" Why should a ship built by infinite\nwisdom, by an infinite shipbuilder, carry life-boats?\nThe reason we have life-boats now is, that we are\nnot entirely sure of the ship. We know that man\nhas not yet found out how to make a ship that can\ncertainly brave all the dangers of the deep. For this\nreason we carry life-boats. But infinite wisdom must\nsurely build ships that do not need life-boats. Is there\nto be a wreck at last? Is God's ship to go down in\nstorm and darkness? Will it be necessary at last to\nforsake his ship and depend upon life-boats?\n\nFor my part, I do not wish to be rescued by a life-\n\n169\n\nboat. When the ship, bearing the whole world, goes\ndown, I am willing to go down with it—with my\nwife, with my children, and with those I have loved.\nI will not slip ashore in an orthodox canoe with\nsomebody else's folks,—I will stay with my own.\n\nWhat a picture is presented by the church! A few\nin life's last storm are to be saved; and the saved,\nwhen they reach shore, are to look back with joy\nupon the great ship going down to the eternal depths!\nThis is what I call the unutterable meanness of or-\nthodox Christianity.\n\nMr. Talmage speaks of the \"meanness of in-\n\"fidelity.\"\n\nThe meanness of orthodox Christianity permits the\nhusband to be saved, and to be ineffably happy, while\nthe wife of his bosom is suffering the tortures of hell.\n\nThe meanness of orthodox Christianity tells the\nboy that he can go to heaven and have an eternity\nof bliss, and that this bliss will not even be clouded\nby the fact that the mother who bore him writhes in\neternal pain.\n\nThe meanness of orthodox Christianity allows\na soul to be so captivated with the companionship\nof angels as to forget all the old loves and friend-\nships of this world.\n\n170\n\nThe meanness of orthodox Christianity, its un-\nspeakable selfishness, allows a soul in heaven to exult\nin the fact of its own salvation, and at the same time\nto care nothing for the damnation of all the rest.\n\nThe orthodox Christian says that if he can only\nsave his little soul, if he can barely squeeze into\nheaven, if he can only get past Saint Peter's gate,\nif he can by hook or crook climb up the opposite\nbank of Jordan, if he can get a harp in his hand, it\nmatters not to him what becomes of brother or\nsister, father or mother, wife or child. He is willing\nthat they should burn if he can sing.\n\nOh, the unutterable meanness of orthodox Chris-\ntianity, the infinite heartlessness of the orthodox\nangels, who with tearless eyes will forever gaze upon\nthe agonies of those who were once blood of their\nblood and flesh of their flesh!\n\nMr. Talmage describes a picture of the scourging\nof Christ, painted by Rubens, and he tells us that\nhe was so appalled by this picture—by the sight of\nthe naked back, swollen and bleeding—that he could\nnot have lived had he continued to look; yet this\nsame man, who could not bear to gaze upon a\npainted pain, expects to be perfectly happy in heaven,\nwhile countiess billions of actual—not painted—men,\n\n171\n\nwomen, and children writhe—not in a pictured flame,\nbut in the real and quenchless fires of hell.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage also claims that we are\nindebted to Christianity for schools, colleges, univer-\nsities, hospitals and asylums?\n\nAnswer. This shows that Mr. Talmage has not\nread the history of the world. Long before Chris-\ntianity had a place, there were vast libraries. There\nwere thousands of schools before a Christian existed\non the earth. There were hundreds of hospitals\nbefore a line of the New Testament was written.\nHundreds of years before Christ, there were hospitals\nin India,—not only for men, women and children, but\neven for beasts. There were hospitals in Egypt long\nbefore Moses was born. They knew enough then\nto cure insanity with music. They surrounded the\ninsane with flowers, and treated them with kindness.\n\nThe great libraries at Alexandria were not Chris-\ntian. The most intellectual nation of the Middle\nAges was not Christian. While Christians were\nimprisoning people for saying that the earth is round,\nthe Moors in Spain were teaching geography with\nglobes. They had even calculated the circumference\nof the earth by the tides of the Red Sea.\n\nWhere did education come from? For a thousand\n\n172\n\nyears Christianity destroyed books and paintings and\nstatues. For a thousand years Christianity was filled\nwith hatred toward every effort of the human mind.\nWe got paper from the Moors. Printing had been\nknown thousands of years before, in China. A few\nmanuscripts, containing a portion of the literature of\nGreece, a few enriched with the best thoughts of\nthe Roman world, had been preserved from the\ngeneral wreck and ruin wrought by Christian hate.\nThese became the seeds of intellectual progress.\nFor a thousand years Christianity controlled Europe.\nThe Mohammedans were far in advance of the\nChristians with hospitals and asylums and institutions\nof learning.\n\nJust in proportion that we have done away with\nwhat is known as orthodox Christianity, humanity\nhas taken its place. Humanity has built all the asy-\nlums, all the hospitals. Humanity, not Christianity,\nhas done these things. The people of this country\nare all willing to be taxed that the insane may be\ncared for, that the sick, the helpless, and the desti-\ntute may be provided for, not because they are\nChristians, but because they are humane; and they\nare not humane because they are Christians.\n\nThe colleges of this country have been poisoned by\n\n173\n\ntheology, and their usefulness almost destroyed. Just\nin proportion that they have gotten from ecclesiastical\ncontrol, they have become a good. That college, to-\nday, which has the most religion has the least true\nlearning; and that college which is the nearest free,\ndoes the most good. Colleges that pit Moses against\nmodern geology, that undertake to overthrow the\nCopernican system by appealing to Joshua, have\ndone, and are doing, very little good in this world.\n\nSuppose that in the first century Pagans had said\nto Christians: Where are your hospitals, where are\nyour asylums, where are your works of charity, where\nare your colleges and universities?\n\nThe Christians undoubtedly would have replied:\nWe have not been in power. There are but few\nof us. We have been persecuted to that degree\nthat it has been about as much as we could do to\nmaintain ourselves.\n\nReasonable Pagans would have regarded such an\nanswer as perfectly satisfactory. Yet that question\ncould have been asked of Christianity after it had\nheld the reins of power for a thousand years, and\nChristians would have been compelled to say: We\nhave no universities, we have no colleges, we have\nno real asylums.\n\n174\n\nThe Christian now asks of the atheist: Where\nis your asylum, where is your hospital, where is your\nuniversity? And the atheist answers: There have\nbeen but few atheists. The world is not yet suffi-\nciently advanced to produce them. For hundreds\nand hundreds of years, the minds of men have been\ndarkened by the superstitions of Christianity. Priests\nhave thundered against human knowledge, have de-\nnounced human reason, and have done all within\ntheir power to prevent the real progress of mankind.\n\nYou must also remember that Christianity has\nmade more lunatics than it ever provided asylums\nfor. Christianity has driven more men and women\ncrazy than all other religions combined. Hundreds\nand thousands and millions have lost their reason in\ncontemplating the monstrous falsehoods of Chris-\ntianity. Thousands of mothers, thinking of their\nsons in hell—thousands of fathers, believing their\nboys and girls in perdition, have lost their reason.\n\nSo, let it be distinctly understood, that Christianity\nhas made ten lunatics—twenty—one hundred—\nwhere it has provided an asylum for one.\n\nMr. Talmage also speaks of the hospitals. When\nwe take into consideration the wars that have been\nwaged on account of religion, the countless thou-\n\n175\n\nsands who have been maimed and wounded, through\nall the years, by wars produced by theology—then I\nsay that Christianity has not built hospitals enough\nto take care of her own wounded—not enough to\ntake care of one in a hundred. Where Christianity\nhas bound up the wounds of one, it has pierced the\nbodies of a hundred others with sword and spear,\nwith bayonet and ball. Where she has provided\none bed in a hospital, she has laid away a hundred\nbodies in bloody graves.\n\nOf course I do not expect the church to do\nanything but beg. Churches produce nothing. They\nare like the lilies of the field. \"They toil not, neither\n\"do they spin, yet Solomon in all his glory was not\n\"arrayed like most of them.\"\n\nThe churches raise no corn nor wheat. They\nsimply collect tithes. They carry the alms' dish.\nThey pass the plate. They take toll. Of course\na mendicant is not expected to produce anything.\nHe does not support,—he is supported. The church\ndoes not help. She receives, she devours, she\nconsumes, and she produces only discord. She ex-\nchanges mistakes for provisions, faith for food,\nprayers for pence. The church is a beggar. But we\nhave this consolation: In this age of the world, this\n\n176\n\nbeggar is not on horseback, and even the walking is\nnot good.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage says that infidels have\ndone no good?\n\nAnswer. Well, let us see. In the first place,\nwhat is an \"infidel\"? He is simply a man in advance\nof his time. He is an intellectual pioneer. He is\nthe dawn of a new day. He is a gentleman with an\nidea of his own, for which he gave no receipt to the\nchurch. He is a man who has not been branded as\nthe property of some one else. An \"infidel\" is one\nwho has made a declaration of independence. In\nother words, he is a man who has had a doubt. To\nhave a doubt means that you have thought upon\nthe subject—that you have investigated the question;\nand he who investigates any religion will doubt.\n\nAll the advance that has been made in the religious\nworld has been made by \"infidels,\" by \"heretics,\"\nby \"skeptics,\" by doubters,—that is to say, by\nthoughtful men. The doubt does not come from the\nignorant members of your congregations. Heresy is\nnot born of stupidity,—it is not the child of the brain-\nless. He who is so afraid of hurting the reputation\nof his father and mother that he refuses to advance,\n\n177\n\nis not a \"heretic.\" The \"heretic\" is not true to\nfalsehood. Orthodoxy is. He who stands faithfully\nby a mistake is \"orthodox.\" He who, discovering\nthat it is a mistake, has the courage to say so, is an\n\"infidel.\"\n\nAn infidel is an intellectual discoverer—one who\nfinds new isles, new continents, in the vast realm of\nthought. The dwellers on the orthodox shore de-\nnounce this brave sailor of the seas as a buccaneer.\n\nAnd yet we are told that the thinkers of new\nthoughts have never been of value to the world.\nVoltaire did more for human liberty than all the\northodox ministers living and dead. He broke a\nthousand times more chains than Luther. Luther\nsimply substituted his chain for that of the Catholics.\nVoltaire had none. The Encyclopaedists of France\ndid more for liberty than all the writers upon theology.\nBruno did more for mankind than millions of \"be-\n\"lievers.\" Spinoza contributed more to the growth\nof the human intellect than all the orthodox theolo-\ngians.\n\nMen have not done good simply because they have\nbelieved this or that doctrine. They have done good\nin the intellectual world as they have thought and\nsecured for others the liberty to think and to ex-\n\n178\n\npress their thoughts. They have done good in the\nphysical world by teaching their fellows how to\ntriumph over the obstructions of nature. Every\nman who has taught his fellow-man to think, has\nbeen a benefactor. Every one who has supplied his\nfellow-men with facts, and insisted upon their right\nto think, has been a blessing to his kind.\n\nMr. Talmage, in order to show what Christians\nhave done, points us to Whitefield, Luther, Oberlin,\nJudson, Martyn, Bishop Mcllvaine and Hannah\nMore. I would not for one moment compare George\nWhitefield with the inventor of movable type, and\nthere is no parallel between Frederick Oberlin and\nthe inventor of paper; not the slightest between\nMartin Luther and the discoverer of the New World;\nnot the least between Adoniram Judson and the in-\nventor of the reaper, nor between Henry Martyn\nand the discoverer of photography. Of what use to\nthe world was Bishop Mcllvaine, compared with\nthe inventor of needles? Of what use were a\nhundred such priests compared with the inventor\nof matches, or even of clothes-pins? Suppose that\nHannah More had never lived? about the same\nnumber would read her writings now. It is hardly fair\nto compare her with the inventor of the steamship?\n\n179\n\nThe progress of the world—its present improved\ncondition—can be accounted for only by the discov-\neries of genius, only by men who have had the\ncourage to express their honest thoughts.\n\nAfter all, the man who invented the telescope\nfound out more about heaven than the closed eyes of\nprayer had ever discovered. I feel absolutely certain\nthat the inventor of the steam engine was a greater\nbenefactor to mankind than the writer of the Presby-\nterian creed. I may be mistaken, but I think that\nrailways have done more to civilize mankind, than any\nsystem of theology. I believe that the printing press\nhas done more for the world than the pulpit. It is\nmy opinion that the discoveries of Kepler did a\nthousand times more to enlarge the minds of men\nthan the prophecies of Daniel. I feel under far\ngreater obligation to Humboldt than to Haggai.\nThe inventor of the plow did more good than the\nmaker of the first rosary—because, say what you\nwill, plowing is better than praying; we can live by\nplowing without praying, but we can not live by\npraying without plowing. So I put my faith in the\nplow.\n\nAs Jehovah has ceased to make garments for his\nchildren,—as he has stopped making coats of skins,\n\n180\n\nI have great respect for the inventors of the spinning-\njenny and the sewing machine. As no more laws\nare given from Sinai, I have admiration for the real\nstatesmen. As miracles have ceased, I rely on\nmedicine, and on a reasonable compliance with the\nconditions of health.\n\nI have infinite respect for the inventors, the\nthinkers, the discoverers, and above all, for the un-\nknown millions who have, without the hope of fame,\nlived and labored for the ones they loved.\n\nFifth Interview\n\n_Parson. You had belter join the church; it is\nthe safer way.\n\nSinner. I can't live up to your doctrines, and you\nknow it.\n\nParson. Well, you can come as near it in the\nchurch as out; and forgiveness\n\nwill be easier if you join us.\n\nSinner. What do you mean by that?\n\nParson. I will tell you. If you join the church,\nand happen to back-slide now and then, Christ will\nsay to his Father: \"That man is a \"friend of mine,\nand you may charge his account to me.\"_\n\nQuestion. What have you to say about the\nfifth sermon of the Rev. Mr. Talmage in reply\nto you?\n\nAnswer. The text from which he preached is:\n\"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?\"\nI am compelled to answer these questions in the\nnegative. That is one reason why I am an infidel.\nI do not believe that anybody can gather grapes of\nthorns, or figs of thistles. That is exactly my doctrine.\nBut the doctrine of the church is, that you can. The\n\n184\n\nchurch says, that just at the last, no matter if you\nhave spent your whole life in raising thorns and thistles,\nin planting and watering and hoeing and plowing\nthorns and thistles—that just at the last, if you will\nrepent, between hoeing the last thistle and taking the\nlast breath, you can reach out the white and palsied\nhand of death and gather from every thorn a cluster\nof grapes and from every thistle an abundance of\nfigs. The church insists that in this way you can\ngather enough grapes and figs to last you through all\neternity.\n\nMy doctrine is, that he who raises thorns must\nharvest thorns. If you sow thorns, you must reap\nthorns; and there is no way by which an innocent\nbeing can have the thorns you raise thrust into his\nbrow, while you gather his grapes.\n\nBut Christianity goes even further than this. It\ninsists that a man can plant grapes and gather thorns.\nMr. Talmage insists that, no matter how good you\nare, no matter how kind, no matter how much you\nlove your wife and children, no matter how many\nself-denying acts you do, you will not be allowed to\neat of the grapes you raise; that God will step be-\ntween you and the natural consequences of your\ngoodness, and not allow you to reap what you sow.\n\n185\n\nMr. Talmage insists, that if you have no faith in the\nLord Jesus Christ, although you have been good\nhere, you will reap eternal pain as your harvest; that\nthe effect of honesty and kindness will not be peace\nand joy, but agony and pain. So that the church\ndoes insist not only that you can gather grapes from\nthorns, but thorns from grapes.\n\nI believe exactly the other way. If a man is a\ngood man here, dying will not change him, and he\nwill land on the shore of another world—if there is\none—the same good man that he was when he left\nthis; and I do not believe there is any God in this\nuniverse who can afford to damn a good man. This\nGod will say to this man: You loved your wife,\nyour children, and your friends, and I love you.\nYou treated others with kindness; I will treat you\nin the same way. But Mr. Talmage steps up to\nhis God, nudges his elbow, and says: Although he\nwas a very good man, he belonged to no church;\nhe was a blasphemer; he denied the whale story, and\nafter I explained that Jonah was only in the whale's\nmouth, he still denied it; and thereupon Mr. Tal-\nmage expects that his infinite God will fly in a\npassion, and in a perfect rage will say: What! did\nhe deny that story? Let him be eternally damned!\n\n186\n\nNot only this, but Mr. Talmage insists that a man\nmay have treated his wife like a wild beast; may have\ntrampled his child beneath the feet of his rage; may\nhave lived a life of dishonesty, of infamy, and yet,\nhaving repented on his dying bed, having made his\npeace with God through the intercession of his Son,\nhe will be welcomed in heaven with shouts of joy.\nI deny it. I do not believe that angels can be so\nquickly made from rascals. I have but little confi-\ndence in repentance without restitution, and a hus-\nband who has driven a wife to insanity and death by\nhis cruelty—afterward repenting and finding himself\nin heaven, and missing his wife,—were he worthy to\nbe an angel, would wander through all the gulfs of\nhell until he clasped her once again..\n\nNow, the next question is, What must be done with\nthose who are sometimes good and sometimes bad?\nThat is my condition. If there is another world, I\nexpect to have the same opportunity of behaving\nmyself that I have here. If, when I get there, I fail\nto act as I should, I expect to reap what I sow. If,\nwhen I arrive at the New Jerusalem, I go into the\nthorn business, I expect to harvest what I plant. If\nI am wise enough to start a vineyard, I expect to\nhave grapes in the early fall. But if I do there as I\n\n187\n\nhave done here—plant some grapes and some thorns,\nand harvest them together—I expect to fare very\nmuch as I have fared here. But I expect year by\nyear to grow wiser, to plant fewer thorns every\nspring, and more grapes.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges that you have\ntaken the ground that the Bible is a cruel book, and\nhas produced cruel people?\n\nAnswer. Yes, I have taken that ground, and I\nmaintain it. The Bible was produced by cruel people,\nand in its turn it has produced people like its authors.\nThe extermination of the Canaanites was cruel.\nMost of the laws of Moses were bloodthirsty and\ncruel. Hundreds of offences were punishable by\ndeath, while now, in civilized countries, there are only\ntwo crimes for which the punishment is capital. I\ncharge that Moses and Joshua and David and Samuel\nand Solomon were cruel. I believe that to read and\nbelieve the Old Testament naturally makes a man\ncareless of human life. That book has produced\nhundreds of religious wars, and it has furnished the\nbattle-cries of bigotry for fifteen hundred years.\n\nThe Old Testament is filled with cruelty, but its\ncruelty stops with this world, its malice ends with\n\n188\n\ndeath; whenever its victim has reached the grave,\nrevenge is satisfied. Not so with the New Testament.\nIt pursues its victim forever. After death, comes\nhell; after the grave, the worm that never dies. So\nthat, as a matter of fact, the New Testament is in-\nfinitely more cruel than the Old.\n\nNothing has so tended to harden the human heart\nas the doctrine of eternal punishment, and that\npassage: \"He that believeth and is baptized shall be\n\"saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned,\"\nhas shed more blood than all the other so-called\n\"sacred books\" of all this world.\n\nI insist that the Bible is cruel. The Bible invented\ninstruments of torture. The Bible laid the foundations\nof the Inquisition. The Bible furnished the fagots and\nthe martyrs. The Bible forged chains not only for the\nhands, but for the brains of men. The Bible was at\nthe bottom of the massacre of St. Bartholomew.\nEvery man who has been persecuted for religion's\nsake has been persecuted by the Bible. That sacred\nbook has been a beast of prey.\n\nThe truth is, Christians have been good in spite of\nthe Bible. The Bible has lived upon the reputations of\ngood men and good women,—men and women who\nwere good notwithstanding the brutality they found\n\n189\n\nupon the inspired page. Men have said: \"My mother\n\"believed in the Bible; my mother was good; there-\n\"fore, the Bible is good,\" when probably the mother\nnever read a chapter in it.\n\nThe Bible produced the Church of Rome, and\nTorquemada was a product of the Bible. Philip of\nSpain and the Duke of Alva were produced by the\nBible. For thirty years Europe was one vast battle-\nfield, and the war was produced by the Bible. The re-\nvocation of the Edict of Nantes was produced by the\nsacred Scriptures. The instruments of torture—the\npincers, the thumb-screws, the racks, were produced\nby the word of God. The Quakers of New England\nwere whipped and burned by the Bible—their children\nwere stolen by the Bible. The slave-ship had for its\nsails the leaves of the Bible. Slavery was upheld in\nthe United States by the Bible. The Bible was the\nauction-block. More than this, worse than this,\ninfinitely beyond the computation of imagination, the\ndespotisms of the old world all rested and still rest\nupon the Bible. \"The powers that be\" were sup-\nposed to have been \"ordained of God;\" and he who\nrose against his king periled his soul.\n\nIn this connection, and in order to show the state\nof society when the church had entire control of civil\n\n190\n\nand ecclesiastical affairs, it may be well enough to\nread the following, taken from the New York Sun of\nMarch 21, 1882. From this little extract, it will be\neasy in the imagination to re-organize the government\nthat then existed, and to see clearly the state of so-\nciety at that time. This can be done upon the same\nprinciple that one scale tells of the entire fish, or one\nbone of the complete animal:\n\n\"From records in the State archives of Hesse-\n\"Darmstadt, dating back to the thirteenth century,\n\"it appears that the public executioner's fee for boiling\n\"a criminal in oil was twenty-four florins; for decapi-\n\"tating with the sword, fifteen florins and-a-half; for\n\"quartering, the same; for breaking on the wheel,\n\"five florins, thirty kreuzers; for tearing a man to\n\"pieces, eighteen florins. Ten florins per head was\n\"his charge for hanging, and he burned delinquents\n\"alive at the rate of fourteen florins apiece. For ap-\n\"plying the 'Spanish boot' his fee was only two\n\"florins. Five florins were paid to him every time he\n\"subjected a refractory witness to the torture of the\n\"rack. The same amount was his due for 'branding\n\"'the sign of the gallows with a red-hot iron upon\n\"'the back, forehead, or cheek of a thief,' as well as\n\"for 'cutting off the nose and ears of a slanderer or\n\n191\n\n\"'blasphemer.' Flogging with rods was a cheap\n\"punishment, its remuneration being fixed at three\n\"florins, thirty kreuzers.\"\n\nThe Bible has made men cruel. It is a cruel book.\nAnd yet, amidst its thorns, amidst its thistles, amidst\nits nettles and its swords and pikes, there are some\nflowers, and these I wish, in common with all good\nmen, to save.\n\nI do not believe that men have ever been made\nmerciful in war by reading the Old Testament. I do\nnot believe that men have ever been prompted to\nbreak the chain of a slave by reading the Pentateuch.\nThe question is not whether Florence Nightingale and\nMiss Dix were cruel. I have said nothing about\nJohn Howard, nothing about Abbott Lawrence.\nI say nothing about people in this connection. The\nquestion is: Is the Bible a cruel book? not: Was\nMiss Nightingale a cruel woman? There have been\nthousands and thousands of loving, tender and char-\nitable Mohammedans. Mohammedan mothers love\ntheir children as well as Christian mothers can.\nMohammedans have died in defence of the Koran—\ndied for the honor of an impostor. There were\nmillions of charitable people in India—millions in\nEgypt—and I am not sure that the world has ever\n\n192\n\nproduced people who loved one another better than\nthe Egyptians.\n\nI think there are many things in the Old Testament\ncalculated to make man cruel. Mr. Talmage asks:\n\"What has been the effect upon your children? As\n\"they have become more and more fond of the\n\"Scriptures have they become more and more fond\n\"of tearing off the wings of flies and pinning grass-\n\"hoppers and robbing birds' nests?\"\n\nI do not believe that reading the bible would make\nthem tender toward flies or grasshoppers. According\nto that book, God used to punish animals for the\ncrimes of their owners. He drowned the animals in\na flood. He visited cattle with disease. He bruised\nthem to death with hailstones—killed them by the\nthousand. Will the reading of these things make\nchildren kind to animals? So, the whole system of\nsacrifices in the Old Testament is calculated to harden\nthe heart. The butchery of oxen and lambs, the killing\nof doves, the perpetual destruction of life, the con-\ntinual shedding of blood—these things, if they have\nany tendency, tend only to harden the heart of child-\nhood.\n\nThe Bible does not stop simply with the killing of\nanimals. The Jews were commanded to kill their\n\n193\n\nneighbors—not only the men, but the women; not\nonly the women, but the babes. In accordance with\nthe command of God, the Jews killed not only their\nneighbors, but their own brothers; and according to\nthis book, which is the foundation, as Mr. Talmage\nbelieves, of all mercy, men were commanded to kill\ntheir wives because they differed with them on the\nsubject of religion.\n\nNowhere in the world can be found laws more un-\njust and cruel than in the Old Testament.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage wants you to tell where\nthe cruelty of the Bible crops out in the lives of Chris-\ntians?\n\nAnswer. In the first place, millions of Christians\nhave been persecutors. Did they get the idea of\npersecution from the Bible? Will not every honest\nman admit that the early Christians, by reading the\nOld Testament, became convinced that it was not\nonly their privilege, but their duty, to destroy heathen\nnations? Did they not, by reading the same book,\ncome to the conclusion that it was their solemn duty\nto extirpate heresy and heretics? According to the\nNew Testament, nobody could be saved unless he\nbelieved in the Lord Jesus Christ. The early Chris-\n\n194\n\ntians believed this dogma. They also believed that\nthey had a right to defend themselves and their\nchildren from \"heretics.\"\n\nWe all admit that a man has a right to defend his\nchildren against the assaults of a would-be murderer,\nand he has the right to carry this defence to the\nextent of killing the assailant. If we have the right\nto kill people who are simply trying to kill the bodies\nof our children, of course we have the right to kill\nthem when they are endeavoring to assassinate, not\nsimply their bodies, but their souls. It was in this\nway Christians reasoned. If the Testament is right,\ntheir reasoning was correct. Whoever believes the\nNew Testament literally—whoever is satisfied that it\nis absolutely the word of God, will become a perse-\ncutor. All religious persecution has been, and is, in\nexact harmony with the teachings of the Old and\nNew Testaments. Of course I mean with some of\nthe teachings. I admit that there are passages in\nboth the Old and New Testaments against persecu-\ntion. These are passages quoted only in time of\npeace. Others are repeated to feed the flames of\nwar.\n\nI find, too, that reading the Bible and believing the\nBible do not prevent even ministers from telling false-\n\n195\n\nhoods about their opponents. I find that the Rev.\nMr. Talmage is willing even to slander the dead,—\nthat he is willing to stain the memory of a Christian,\nand that he does not hesitate to give circulation\nto what he knows to be untrue. Mr. Talmage\nhas himself, I believe, been the subject of a church\ntrial. How many of the Christian witnesses against\nhim, in his judgment, told the truth? Yet they were\nall Bible readers and Bible believers. What effect, in\nhis judgment, did the reading of the Bible have upon\nhis enemies? Is he willing to admit that the testi-\nmony of a Bible, reader and believer is true? Is he\nwilling to accept the testimony even of ministers?\n—of his brother ministers? Did reading the Bible\nmake them bad people? Was it a belief in the Bible\nthat colored their testimony? Or, was it a belief in\nthe Bible that made Mr. Talmage deny the truth of\ntheir statements?\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage charges you with having\nsaid that the Scriptures are a collection of polluted\nwritings?\n\nAnswer. I have never said such a thing. I have\nsaid, and I still say, that there are passages in the\nBible unfit to be read—passages that never should\n\n196\n\nhave been written—passages, whether inspired or\nuninspired, that can by no possibility do any human\nbeing any good. I have always admitted that there\nare good passages in the Bible—many good, wise\nand just laws—many things calculated to make men\nbetter—many things calculated to make men worse.\nI admit that the Bible is a mixture of good and bad,\nof truth and falsehood, of history and fiction, of sense\nand nonsense, of virtue and vice, of aspiration and\nrevenge, of liberty and tyranny.\n\nI have never said anything against Solomon's\nSong. I like it better than I do any book that pre-\ncedes it, because it touches upon the human. In the\ndesert of murder, wars of extermination, polygamy,\nconcubinage and slavery, it is an oasis where the\ntrees grow, where the birds sing, and where human\nlove blossoms and fills the air with perfume. I do\nnot regard that book as obscene. There are many\nthings in it that are beautiful and tender, and it is\ncalculated to do good rather than harm.\n\nNeither have I any objection to the book of Eccle-\nsiastes—except a few interpolations in it. That book\nwas written by a Freethinker, by a philosopher.\nThere is not the slightest mention of God in it, nor\nof another state of existence. All portions in which\n\n197\n\nGod is mentioned are interpolations. With some of\nthis book I agree heartily. I believe in the doctrine\nof enjoying yourself, if you can, to-day. I think it\nfoolish to spend all your years in heaping up treas-\nures, not knowing but he who will spend them is to\nbe an idiot. I believe it is far better to be happy with\nyour wife and child now, than to be miserable here,\nwith angelic expectations in some other world.\n\nMr. Talmage is mistaken when he supposes that all\nBible believers have good homes, that all Bible readers\nare kind in their families. As a matter of fact, nearly all\nthe wife-whippers of the United States are orthodox.\nNine-tenths of the people in the penitentiaries are\nbelievers. Scotland is one of the most orthodox\ncountries in the world, and one of the most intem-\nperate. Hundreds and hundreds of women are\narrested every year in Glasgow for drunkenness.\nVisit the Christian homes in the manufacturing dis-\ntricts of England. Talk with the beaters of children\nand whippers of wives, and you will find them be-\nlievers. Go into what is known as the \"Black\n\"Country,\" and you will have an idea of the Chris-\ntian civilization of England.\n\nLet me tell you something about the \"Black\n\"Country.\" There women work in iron; there women\n\n198\n\ndo the work of men. Let me give you an instance:\nA commission was appointed by Parliament to ex-\namine into the condition of the women in the \"Black\n\"Country,\" and a report was made. In that report\nI read the following:\n\n\"A superintendent of a brickyard where women\n\"were engaged in carrying bricks from the yard to\n\"the kiln, said to one of the women:\n\n\"'Eliza, you don't appear to be very uppish this\n\"morning.'\"\n\n\"'Neither would you be very uppish, sir,' she re-\n\"plied, 'if you had had a child last night.'\"\n\nThis gives you an idea of the Christian civilization\nof England.\n\nEngland and Ireland produce most of the prize-\nfighters. The scientific burglar is a product of Great\nBritain. There is not the great difference that Mr.\nTalmage supposes, between the morality of Pekin\nand of New York. I doubt if there is a city in\nthe world with more crime according to the population\nthan New York, unless it be London, or it may be\nDublin, or Brooklyn, or possibly Glasgow, where\na man too pious to read a newspaper published on\nSunday, stole millions from the poor.\n\nI do not believe there is a country in the world\n\n199\n\nwhere there is more robbery than in Christian lands—\nno country where more cashiers are defaulters, where\nmore presidents of banks take the money of depositors,\nwhere there is more adulteration of food, where\nfewer ounces make a pound, where fewer inches make\na yard, where there is more breach of trust, more\nrespectable larceny under the name of embezzlement,\nor more slander circulated as gospel.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage insists that there are no\ncontradictions in the Bible—that it is a perfect har-\nmony from Genesis to Revelation—a harmony as\nperfect as any piece of music ever written by\nBeethoven or Handel?\n\nAnswer. Of course, if God wrote it, the Bible\nought to be perfect. I do not see why a minister\nshould be so perfectly astonished to find that an\ninspired book is consistent with itself throughout.\nYet the truth is, the Bible is infinitely inconsistent.\n\nCompare the two systems—the system of Jehovah\nand that of Jesus. In the Old Testament the doctrine\nof \"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth\" was\ntaught. In the New Testament, \"forgive your\n\"enemies,\" and \"pray for those who despitefully\n\"use you and persecute you.\" In the Old Testament\n\n200\n\nit is kill, burn, massacre, destroy; in the New forgive.\nThe two systems are inconsistent, and one is just\nabout as far wrong as the other. To live for and\nthirst for revenge, to gloat over the agony of an\nenemy, is one extreme; to \"resist not evil\" is the\nother extreme; and both these extremes are equally\ndistant from the golden mean of justice.\n\nThe four gospels do not even agree as to the terms\nof salvation. And yet, Mr. Talmage tells us that\nthere are four cardinal doctrines taught in the Bible—\nthe goodness of God, the fall of man, the sympathetic\nand forgiving nature of the Savior, and two desti-\nnies—one for believers and the other for unbelievers.\nThat is to say:\n\n1. That God is good, holy and forgiving.\n\n2. That man is a lost sinner.\n\n3. That Christ is \"all sympathetic,\" and ready to\ntake the whole world to his heart.\n\n4. Heaven for believers and hell for unbelievers.\n\nFirst. I admit that the Bible says that God is\n\ngood and holy. But this Bible also tells what God\ndid, and if God did what the Bible says he did, then I\ninsist that God is not good, and that he is not holy,\nor forgiving. According to the Bible, this good\nGod believed in religious persecution; this good\n\n201\n\nGod believed in extermination, in polygamy, in con-\ncubinage, in human slavery; this good God com-\nmanded murder and massacre, and this good God\ncould only be mollified by the shedding of blood.\nThis good God wanted a butcher for a priest. This\ngood God wanted husbands to kill their wives—\nwanted fathers and mothers to kill their children.\nThis good God persecuted animals on account of the\ncrimes of their owners. This good God killed the\ncommon people because the king had displeased him.\nThis good God killed the babe even of the maid\nbehind the mill, in order that he might get even with\na king. This good God committed every possible\ncrime.\n\nSecond. The statement that man is a lost sinner\nis not true. There are thousands and thousands of\nmagnificent Pagans—men ready to die for wife, or\nchild, or even for friend, and the history of Pagan\ncountries is filled with self-denying and heroic acts.\nIf man is a failure, the infinite God, if there be one,\nis to blame. Is it possible that the God of Mr. Tal-\nmage could not have made man a success? Accord-\ning to the Bible, his God made man knowing that in\nabout fifteen hundred years he would have to drown\nall his descendants.\n\n202\n\nWhy would a good God create a man that he\nknew would be a sinner all his life, make hundreds\nof thousands of his fellow-men unhappy, and who at\nlast would be doomed to an eternity of suffering?\nCan such a God be good? How could a devil have\ndone worse?\n\nThird. If God is infinitely good, is he not fully as\nsympathetic as Christ? Do you have to employ\nChrist to mollify a being of infinite mercy? Is Christ\nany more willing to take to his heart the whole world\nthan his Father is? Personally, I have not the\nslightest objection in the world to anybody believing\nin an infinitely good and kind God—not the slightest\nobjection to any human being worshiping an infi-\nnitely tender and merciful Christ—not the slightest\nobjection to people preaching about heaven, or about\nthe glories of the future state—not the slightest.\n\nFourth. I object to the doctrine of two destinies\nfor the human race. I object to the infamous false-\nhood of eternal fire. And yet, Mr. Talmage is en-\ndeavoring to poison the imagination of men, women\nand children with the doctrine of an eternal hell.\nHere is what he preaches, taken from the \"Constitu-\n\"tion of the Presbyterian Church of the United\n\"States:\"\n\n203\n\n\"By the decrees of God, for the manifestation of\n\"his glory, some men and angels are predestinated\n\"to everlasting life, and others foreordained to ever-\n\"lasting death.\"\n\nThat is the doctrine of Mr. Talmage. He wor-\nships a God who damns people \"for the manifesta-\n\"tion of his glory,\"—a God who made men, knowing\nthat they would be damned—a God who damns\nbabes simply to increase his reputation with the\nangels. This is the God of Mr. Talmage. Such a\nGod I abhor, despise and execrate.\n\nQuestion. What does Mr. Talmage think of man-\nkind? What is his opinion of the \"unconverted\"?\nHow does he regard the great and glorious of the\nearth, who have not been the victims of his particular\nsuperstition? What does he think of some of the\nbest the earth has produced?\n\nAnswer. I will tell you how he looks upon all\nsuch. Read this from his \"Confession of Faith:\"\n\n\"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety\n\"of the tempter, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.\n\"By this sin, they fell from their original righteous-\n\"ness and communion with God, and so became\n\"dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties\n\n204\n\n\"and parts of soul and body; and they being the\n\"root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was\n\"imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted\n\"nature conveyed to all their posterity. From this\n\"original corruption—whereby we are utterly indis-\n\"posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,\n\"and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual\n\"transgressions.\"\n\nThis is Mr. Talmage's view of humanity.\n\nWhy did his God make a devil? Why did he\nallow the devil to tempt Adam and Eve? Why did\nhe leave innocence and ignorance at the mercy of\nsubtlety and wickedness? Why did he put \"the\n\"tree of the knowledge of good and evil\" in the\ngarden? For what reason did he place temptation\nin the way of his children? Was it kind, was it just,\nwas it noble, was it worthy of a good God? No\nwonder Christ put into his prayer: \"Lead us not\n\"into temptation.\"\n\nAt the time God told Adam and Eve not to eat,\nwhy did he not tell them of the existence of Satan?\nWhy were they not put upon their guard against the\nserpent? Why did not God make his appearance\njust before the sin, instead of just after. Why did\nhe not play the role of a Savior instead of that of a\n\n205\n\ndetective? After he found that Adam and Eve had\nsinned—knowing as he did that they were then\ntotally corrupt—knowing that all their children\nwould be corrupt, knowing that in fifteen hundred\nyears he would have to drown millions of them, why\ndid he not allow Adam and Eve to perish in accord-\nance with natural law, then kill the devil, and make a\nnew pair?\n\nWhen the flood came, why did he not drown all?\nWhy did he save for seed that which was \"perfectly\n\"and thoroughly corrupt in all its parts and facul-\n\"ties\"? If God had drowned Noah and his sons\nand their families, he could have then made a new\npair, and peopled the world with men not \"wholly\n\"defiled in all their faculties and parts of soul and\n\"body.\"\n\nJehovah learned nothing by experience. He per-\nsisted in his original mistake. What would we think\nof a man who finding that a field of wheat was\nworthless, and that such wheat never could be\nraised with profit, should burn all of the field with the\nexception of a few sheaves, which he saved for seed?\nWhy save such seed? Why should God have pre-\nserved Noah, knowing that he was totally corrupt,\nand that he would again fill the world with infamous\n\n206\n\npeople—people incapable of a good action? He\nmust have known at that time, that by preserving\nNoah, the Canaanites would be produced, that these\nsame Canaanites would have to be murdered, that\nthe babes in the cradles would have to be strangled.\nWhy did he produce them? He knew at that time,\nthat Egypt would result from the salvation of Noah,\nthat the Egyptians would have to be nearly de-\nstroyed, that he would have to kill their first-born,\nthat he would have to visit even their cattle with\ndisease and hailstones. He knew also that the\nEgyptians would oppress his chosen people for two\nhundred and fifteen years, that they would upon the\nback of toil inflict the lash. Why did he preserve\nNoah? He should have drowned all, and started\nwith a new pair. He should have warned them\nagainst the devil, and he might have succeeded, in\nthat way, in covering the world with gentlemen and\nladies, with real men and real women.\n\nWe know that most of the people now in the\nworld are not Christians. Most who have heard the\ngospel of Christ have rejected it, and the Presby-\nterian Church tells us what is to become of all these\npeople. This is the \"glad tidings of great joy.\"\nLet us see:\n\n207\n\n\"All mankind, by their fall, lost communion with\n\"God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made\n\"liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself,\n\"and to the pains of hell forever.\"\n\nAccording to this good Presbyterian doctrine, all\nthat we suffer in this world, is the result of Adam's\nfall. The babes of to-day suffer for the crime of the\nfirst parents. Not only so; but God is angry at us\nfor what Adam did. We are under the wrath of an\ninfinite God, whose brows are corrugated with eternal\nhatred.\n\nWhy should God hate us for being what we are\nand necessarily must have been? A being that God\nmade—the devil—for whose work God is responsible,\naccording to the Bible wrought this woe. God of his\nown free will must have made the devil. What did\nhe make him for? Was it necessary to have a devil\nin heaven? God, having infinite power, can of\ncourse destroy this devil to-day. Why does he per-\nmit him to live? Why did he allow him to thwart his\nplans? Why did he permit him to pollute the inno-\ncence of Eden? Why does he allow him now to\nwrest souls by the million from the redeeming hand\nof Christ?\n\nAccording to the Scriptures, the devil has always\n\n208\n\nbeen successful. He enjoys himself. He is called\n\"the prince of the power of the air.\" He has no\nconscientious scruples. He has miraculous power.\nAll miraculous power must come of God, otherwise\nit is simply in accordance with nature. If the devil\ncan work a miracle, it is only with the consent and\nby the assistance of the Almighty. Is the God of\nMr. Talmage in partnership with the devil? Do\nthey divide profits?\n\nWe are also told by the Presbyterian Church—\nI quote from their Confession of Faith—that \"there\n\"is no sin so small but it deserves damnation.'' Yet\nMr. Talmage tells us that God is good, that he is filled\nwith mercy and loving-kindness. A child nine or ten\nyears of age commits a sin, and thereupon it deserves\neternal damnation. That is what Mr. Talmage calls,\nnot simply justice, but mercy; and the sympathetic\nheart of Christ is not touched. The same being who\nsaid: \"Suffer little children to come unto me,\" tells\nus that a child, for the smallest sin, deserves to be\neternally damned. The Presbyterian Church tells us\nthat infants, as well as adults, in order to be saved,\nneed redemption by the blood of Christ, and regen-\neration by the Holy Ghost.\n\nI am charged with trying to take the consolation\n\n209\n\nof this doctrine from the world. I am a criminal\nbecause I am endeavoring to convince the mother\nthat her child does not deserve eternal punishment.\nI stand by the graves of those who \"died in their\n\"sins,\" by the tombs of the \"unregenerate,\" over the\nashes of men who have spent their lives working for\ntheir wives and children, and over the sacred dust of\nsoldiers who died in defence of flag and country,\nand I say to their friends—I say to the living who\nloved them, I say to the men and women for whom\nthey worked, I say to the children whom they edu-\ncated, I say to the country for which they died:\nThese fathers, these mothers, these wives, these\nhusbands, these soldiers are not in hell.\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage insists that the Bible is\nscientific, and that the real scientific man sees no\ncontradiction between revelation and science; that,\non the contrary, they are in harmony. What is your\nunderstanding of this matter?\n\nAnswer. I do not believe the Bible to be a sci-\nentific book. In fact, most of the ministers now admit\nthat it was not written to teach any science. They\nadmit that the first chapter of Genesis is not geo-\nlogically true. They admit that Joshua knew nothing\n\n210\n\nof science. They admit that four-footed birds did\nnot exist in the days of Moses. In fact, the only\nway they can avoid the unscientific statements of the\nBible, is to assert that the writers simply used the\ncommon language of their day, and used it, not with\nthe intention of teaching any scientific truth, but for\nthe purpose of teaching some moral truth. As a\nmatter of fact, we find that moral truths have been\ntaught in all parts of this world. They were taught\nin India long before Moses lived; in Egypt long be-\nfore Abraham was born; in China thousands of\nyears before the flood. They were taught by hundreds\nand thousands and millions before the Garden of\nEden was planted.\n\nIt would be impossible to prove the truth of a\nrevelation simply because it contained moral truths.\nIf it taught immorality, it would be absolutely certain\nthat it was not a revelation from an infinitely good\nbeing. If it taught morality, it would be no reason\nfor even suspecting that it had a divine origin. But\nif the Bible had given us scientific truths; if the\nignorant Jews had given us the true theory of our\nsolar system; if from Moses we had learned the\nnature of light and heat; if from Joshua we had\nlearned something of electricity; if the minor pro-\n\n211\n\nphets had given us the distances to other planets;\nif the orbits of the stars had been marked by the\nbarbarians of that day, we might have admitted that\nthey must have been inspired. If they had said any-\nthing in advance of their day; if they had plucked\nfrom the night of ignorance one star of truth, we\nmight have admitted the claim of inspiration; but\nthe Scriptures did not rise above their source, did\nnot rise above their ignorant authors—above the\npeople who believed in wars of extermination, in\npolygamy, in concubinage, in slavery, and who taught\nthese things in their \"sacred Scriptures.\"\n\nThe greatest men in the scientific world have not\nbeen, and are not, believers in the inspiration of the\nScriptures. There has been no greater astronomer\nthan Laplace. There is no greater name than\nHumboldt. There is no living scientist who stands\nhigher than Charles Darwin. All the professors in\nall the religious colleges in this country rolled into\none, would not equal Charles Darwin. All the cow-\nardly apologists for the cosmogony of Moses do not\namount to as much in the world of thought as Ernst\nHaeckel. There is no orthodox scientist the equal\nof Tyndall or Huxley. There is not one in this\ncountry the equal of John Fiske. I insist, that the\n\n212\n\nforemost men to-day in the scientific world reject the\ndogma of inspiration. They reject the science of the\nBible, and hold in utter contempt the astronomy of\nJoshua, and the geology of Moses.\n\nMr. Talmage tells us \"that Science is a boy and\n\"Revelation is a man.\" Of course, like the most he\nsays, it is substantially the other way. Revelation,\nso-called, was the boy. Religion was the lullaby of\nthe cradle, the ghost-story told by the old woman,\nSuperstition. Science is the man. Science asks for\ndemonstration. Science impels us to investigation,\nand to verify everything for ourselves. Most pro-\nfessors of American colleges, if they were not afraid\nof losing their places, if they did not know that\nChristians were bad enough now to take the bread\nfrom their mouths, would tell their students that the\nBible is not a scientific book.\n\nI admit that I have said:\n\n1. That the Bible is cruel.\n\n2. That in many passages it is impure.\n\n3. That it is contradictory.\n\n4. That it is unscientific.\n\nLet me now prove these propositions one by one.\n\nFirst. The Bible is cruel.\n\nI have opened it at random, and the very first\n\n213\n\nchapter that has struck my eye is the sixth of First\nSamuel. In the nineteenth verse of that chapter, I\nfind the following:\n\n\"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because\n\"they had looked into the ark of the Lord; even he\n\"smote of the people fifty thousand and three-score\n\"and ten men.\"\n\nAll this slaughter was because some people had\nlooked into a box that was carried upon a cart. Was\nthat cruel?\n\nI find, also, in the twenty-fourth chapter of Second\nSamuel, that David was moved by God to number\nIsrael and Judah. God put it into his heart to take\na census of his people, and thereupon David said to\nJoab, the captain of his host:\n\n\"Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from\n\"Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people,\n\"that I may know the number of the people.\"\n\nAt the end of nine months and twenty days, Joab\ngave the number of the people to the king, and\nthere were at that time, according to that census,\n\"eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the\n\"sword,\" in Israel, and in Judah, \"five hundred\n\"thousand men,\" making a total of thirteen hundred\nthousand men of war. The moment this census was\n\n214\n\ntaken, the wrath of the Lord waxed hot against\nDavid, and thereupon he sent a seer, by the name of\nGad, to David, and asked him to choose whether he\nwould have seven years of famine, or fly three\nmonths before his enemies, or have three days of\npestilence. David concluded that as God was so\nmerciful as to give him a choice, he would be more\nmerciful than man, and he chose the pestilence.\n\nNow, it must be remembered that the sin of taking\nthe census had not been committed by the people,\nbut by David himself, inspired by God, yet the\npeople were to be punished for David's sin. So,,\nwhen David chose the pestilence, God immediately\nkilled \"seventy thousand men, from Dan even to\n\"Beersheba.\"\n\n\"And when the angel stretched out his hand upon\n\"Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of\n\"the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the\n\"people, It is enough; stay now thine hand.\"\n\nWas this cruel?\n\nWhy did a God of infinite mercy destroy seventy\nthousand men? Why did he fill his land with widows\nand orphans, because King David had taken the cen-\nsus? If he wanted to kill anybody, why did he not\nkill David? I will tell you why. Because at that\n\n215\n\ntime, the people were considered as the property of\nthe king. He killed the people precisely as he killed\nthe cattle. And yet, I am told that the Bible is not a\ncruel book.\n\nIn the twenty-first chapter of Second Samuel, I\nfind that there were three years of famine in the days\nof David, and that David inquired of the Lord the\nreason of the famine; and the Lord told him that it\nwas because Saul had slain the Gibeonites. Why did\nnot God punish Saul instead of the people? And\nDavid asked the Gibeonites how he should make\natonement, and the Gibeonites replied that they\nwanted no silver nor gold, but they asked that seven\nof the sons of Saul might be delivered unto them, so\nthat they could hang them before the Lord, in Gibeah.\nAnd David agreed to the proposition, and thereupon\nhe delivered to the Gibeonites the two sons of Rizpah,\nSaul's concubine, and the five sons of Michal, the\ndaughter of Saul, and the Gibeonites hanged all\nseven of them together. And Rizpah, more tender\nthan them all, with a woman's heart of love kept\nlonely vigil by the dead, \"from the beginning of har-\n\"vest until water dropped upon them out of heaven,\n\"and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest upon\n\"them by day, nor the beast of the field by night.\"\n\n216\n\nI want to know if the following, from the fifteenth\nchapter of First Samuel, is inspired:\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I remember that\n\"which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for\n\"him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now\n\"go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that\n\"they have, and spare them not, but slay both man\n\"and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,\n\"camel and ass.\"\n\nWe must remember that those he was commanded\nto slay had done nothing to Israel. It was something\ndone by their forefathers, hundreds of years before;\nand yet they are commanded to slay the women and\nchildren and even the animals, and to spare none.\n\nIt seems that Saul only partially carried into exe-\ncution this merciful command of Jehovah. He spared\nthe life of the king. He \"utterly destroyed all the\n\"people with the edge of the sword,\" but he kept\nalive the best of the sheep and oxen and of the fat-\nlings and lambs. Then God spake unto Samuel and\ntold him that he was very sorry he had made Saul\nking, because he had not killed all the animals, and\nbecause he had spared Agag; and Samuel asked\nSaul: \"What meaneth this bleating of sheep in mine\n\"ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?\"\n\n217\n\nAre stories like this calculated to make soldiers\nmerciful?\n\nSo I read in the sixth chapter of Joshua, the fate\nof the city of Jericho: \"And they utterly destroyed\n\"all that was in the city, both man and woman,\n\"young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the\n\"edge of the sword. And they burnt the city with\n\"fire, and all that was therein.\" But we are told that\none family was saved by Joshua, out of the general\ndestruction: \"And Joshua saved Rahab, the harlot,\n\"alive, and her father's household, and all that she\n\"had.\" Was this fearful destruction an act of\nmercy?\n\nIt seems that they saved the money of their\nvictims: \"the silver and gold and the vessels of brass\n\"and of iron they put into the treasury of the house\n\"of the Lord.\"\n\nAfter all this pillage and carnage, it appears\nthat there was a suspicion in Joshua's mind that\nsomebody was keeping back a part of the treasure.\nSearch was made, and a man by the name of Achan\nadmitted that he had sinned against the Lord, that he\nhad seen a Babylonish garment among the spoils, and\ntwo hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold of\nfifty shekels' weight, and that he took them and hid\n\n2l8\n\nthem in his tent. For this atrocious crime it seems\nthat the Lord denied any victories to the Jews until\nthey found out the wicked criminal. When they dis-\ncovered poor Achan, \"they took him and his sons\n\"and his daughters, and his oxen and his asses and\n\"his sheep, and all that he had, and brought them unto\n\"the valley of Achor; and all Israel stoned him with\n\"stones and burned them with fire after they had\n\"stoned them with stones.\"\n\nAfter Achan and his sons and his daughters and\nhis herds had been stoned and burned to death, we\nare told that \"the Lord turned from the fierceness of\n\"his anger.\"\n\nAnd yet it is insisted that this God \"is merciful,\n\"and that his loving-kindness is over all his works.\"\nIn the eighth chapter of this same book, the infi-\nnite God, \"creator of heaven and earth and all that is\n\"therein,\" told his general, Joshua, to lay an ambush\nfor a city—to \"lie in wait against the city, even be-\n\"hind the city; go not very far from the city, but be\n\"ye all ready.\" He told him to make an attack and\nthen to run, as though he had been beaten, in order\nthat the inhabitants of the city might follow, and\nthereupon his reserves that he had ambushed might\nrush into the city and set it on fire. God Almighty\n\n219\n\nplanned the battle. God himself laid the snare. The\nwhole programme was carried out. Joshua made\nbelieve that he was beaten, and fled, and then the\nsoldiers in ambush rose out of their places, enter-\ned the city, and set it on fire. Then came the\nslaughter. They \"utterly destroyed all the inhabit-\n\"ants of Ai,\" men and maidens, women and babes,\nsparing only their king till evening, when they\nhanged him on a tree, then \"took his carcase down\n\"from the tree and cast it at the entering of the\n\"gate, and raised thereon a great heap of stones\n\"which remaineth unto this day.\" After having\ndone all this, \"Joshua built an altar unto the Lord\n\"God of Israel, and offered burnt offerings unto the\n\"Lord.\" I ask again, was this cruel?\n\nAgain I ask, was the treatment of the Gibeonites\ncruel when they sought to make peace but were\ndenied, and cursed instead; and although permitted\nto live, were yet made slaves? Read the mandate\nconsigning them to bondage: \"Now therefore ye\n\"are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed\n\"from being bondmen and hewers of wood and\n\"drawers of water for the house of my God.\"\n\nIs it possible, as recorded in the tenth chapter of\nJoshua, that the Lord took part in these battles, and\n\n220\n\ncast down great hail-stones from the battlements of\nheaven upon the enemies of the Israelites, so that\n\"they were more who died with hail-stones, than\n\"they whom the children of Israel slew with the\n\"sword\"?\n\nIs it possible that a being of infinite power would\nexercise it in that way instead of in the interest of\nkindness and peace?\n\nI find, also, in this same chapter, that Joshua took\nMakkedah and smote it with the edge of the sword,\nthat he utterly destroyed all the souls that were\ntherein, that he allowed none to remain.\n\nI find that he fought against Libnah, and smote\nit with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed\nall the souls that were therein, and allowed none to\nremain, and did unto the king as he did unto the king\nof Jericho.\n\nI find that he also encamped against Lachish, and\nthat God gave him that city, and that he \"smote it\n\"with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that\n\"were therein,\" sparing neither old nor young, help-\nless women nor prattling babes.\n\nHe also vanquished Horam, King of Gezer, \"and\n\"smote him and his people until he left him none\n\"remaining.\"\n\n221\n\nHe encamped against the city of Eglon, and killed\nevery soul that was in it, at the edge of the sword,\njust as he had done to Lachish and all the others.\n\nHe fought against Hebron, \"and took it and\n\"smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king\n\"thereof,\"—and it appears that several cities, their\nnumber not named, were included in this slaughter,\nfor Hebron \"and all the cities thereof and all the\n\"souls that were therein,\" were utterly destroyed.\n\nHe then waged war against Debir and took it, and\nmore unnumbered cities with it, and all the souls that\nwere therein shared the same horrible fate—he did\nnot leave a soul alive.\n\nAnd this chapter of horrors concludes with this\nsong of victory:\n\n\"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and\n\"of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs,\n\"and all their kings: he left none remaining, but\n\"utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord\n\"God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote\n\"them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the\n\"country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these\n\"kings and their land did Joshua take at one time,\n\"because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel.\"\nWas God, at that time, merciful?\n\n222\n\nI find, also, in the twenty-first chapter that many\nIcings met, with their armies, for the purpose of\noverwhelming Israel, and the Lord said unto Joshua:\n\"Be not afraid because of them, for to-morrow about\n\"this time I will deliver them all slain before Israel.\n\"I will hough their horses and burn their chariots\n\"with fire.\" Were animals so treated by the com-\nmand of a merciful God?\n\nJoshua captured Razor, and smote all the souls\nthat were therein with the edge of the sword, there\nwas not one left to breathe; and he took all the\ncities of all the kings that took up arms against him,\nand utterly destroyed all the inhabitants thereof.\nHe took the cattle and spoils as prey unto himself,\nand smote every man with the edge of the sword;\nand not only so, but left not a human being to\nbreathe.\n\nI find the following directions given to the Israel-\nites who were waging a war of conquest. They are\nin the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, from the\ntenth to the eighteenth verses:\n\n\"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight\n\"against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it\n\"shall be, if it make thee an answer of peace, and\n\"open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people\n\n223\n\n\"that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee,\n\"and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no\n\"peace with thee, but will war against thee, then\n\"thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy\n\"God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt\n\"smite every male thereof with the edge of the\n\"sword; but the women, and the little ones, and\n\"the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil\n\"thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou\n\"shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the\n\"Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou\n\"do unto all the cities which are very far off from\n\"thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.\"\nIt will be seen from this that people could take\ntheir choice between death and slavery, provided\nthese people lived a good ways from the Israelites.\nNow, let us see how they were to treat the inhabit-\nants of the cities near to them:\n\n\"But of the cities of these people which the Lord\n\"thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou\n\"shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou\n\"shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites,\n\"and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,\n\"the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God\n\"hath commanded thee.\"\n\n224\n\nIt never occurred to this merciful God to send\nmissionaries to these people. He built them no\nschoolhouses, taught them no alphabet, gave them\nno book; they were not supplied even with a copy of\nthe Ten Commandments. He did not say \"Reform,\"\nbut \"Kill;\" not \"Educate,\" but \"Destroy.\" He gave\nthem no Bible, built them no church, sent them no\npreachers. He knew when he made them that he\nwould have to have them murdered. When he\ncreated them he knew that they were not fit to live;\nand yet, this is the infinite God who is infinitely\nmerciful and loves his children better than an earthly\nmother loves her babe.\n\nIn order to find just how merciful God is, read the\ntwenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, and see what\nhe promises to do with people who do not keep all of\nhis commandments and all of his statutes. He curses\nthem in their basket and store, in the fruit of their\nbody, in the fruit of their land, in the increase of their\ncattle and sheep. He curses them in the city and in\nthe field, in their coming in and their going out. He\ncurses them with pestilence, with consumption, with\nfever, with inflammation, with extreme burning, with\nsword, with blasting, with mildew. He tells them\nthat the heavens shall be as brass over their heads\n\n225\n\nand the earth as iron under their feet; that the rain\nshall be powder and dust and shall come down on\nthem and destroy them; that they shall flee seven\nways before their enemies; that their carcasses shall\nbe meat for the fowls of the air, and the beasts of the\nearth; that he will smite them with the botch of\nEgypt, and with the scab, and with the itch, and with\nmadness and blindness and astonishment; that he\nwill make them grope at noonday; that they shall be\noppressed and spoiled evermore; that one shall be-\ntroth a wife and another shall have her; that they\nshall build a house and not dwell in it; plant a vine-\nyard and others shall eat the grapes; that their\nsons and daughters shall be given to their enemies;\nthat he will make them mad for the sight of their\neyes; that he will smite them in the knees and in the\nlegs with a sore botch that cannot be healed, and\nfrom the sole of the foot to the top of the head;\nthat they shall be a by-word among all nations; that\nthey shall sow much seed and gather but little; that\nthe locusts shall consume their crops; that they shall\nplant vineyards and drink no wine,—that they shall\ngather grapes, but worms shall eat them; that they\nshall raise olives but have no oil; beget sons and\ndaughters, but they shall go into captivity; that all\n\n226\n\nthe trees and fruit of the land shall be devoured by\nlocusts, and that all these curses shall pursue them\nand overtake them, until they be destroyed; that they\nshall be slaves to their enemies, and be constantly in\nhunger and thirst and nakedness, and in want of all\nthings. And as though this were not enough, the\nLord tells them that he will bring a nation against\nthem swift as eagles, a nation fierce and savage, that\nwill show no mercy and no favor to old or young,\nand leave them neither corn, nor wine, nor oil, nor\nflocks, nor herds; and this nation shall besiege them\nin their cities until they are reduced to the necessity\nof eating the flesh of their own sons and daughters;\nso that the men would eat their wives and their\nchildren, and women eat their husbands and their\nown sons and daughters, and their own babes.\n\nAll these curses God pronounced upon them if they\ndid not observe to do all the words of the law that\nwere written in his book.\n\nThis same merciful God threatened that he would\nbring upon them all the diseases of Egypt—every\nsickness and every plague; that he would scatter\nthem from one end of the earth to the other; that\nthey should find no rest; that their lives should hang\nin perpetual doubt; that in the morning they would\n\n227\n\nsay: Would God it were evening! and in the even-\ning, Would God it were morning! and that he would\nfinally take them back to Egypt where they should\nbe again sold for bondmen and bondwomen.\n\nThis curse, the foundation of the _Anathema\nmaranatha_; this curse, used by the pope of Rome to\nprevent the spread of thought; this curse used even\nby the Protestant Church; this curse born of barba-\nrism and of infinite cruelty, is now said to have\nissued from the lips of an infinitely merciful God. One\nwould suppose that Jehovah had gone insane; that\nhe had divided his kingdom like Lear, and from the\ndarkness of insanity had launched his curses upon a\nworld.\n\nIn order that there may be no doubt as to the\nmercy of Jehovah, read the thirteenth chapter of\nDeuteronomy:\n\n\"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy\n\"son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or\n\"thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee\n\"secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,\n\"which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers;\n\"   * thou shalt not consent unto him, nor\n\"hearken unto him; neither shall thine eyes pity him,\n\"neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal\n\n228\n\n\"him; but thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand\n\"shall be first upon him to put him to death, and\n\"afterwards the hand of all the people; and thou\n\"shalt stone him with stones that he die, because he\n\"hath sought to entice thee away from the Lord thy\n\"God.\"\n\nThis, according to Mr. Talmage, is a commandment\nof the infinite God. According to him, God ordered\na man to murder his own son, his own wife, his own\nbrother, his own daughter, if they dared even to sug-\ngest the worship of some other God than Jehovah.\nFor my part, it is impossible not to despise such\na God—a God not willing that one should worship\nwhat he must. No one can control his admiration,\nand if a savage at sunrise falls upon his knees and\noffers homage to the great light of the East, he can-\nnot help it. If he worships the moon, he cannot help\nit. If he worships fire, it is because he cannot control\nhis own spirit. A picture is beautiful to me in spite\nof myself. A statue compels the applause of my\nbrain. The worship of the sun was an exceedingly\nnatural religion, and why should a man or woman be\ndestroyed for kneeling at the fireside of the world?\n\nNo wonder that this same God, in the very next\nchapter of Deuteronomy to that quoted, says to his\n\n229\n\nchosen people: \"Ye shall not eat of anything that\n\"dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger\n\"that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou\n\"mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art a holy\n\"people unto the Lord thy God.\"\n\nWhat a mingling of heartlessness and thrift—the\nreligion of sword and trade!\n\nIn the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, Jehovah\ngives his own character. He tells the Israelites that\nthere are seven nations greater and mightier than\nthemselves, but that he will deliver them to his chosen\npeople, and that they shall smite them and utterly\ndestroy them; and having some fear that a drop of\npity might remain in the Jewish heart, he says:\n\n\"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor\n\"show mercy unto them.   * Know therefore\n\"that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God,\n\"which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that\n\"love him and keep his commandments to a thousand\n\"generations, and repayeth them that hate him to\n\"their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to\n\"him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.\"\nThis is the description which the merciful, long-suffer-\ning Jehovah gives of himself.\n\nSo, he promises great prosperity to the Jews if\n\n230\n\nthey will only obey his commandments, and says:\n\"And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness,\n\"and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt\n\"upon thee, but will lay them upon all them that\n\"hate thee. And thou shalt consume all the people\n\"which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine\n\"eye shall have no pity upon them.\"\n\nUnder the immediate government of Jehovah,\nmercy was a crime. According to the law of God,\npity was weakness, tenderness was treason, kindness\nwas blasphemy, while hatred and massacre were\nvirtues.\n\nIn the second chapter of Deuteronomy we find\nanother account tending to prove that Jehovah is a\nmerciful God. We find that Sihon, king of Heshbon,\nwould not let the Hebrews pass by him, and the\nreason given is, that \"the Lord God hardened his\n\"spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might\n\"deliver him into the hand\" of the Hebrews. Sihon,\nhis heart having been hardened by God, came out\nagainst the chosen people, and God delivered him to\nthem, and \"they smote him, and his sons, and all his\n\"people, and took all his cities, and utterly destroyed\n\"the men and the women, and the little ones of\n\"every city: they left none to remain.\" And in this\n\n231\n\nsame chapter this same God promises that the dread\nand fear of his chosen people should be \"upon all the\n\"nations that are under the whole heaven,\" and that\n\"they should \"tremble and be in anguish because of\"\nthe Hebrews.\n\nRead the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and see\nhow the Midianites were slain. You will find that\n\"the children of Israel took all the women of Midian\n\"captives, and their little ones,\" that they took \"all\n\"their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods,\"\nthat they slew all the males, and burnt all their cities\nand castles with fire, that they brought the captives\nand the prey and the spoil unto Moses and Eleazar\nthe priest; that Moses was wroth with the officers\nof his host because they had saved all the women\nalive, and thereupon this order was given: \"Kill\n\"every male among the little ones, and kill every\n\"woman,   * but all the women children\n\"keep alive for yourselves.\"\n\nAfter this, God himself spake unto Moses, and\nsaid: \"Take the sum of the prey that was taken,\n\"both of man and of beast, thou and Eleazar the\n\"priest   * and divide the prey into two\n\"parts, between those who went to war, and between\n\"all the congregation, and levy a tribute unto the\n\n232\n\n\"Lord, one soul of five hundred of the persons,\n\"and the cattle; take it of their half and give it to\n\"the priest for an offering   * and of the\n\"children of Israel's half, take one portion of fifty of\n\"the persons and the animals and give them unto\n\"the Levites.   * And Moses and the priest\n\"did as the Lord had commanded.\" It seems that\nthey had taken six hundred and seventy-five thou-\nsand sheep, seventy-two thousand beeves, sixty-one\nthousand asses, and thirty-two thousand women\nchildren and maidens. And it seems, by the fortieth\nverse, _that the Lord's tribute of the maidens was thirty-\ntwo_,—the rest were given to the soldiers and to the\ncongregation of the Lord.\n\nWas anything more infamous ever recorded in the\nannals of barbarism? And yet we are told that the\nBible is an inspired book, that it is not a cruel book,\nand that Jehovah is a being of infinite mercy.\n\nIn the twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers we find\nthat the Israelites had joined themselves unto Baal-\nPeor, and thereupon the anger of the Lord was\nkindled against them, as usual. No being ever lost\nhis temper more frequently than this Jehovah. Upon\nthis particular occasion, \"the Lord said unto Moses,\n\"Take all the heads of the people, and hang them\n\n233\n\n\"up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce\n\"anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.\"\nAnd thereupon \"Moses said unto the judges of Israel,\n\"Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto\n\"Baal-peor.\"\n\nJust as soon as these people were killed, and their\nheads hung up before the Lord against the sun, and\na horrible double murder of a too merciful Israelite\nand a Midianitish woman, had been committed by\nPhinehas, the son of Eleazar, \"the plague was stayed\n\"from the children of Israel.\" Twenty-four thousand\nhad died. Thereupon, \"the Lord spake unto Moses\n\"and said\"—and it is a very merciful commandment\n—\"Vex the Midianites and smite them.\"\n\nIn the twenty-first chapter of Numbers is more evi-\ndence that God is merciful and compassionate.\n\nThe children of Israel had become discouraged.\nThey had wandered so long in the desert that they\nfinally cried out: \"Wherefore have ye brought us\n\"up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There\n\"is no bread, there is no water, and our soul loatheth\n\"this light bread.\" Of course they were hungry and\nthirsty. Who would not complain under similar cir-\ncumstances? And yet, on account of this complaint,\nthe God of infinite tenderness and compassion sent\n\n234\n\nserpents among them, and these serpents bit them—\nbit the cheeks of children, the breasts of maidens,\nand the withered faces of age. Why would a God\ndo such an infamous thing? Why did he not, as the\nleader of this people, his chosen children, feed them\nbetter? Certainly an infinite God had the power\nto satisfy their hunger and to quench their thirst.\nHe who overwhelmed a world with water, certainly\ncould have made a few brooks, cool and babbling,\nto follow his chosen people through all their jour-\nneying. He could have supplied them with miracu-\nlous food.\n\nHow fortunate for the Jews that Jehovah was not\nrevengeful, that he was so slow to anger, so patient,\nso easily pleased. What would they have done had\nhe been exacting, easily incensed, revengeful, cruel,\nor blood-thirsty?\n\nIn the sixteenth chapter of Numbers, an account is\ngiven of a rebellion. It seems that Korah, Dathan\nand Abiram got tired of Moses and Aaron. They\nthought the priests were taking a little too much\nupon themselves. So Moses told them to have two\nhundred and fifty of their men bring their censers\nand put incense in them before the Lord, and stand\nin the door of the tabernacle of the congregation\n\n235\n\nwith Moses and Aaron. That being done, the Lord\nappeared, and told Moses and Aaron to separate\nthemselves from the people, that he might consume\nthem all in a moment. Moses and Aaron, having a\nlittle compassion, begged God not to kill everybody.\nThe people were then divided, and Dathan and\nAbiram came out and stood in the door of their\ntents with their wives and their sons and their little\nchildren. And Moses said:\n\n\"Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent\n\"me to do all these works; for I have not done them\n\"of my mine own mind. If these men die the\n\"common death of all men, or if they be visited\n\"after the common visitation of all men, then the\n\"Lord hath not sent me. But if the Lord make a\n\"new thing, and the earth open her mouth and\n\"swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them,\n\"and they go down quick into the pit, then ye shall\n\"understand that these men have provoked the\n\"Lord.\" The moment he ceased speaking, \"the\n\"ground clave asunder that was under them; and\n\"the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up,\n\"and their houses, and all the men that appertained\n\"unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that\n\"appertained to them went down alive into the pit,\n\n236\n\n\"and the earth closed upon them, and they perished\n\"from among the congregation.\"\n\nThis, according to Mr. Talmage, was the act of an\nexceedingly merciful God, prompted by infinite kind-\nness, and moved by eternal pity. What would he\nhave done had he acted from motives of revenge?\nWhat would he Jiave done had he been remorse-\nlessly cruel and wicked?\n\nIn addition to those swallowed by the earth, the\ntwo hundred and fifty men that offered the incense\nwere consumed by \"a fire that came out from the\n\"Lord.\" And not only this, but the same merciful\nJehovah wished to consume all the people, and he\nwould have consumed them all, only that Moses pre-\nvailed upon Aaron to take a censer and put fire\ntherein from off the altar of incense and go quickly\nto the congregation and make an atonement for them.\nHe was not quick enough. The plague had already\nbegun; and before he could possibly get the censers\nand incense among the people, fourteen thousand and\nseven hundred had died of the plague. How many\nmore might have died, if Jehovah had not been so\nslow to anger and so merciful and tender to his\nchildren, we have no means of knowing.\n\nIn the thirteenth chapter of the same book of\n\n237\n\nNumbers, we find that some spies were sent over\ninto the promised land, and that they brought back\ngrapes and figs and pomegranates, and reported that\nthe whole land was flowing with milk and honey, but\nthat the people were strong, that the cities were\nwalled, and that the nations in the promised land\nwere mightier than the Hebrews. They reported that\nall the people they met were men of a great stature,\nthat they had seen \"the giants, the sons of Anak\n\"which come of giants,\" compared with whom the\nIsraelites were \"in their own sight as grasshoppers,\n\"and so were we in their sight.\" Entirely discour-\naged by these reports, \"all the congregation lifted up\n\"their voice and cried, and the people wept that\n\"night   * and murmured against Moses and\n\"against Aaron, and said unto them: Would God\n\"that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would\n\"God we had died in this wilderness!\" Some of\nthem thought that it would be better to go back,—\nthat they might as well be slaves in Egypt as to be\nfood for giants in the promised land. They did not\nwant their bones crunched between the teeth of the\nsons of Anak.\n\nJehovah got angry again, and said to Moses:\n\"How long will these people provoke me?   *\n\n238\n\n\"I will smite them with pestilence, and disinherit\n\"them.\" But Moses said: Lord, if you do this,\nthe Egyptians will hear of it, and they will say that\nyou were not able to bring your people into the\npromised land. Then he proceeded to flatter him by\ntelling him how merciful and long-suffering he had\nbeen. Finally, Jehovah concluded to pardon the\npeople this time, but his pardon depended upon the\nviolation of his promise, for he said: \"They shall\n\"not see the land which I sware unto their fathers,\n\"neither shall any of them that provoked me see it;\n\"but my servant Caleb,   * him will I bring\n\"into the land.\" And Jehovah said to the people:\n\"Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness, and all\n\"that were numbered of you according to your\n\"whole number, from twenty years old and upward,\n\"which have murmured against me, ye shall not\n\"come into the land concerning which I sware to\n\"make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of\n\"Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your\n\"little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them\n\"will I bring in, and they shall know the land\n\"which ye have despised. But as for you, your\n\"carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. And your\n\"children shall wander in the wilderness forty\n\n239\n\n\"years   * until your carcasses be wasted in\n\"the wilderness.\"\n\nAnd all this because the people were afraid of\ngiants, compared with whom they were but as grass-\nhoppers.\n\nSo we find that at one time the people became\nexceedingly hungry. They had no flesh to eat.\nThere were six hundred thousand men of war, and\nthey had nothing to feed on but manna. They\nnaturally murmured and complained, and thereupon a\nwind from the Lord went forth and brought quails\nfrom the sea, (quails are generally found in the sea,)\n\"and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's\n\"journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey\n\"on the other side, round about the camp, and as it\n\"were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.\n\"And the people stood up all that day, and all that\n\"night, and all the next day, and they gathered the\n\"quails.   * And while the flesh was yet be-\n\"tween their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of\n\"the Lord was kindled against the people, and the\n\"Lord smote the people with a very great plague.\"\n\nYet he is slow to anger, long-suffering, merciful\nand just.\n\nIn the thirty-second chapter of Exodus, is the ac-\n\n240\n\ncount of the golden calf. It must be borne in mind\nthat the worship of this calf by the people was before\nthe Ten Commandments had been given to them.\nChristians now insist that these commandments must\nhave been inspired, because no human being could\nhave constructed them,—could have conceived of\nthem.\n\nIt seems, according to this account, that Moses had\nbeen up in the mount with God, getting the Ten Com-\nmandments, and that while he was there the people\nhad made the golden calf. When he came down and\nsaw them, and found what they had done, having in\nhis hands the two tables, the work of God, he cast\nthe tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath\nthe mount. He then took the calf which they had\nmade, ground it to powder, strewed it in the water,\nand made the children of Israel drink of it. And in the\ntwenty-seventh verse we are told what the Lord did:\n\"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man\n\"his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate\n\"to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man\n\"his brother, and every man his companion, and\n\"every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi\n\"did according to the word of Moses; and there fell\n\"of the people that day about three thousand men.\"\n\n241\n\nThe reason for this slaughter is thus given: \"For\n\"Moses had said: Consecrate yourselves to-day to\n\"the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon\n\" his brother, that he may bestow upon you a blessing\n\"this day.\"\n\nNow, it must be remembered that there had not\nbeen as yet a promulgation of the commandment\nu Thou shalt have no other gods before me.\" This\nwas a punishment for the infraction of a law before\nthe law was known—before the commandment had\nbeen given. Was it cruel, or unjust?\n\nDoes the following sound as though spoken by a\nGod of mercy: \"I will make mine arrows drunk\n\"with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh\"?\nAnd yet this is but a small part of the vengeance and\ndestruction which God threatens to his enemies, as\nrecorded in the thirty-second chapter of the book of\nDeuteronomy.\n\nIn the sixty-eighth Psalm is found this merciful\npassage: \"That thy foot may be dipped in the blood\n\"of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the\n\"same.\n\nSo we find in the eleventh chapter of Joshua the\nreason why the Canaanites and other nations made\nwar upon the Jews. It is as follows: \"For it was of\n\n242\n\n\"the Lord to harden their hearts that they should\n\"come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy\n\"them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but\n\"that he might destroy them.\"\n\nRead the thirtieth chapter of Exodus and you will\nfind that God gave to Moses a recipe for making\nthe oil of holy anointment, and in the thirty-second\nverse we find that no one was to make any oil like it\nand in the next verse it is declared that whoever\ncompounded any like it, or whoever put any of it on\na stranger, should be cut off from the Lord's people.\n\nIn the same chapter, a recipe is given for per-\nfumery, and it is declared that whoever shall make\nany like it, or that smells like it, shall suffer death.\n\nIn the next chapter, it is decreed that if any one fails\nto keep the Sabbath \"he shall be surely put to death.\"\n\nThere are in the Pentateuch hundreds and hun-\ndreds of passages showing the cruelty of Jehovah.\nWhat could have been more cruel than the flood?\nWhat more heartless than to overwhelm a world?\nWhat more merciless than to cover a shoreless sea\nwith the corpses of men, women and children?\n\nThe Pentateuch is filled with anathemas, with\ncurses, with words of vengeance, of jealousy, of\nhatred, and brutality. By reason of these passages,\n\n243\n\nmillions of people have plucked from their hearts the\nflowers of pity and justified the murder of women\nand the assassination of babes.\n\nIn the second chapter of Second Kings we find\nthat the prophet Elisha was on his way to a place\ncalled Bethel, and as he was going, there came forth\nlittle children out of the city and mocked him and\nsaid: \"Go up thou bald head; Go up thou bald\n\"head! And he turned back and looked on them\n\"and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And\n\"there came forth two she bears out of the wood and\n\"tare forty and two children of them.\"\n\nOf course he obtained his miraculous power from\nJehovah; and there must have been some communi-\ncation between Jehovah and the bears. Why did the\nbears come? How did they happen to be there?\nHere is a prophet of God cursing children in the\nname of the Lord, and thereupon these children\nare torn in fragments by wild beasts.\n\nThis is the mercy of Jehovah; and yet I am told\nthat the Bible has nothing cruel in it; that it preaches\nonly mercy, justice, charity, peace; that all hearts\nare softened by reading it; that the savage nature of\nman is melted into tenderness and pity by it, and that\nonly the totally depraved can find evil in it.\n\n244\n\nAnd so I might go on, page after page, book after\nbook, in the Old Testament, and describe the cruelties\ncommitted in accordance with the commands of\nJehovah.\n\nBut all the cruelties in the Old Testament are ab-\nsolute mercies compared with the hell of the New\nTestament. In the Old Testament God stops with\nthe grave. He seems to have been satisfied when he\nsaw his enemies dead, when he saw their flesh rotting\nin the open air, or in the beaks of birds, or in the teeth\nof wild beasts. But in the New Testament, ven-\ngeance does not stop with the grave. It begins there,\nand stops never. The enemies of Jehovah are to be\npursued through all the ages of eternity. There is to\nbe no forgiveness—no cessation, no mercy, nothing\nbut everlasting pain.\n\nAnd yet we are told that the author of hell is a\nbeing of infinite mercy.\n\nSecond; All intelligent Christians will admit that\nthere are many passages in the Bible that, if found in\nthe Koran, they would regard as impure and immoral.\n\nIt is not necessary for me to specify the passages,\nnor to call the attention of the public to such things.\nI am willing to trust the judgment of every honest\nreader, and the memory of every biblical student.\n\n245\n\nThe Old Testament upholds polygamy. That is\ninfinitely impure. It sanctions concubinage. That\nis impure; nothing could or can be worse. Hun-\ndreds of things are publicly told that should have re-\nmained unsaid. No one is made better by reading\nthe history of Tamar, or the biography of Lot, or\nthe memoirs of Noah, of Dinah, of Sarah and\nAbraham, or of Jacob and Leah and Rachel and others\nthat I do not care to mention. No one is improved\nin his morals by reading these things.\n\nAll I mean to say is, that the Bible is like other\nbooks produced by other nations in the same stage\nof civilization. What one age considers pure, the\nnext considers impure. What one age may consider\njust, the next may look upon as infamous. Civiliza-\ntion is a growth. It is continually dying, and continu-\nally being born. Old branches rot and fall, new buds\nappear. It is a perpetual twilight, and a perpetual\ndawn—the death of the old, and the birth of the new.\n\nI do not say, throw away the Bible because there\nare some foolish passages in it, but I say, throw away\nthe foolish passages. Don't throw away wisdom\nbecause it is found in company with folly; but do not\nsay that folly is wisdom, because it is found in its\ncompany. All that is true in the Bible is true whether\n\n246\n\nit is inspired or not. All that is true did not need to\nbe inspired. Only that which is not true needs the\nassistance of miracles and wonders. I read the Bible\nas I read other books. What I believe to be good,\nI admit is good; what I think is bad, I say is bad;\nwhat I believe to be true, I say is true, and what I\nbelieve to be false, I denounce as false.\n\nThird. Let us see whether there are any contra-\ndictions in the Bible.\n\nA little book has been published, called \"Self\n\"Contradictions of the Bible,\" by J. P. Mendum, of\nThe Boston Investigator. I find many of the apparent\ncontradictions of the Bible noted in this book.\n\nWe all know that the Pentateuch is filled with the\ncommandments of God upon the subject of sacrificing\nanimals. We know that God declared, again and\nagain, that the smell of burning flesh was a sweet\nsavor to him. Chapter after chapter is filled with direc-\ntions how to kill the beasts that were set apart for\nsacrifices; what to do with their blood, their flesh and\ntheir fat. And yet, in the seventh chapter of Jeremiah,\nall this is expressly denied, in the following language:\n\"For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded\n\"them in the day that I brought them out of the land\n\"of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.\"\n\n247\n\nAnd in the sixth chapter of Jeremiah, the same\nJehovah says; \"Your burnt offerings are not ac-\n\"ceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.\"\n\nIn the Psalms, Jehovah derides the idea of\nsacrifices, and says: \"Will I eat of the flesh of\n\"bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God\n\"thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most\n\"High.\"\n\nSo I find in Isaiah the following: \"Bring no more\n\"vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;\n\"the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of as-\n\"semblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even\n\"the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your\n\"appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble\n\"to me; I am weary to bear them.\" \"To what\n\"purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?\n\"saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of\n\"rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not\n\"in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.\n\"When ye come to appear before me, who hath re-\n\"quired this at your hand?\"\n\nSo I find in James: \"Let no man say when he is\n\"tempted: I am tempted of God; for God cannot be\n\"tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man;\"\nand yet in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis I\n\n248\n\nfind this: \"And it came to pass after these things,\n\"that God did tempt Abraham.\"\n\nIn Second Samuel we see that he tempted David.\nHe also tempted Job, and Jeremiah says: \"O Lord,\n\"thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.\" To\nsuch an extent was Jeremiah deceived, that in the\nfourteenth chapter and eighteenth verse we find him\ncrying out to the Lord: \"Wilt thou be altogether\n\"unto me as a liar?\"\n\nSo in Second Thessalonians: \"For these things\n\"God shall send them strong delusions, that they\n\"should believe a lie.\"\n\nSo in First Kings, twenty-second chapter: \"Behold,\n\"the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all\n\"these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil\n\"concerning thee.\"\n\nSo in Ezekiel: \"And if the prophet be deceived\n\"when he hath spoken a thing, I, the Lord, have de-\n\"ceived that prophet.\"\n\nSo I find: \"Thou shalt not bear false witness;\"\nand in the book of Revelation: \"All liars shall have\n\"their part in the lake which burneth with fire and\n\"brimstone;\" yet in First Kings, twenty-second\nchapter, I find the following: \"And the Lord said:\n\"Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and\n\n249\n\n\"fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this\n\"manner, and another said on that manner. And\n\"there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord,\n\"and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said\n\"unto him: Wherewith? And he said: I will go\n\"forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all\n\"his prophets. And he said: Thou shalt persuade\n\"him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so.\"\n\nIn the Old Testament we find contradictory laws\nabout the same thing, and contradictory accounts of\nthe same occurrences.\n\nIn the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first\naccount of the giving of the Ten Commandments. In\nthe thirty-fourth chapter another account of the same\ntransaction is given. These two accounts could not\nhave been written by the same person. Read them,\nand you will be forced to admit that both of them\ncannot by any possibility be true. They differ in so\nmany particulars, and the commandments themselves\nare so different, that it is impossible that both can be\ntrue.\n\nSo there are two histories of the creation. If you\nwill read the first and second chapters of Genesis,\nyou will find two accounts inconsistent with each\nother, both of which cannot be true. The first account\n\n250\n\nends with the third verse of the second chapter of\nGenesis. By the first account, man and woman were\nmade at the same time, and made last of all. In the\nsecond account, not to be too critical, all the beasts\nof the field were made before Eve was, and Adam\nwas made before the beasts of the field; whereas in\nthe first account, God made all the animals before he\nmade Adam. In the first account there is nothing\nabout the rib or the bone or the side,—that is only\nfound in the second account. In the first account,\nthere is nothing about the Garden of Eden, nothing\nabout the four rivers, nothing about the mist that\nwent up from the earth and watered the whole face\nof the ground; nothing said about making man from\ndust; nothing about God breathing into his nostrils\nthe breath of life; yet according to the second ac-\ncount, the Garden of Eden was planted, and all the\nanimals were made before Eve was formed. It is\nimpossible to harmonize the two accounts.\n\nSo, in the first account, only the word God is\nused—\"God said so and so,—God did so and so.\"\nIn the second account he is called Lord God,—\"the\n\"Lord God formed man,\"—\"the Lord God caused\n\"it to rain,\"—\"the Lord God planted a garden.\" It\nis now admitted that the book of Genesis is made up\n\n251\n\nof two stories, and it is very easy to take them apart\nand show exactly how they were put together.\n\nSo there are two stories of the flood, differing\nalmost entirely from each other—that is to say, so\ncontradictory that both cannot be true.\n\nThere are two accounts of the manner in which\nSaul was made king, and the accounts are inconsistent\nwith each other.\n\nScholars now everywhere admit that the copyists\nmade many changes, pieced out fragments, and made\nadditions, interpolations, and meaningless repetitions.\nIt is now generally conceded that the speeches of\nElihu, in Job, were interpolated, and most of the\nprophecies were made by persons whose names even\nare not known.\n\nThe manuscripts of the Old Testament were not\nalike. The Greek version differed from the Hebrew,\nand there was no generally received text of the Old\nTestament until after the beginning of the Christian\nera. Marks and points to denote vowels were in-\nvented probably in the seventh century after Christ;\nand whether these marks and points were put in the\nproper places, is still an open question. The Alex-\nandrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint,\ntranslated by seventy-two learned Jews assisted by\n\n252\n\nmiraculous power, about two hundred years before\nChrist, could not, it is now said, have been translated\nfrom the Hebrew text that we now have. This can\nonly be accounted for by supposing that we have a\ndifferent Hebrew text. The early Christians adopted\nthe Septuagint and were satisfied for a time; but so\nmany errors were found, and so many were scanning\nevery word in search of something to assist their\npeculiar views, that new versions were produced,\nand the new versions all differed somewhat from the\nSeptuagint as well as from each other. These ver-\nsions were mostly in Greek. The first Latin Bible\nwas produced in Africa, and no one has ever found\nout which Latin manuscript was original. Many were\nproduced, and all differed from each other. These\nLatin versions were compared with each other and\nwith the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was made\nin the fifth century, and the old ones held their own\nfor about four hundred years, and no one knows\nwhich version was right. Besides, there were Ethi-\nopie, Egyptian, Armenian and several other ver-\nsions, all differing from each other as well as from all\nothers. It was not until the fourteenth century that\nthe Bible was translated into German, and not until\nthe fifteenth that Bibles were printed in the principal\n\n253\n\nlanguages of Europe; and most of these Bibles\ndiffered from each other, and gave rise to endless\ndisputes and to almost numberless crimes.\n\nNo man in the world is learned enough, nor has\nhe time enough, even if he could live a thousand\nyears, to find what books belonged to and consti-\ntuted the Old Testament. He could not ascertain\nthe authors of the books, nor when they were written,\nnor what they mean. Until a man has sufficient\ntime to do all this, no one can tell whether he be-\nlieves the Bible or not. It is sufficient, however, to\nsay that the Old Testament is filled with contradic-\ntions as to the number of men slain in battle, as to\nthe number of years certain kings reigned, as to the\nnumber of a woman's children, as to dates of events,\nand as to locations of towns and cities.\n\nBesides all this, many of its laws are contradictory,\noften commanding and prohibiting the same thing.\n\nThe New Testament also is filled with contradic-\ntions. The gospels do not even agree upon the\nterms of salvation. They do not even agree as to\nthe gospel of Christ, as to the mission of Christ.\nThey do not tell the same story regarding the be-\ntrayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascen-\nsion of Christ. John is the only one that ever heard\n\n254\n\nof being \"born again.\" The evangelists do not give\nthe same account of the same miracles, and the\nmiracles are not given in the same order. They do\nnot agree even in the genealogy of Christ.\n\nFourth. Is the Bible scientific? In my judgment\nit is not\n\nIt is unscientific to say that this world was \"cre-\n\"ated that the universe was produced by an infinite\nbeing, who had existed an eternity prior to such\n\"creation.\" My mind is such that I cannot possibly\nconceive of a \"creation.\" Neither can I conceive of\nan infinite being who dwelt in infinite space an infi-\nnite length of time.\n\nI do not think it is scientific to say that the uni-\nverse was made in six days, or that this world is only\nabout six thousand years old, or that man has only\nbeen upon the earth for about six thousand years.\n\nIf the Bible is true, Adam was the first man. The\nage of Adam is given, the age of his children, and\nthe time, according to the Bible, was kept and known\nfrom Adam, so that if the Bible is true, man has only\nbeen in this world about six thousand years. In my\njudgment, and in the judgment of every scientific\nman whose judgment is worth having or quoting,\nman inhabited this earth for thousands of ages prior\n\n255\n\nto the creation of Adam. On one point the Bible is\nat least certain, and that is, as to the life of Adam.\nThe genealogy is given, the pedigree is there, and it\nis impossible to escape the conclusion that, according\nto the Bible, man has only been upon this earth\nabout six thousand years. There is no chance there\nto say \"long periods of time,\" or \"geological ages.\"\nThere we have the years. And as to the time of the\ncreation of man, the Bible does not tell the truth.\n\nWhat is generally called \"The Fall of Man\" is\nunscientific. God could not have made a moral\ncharacter for Adam. Even admitting the rest of the\nstory to be true, Adam certainly had to make char-\nacter for himself.\n\nThe idea that there never would have been any\ndisease or death in this world had it not been for the\neating of the forbidden fruit is preposterously unsci-\nentific. Admitting that Adam was made only six\nthousand years ago, death was in the world millions of\nyears before that time. The old rocks are filled with re-\nmains of what were once living and breathing animals.\nContinents were built up with the petrified corpses of\nanimals. We know, therefore, that death did not enter\nthe world because of Adam's sin. We know that life\nand death are but successive links in an eternal chain.\n\n256\n\nSo it is unscientific to say that thorns and brambles\nwere produced by Adam's sin.\n\nIt is also unscientific to say that labor was pro-\nnounced as a curse upon man. Labor is not a curse.\nLabor is a blessing. Idleness is a curse.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that the sons of God,\nliving, we suppose, in heaven, fell in love with the\ndaughters of men, and that on account of this a\nflood was sent upon the earth that covered the\nhighest mountains.\n\nThe whole story of the flood is unscientific, and no\nscientific man worthy of the name, believes it.\n\nNeither is the story of the tower of Babel a scien-\ntific thing. Does any scientific man believe that\nGod confounded the language of men for fear they\nwould succeed in building a tower high enough to\nreach to heaven?\n\nIt is not scientific to say that angels were in the\nhabit of walking about the earth, eating veal dressed\nwith butter and milk, and making bargains about the\ndestruction of cities.\n\nThe story of Lot's wife having been turned into a\npillar of salt is extremely unscientific.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that people at one time lived\nto be nearly a thousand years of age. The history\n\n257\n\nof the world shows that human life is lengthening\ninstead of shortening.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that the infinite God\nwrestled with Jacob and got the better of him, put-\nting his thigh out of joint.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that God, in the likeness of\na flame of fire, inhabited a bush.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that a stick could be\nchanged into a living snake. Living snakes can not\nbe made out of sticks. There are not the necessary\nelements in a stick to make a snake.\n\nIt is not scientific to say that God changed water\ninto blood. All the elements of blood are not in\nwater.\n\nIt is unscientific to declare that dust was changed\ninto lice.\n\nIt is not scientific to say that God caused a thick\ndarkness over the land of Egypt, and yet allowed it\nto be light in the houses of the Jews.\n\nIt is not scientific to say that about seventy people\ncould, in two hundred and fifteen years increase to\nthree millions.\n\nIt is not scientific to say that an infinitely good\nGod would destroy innocent people to get revenge\nupon a king.\n\n258\n\nIt is not scientific to say that slavery was once\nright, that polygamy was once a virtue, and that ex-\ntermination was mercy.\n\nIt is not scientific to assert that a being of infinite\npower and goodness went into partnership with in-\nsects,—granted letters of marque and reprisal to\nhornets.\n\nIt is unscientific to insist that bread was really\nrained from heaven.\n\nIt is not scientific to suppose that an infinite being\nspent forty days and nights furnishing Moses with plans\nand specifications for a tabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat,\ncherubs of gold, a table, four rings, some dishes, some\nspoons, one candlestick, several bowls, a few knobs,\nseven lamps, some snuffers, a pair of tongs, some cur-\ntains, a roof for a tent of rams' skins dyed red, a few\nboards, an altar with horns, ash pans, basins and flesh\nhooks, shovels and pots and sockets of silver and\nouches of gold and pins of brass—for all of which this\nGod brought with him patterns from heaven.\n\nIt is not scientific to say that when a man commits\na sin, he can settle with God by killing a sheep.\n\nIt is not scientific to say that a priest, by laying\nhis hands on the head of a goat, can transfer the sins\nof a people to the animal.\n\n259\n\nWas it scientific to endeavor to ascertain whether\na woman was virtuous or not, by compelling her to\ndrink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the\nsanctuary?\n\nIs it scientific to say that a dry stick budded,\nblossomed, and bore almonds; or that the ashes of a\nred heifer mixed with water can cleanse us of sin;\nor that a good being gave cities into the hands of the\nJews in consideration of their murdering all the in-\nhabitants?\n\nIs it scientific to say that an animal saw an angel,\nand conversed with a man?\n\nIs it scientific to imagine that thrusting a spear\nthrough the body of a woman ever stayed a plague?\n\nIs it scientific to say that a river cut itself in two\nand allowed the lower end to run off?\n\nIs it scientific to assert that seven priests blew\nseven rams' horns loud enough to blow down the\nwalls of a city?\n\nIs it scientific to say that the sun stood still in the\nmidst of heaven, and hasted not to go down for\nabout a whole day, and that the moon also stayed?\n\nIs it scientifically probable that an angel of the\nLord devoured unleavened cakes and broth with\nfire that came out of the end of a stick, as he sat\n\n260\n\nunder an oak tree; or that God made known his\nwill by letting dew fall on wool without wetting the\nground around it; or that an angel of God appeared\nto Manoah in the absence of her husband, and that\nthis angel afterwards went up in a flame of fire, and\nas the result of this visit a child was born whose\nstrength was in his hair?\n\nIs it scientific to say that the muscle of a man de-\npended upon the length of his locks?\n\nIs it unscientific to deny that water gushed from a\nhollow place in a dry bone?\n\nIs it evidence of a thoroughly scientific mind to\nbelieve that one man turned over a house so large\nthat three thousand people were on its roof?\n\nIs it purely scientific to say that a man was once\nfed by the birds of the air, who brought him bread\nand meat every morning and evening, and that after-\nward an angel turned cook and prepared two sup-\npers in one night, for the same prophet, who ate\nenough to last him forty days and forty nights?\n\nIs it scientific to say that a river divided because\nthe water had been struck with a cloak; or that a\nman actually went to heaven in a chariot of fire\ndrawn by horses of fire; or that a being of infinite\nmercy would destroy children for laughing at a bald-\n\n261\n\nheaded prophet; or curse children and childrens\nchildren with leprosy for a father's fault; or that he\nmade iron float in water; or that when one corpse\ntouched another it came to life; or that the sun went\nbackward in heaven so that the shadow on a sun-\ndial went back ten degrees, as a sign that a miserable\nbarbarian king would get well?\n\nIs it scientific to say that the earth not only\nstopped in its rotary motion, but absolutely turned\nthe other way,—that its motion was reversed simply\nas a sign to a petty king?\n\nIs it scientific to say that Solomon made gold and\nsilver at Jerusalem as plentiful as stones, when we\nknow that there were kings in his day who could\nhave thrown away the value of the whole of Palestine\nwithout missing the amount?\n\nIs it scientific to say that Solomon exceeded all\nthe kings of the earth in glory, when his country\nwas barren, without roads, when his people were\nfew, without commerce, without the arts, without the\nsciences, without education, without luxuries?\n\nAccording to the Bible, as long as Jehovah attended\nto the affairs of the Jews, they had nothing but war,\npestilence and famine; after Jehovah abandoned them,\nand the Christians ceased, in a measure, to persecute\n\n262\n\nthem, the Jews became the most prosperous of people.\nSince Jehovah in his anger cast them away, they have\nproduced painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen,\ncomposers, soldiers and philosophers.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe that God ever pre-\nvented rain, that he ever caused famine, that he ever\nsent locusts to devour the wheat and corn, that he\never relied on pestilence for the government of man-\nkind; or that he ever killed children to get even with\ntheir parents.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe that the king of Egypt\ninvaded Palestine with seventy thousand horsemen\nand twelve hundred chariots of war. There was not,\nat that time, a road in Palestine over which a chariot\ncould be driven.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe that in a battle between\nJeroboam and Abijah, the army of Abijah slew in\none day five hundred thousand chosen men.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe that Zerah, the Ethio-\npian, invaded Palestine with a million of men who\nwere overthrown and destroyed; or that Jehoshaphat\nhad a standing army of nine hundred and sixty\nthousand men.\n\nIt is unscientific to believe that Jehovah advertised\nfor a liar, as is related in Second Chronicles.\n\n263\n\nIt is not scientific to believe that fire refused to\nburn, or that water refused to wet.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe in dreams, in visions,\nand in miracles.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe that children have\nbeen born without fathers, that the dead have ever\nbeen raised to life, or that people have bodily as-\ncended to heaven taking their clothes with them.\n\nIt is not scientific to believe in the supernatural.\nScience dwells in the realm of fact, in the realm of\ndemonstration. Science depends upon human ex-\nperience, upon observation, upon reason.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that an innocent man can\nbe punished in place of a criminal, and for a criminal,\nand that the criminal, on account of such punishment,\ncan be justified.\n\nIt is unscientific to say that a finite sin deserves\ninfinite punishment.\n\nIt is unscientific to believe that devils can inhabit\nhuman beings, or that they can take possession of\nswine, or that the devil could bodily take a man, or\nthe Son of God, and carry him to the pinnacle of a\ntemple.\n\nIn short, the foolish, the unreasonable, the false,\nthe miraculous and the supernatural are unscientific.\n\n264\n\nQuestion. Mr. Talmage gives his reason for\naccepting the New Testament, and says: \"You\n\"can trace it right out. Jerome and Eusebius in the\n\"first century, and Origen in the second century,\n\"gave lists of the writers of the New Testament.\n\"These lists correspond with our list of the writers\n\"of the New Testament, showing that precisely as\n\"we have it, they had it in the third and fourth cen-\n\"turies. Where did they get it? From Irenaeus.\n\"Where did he get it? From Polycarp. Where did\n\"Polycarp get it? From Saint John, who was a per-\n\"sonal associate of Jesus. The line is just as clear\n\"as anything ever was clear.\" How do you under-\nstand this matter, and has Mr. Talmage stated the\nfacts?\n\nAnswer. Let us examine first the witnesses pro-\nduced by Mr. Talmage. We will also call attention\nto the great principle laid down by Mr. Talmage for\nthe examination of evidence,—that where a witness\nis found false in one particular, his entire testimony\nmust be thrown away.\n\nEusebius was born somewhere about two hundred\nand seventy years after Christ. After many vicissi-\ntudes he became, it is said, the friend of Constantine.\nHe made an oration in which he extolled the virtues\n\n265\n\nof this murderer, and had the honor of sitting at the\nright hand of the man who had shed the blood of his\nwife and son. In the great controversy with regard\nto the position that Christ should occupy in the Trinity,\nhe sided with Arius, \"and lent himself to the perse-\n\"cution of the orthodox with Athanasius.\" He in-\nsisted that Jesus Christ was not the same as God,\nand that he was not of equal power and glory. Will\nMr. Talmage admit that his witness told the truth in\nthis? \"He would not even call the Son co-eternal\n\"with God.\"\n\nEusebius must have been an exceedingly truthful\nman. He declared that the tracks of Pharaoh's chariots\nwere in his day visible upon the shores of the Red\nSea; that these tracks had been through all the years\nmiraculously preserved from the action of wind and\nwave, as a supernatural testimony to the fact that\nGod miraculously overwhelmed Pharaoh and his\nhosts.\n\nEusebius also relates that when Joseph and Mary\narrived in Eygpt they took up their abode in Hermopolis,\n\na city of Thebaeus, in which was the superb\ntemple of Serapis. When Joseph and Mary entered\nthe temple, not only the great idol, but all the lesser\nidols fell down before him.\n\n266\n\n\"It is believed by the learned Dr. Lardner, that\n\"Eusebius was the one guilty of the forgery in the\n\"passage found in Josephus concerning Christ. Un-\n\"blushing falsehoods and literary forgeries of the\n\"vilest character darkened the pages of his historical\n\"writings.\" (Waites History.)\n\nFrom the same authority I learn that Eusebius\ninvented an eclipse, and some earthquakes, to agree\nwith the account of the crucifixion. It is also be-\nlieved that Eusebius quoted from works that never\nexisted, and that he pretended a work had been\nwritten by Porphyry, entitled: \"The Philosophy of\n\"Oracles,\" and then quoted from it for the purpose\nof proving the truth of the Christian religion.\n\nThe fact is, Eusebius was utterly destitute of truth.\nHe believed, as many still believe, that he could\nplease God by the fabrication of lies.\n\nIrenaeus lived somewhere about the end of the\nsecond century. \"Very little is known of his early\n\"history, and the accounts given in various biogra-\n\"phies are for the most part conjectural.\" The\nwritings of Irenaeus are known to us principally\nthrough Eusebius, and we know the value of his\ntestimony.\n\nNow, if we are to take the testimony of Irenaeus,\n\n267\n\nwhy not take it? He says that the ministry of Christ\nlasted for twenty years, and that Christ was fifty years\nold at the time of his crucifixion. He also insisted\nthat the \"Gospel of Paul\" was written by Luke, \"a\n\"statement made to give sanction to the gospel of\n\"Luke.\"\n\nIrenaeus insisted that there were four gospels, that\nthere must be, and \"he speaks frequently of these\n\"gospels, and argues that they should be four in\n\"number, neither more nor less, because there are\n\"four universal winds, and four quarters of the\n\"world;\" and he might have added: because\ndonkeys have four legs.\n\nThese facts can be found in \"The History of the\n\"Christian Religion to A. D. 200,\" by Charles B.\nWaite,—a book that Mr. Talmage ought to read.\n\nAccording to Mr. Waite, Irenaeus, in the thirty-\nthird chapter of his fifth book, Adversus Haereses,\ncites from Papias the following sayings of Christ:\n\"The days will come in which vines shall grow\n\"which shall have ten thousand branches, and on\n\"each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig\n\"ten thousand shoots, and in each shoot ten thousand\n\"clusters, and in every one of the clusters ten\n\"thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed\n\n268\n\n\"will give five and twenty metrets of wine.\" Also\nthat \"one thousand million pounds of clear, pure, fine\n\"flour will be produced from one grain of wheat.\"\nIrenaeus adds that \"these things were borne witness\n\"to by Papias the hearer of John and the companion\n\"of Polycarp.\"\n\nIs it possible that the eternal welfare of a human\nbeing depends upon believing the testimony of Poly-\ncarp and Irenaeus? Are people to be saved or lost\non the reputation of Eusebius? Suppose a man is\nfirmly convinced that Polycarp knew nothing about\nSaint John, and that Saint John knew nothing about\nChrist,—what then? Suppose he is convinced that\nEusebius is utterly unworthy of credit,—what then?\nMust a man believe statements that he has every\nreason to think are false?\n\nThe question arises as to the witnesses named by\nMr. Talmage, whether they were competent to decide\nas to the truth or falsehood of the gospels. We have\nthe right to inquire into their mental traits for the\npurpose of giving only due weight to what they have\nsaid.\n\nMr. Bronson C. Keeler is the author of a book\ncalled: \"A Short History of the Bible.\" I avail\nmyself of a few of the facts he has there collected. I\n\n269\n\nfind in this book, that Irenaeus, Clement and Origen\nbelieved in the fable of the Phoenix, and insisted that\nGod produced the bird on purpose to prove the\nprobability of the resurrection of the body. Some\nof the early fathers believed that the hyena changed\nits sex every year. Others of them gave as a reason\nwhy good people should eat only animals with a\ncloven foot, the fact that righteous people lived not\nonly in this world, but had expectations in the next.\nThey also believed that insane people were pos-\nsessed by devils; that angels ate manna; that some\nangels loved the daughters of men and fell; that the\npains of women in childbirth, and the fact that ser-\npents crawl on their bellies, were proofs that the\naccount of the fall, as given in Genesis, is true; that\nthe stag renewed its youth by eating poisonous\nsnakes; that eclipses and comets were signs of God's\nanger; that volcanoes were openings into hell; that\ndemons blighted apples; that a corpse in a cemetery\nmoved to make room for another corpse to be placed\nbeside it. Clement of Alexandria believed that hail\nstorms, tempests and plagues were caused by demons.\nHe also believed, with Mr. Talmage, that the events\nin the life of Abraham were typical and prophetical\nof arithmetic and astronomy.\n\n270\n\nOrigen, another of the witnesses of Mr. Talmage,\nsaid that the sun, moon and stars were living crea-\ntures, endowed with reason and free will, and occa-\nsionally inclined to sin. That they had free will, he\nproved by quoting from Job; that they were rational\ncreatures, he inferred from the fact that they moved.\nThe sun, moon and stars, according to him, were\n\"subject to vanity,\" and he believed that they prayed\nto God through his only begotten son.\n\nThese intelligent witnesses believed that the blight-\ning of vines and fruit trees, and the disease and de-\nstruction that came upon animals and men, were all\nthe work of demons; but that when they had entered\ninto men, the sign of the cross would drive them out.\nThey derided the idea that the earth is round, and\none of them said: \"About the antipodes also, one\n\"can neither hear nor speak without laughter. It is\n\"asserted as something serious that we should be-\n\"lieve that there are men who have their feet oppo-\n\"site to ours. The ravings of Anaxagoras are more\n\"tolerable, who said that snow was black.\"\n\nConcerning these early fathers, Professor Davidson,\nas quoted by Mr. Keeler, uses the following lan-\nguage: \"Of the three fathers who contributed\n\"most to the growth of the canon, Irenaeus was\n\n 271\n\n\"credulous and blundering; Tertullian passionate\n\"and one-sided; and Clement of Alexandria, im-\n\"bued with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was\n\"mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics. Their\n\"assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration.\"\nThese early fathers relied upon by Mr. Talmage,\nquoted from books now regarded as apocryphal—\nbooks that have been thrown away by the church\nand are no longer considered as of the slightest\nauthority. Upon this subject I again quote Mr.\nKeeler: \"Clement quoted the 'Gospel according to\n\"'the Hebrews,' which is now thrown away by the\n\"church; he also quoted from the Sibylline books\n\"and the Pentateuch in the same sentence. Origen\n\"frequently cited the Gospel of the Hebrews. Jerome\n\"did the same, and Clement believed in the 'Gospel\n\"'according to the Egyptians.' The Shepherd of\n\"Hermas, a book in high repute in the early church,\n\"and one which distinctly claims to have been\n\"inspired, was quoted by Irenaeus as Scripture.\n\"Clement of Alexandria said it was a divine revela-\n\"tion. Origen said it was divinely inspired, and\n\"quoted it as Holy Scripture at the same time that\n\"he cited the Psalms and Epistles of Paul. Jerome\n\"quoted the 'Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,'\n\n272\n\n\"as divine Scripture. Origen quotes the 'Wisdom\n\"of Solomon' as the 'Word of God' and 'the\n\"'words of Christ himself.' Eusebius of Caesarea\n\"cites it as a * Divine Oracle,' and St. Chrysostom\n\"used it as Scripture. So Eusebius quotes the\n\"thirteenth chapter of Daniel as Scripture, but as a\n\"matter of fact, Daniel has not a thirteenth chapter,—\n\"the church has taken it away. Clement spoke of\n\"the writer of the fourth book of Esdras as a prophet;\n\"he thought Baruch as much the word of God as\n\"any other book, and he quotes it as divine Scripture.\n\"Clement cites Barnabas as an apostle. Origen\n\"quotes from the Epistle of Barnabas, calls it 'Holy\n\" 'Scripture,' and places it on a level with the Psalms\n\"and the Epistles of Paul; and Clement of Alexan-\n\"dria believed in the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and the\n\"'Revelation, of Peter,' and wrote comments upon\n\"these holy books.\"\n\nNothing can exceed the credulity of the early\nfathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They be-\nlieved everything that was miraculous. They believed\neverything except the truth. Anything that really\nhappened was considered of no importance by them.\nThey looked for wonders, miracles, and monstrous\nthings, and—generally found them. They revelled\n\n273\n\nin the misshapen and the repulsive. They did not\nthink it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause.\nThey interpolated, forged, and changed the records to\nsuit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted\nfrom persons who never wrote. They misrepresented\nthose who had written, and their evidence is abso-\nlutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous,\nmendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted,\nhypocritical, and for the most part, insane. Read the\nbook of Revelation, and you will agree with me that\nnothing that ever emanated from a madhouse can\nmore than equal it for incoherence. Most of the\nwritings of the early fathers are of the same kind.\n\nAs to Saint John, the real truth is, that we know\nnothing certainly of him. We do not know that he\never lived.\n\nWe know nothing certainly of Jesus Christ. We\nknow nothing of his infancy, nothing of his youth,\nand we are not sure that such a person ever existed.\n\nWe know nothing of Polycarp. We do not know\nwhere he was born, or where, or how he died. We\nknow nothing for certain about Irenaeus. All the\nnames quoted by Mr. Talmage as his witnesses\nare surrounded by clouds and doubts, by mist and\ndarkness. We only know that many of their\n\n274\n\nstatements are false, and do not know that any of\nthem are true.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the following state-\nment by Mr. Talmage: \"Oh, I have to tell you that no\n\"man ever died for a lie cheerfully and triumphantly\"?\n\nAnswer. There was a time when men \"cheerfully\n\"and triumphantly died\" in defence of the doctrine\nof the \"real presence\" of God in the wafer and wine.\nDoes Mr. Talmage believe in the doctrine of \"tran-\n\"substantiation\"? Yet hundreds have died \"cheer-\n\"fully and triumphantly\" for it. Men have died for\nthe idea that baptism by immersion is the only\nscriptural baptism. Did they die for a lie? If not,\nis Mr. Talmage a Baptist?\n\nGiordano Bruno was an atheist, yet he perished at\nthe stake rather than retract his opinions. He did\nnot expect to be welcomed by angels and by God.\nHe did not look for a crown of glory. He expected\nsimply death and eternal extinction. Does the fact\nthat he died for that belief prove its truth?\n\nThousands upon thousands have died in defence of\nthe religion of Mohammed. Was Mohammed an im-\npostor? Thousands have welcomed death in defence\nof the doctrines of Buddha. Is Buddhism true?\n\n275\n\nSo I might make a tour of the world, and of all\nages of human history, and find that millions and\nmillions have died \"cheerfully and triumphantly\" in\ndefence of their opinions. There is not the slightest\ntruth in Mr. Talmage's statement.\n\nA little while ago, a man shot at the Czar of Russia.\nOn the day of his execution he was asked if he\nwished religious consolation. He replied that he\nbelieved in no religion. What did that prove? It\nproved only the man's honesty of opinion. All the\nmartyrs in the world cannot change, never did\nchange, a falsehood into a truth, nor a truth into\na falsehood. Martyrdom proves nothing but the\nsincerity of the martyr and the cruelty and mean-\nness of his murderers. Thousands and thousands of\npeople have imagined that they knew things, that\nthey were certain, and have died rather than retract\ntheir honest beliefs.\n\nMr. Talmage now says that he knows all about the\nOld Testament, that the prophecies were fulfilled,\nand yet he does not know when the prophecies were\nmade—whether they were made before or after the\nfact. He does not know whether the destruction of\nBabylon was told before it happened, or after. He\nknows nothing upon the subject. He does not know\n\n276\n\nwho made the pretended prophecies. He does not\nknow that Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Habakkuk, or\nHosea ever lived in this world. He does not know\nwho wrote a single book of the Old Testament. He\nknows nothing on the subject. He believes in the\ninspiration of the Old Testament because ancient\ncities finally fell into decay—were overrun and de-\nstroyed by enemies, and he accounts for the fact that\nthe Jew does not lose his nationality by saying that\nthe Old Testament is true.\n\nThe Jews have been persecuted by the Christians,\nand they are still persecuted by them; and Mr. Tal-\nmage seems to think that this persecution was a part\nof Gods plan, that the Jews might, by persecution,\nbe prevented from mingling with other nationalities,\nand so might stand, through the instrumentality of\nperpetual hate and cruelty, the suffering witnesses of\nthe divine truth of the Bible.\n\nThe Jews do not testify to the truth of the Bible,\nbut to the barbarism and inhumanity of Christians—\nto the meanness and hatred of what we are pleased\nto call the \"civilized world.\" They testify to the fact\nthat nothing so hardens the human heart as religion.\n\nThere is no prophecy in the Old Testament fore-\ntelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one\n\n277\n\nword in the Old Testament referring to him in any\nway—not one word. The only way to prove this\nis to take your Bible, and wherever you find these\nwords: \"That it might be fulfilled,\" and \"which\n\"was spoken,\" turn to the Old Testament and\nfind what was written, and you will see that it had\nnot the slightest possible reference to the thing re-\ncounted in the New Testament—not the slightest.\n\nLet us take some of the prophecies of the Bible,\nand see how plain they are, and how beautiful they\nare. Let us see whether any human being can tell\nwhether they have ever been fulfilled or not.\n\nHere is a vision of Ezekiel: \"I looked, and be-\n\"hold a whirlwind came out of the north, a great\n\"cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness\n\"was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the\n\"color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also\n\"out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four\n\"living creatures. And this was their appearance;\n\"they had the likeness of a man. And every one\n\"had four faces, and every one had four wings.\n\"And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of\n\"their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they\n\"sparkled like the color of burnished brass. And\n\"they had the hands of a man under their wings on\n\n278\n\n\"their four sides; and they four had their faces and\n\"their wings. Their wings were joined one to\n\"another; they turned not when-they went; they\n\"went every one straight forward. As for the like-\n\"ness of their faces, they four had the face of a man,\n\"and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they\n\"four had the face of an ox on the left side; they\n\"four also had the face of an eagle.\n\n\"Thus were their faces: and their wings were\n\"stretched upward; two wings of every one were\n\"joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.\n\"And they went every one straight forward: whither\n\"the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not\n\"when they went.\n\n\"As for the likeness of the living creatures, their\n\"appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like\n\"the appearance of lamps: it went up and down\n\"among the living creatures; and the fire was bright,\n\"and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the\n\"living creatures ran and returned as the appearance\n\"of a flash of lightning.\n\n\"Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one\n\"wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with\n\"his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and\n\"their work was like unto the color of a beryl: and\n\n279\n\n\"they four had one likeness: and their appearance\n\"and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle\n\"of a wheel. When they went, they went upon\n\"their four sides: and they turned not when they\n\"went. As for their rings, they were so high that\n\"they were dreadful; and their rings were full of\n\"eyes round about them four. And when the living\n\"creatures went, the wheels went by them: and\n\"when the living creatures were lifted up from the\n\"earth, the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever\n\"the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their\n\"spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over\n\"against them: for the spirit of the living creature\n\"was in the wheels. When those went, these went;\n\"and when those stood, these stood; and when those\n\"were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were\n\"lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the\n\"living creature was in the wheels. And the like-\n\"ness of the firmament upon the heads of the living\n\"creature was as the color of the terrible crystal,\n\"stretched forth over their heads above. And under\n\"the firmament were their wings straight, the one\n\"toward the other; every one had two, which\n\"covered on this side, and every one had two,\n\"which covered on that side, their bodies.\"\n\n280\n\nIs such a vision a prophecy? Is it calculated\nto convey the slightest information? If so, what?\n\nSo, the following vision of the prophet Daniel is\nexceedingly important and instructive:\n\n\"Daniel spake and said: I saw in my vision by\n\"night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven\n\"strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts\n\"came up from the sea, diverse one from another.\n\"The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings:\n\"I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it\n\"was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon\n\"the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to\n\"it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a\n\"bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had\n\"three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of\n\"it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much\n\"flesh.\n\n\"After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard,\n\"which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl;\n\"the beast had also four heads, and dominion was\n\"given to it.\n\n\"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold\n\"a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong ex-\n\"ceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured\n\"and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with\n\n281\n\n\"the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts\n\"that were before it, and it had ten horns. I con-\n\"sidered the horns, and, behold, there came up\n\"among them another little horn, before whom\n\"there were three of the first horns plucked up by\n\"the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like\n\"the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great\n\"things.\"\n\nI have no doubt that this prophecy has been liter-\nally fulfilled, but I am not at present in condition to\ngive the time, place, or circumstances.\n\nA few moments ago, my attention was called to\nthe following extract from The New York Herald of\nthe thirteenth of March, instant:\n\n\"At the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church, Dr. Armi-\n\"tage took as his text, 'A wheel in the middle of a\n\"'wheel'—Ezekiel, i., 16. Here, said the preacher,\n\"are three distinct visions in one—the living crea-\n\"tures, the moving wheels and the fiery throne. We\n\"have time only to stop the wheels of this mystic\n\"chariot of Jehovah, that we may hold holy converse\n\"with Him who rides upon the wings of the wind.\n\"In this vision of the prophet we have a minute and\n\"amplified account of these magnificent symbols or\n\"hieroglyphics, this wondrous machinery which de-\n\n282\n\n\"notes immense attributes and agencies and voli-\n\"tions, passing their awful and mysterious course of\n\"power and intelligence in revolution after revolu-\n\"tion of the emblematical mechanism, in steady and\n\"harmonious advancement to the object after which\n\"they are reaching. We are compelled to look\n\"upon the whole as symbolical of that tender and\n\"endearing providence of which Jesus spoke when\n\"He said, 'The very hairs of your head are num-\n\"* bered.'\"\n\nCertainly, an ordinary person, not having been\nilluminated by the spirit of prophecy, would never\nhave even dreamed that there was the slightest re-\nference in Ezekiel's vision to anything like counting\nhairs. As a commentator, the Rev. Dr. Armitage\nhas no equal; and, in my judgment, no rival. He\nhas placed himself beyond the reach of ridicule. It\nis impossible to say anything about his sermon as\nlaughable as his sermon.\n\nQuestion. Have you no confidence in any pro-\nphecies? Do you take the ground that there never\nhas been a human being who could predict the\nfuture?\n\nAnswer. I admit that a man of average intelli-\n\n283\n\ngence knows that a certain course, when pursued\nlong enough, will bring national disaster, and it is\nperfectly safe to predict the downfall of any and\nevery country in the world. In my judgment,\nnations, like individuals, have an average life.\nEvery nation is mortal. An immortal nation cannot\nbe constructed of mortal individuals. A nation has\na reason for existing, and that reason sustains the\nsame relation to the nation that the acorn does to\nthe oak. The nation will attain its growth—other\nthings being equal. It will reach its manhood and\nits prime, but it will sink into old age, and at last\nmust die. Probably, in a few thousand years, men\nwill be able to calculate the average life of nations,\nas they now calculate the average life of persons.\nThere has been no period since the morning of his-\ntory until now, that men did not know of dead and\ndying nations. There has always been a national\ncemetery. Poland is dead, Turkey is dying. In\nevery nation are the seeds of dissolution. Not only\nnations die, but races of men. A nation is born,\nbecomes powerful, luxurious, at last grows weak, is\novercome, dies, and another takes its place, In this\nway civilization and barbarism, like day and night,\nalternate through all of history's years.\n\n284\n\nIn every nation there are at least two classes of\nmen: First, the enthusiastic, the patriotic, who be-\nlieve that the nation will live forever,—that its flag\nwill float while the earth has air; Second, the owls\nand ravens and croakers, who are always predicting\ndisaster, defeat, and death. To the last class belong\nthe Jeremiahs, Ezekiels, and Isaiahs of the Jews.\nThey were always predicting the downfall of Jeru-\nsalem. They revelled in defeat and captivity. They\nloved to paint the horrors of famine and war. For\nthe most part, they were envious, hateful, misan-\nthropic and unjust.\n\nThere seems to have been a war between church\nand state. The prophets were endeavoring to pre-\nserve the ecclesiastical power. Every king who would\nlisten to them, was chosen of God. He instantly\nbecame the model of virtue, and the prophets assured\nhim that he was in the keeping of Jehovah. But if\nthe king had a mind of his own, the prophets im-\nmediately called down upon him all the curses of\nheaven, and predicted the speedy destruction of his\nkingdom.\n\nIf our own country should be divided, if an empire\nshould rise upon the ruins of the Republic, it would\nbe very easy to find that hundreds and thousands of\n\n285\n\npeople had foretold that very thing. If you will read\nthe political speeches of the last twenty-two years,\nyou will find prophecies to fit any possible future\nstate of affairs in our country. No matter what\nhappens, you will find that somebody predicted it.\nIf the city of London should lose her trade, if the\nParliament house should become the abode of moles\nand bats, if \"the New Zealander should sit upon the\n\"ruins of London Bridge,\" all these things would be\nsimply the fulfillment of prophecy. The fall of every\nnation under the sun has been predicted by hundreds\nand thousands of people.\n\nThe prophecies of the Old Testament can be made\nto fit anything that may happen, or that may not\nhappen. They will apply to the death of a king, or\nto the destruction of a people,—to the loss of com-\nmerce, or the discovery of a continent. Each pro-\nphecy is a jugglery of words, of figures, of symbols,\nso put together, so used, so interpreted, that they\ncan mean anything, everything, or nothing.\n\nQuestion. Do you see anything \"prophetic\" in\nthe fate of the Jewish people themselves? Do you\nthink that God made the Jewish people wanderers, so\nthat they might be perpetual witnesses to the truth\nof the Scriptures?\n\n286\n\nAnswer. I cannot believe that an infinitely good\nGod would make anybody a wanderer. Neither can\nI believe that he would keep millions of people with-\nout country and without home, and allow them to be\npersecuted for thousands of years, simply that they\nmight be used as witnesses. Nothing could be more\nabsurdly cruel than this.\n\nThe Christians justify their treatment of the Jews\non the ground that they are simply fulfilling prophecy.\nThe Jews have suffered because of the horrid story\nthat their ancestors crucified the Son of God. Chris-\ntianity, coming into power, looked with horror upon\nthe Jews, who denied the truth of the gospel. Each\nJew was regarded as a dangerous witness against\nChristianity. The early Christians saw how neces-\nsary it was that the people who lived in Jerusalem\nat the time of Christ should be convinced that\nhe was God, and should testify to the miracles he\nwrought. Whenever a Jew denied it, the Christian\nwas filled with malignity and hatred, and immediately\nexcited the prejudice of other Christians against the\nman simply because he was a Jew. They forgot, in\ntheir general hatred, that Mary, the mother of Christ,\nwas a Jewess; that Christ himself was of Jewish\nblood; and with an inconsistency of which, of all\n\n287\n\nreligions, Christianity alone could have been guilty,\nthe Jew became an object of especial hatred and\naversion.\n\nWhen we remember that Christianity pretends to\nbe a religion of love and kindness, of charity and for-\ngiveness, must not every intelligent man be shocked\nby the persecution of the Jews? Even now, in learned\nand cultivated Germany, the Jew is treated as though\nhe were a wild beast. The reputation of this great\npeople has been stained by a persecution spring-\ning only from ignorance and barbarian prejudice.\nSo in Russia, the Christians are anxious to shed\nevery drop of Jewish blood, and thousands are to-day\nfleeing from their homes to seek a refuge from Chris-\ntian hate. And Mr. Talmage believes that all these\npersecutions are kept up by the perpetual intervention\nof God, in order that the homeless wanderers of the\nseed of Abraham may testify to the truth of the Old\nand New Testaments. He thinks that every burning\nJewish home sheds light upon the gospel,—that\nevery gash in Jewish flesh cries out in favor of the\nBible,—that every violated Jewish maiden shows the\ninterest that God still takes in the preservation of\nhis Holy Word.\n\nI am endeavoring to do away with religious\n\n288\n\nprejudice. I wish to substitute humanity for super-\nstition, the love of our fellow-men, for the fear of\nGod. In the place of ignorant worship, let us put\ngood deeds. We should be great enough and grand\nenough to know that the rights of the Jew are pre-\ncisely the same as our own. We cannot trample\nupon their rights, without endangering our own; and\nno man who will take liberty from another, is great\nenough to enjoy liberty himself.\n\nDay by day Christians are laying the foundation\nof future persecution. In every Sunday school little\nchildren are taught that Jews killed the God of this\nuniverse. Their little hearts are filled with hatred\nagainst the Jewish people. They are taught as a\npart of the creed to despise the descendants of the\nonly people with whom God is ever said to have had\nany conversation whatever.\n\nWhen we take into consideration what the Jewish\npeople have suffered, it is amazing that every one of\nthem does not hate with all his heart and soul and\nstrength the entire Christian world. But in spite of\nthe persecutions they have endured, they are to-day,\nwhere they are permitted to enjoy reasonable liberty,\nthe most prosperous people on the globe. The idea\nthat their condition shows, or tends to show, that\n\n289\n\nupon them abides the wrath of Jehovah, cannot be\nsubstantiated by the facts.\n\nThe Jews to-day control the commerce of the\nworld. They control the money of the world. It is\nfor them to say whether nations shall or shall not go\nto war. They are the people of whom nations borrow\nmoney. To their offices kings come with their hats\nin their hands. Emperors beg them to discount their\nnotes. Is all this a consequence of the wrath of\nGod?\n\nWe find upon our streets no Jewish beggars. It is\na rare sight to find one of these people standing as\na criminal before a court. They do not fill our alms-\nhouses, nor our penitentiaries, nor our jails. In-\ntellectually and morally they are the equal of any\npeople. They have become illustrious in every de-\npartment of art and science. The old cry against\nthem is at last perceived to be ignorant. Only a few\nyears ago, Christians would rob a Jew, strip him of\nhis possessions, steal his money, declare him an out-\ncast, and drive him forth. Then they would point\nto him as a fulfillment of prophecy.\n\nIf you wish to see the difference between some\nJews and some Christians, compare the addresses of\nFelix Adler with the sermons of Mr. Talmage.\n\n290\n\nI cannot convince myself that an infinitely good\nand wise God holds a Jewish babe in the cradle of\nto-day responsible for the crimes of Caiaphas the\nhigh priest. I hardly think that an infinitely good\nbeing would pursue this little babe through all its life\nsimply to get revenge on those who died two thou-\nsand years ago. An infinite being ought certainly to\nknow that the child is not to blame; and an infinite\nbeing who does not know this, is not entitled to the\nlove or adoration of any honest man.\n\nThere is a strange inconsistency in what Mr. Tal-\nmage says. For instance, he finds great fault with\nme because I do not agree with the religious ideas\nof my father; and he finds fault equally with the\nJews who do. The Jews who were true to the re-\nligion of their fathers, according to Mr. Talmage,\nhave been made a by-word and a hissing and a re-\nproach among all nations, and only those Jews were\nfortunate and blest who abandoned the religion of\ntheir fathers. The real reason for this inconsistency\nis this: Mr. Talmage really thinks that a man can\nbelieve as he wishes. He imagines that evidence de-\npends simply upon volition; consequently, he holds\nevery one responsible for his belief. Being satisfied\nthat he has the exact truth in this matter, he meas-\n\n291\n\nures all other people by his standard, and if they\nfail by that measurement, he holds them personally\nresponsible, and believes that his God does the same.\nIf Mr. Talmage had been born in Turkey, he would\nin all probability have been a Mohammedan, and\nwould now be denouncing some man who had denied\nthe inspiration of the Koran, as the \"champion blas-\n\"phemer\" of Constantinople. Certainly he would\nhave been, had his parents been Mohammedans;\nbecause, according to his doctrine, he would have\nbeen utterly lacking in respect and love for his father\nand mother had he failed to perpetuate their errors.\nSo, had he been born in Utah, of Mormon parents,\nhe would now have been a defender of polygamy.\nHe would not \"run the ploughshare of contempt\n\"through the graves of his parents,\" by taking the\nground that polygamy is wrong.\n\nI presume that all of Mr. Talmage's forefathers\nwere not Presbyterians. There must have been\na time when one of his progenitors left the faith of\nhis father, and joined the Presbyterian Church. Ac-\ncording to the reasoning of Mr. Talmage, that particular\nprogenitor was an exceedingly bad man; but had it\nnot been for the crime of that bad man, Mr. Talmage\nmight not now have been on the road to heaven.\n\n292\n\nI hardly think that all the inventors, the thinkers,\nthe philosophers, the discoverers, dishonored their\nparents. Fathers and mothers have been made\nimmortal by such sons. And yet these sons demon-\nstrated the errors of their parents. A good father\nwishes to be excelled by his children.\n\nSixth Interview\n\n_It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call\nanything a revelation that comes to us at second-\nhand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is\nnecessarily limited to the first communication—\nafter this, it is only an account of something\nwhich that person says was a revelation made to\nhim; and though he may find himself obliged to\nbelieve it, it cannot be incumbent on me to\nbelieve it in the same manner; for it was not a\nrevelation made to me, and I have only his word\nfor it that it was made to him.—Thomas Paine._\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the argu-\nments presented by Mr. Talmage in favor of\nthe inspiration of the Bible?\n\nAnswer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that\nthere are more copies of the Bible than of any\nother book, and that consequently it must be in-\nspired.\n\nIt seems to me that this kind of reasoning proves\nentirely too much. If the Bible is the inspired word\nof God, it was certainly just as true when there was\nonly one copy, as it is to-day; and the facts con-\ntained in it were just as true before they were\n\n296\n\nwritten, as afterwards. We all know that it is a fact\nin human nature, that a man can tell a falsehood so\noften that he finally believes it himself; but I never\nsuspected, until now, that a mistake could be printed\nenough times to make it true.\n\nThere may have been a time, and probably there\nwas, when there were more copies of the Koran\nthan of the Bible. When most Christians were ut-\nterly ignorant, thousands of Moors were educated;\nand it is well known that the arts and sciences\nflourished in Mohammedan countries in a far greater\ndegree than in Christian. Now, at that time, it may\nbe that there were more copies of the Koran than of\nthe Bible. If some enterprising Mohammedan had\nonly seen the force of such a fact, he might have\nestablished the inspiration of the Koran beyond\na doubt; or, if it had been found by actual count that\nthe Koran was a little behind, a few years of in-\ndustry spent in the multiplication of copies, might\nhave furnished the evidence of its inspiration.\n\nIs it not simply amazing that a doctor of divinity,\na Presbyterian clergyman, in this day and age, should\nseriously rely upon the number of copies of the Bible\nto substantiate the inspiration of that book? Is it\npossible to conceive of anything more fig-leaflessly\n\n297\n\nabsurd? If there is anything at all in this argument,\nit is, that all books are true in proportion to the\nnumber of copies that exist. Of course, the same\nrule will work with newspapers; so that the news-\npaper having the largest circulation can consistently\nclaim infallibility. Suppose that an exceedingly absurd\nstatement should appear in The New York Herald,\nand some one should denounce it as utterly without\nany foundation in fact or probability; what would\nMr. Talmage think if the editor of the Herald, as an\nevidence of the truth of the statement, should rely\non the fact that his paper had the largest circulation\nof any in the city? One would think that the whole\nchurch had acted upon the theory that a falsehood re-\npeated often enough was as good as the truth.\n\nAnother evidence brought forward by the reverend\ngentleman to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures,\nis the assertion that if Congress should undertake to\npass a law to take the Bible from the people, thirty,\nmillions would rise in defence of that book.\n\nThis argument also seems to me to prove too much,\nand as a consequence, to prove nothing. If Con-\ngress should pass a law prohibiting the reading of\nShakespeare, every American would rise in defence\nof his right to read the works of the greatest man\n\n298\n\nthis world has known. Still, that would not even\ntend to show that Shakespeare was inspired. The\nfact is, the American people would not allow Con-\ngress to pass a law preventing them from reading\nany good book. Such action would not prove the\nbook to be inspired; it would prove that the American\npeople believe in liberty.\n\nThere are millions of people in Turkey who would\nperil their lives in defence of the Koran. A fact like\nthis does not prove the truth of the Koran; it simply\nproves what Mohammedans think of that book, and\nwhat they are willing to do for its preservation.\n\nIt can not be too often repeated, that martyrdom\ndoes not prove the truth of the thing for which the\nmartyr dies; it only proves the sincerity of the martyr\nand the cruelty of his murderers. No matter how\nmany people regard the Bible as inspired,—that fact\nfurnishes no evidence that it is inspired. Just as many\npeople have regarded other books as inspired; just as\nmany millions have been deluded about the inspiration\nof books ages and ages before Christianity was born.\n\nThe simple belief of one man, or of millions of men,\nis no evidence to another. Evidence must be based,\nnot upon the belief of other people, but upon facts.\nA believer may state the facts upon which his belief\n\n299\n\nis founded, and the person to whom he states them\ngives them the weight that according to the con-\nstruction and constitution of his mind he must. But\nsimple, bare belief is not testimony. We should build\nupon facts, not upon beliefs of others, nor upon the\nshifting sands of public opinion. So much for this\nargument.\n\nThe next point made by the reverend gentleman\nis, that an infidel cannot be elected to any office in\nthe United States, in any county, precinct, or ward.\n\nFor the sake of the argument, let us admit that this\nis true. What does it prove? There was a time\nwhen no Protestant could have been elected to any\noffice. What did that prove? There was a time\nwhen no Presbyterian could have been chosen to fill\nany public station. What did that prove? The\nsame may be said of the members of each religious\ndenomination. What does that prove?\n\nMr. Talmage says that Christianity must be true,\nbecause an infidel cannot be elected to office. Now,\nsuppose that enough infidels should happen to settle\nin one precinct to elect one of their own number to\noffice; would that prove that Christianity was not\ntrue in that precinct? There was a time when no\nman could have been elected to any office, who in-\n\n300\n\nsisted on the rotundity of the earth; what did that\nprove? There was a time when no man who denied\nthe existence of witches, wizards, spooks and devils,\ncould hold any position of honor; what did that\nprove? There was a time when an abolitionist could\nnot be elected to office in any State in this Union;\nwhat did that prove? There was a time when they\nwere not allowed to express their honest thoughts;\nwhat does that prove? There was a time when a\nQuaker could not have been elected to any office;\nthere was a time in the history of this country when\nbut few of them were allowed to live; what does\nthat prove? Is it necessary, in order to ascertain the\ntruth of Christianity, to look over the election re-\nturns? Is \"inspiration\" a question to be settled by\nthe ballot? I admit that it was once, in the first\nplace, settled that way. I admit that books were\nvoted in and voted out, and that the Bible was finally\nformed in accordance with a vote; but does Mr.\nTalmage insist that the question is not still open?\nDoes he not know, that a fact cannot by any possi-\nbility be affected by opinion? We make laws for\nthe whole people, by the whole people. We agree\nthat a majority shall rule, but nobody ever pretended\nthat a question of taste could be settled by an appeal\n\n301\n\nto majorities, or that a question of logic could be\naffected by numbers. In the world of thought, each\nman is an absolute monarch, each brain is a king-\ndom, that cannot be invaded even by the tyranny of\nmajorities.\n\nNo man can avoid the intellectual responsibility of\ndeciding for himself.\n\nSuppose that the Christian religion had been put\nto vote in Jerusalem? Suppose that the doctrine of\nthe \"fall\" had been settled in Athens, by an appeal\nto the people, would Mr. Talmage have been willing\nto abide by their decision? If he settles the inspira-\ntion of the Bible by a popular vote, he must settle the\nmeaning of the Bible by the same means. There are\nmore Methodists than Presbyterians—why does the\ngentleman remain a Presbyterian? There are more\nBuddhists than Christians—why does he vote against\nmajorities? He will remember that Christianity was\nonce settled by a popular vote—that the divinity of\nChrist was submitted to the people, and the people\nsaid: \"Crucify him!\"\n\nThe next, and about the strongest, argument Mr.\nTalmage makes is, that I am an infidel because I was\ndefeated for Governor of Illinois.\n\nWhen put in plain English, his statement is this:\n\n302\n\nthat I was defeated because I was an infidel, and that\nI am an infidel because I was defeated. This, I be-\nlieve, is called reasoning in a circle. The truth is,\nthat a good many people did object to me because I\nwas an infidel, and the probability is, that if I had\ndenied being an infidel, I might have obtained an\noffice. The wonderful part is, that any Christian\nshould deride me because I preferred honor to po-\nlitical success. He who dishonors himself for the\nsake of being honored by others, will find that two\nmistakes have been made—one by himself, and the\nother, by the people.\n\nI presume that Mr.Talmage really thinks that I was\nextremely foolish to avow my real opinions. After\nall, men are apt to judge others somewhat by them-\nselves. According to him, I made the mistake of\npreserving my manhood and losing an office. Now,\nif I had in fact been an infidel, and had denied it, for\nthe sake of position, then I admit that every Christian\nmight have pointed at me the finger of contempt.\nBut I was an infidel, and admitted it. Surely, I should\nnot be held in contempt by Christians for having\nmade the admission. I was not a believer in the\nBible, and I said so. I was not a Christian, and I said\nso. I was not willing to receive the support of any\n\n303\n\nman under a false impression. I thought it better to\nbe honestly beaten, than to dishonestly succeed.\nAccording to the ethics of Mr. Talmage I made a\nmistake, and this mistake is brought forward as\nanother evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures.\nIf I had only been elected Governor of Illinois,—that\nis to say, if I had been a successful hypocrite, I might\nnow be basking in the sunshine of this gentleman's\nrespect. I preferred to tell the truth—to be an\nhonest man,—and I have never regretted the course\nI pursued.\n\nThere are many men now in office who, had they\npursued a nobler course, would be private citizens.\nNominally, they are Christians; actually, they are\nnothing; and this is the combination that generally\ninsures political success.\n\nMr. Talmage is exceedingly proud of the fact that\nChristians will not vote for infidels. In other words,\nhe does not believe that in our Government the\nchurch has been absolutely divorced from the state.\nHe believes that it is still the Christian's duty to\nmake the religious test. Probably he wishes to get\nhis God into the Constitution. My position is this:\n\nReligion is an individual matter—a something for\neach individual to settle for himself, and with which\n\n304\n\nno other human being has any concern, provided the\nreligion of each human being allows liberty to every\nother. When called upon to vote for men to fill the\noffices of this country, I do not inquire as to the re-\nligion of the candidates. It is none of my business.\nI ask the questions asked by Jefferson: \"Is he\n\"honest; is he capable?\" It makes no difference to\nme, if he is willing that others should be free, what\ncreed he may profess. The moment I inquire into his\nreligious belief, I found a little inquisition of my own;\nI repeat, in a small way, the errors of the past, and\nreproduce, in so far as I am capable, the infamy of\nthe ignorant orthodox years.\n\nMr. Talmage will accept my thanks for his frankness.\nI now know what controls a Presbyterian when he\ncasts his vote. He cares nothing for the capacity,\nnothing for the fitness, of the candidate to discharge\nthe duties of the office to which he aspires; he\nsimply asks: Is he a Presbyterian, is he a Protestant,\ndoes he believe our creed? and then, no matter how\nignorant he may be, how utterly unfit, he receives the\nPresbyterian vote. According to Mr. Talmage, he\nwould vote for a Catholic who, if he had the power,\nwould destroy all liberty of conscience, rather than\nvote for an infidel who, had he the power, would\n\n305\n\ndestroy all the religious tyranny of the world, and\nallow every human being to think for himself, and\nto worship God, or not, as and how he pleased.\n\nMr. Talmage makes the serious mistake of placing\nthe Bible above the laws and Constitution of his\ncountry. He places Jehovah above humanity. Such\nmen are not entirely safe citizens of any republic.\nAnd yet, I am in favor of giving to such men all the\nliberty I ask for myself, trusting to education and the\nspirit of progress to overcome any injury they may\ndo, or seek to do.\n\nWhen this country was founded, when the Con-\nstitution was adopted, the churches agreed to let the\nState alone. They agreed that all citizens should have\nequal civil rights. Nothing could be more dangerous\nto the existence of this Republic than to introduce\nreligion into politics. The American theory is, that\ngovernments are founded, not by gods, but by men,\nand that the right to govern does not come from\nGod, but \"from the consent of the governed.\" Our\nfathers concluded that the people were sufficiently\nintelligent to take care of themselves—to make good\nlaws and to execute them. Prior to that time, all\nauthority was supposed to come from the clouds.\nKings were set upon thrones by God, and it was the\n\n306\n\nbusiness of the people simply to submit. In all really\ncivilized countries, that doctrine has been abandoned.\nThe source of political power is here, not in heaven.\nWe are willing that those in heaven should control\naffairs there; we are willing that the angels should\nhave a government to suit themselves; but while we\nlive here, and while our interests are upon this earth,\nwe propose to make and execute our own laws.\n\nIf the doctrine of Mr. Talmage is the true doctrine,\nif no man should be voted for unless he is a Christian,\nthen no man should vote unless he is a Christian. It\nwill not do to say that sinners may vote, that an infidel\nmay be the repository of political power, but must not\nbe voted for. A decent Christian who is not willing\nthat an infidel should be elected to an office, would\nnot be willing to be elected to an office by infidel\nvotes. If infidels are too bad to be voted for, they\nare certainly not good enough to vote, and no\nChristian should be willing to represent such an\ninfamous constituency.\n\nIf the political theory of Mr. Talmage is carried\nout, of course the question will arise in a little while,\nWhat is a Christian? It will then be necessary to\nwrite a creed to be subscribed by every person before\nhe is fit to vote or to be voted for. This of course\n\n307\n\nmust be done by the State, and must be settled,\nunder our form of government, by a majority vote.\nIs Mr. Talmage willing that the question, What is\nChristianity? should be so settled? Will he pledge\nhimself in advance to subscribe to such a creed? Of\ncourse he will not. He will insist that he has the\nright to read the Bible for himself, and that he must\nbe bound by his own conscience. In this he would\nbe right. If he has the right to read the Bible for\nhimself, so have I. If he is to be bound by his con-\nscience, so am I. If he honestly believes the Bible to\nbe true, he must say so, in order to preserve his man-\nhood; and if I honestly believe it to be uninspired,—\nfilled with mistakes,—I must say so, or lose my man-\nhood. How infamous I would be should I endeavor\nto deprive him of his vote, or of his right to be voted\nfor, because he had been true to his conscience! And\nhow infamous he is to try to deprive me of the right\nto vote, or to be voted for, because I am true to my\nconscience!\n\nWhen we were engaged in civil war, did Mr. Tal-\nmage object to any man's enlisting in the ranks who\nwas not a Christian? Was he willing, at that time,\nthat sinners should vote to keep our flag in heaven?\nWas he willing that the \"unconverted\" should cover\n\n308\n\nthe fields of victory with their corpses, that this nation\nmight not die? At the same time, Mr. Talmage\nknew that every \"unconverted\" soldier killed, went\ndown to eternal fire. Does Mr. Talmage believe that\nit is the duty of a man to fight for a government in\nwhich he has no rights? Is the man who shoulders\nhis musket in the defence of human freedom good\nenough to cast a ballot? There is in the heart of this\npriest the safne hatred of real liberty that drew the\nsword of persecution, that built dungeons, that forged\nchains and made instruments of torture.\n\nNobody, with the exception of priests, would be\nwilling to trust the liberties of this country in the\nhands of any church. In order to show the political\nestimation in which the clergy are held, in order to\nshow the confidence the people at large have in the\nsincerity and wisdom of the clergy, it is sufficient to\nstate, that no priest, no bishop, could by any possi-\nbility be elected President of the United States. No\nparty could carry that load. A fear would fall upon\nthe mind and heart of every honest man that this\ncountry was about to drift back to the Middle Ages,\nand that the old battles were to be refought. If the\nbishop running for President was of the Methodist\nChurch, every other church would oppose him. If\n\n309\n\nhe was a Catholic, the Protestants would as a body\ncombine against him. Why? The churches have\nno confidence in each other. Why? Because they\nare acquainted with each other.\n\nAs a matter of fact, the infidel has a thousand\ntimes more reason to vote against the Christian,\nthan the Christian has to vote against the infidel.\nThe Christian believes in a book superior to the\nConstitution—superior to all Constitutions and all\nlaws. The infidel believes that the Constitution and\nlaws are superior to any book. He is not controlled\nby any power beyond the seas or above the clouds.\nHe does not receive his orders from Rome, or Sinai.\nHe receives them from his fellow-citizens, legally and\nconstitutionally expressed. The Christian believes in\na power greater than man, to which, upon the peril\nof eternal pain, he must bow. His allegiance, to say\nthe best of it, is divided. The Christian puts the for-\ntune of his own soul over and above the temporal\nwelfare of the entire world; the infidel puts the good\nof mankind here and now, beyond and over all.\n\nThere was a time in New England when only\nchurch members were allowed to vote, and it may be\ninstructive to state the fact that during that time\nQuakers were hanged, women were stripped, tied to\n\n310\n\ncarts, and whipped from town to town, and their\nbabes sold into slavery, or exchanged for rum. Now\nin that same country, thousands and thousands of\ninfidels vote, and yet the laws are nearer just, women\nare not whipped and children are not sold.\n\nIf all the convicts in all the penitentiaries of the\nUnited States could be transported to some island in\nthe sea, and there allowed to make a government for\nthemselves, they would pass better laws than John\nCalvin did in Geneva. They would have clearer and\nbetter views of the rights of men, than unconvicted\nChristians used to have. I do not say that these\nconvicts are better people, but I do say that, in my\njudgment, they would make better laws. They cer-\ntainly could not make worse.\n\nIf these convicts were taken from the prisons of\nthe United States, they would not dream of uniting\nchurch and state. They would have no religious\ntest. They would allow every man to vote and to be\nvoted for, no matter what his religious views might\nbe. They would not dream of whipping Quakers, of\nburning Unitarians, of imprisoning or burning Uni-\nversalists or infidels. They would allow all the people\nto guess for themselves. Some of these convicts, of\ncourse, would believe in the old ideas, and would\ninsist upon the suppression of free thought. Those\ncoming from Delaware would probably repeat with\ngreat gusto the opinions of Justice Comegys, and\ninsist that the whipping-post was the handmaid of\nChristianity.\n\nIt would be hard to conceive of a much worse\ngovernment than that founded by the Puritans.\nThey took the Bible for the foundation of their\npolitical structure. They copied the laws given to\nMoses from Sinai, and the result was one of the\nworst governments that ever disgraced this world.\nThey believed the Old Testament to be inspired.\nThey believed that Jehovah made laws for all people\nand for all time. They had not learned the hypoc-\nrisy that believes and avoids. They did not say:\nThis law was once just, but is now unjust; it was\nonce good, but now it is infamous; it was given by\nGod once, but now it can only be obeyed by the\ndevil. They had not reached the height of biblical\nexegesis on which we find the modern theologian\nperched, and who tells us that Jehovah has reformed.\nThe Puritans were consistent. They did what people\nmust do who honestly believe in the inspiration of\nthe Old Testament. If God gave laws from Sinai\nwhat right have we to repeal them?\n\n312\n\nAs people have gained confidence in each other,\nthey have lost confidence in the sacred Scriptures.\nWe know now that the Bible can not be used as the\nfoundation of government. It is capable of too many\nmeanings. Nobody can find out exactly what it\nupholds, what it permits, what it denounces, what it\ndenies. These things depend upon what part you\nread. If it is all true, it upholds everything bad and\ndenounces everything good, and it also denounces\nthe bad and upholds the good. Then there are\npassages where the good is denounced and the bad\ncommanded; so that any one can go to the Bible\nand find some text, some passage, to uphold anything\nhe may desire. If he wishes to enslave his fellow-\nmen, he will find hundreds of passages in his favor.\nIf he wishes to be a polygamist, he can find his\nauthority there. If he wishes to make war, to exter-\nminate his neighbors, there his warrant can be found.\nIf, on the other hand, he is oppressed himself, and\nwishes to make war upon his king, he can find a\nbattle-cry. And if the king wishes to put him down,\nhe can find text for text on the other side. So, too,\nupon all questions of reform. The teetotaler goes\nthere to get his verse, and the moderate drinker\nfinds within the sacred lids his best excuse.\n\n313\n\nMost intelligent people are now convinced that the\nbible is not a guide; that in reading it you must\nexercise your reason; that you can neither safely\nreject nor accept all; that he who takes one passage\nfor a staff, trips upon another; that while one text is\na light, another blows it out; that it is such a ming-\nling of rocks and quicksands, such a labyrinth of\nclews and snares—so few flowers among so many\nnettles and thorns, that it misleads rather than di-\nrects, and taken altogether, is a hindrance and not\na help.\n\nAnother important point made by Mr. Talmage is,\nthat if the Bible is thrown away, we will have nothing\nleft to swear witnesses on, and that consequently the\nadministration of justice will become impossible.\n\nThere was a time when the Bible did not exist, and\nif Mr. Talmage is correct, of course justice was im-\npossible then, and truth must have been a stranger\nto human lips. How can we depend upon the testi-\nmony of those who wrote the Bible, as there was no\nBible in existence while they were writing, and con-\nsequently there was no way to take their testimony,\nand we have no account of their having been sworn\non the Bible after they got it finished. It is extremely\nsad to think that all the nations of antiquity were left\n\n314\n\nentirely without the means of eliciting truth. No\nwonder that Justice was painted blindfolded.\n\nWhat perfect fetichism it is, to imagine that a man\nwill tell the truth simply because he has kissed an\nold piece of sheepskin stained with the saliva of all\nclasses. A farce of this kind adds nothing to the\ntestimony of an honest man; it simply allows a rogue\nto give weight to his false testimony. This is really\nthe only result that can be accomplished by kissing\nthe Bible. A desperate villain, for the purpose of\ngetting revenge, or making money, will gladly go\nthrough the ceremony, and ignorant juries and su-\nperstitious judges will be imposed upon. The whole\nsystem of oaths is false, and does harm instead of\ngood. Let every man walk into court and tell his\nstory, and let the truth of the story be judged by its\nreasonableness, taking into consideration the charac-\nter of the witness, the interest he has, and the posi-\ntion he occupies in the controversy, and then let it\nbe the business of the jury to ascertain the real truth\n—to throw away the unreasonable and the impossi-\nble, and make up their verdict only upon what they\nbelieve to be reasonable and true. An honest man\ndoes not need the oath, and a rascal uses it simply\nto accomplish his purpose. If the history of courts\n\n315\n\nproved that every man, after kissing the Bible, told\nthe truth, and that those who failed to kiss it some-\ntimes lied, I should be in favor of swearing all people\non the Bible; but the experience of every lawyer is,\nthat kissing the Bible is not always the preface of a\ntrue story. It is often the ceremonial embroidery\nof a falsehood.\n\nIf there is an infinite God who attends to the\naffairs of men, it seems to me almost a sacrilege to\npublicly appeal to him in every petty trial. If one\nwill go into any court, and notice the manner in\nwhich oaths are administered,—the utter lack of\nsolemnity—the matter-of-course air with which the\nwhole thing is done, he will be convinced that it is a\nform of no importance. Mr. Talmage would probably\nagree with the judge of whom the following story is\ntold:\n\nA witness was being sworn. The judge noticed\nthat he was not holding up his hand. He said to the\nclerk: \"Let the witness hold up his right hand.\"\n\"His right arm was shot off,\" replied the clerk. \"Let\n\"him hold up his left, then.\" \"That was shot off, too,\n\"your honor.\" \"Well, then, let him raise one foot;\n\"no man can be sworn in this court without holding\n\"something up.\"\n\nMy own opinion is, that if every copy of the Bible\nin the world were destroyed, there would be some\nway to ascertain the truth in judicial proceedings;\nand any other book would do just as well to swear\nwitnesses upon, or a block in the shape of a book\ncovered with some kind of calfskin could do equally\nwell, or just the calfskin would do. Nothing is more\nlaughable than the performance of this ceremony,\nand I have never seen in court one calf kissing the\nskin of another, that I did not feel humiliated that\nsuch things were done in the name of Justice.\n\nMr. Talmage has still another argument in favor\nof the preservation of the Bible. He wants to\nknow what book could take its place on the centre-\ntable.\n\nI admit that there is much force in this. Suppose\nwe all admitted the Bible to be an uninspired book,\nit could still be kept on the centre-table. It would\nbe just as true then as it is now. Inspiration can not\nadd anything to a fact; neither can inspiration make\nthe immoral moral, the unjust just, or the cruel merci-\nful. If it is a fact that God established human slavery,\nthat does not prove slavery to be right; it simply\nshows that God was wrong. If I have the right to\nuse my reason in determining whether the Bible is\n\n317\n\ninspired or not, and if in accordance with my reason\nI conclude that it is inspired, I have still the right to\nuse my reason in determining whether the command-\nments of God are good or bad. Now, suppose we\ntake from the Bible every word upholding slavery,\nevery passage in favor of polygamy, every verse\ncommanding soldiers to kill women and children, it\nwould be just as fit for the centre-table as now. Sup-\npose every impure word was taken from it; suppose\nthat the history of Tamar was left out, the biography\nof Lot, and all other barbarous accounts of a barbarous\npeople, it would look just as well upon the centre-\ntable as now.\n\nSuppose that we should become convinced that\nthe writers of the New Testament were mistaken as\nto the eternity of punishment, or that all the passages\nnow relied upon to prove the existence of perdition\nwere shown to be interpolations, and were thereupon\nexpunged, would not the book be dearer still to\nevery human being with a heart? I would like to\nsee every good passage in the Bible preserved. I\nwould like to see, with all these passages from the\nBible, the loftiest sentiments from all other books\nthat have ever been uttered by men in all ages and\nof all races, bound in one volume, and to see that\n\n318\n\nvolume, filled with the greatest, the purest and the\nbest, become the household book.\n\nThe average Bible, on the average centre-table, is\nabout as much used as though it were a solid block.\nIt is scarcely ever opened, and people who see its\ncovers every day are unfamiliar with its every page.\n\nI admit that some things have happened some-\nwhat hard to explain, and tending to show that the\nBible is no ordinary book. I heard a story, not long\nago, bearing upon this very subject.\n\nA man was a member of the church, but after a\ntime, having had bad luck in business affairs, became\nsomewhat discouraged. Not feeling able to con-\ntribute his share to the support of the church, he\nceased going to meeting, and finally became an\naverage sinner. His bad luck pursued him until he\nfound himself and his family without even a crust to\neat. At this point, his wife told him that she be-\nlieved they were suffering from a visitation of God,\nand begged him to restore family worship, and see if\nGod would not do something for them. Feeling that\nhe could not possibly make matters worse, he took\nthe Bible from its resting place on a shelf where\nit had quietly slumbered and collected the dust of\nmany months, and gathered his family about him.\n\n319\n\nHe opened the sacred volume, and to his utter as-\ntonishment, there, between the divine leaves, was a\nten-dollar bill. He immediately dropped on his\nknees. His wife dropped on hers, and the children on\ntheirs, and with streaming eyes they returned thanks\nto God. He rushed to the butcher's and bought\nsome steak, to the baker's and bought some bread,\nto the grocer's and got some eggs and butter and tea,\nand joyfully hastened home. The supper was cooked,\nit was on the table, grace was said, and every face\nwas radiant with joy. Just at that happy moment a\nknock was heard, the door was opened, and a police-\nman entered and arrested the father for passing\ncounterfeit money.\n\nMr. Talmage is also convinced that the Bible is\ninspired and should be preserved because there is no\nother book that a mother could give her son as he\nleaves the old home to make his way in the world.\n\nThousands and thousands of mothers have pre-\nsented their sons with Bibles without knowing really\nwhat the book contains. They simply followed the\ncustom, and the sons as a rule honored the Bible, not\nbecause they knew anything of it, but because it was\na gift from mother. But surely, if all the passages\nupholding polygamy were out, the mother would give\n\n320\n\nthe book to her son just as readily, and he would re-\nceive it just as joyfully. If there were not one word\nin it tending to degrade the mother, the gift would cer-\ntainly be as appropriate. The fact that mothers have\npresented Bibles to their sons does not prove that the\nbook is inspired. The most that can be proved by\nthis fact is that the mothers believed it to be inspired.\nIt does not even tend to show what the book is,\nneither does it tend to establish the truth of one\nmiracle recorded upon its pages. We cannot believe\nthat fire refused to burn, simply because the state-\nment happens to be in a book presented to a son by\nhis mother, and if all the mothers of the entire world\nshould give Bibles to all their children, this would not\nprove that it was once right to murder mothers, or to\nenslave mothers, or to sell their babes.\n\nThe inspiration of the Bible is not a question of\nnatural affection. It can not be decided by the love\na mother bears her son. It is a question of fact, to\nbe substantiated like other facts. If the Turkish\nmother should give a copy of the Koran to her\nson, I would still have my doubts about the in-\nspiration of that book; and if some Turkish soldier\nsaved his life by having in his pocket a copy of\nthe Koran that accidentally stopped a bullet just\n\n321\n\nopposite his heart, I should still deny that Mohammed\nwas a prophet of God.\n\nNothing can be more childish than to ascribe\nmysterious powers to inanimate objects. To imagine\nthat old rags made into pulp, manufactured into\npaper, covered with words, and bound with the skin\nof a calf or a sheep, can have any virtues when thus\nput together that did not belong to the articles out\nof which the book was constructed, is of course\ninfinitely absurd.\n\nIn the days of slavery, negroes used to buy dried\nroots of other negroes, and put these roots in their\npockets, so that a whipping would not give them\npain. Kings have bought diamonds to give them\nluck. Crosses and scapularies are still worn for the\npurpose of affecting the inevitable march of events.\nPeople still imagine that a verse in the Bible can step\nin between a cause and its effect; really believe that\nan amulet, a charm, the bone of some saint, a piece\nof a cross, a little image of the Virgin, a picture of a\npriest, will affect the weather, will delay frost, will\nprevent disease, will insure safety at sea, and in some\ncases prevent hanging. The banditti of Italy have\ngreat confidence in these things, and whenever they\nstart upon an expedition of theft and plunder, they\n\n322\n\ntake images and pictures of saints with them, such\nas have been blest by a priest or pope. They pray\nsincerely to the Virgin, to give them luck, and see not\nthe slightest inconsistency in appealing to all the\nsaints in the calendar to assist them in robbing honest\npeople.\n\nEdmund About tells a story that illustrates the belief\nof the modern Italian. A young man was gambling.\nFortune was against him. In the room was a little\npicture representing the Virgin and her child. Before\nthis picture he crossed himself, and asked the assist-\nance of the child. Again he put down his money\nand again lost. Returning to the picture, he told the\nchild that he had lost all but one piece, that he was\nabout to hazard that, and made a very urgent request\nthat he would favor him with divine assistance. He\nput down the last piece. He lost. Going to the\npicture and shaking his fist at the child, he cried out:\n\"Miserable bambino, I am glad they crucified you!\"\n\nThe confidence that one has in an image, in a relic,\nin a book, comes from the same source,—fetichism.\nTo ascribe supernatural virtues to the skin of a snake,\nto a picture, or to a bound volume, is intellectually\nthe same.\n\nMr. Talmage has still another argument in favor\n\n323\n\nof the inspiration of the Scriptures. He takes the\nground that the Bible must be inspired, because so\nmany people believe it.\n\nMr. Talmage should remember that a scientific\nfact does not depend upon the vote of numbers;—\nit depends simply upon demonstration; it depends\nupon intelligence and investigation, not upon an\nignorant multitude; it appeals to the highest, in-\nstead of to the lowest. Nothing can be settled\nby popular prejudice.\n\nAccording to Mr. Talmage, there are about three\nhundred million Christians in the world. Is this true?\nIn all countries claiming to be Christian—including\nall of civilized Europe, Russia in Asia, and every\ncountry on the Western hemisphere, we have nearly\nfour hundred millions of people. Mr. Talmage claims\nthat three hundred millions are Christians. I sup-\npose he means by this, that if all should perish to-\nnight, about three hundred millions would wake up\nin heaven—having lived and died good and consist-\nent Christians.\n\nThere are in Russia about eighty millions of people\n—how many Christians? I admit that they have re-\ncently given more evidence of orthodox Christianity\nthan formerly. They have been murdering old men;\n\n324\n\nthey have thrust daggers into the breasts of women;\nthey have violated maidens—because they were Jews.\nThousands and thousands are sent each year to the\nmines of Siberia, by the Christian government of\nRussia. Girls eighteen years of age, for having ex-\npressed a word in favor of human liberty, are to-day\nworking like beasts of burden, with chains upon\ntheir limbs and with the marks of whips upon\ntheir backs. Russia, of course, is considered by Mr.\nTalmage as a Christian country—a country utterly\ndestitute of liberty—without freedom of the press,\nwithout freedom of speech, where every mouth is\nlocked and every tongue a prisoner—a country filled\nwith victims, soldiers, spies, thieves and executioners.\nWhat would Russia be, in the opinion of Mr. Tal-\nmage, but for Christianity? How could it be worse,\nwhen assassins are among the best people in it?\nThe truth is, that the people in Russia, to-day, who\nare in favor of human liberty, are not Christians.\nThe men willing to sacrifice their lives for the good\nof others, are not believers in the Christian religion.\nThe men who wish to break chains are infidels;\nthe men who make chains are Christians. Every\ngood and sincere Catholic of the Greek Church\nis a bad citizen, an enemy of progress, a foe of\n\n325\n\nhuman liberty. Yet Mr. Talmage regards Russia\nas a Christian country.\n\nThe sixteen millions of people in Spain are claimed\nas Christians. Spain, that for centuries was the as-\nsassin of human rights; Spain, that endeavored to\nspread Christianity by flame and fagot; Spain, the\nsoil where the Inquisition flourished, where bigotry\ngrew, and where cruelty was worship,—where\nmurder was prayer. I admit that Spain is a Chris-\ntian nation. I admit that infidelity has gained no\nfoothold beyond the Pyrenees. The Spaniards are\northodox. They believe in the inspiration of the\nOld and New Testaments. They have no doubts\nabout miracles—no doubts about heaven, no doubts\nabout hell. I admit that the priests, the highway-\nmen, the bishops and thieves, are equally true be-\nlievers. The man who takes your purse on the\nhighway, and the priest who forgives the robber,\nare alike orthodox.\n\nIt gives me pleasure, however, to say that even in\nSpain there is a dawn. Some great men, some men\nof genius, are protesting against the tyranny of Cath-\nolicism. Some men have lost confidence in the\ncathedral, and are beginningto ask the State to erect\nthe schoolhouse. They are beginning to suspect\n\n326\n\nthat priests are for the most part impostors and\nplunderers.\n\nAccording to Mr. Talmage, the twenty-eight mil-\nlions in Italy are Christians. There the Christian\nChurch was early established, and the popes are to-\nday the successors of St. Peter. For hundreds and\nhundreds of years, Italy was the beggar of the world,\nand to her, from every land, flowed streams of gold\nand silver. The country was covered with convents,\nand monasteries, and churches, and cathedrals filled\nwith monks and nuns. Its roads were crowded with\npilgrims, and its dust was on the feet of the world.\nWhat has Christianity done for Italy—Italy, its soil a\nblessing, its sky a smile—Italy, with memories great\nenough to kindle the fires of enthusiasm in any\nhuman breast?\n\nHad it not been for a few Freethinkers, for a few\ninfidels, for such men as Garibaldi and Mazzini, the\nheaven of Italy would still have been without a star.\n\nI admit that Italy, with its popes and bandits, with\nits superstition and ignorance, with its sanctified\nbeggars, is a Christian nation; but in a little while,—\nin a few days,—when according to the prophecy of\nGaribaldi priests, with spades in their hands, will\ndig ditches to drain the Pontine marshes; in a little\n\n327\n\nwhile, when the pope leaves the Vatican, and seeks\nthe protection of a nation he has denounced,—asking\nalms of intended victims; when the nuns shall marry,\nand the monasteries shall become factories, and the\nwhirl of wheels shall take the place of drowsy prayers\n—then, and not until then, will Italy be,—not a\nChristian nation, but great, prosperous, and free.\n\nIn Italy, Giordano Bruno was burned. Some day,\nhis monument will rise above the cross of Rome.\n\nWe have in our day one example,—and so far as I\nknow, history records no other,—of the resurrection\nof a nation. Italy has been called from the grave of\nsuperstition. She is \"the first fruits of them that\n\"slept.\"\n\nI admit with Mr. Talmage that Portugal is a Chris-\ntian country—that she engaged for hundreds of years\nin the slave trade, and that she justified the infamous\ntraffic by passages in the Old Testament. I admit,\nalso, that she persecuted the Jews in accordance\nwith the same divine volume. I admit that all the\ncrime, ignorance, destitution, and superstition in that\ncountry were produced by the Catholic Church. I\nalso admit that Portugal would be better if it were\nProtestant.\n\nEvery Catholic is in favor of education enough to\n\n328\n\nchange a barbarian into a Catholic; every Protestant\nis in favor of education enough to change a Catholic\ninto a Protestant; but Protestants and Catholics alike\nare opposed to education that will lead to any\nreal philosophy and science. I admit that Portugal\nis what it is, on account of the preaching of the\ngospel. I admit that Portugal can point with pride\nto the triumphs of what she calls civilization within\nher borders, and truthfully ascribe the glory to the\nchurch. But in a litde while, when more railroads\nare built, when telegraphs connect her people with\nthe civilized world, a spirit of doubt, of investigation,\nwill manifest itself in Portugal.\n\nWhen the people stop counting beads, and go to\nthe study of mathematics; when they think more of\nplows than of prayers for agricultural purposes; when\nthey find that one fact gives more light to the mind\nthan a thousand tapers, and that nothing can by any\npossibility be more useless than a priest,—then Por-\ntugal will begin to cease to be what is called a\nChristian nation.\n\nI admit that Austria, with her thirty-seven millions,\nis a Christian nation—including her Croats, Hungar-\nians, Servians, and Gypsies. Austria was one of the\nassassins of Poland. When we remember that John\n\n329\n\nSobieski drove the Mohammedans from the gates of\nVienna, and rescued from the hand of the \"infidel\"\nthe beleagured city, the propriety of calling Austria a\nChristian nation becomes still more apparent. If one\nwishes to know exactly how \"Christian\" Austria is,\nlet him read the history of Hungary, let him read\nthe speeches of Kossuth. There is one good thing\nabout Austria: slowly but surely she is undermining\nthe church by education. Education is the enemy\nof superstition. Universal education does away with\nthe classes born of the tyranny of ecclesiasticism—\nclasses founded upon cunning, greed, and brute\nstrength. Education also tends to do away with\nintellectual cowardice. The educated man is his\nown priest, his own pope, his own church.\n\nWhen cunning collects tolls from fear, the church\nprospers.\n\nGermany is another Christian nation. Bismarck is\ncelebrated for his Christian virtues.\n\nOnly a little while ago, Bismarck, when a bill was\nunder consideration for ameliorating the condition\nof the Jews, stated publicly that Germany was a\nChristian nation, that her business was to extend\nand protect the religion of Jesus Christ, and that\nbeing a Christian nation, no laws should be passed\n\n330\n\nameliorating the condition of the Jews. Certainly a\nremark like this could not have been made in any\nother than a Christian nation. There is no freedom\nof the press, there is no freedom of speech, in Ger-\nmany. The Chancellor has gone so far as to declare\nthat the king is not responsible to the people. Ger-\nmany must be a Christian nation. The king gets his\nright to govern, not from his subjects, but from God.\nHe relies upon the New Testament. He is satisfied\nthat \"the powers that be in Germany are ordained\n\"of God.\" He is satisfied that treason against the\nGerman throne is treason against Jehovah. There\nare millions of Freethinkers in Germany. They are\nnot in the majority, otherwise there would be more\nliberty in that country. Germany is not an infidel\nnation, or speech would be free, and every man\nwould be allowed to express his honest thoughts.\n\nWherever I see Liberty in chains, wherever the\nexpression of opinion is a crime, I know that that\ncountry is not infidel; I know that the people are not\nruled by reason. I also know that the greatest men\nof Germany—her Freethinkers, her scientists, her\nwriters, her philosophers, are, for the most part, in-\nfidel. Yet Germany is called a Christian nation, and\nought to be so called until her citizens are free.\n\n331\n\nFrance is also claimed as a Christian country. This\nis not entirely true. France once was thoroughly\nCatholic, completely Christian. At the time of the\nmassacre of Saint Bartholomew, the French were\nChristians. Christian France made exiles of the\nHuguenots. Christian France for years and years\nwas the property of the Jesuits. Christian France\nwas ignorant, cruel, orthodox and infamous. When\nFrance was Christian, witnesses were cross-examined\nwith instruments of torture.\n\nNow France is not entirely under Catholic control,\nand yet she is by far the most prosperous nation in\nEurope. I saw, only the other day, a letter from a\nProtestant bishop, in which he states that there are\nonly about a million Protestants in France, and only\nfour or five millions of Catholics, and admits, in a\nvery melancholy way, that thirty-four or thirty-five\nmillions are Freethinkers. The bishop is probably\nmistaken in his figures, but France is the best housed,\nthe best fed, the best clad country in Europe.\n\nOnly a little while ago, France was overrun, trampled\ninto the very earth, by the victorious hosts of Ger-\nmany, and France purchased her peace with the\nsavings of centuries. And yet France is now rich and\nprosperous and free, and Germany poor, discontented\n\n332\n\nand enslaved. Hundreds and thousands of Germans,\nunable to find liberty at home, are coming to the\nUnited States.\n\nI admit that England is a Christian country. Any\ndoubts upon this point can be dispelled by reading\nher history—her career in India, what she has done\nin China, her treatment of Ireland, of the American\nColonies, her attitude during our Civil war; all these\nthings show conclusively that England is a Christian\nnation.\n\nReligion has filled Great Britain with war. The\nhistory of the Catholics, of the Episcopalians, of\nCromwell—all the burnings, the maimings, the brand-\nings, the imprisonments, the confiscations, the civil\nwars, the bigotry, the crime—show conclusively that\nGreat Britain has enjoyed to the full the blessings of\n\"our most holy religion.\"\n\nOf course, Mr. Talmage claims the United States\nas a Christian country. The truth is, our country is\nnot as Christian as it once was. When heretics were\nhanged in New England, when the laws of Virginia\nand Maryland provided that the tongue of any man\nwho denied the doctrine of the Trinity should be\nbored with hot iron,, and that for the second offence\nhe should suffer death, I admit that this country was\n\n333\n\nChristian. When we engaged in the slave trade,\nwhen our flag protected piracy and murder in every\nsea, there is not the slightest doubt that the United\nStates was a Christian country. When we believed\nin slavery, and when we deliberately stole the labor\nof four millions of people; when we sold women\nand babes, and when the people of the North\nenacted a law by virtue of which every Northern\nman was bound to turn hound and pursue a human\nbeing who was endeavoring to regain his liberty, I\nadmit that the United States was a Christian nation.\nI admit that all these things were upheld by the Bible\n—that the slave trader was justified by the Old Testa-\nment, that the bloodhound was a kind of missionary\nin disguise, that the auction block was an altar, the\nslave pen a kind of church, and that the whipping-\npost was considered almost as sacred as the cross.\nAt that time, our country was a Christian nation.\n\nI heard Frederick Douglass say that he lectured\nagainst slavery for twenty years before the doors\nof a single church were opened to him. In New\nEngland, hundreds of ministers were driven from\ntheir pulpits because they preached against the\ncrime of human slavery. At that time, this country\nwas a Christian nation.\n\n334\n\nOnly a few years ago, any man speaking in favor\nof the rights of man, endeavoring to break a chain\nfrom a human limb, was in danger of being mobbed\nby the Christians of this country. I admit that Dela-\nware is still a Christian State. I heard a story about\nthat State the other day.\n\nAbout fifty years ago, an old Revolutionary soldier\napplied for a pension. He was asked his age, and he\nreplied that he was fifty years old. He was told that\nif that was his age, he could not have been in the\nRevolutionary War, and consequently was not en-\ntitled to any pension. He insisted, however, that he\nwas only fifty years old. Again they told him that\nthere must be some mistake. He was so wrinkled,\nso bowed, had so many marks of age, that he must\ncertainly be more than fifty years old. \"Well,\" said\nthe old man, \"if I must explain, I will: I lived forty\n\"years in Delaware; but I never counted that time,\n\"and I hope God won't.\"\n\nThe fact is, we have grown less and less Christian\nevery year from 1620 until now, and the fact is that\nwe have grown more and more civilized, more and\nmore charitable, nearer and nearer just.\n\nMr. Talmage speaks as though all the people in\nwhat he calls the civilized world were Christians. Ad-\n\n335\n\nmitting this to be true, I find that in these countries\nmillions of men are educated, trained and drilled to\nkill their fellow Christians. I find Europe covered\nwith forts to protect Christians from Christians, and\nthe seas filled with men-of-war for the purpose of\nravaging the coasts and destroying the cities of Chris-\ntian nations. These countries are filled with prisons,\nwith workhouses, with jails and with toiling, ignorant\nand suffering millions. I find that Christians have\ninvented most of the instruments of death, that\nChristians are the greatest soldiers, fighters, de-\nstroyers. I find that every Christian country is taxed\nto its utmost to support these soldiers; that every\nChristian nation is now groaning beneath the grievous\nburden of monstrous debt, and that nearly all these\ndebts were contracted in waging war. These bonds,\nthese millions, these almost incalculable amounts,\nwere given to pay for shot and shell, for rifle and\ntorpedo, for men-of-war, for forts and arsenals, and\nall the devilish enginery of death. I find that each\nof these nations prays to God to assist it as against\nall others; and when one nation has overrun, ravaged\nand pillaged another, it immediately returns thanks\nto the Almighty, and the ravaged and pillaged kneel\nand thank God that it is no worse.\n\n336\n\nMr. Talmage is welcome to all the evidence he can\nfind in the history of what he is pleased to call the\ncivilized nations of the world, tending to show the\ninspiration of the Bible.\n\nAnd right here it may be well enough to say again,\nthat the question of inspiration can not be settled by\nthe votes of the superstitious millions. It can not be\naffected by numbers. It must be decided by each\nhuman being for himself. If every man in this world,\nwith one exception, believed the Bible to be the in-\nspired word of God, the man who was the exception\ncould not lose his right to think, to investigate, and to\njudge for himself.\n\nQuestion. You do not think, then, that any of the\narguments brought forward by Mr. Talmage for the\npurpose of establishing the inspiration of the Bible,\nare of any weight whatever?\n\nAnswer. I do not. I do not see how it is possible\nto make poorer, weaker or better arguments than he\nhas made.\n\nOf course, there can be no \"evidence\" of the in-\nspiration of the Scriptures. What is \"inspiration\"?\nDid God use the prophets simply as instruments?\nDid he put his thoughts in their minds, and use their\n\n337\n\nhands to make a record? Probably few Christians\nwill agree as to what they mean by \"inspiration.\"\nThe general idea is, that the minds of the writers of\nthe books of the Bible were controlled by the divine\nwill in such a way that they expressed, independently\nof their own opinions, the thought of God. I believe it\nis admitted that God did not choose the exact words,\nand is not responsible for the punctuation or syntax.\nIt is hard to give any reason for claiming more for\nthe Bible than is claimed by those who wrote it.\nThere is no claim of \"inspiration\" made by the writer\nof First and Second Kings. Not one word about the\nauthor having been \"inspired\" is found in the book\nof Job, or in Ruth, or in Chronicles, or in the Psalms,\nor Ecclesiastes, or in Solomon's Song, and nothing is\nsaid about the author of the book of Esther having\nbeen \"inspired.\" Christians now say that Matthew,\nMark, Luke and John were \"inspired\" to write the\nfour gospels, and yet neither Mark, nor Luke, nor\nJohn, nor Matthew claims to have been \"inspired.\"\nIf they were \"inspired,\" certainly they should have\nstated that fact. The very first thing stated in each\nof the gospels should have been a declaration by the\nwriter that he had been \"inspired,\" and that he was\nabout to write the book under the guidance of God,\n\n338\n\nand at the conclusion of each gospel there should\nhave been a solemn statement that the writer had\nput down nothing of himself, but had in all things\nfollowed the direction and guidance of the divine\nwill. The church now endeavors to establish the\ninspiration of the Bible by force, by social ostracism,\nand by attacking the reputation of every man who\ndenies or doubts. In all Christian countries, they\nbegin with the child in the cradle. Each infant is\ntold by its mother, by its father, or by some of its\nrelatives, that \"the Bible is an inspired book.\" This\npretended fact, by repetition \"in season and out of\n\"season,\" is finally burned and branded into the\nbrain to such a degree that the child of average\nintelligence never outgrows the conviction that the\nBible is, in some peculiar sense, an \"inspired\" book.\nThe question has to be settled for each generation.\nThe evidence is not sufficient, and the foundation of\nChristianity is perpetually insecure. Beneath this great\nreligious fabric there is no rock. For eighteen centu-\nries, hundreds and thousands and millions of people\nhave been endeavoring to establish the fact that the\nScriptures are inspired, and since the dawn of science,\nsince the first star appeared in the night of the\nMiddle Ages, until this moment, the number of\n\n339\n\npeople who have doubted the fact of inspiration\nhas steadily increased. These doubts have not been\nborn of ignorance, they have not been suggested by\nthe unthinking. They have forced themselves upon\nthe thoughtful, upon the educated, and now the ver-\ndict of the intellectual world is, that the Bible is not\ninspired. Notwithstanding the fact that the church\nhas taken advantage of infancy, has endeavored to\ncontrol education, has filled all primers and spelling-\nbooks and readers and text books with superstition—\nfeeding all minds with the miraculous and super-\nnatural, the growth toward a belief in the natural\nand toward the rejection of the miraculous has been\nsteady and sturdy since the sixteenth century. There\nhas been, too, a moral growth, until many passages\nin the Bible have become barbarous, inhuman and\ninfamous. The Bible has remained the same, while\nthe world has changed. In the light of physical and\nmoral discovery, \"the inspired volume\" seems in\nmany respects absurd. If the same progress is made\nin the next, as in the last, century, it is very easy to\npredict the place that will then be occupied by the\nBible. By comparing long periods of time, it is easy\nto measure the advance of the human race. Com-\npare the average sermon of to-day with the average\n\n340\n\nsermon of one hundred years ago. Compare what\nministers teach to-day with the creeds they profess\nto believe, and you will see the immense distance\nthat even the church has traveled in the last century.\n\nThe Christians tell us that scientific men have\nmade mistakes, and that there is very little certainty\nin the domain of human knowledge. This I admit.\nThe man who thought the world was flat, and who\nhad a way of accounting for the movement of the\nheavenly bodies, had what he was pleased to call a\nphilosophy. He was, in his way, a geologist and an\nastronomer. We admit that he was mistaken; but\nif we claimed that the first geologist and the first\nastronomer were inspired, it would not do for us to\nadmit that any advance had been made, or that any\nerrors of theirs had been corrected. We do not\nclaim that the first scientists were inspired. We do\nnot claim that the last are inspired. We admit that\nall scientific men are fallible. We admit that they do\nnot know everything. We insist that they know but\nlittle, and that even in that little which they are sup-\nposed to know, there is the possibility of error. The\nfirst geologist said: \"The earth is flat.\" Suppose\nthat the geologists of to-day should insist that that\nman was inspired, and then endeavor to show that\n\n341\n\nthe word \"flat,\" in the \"Hebrew,\" did not mean\nquite flat, but just a little rounded; what would we\nthink of their honesty? The first astronomer in-\nsisted that the sun and moon and stars revolved\naround this earth—that this little earth was the centre\nof the entire system. Suppose that the astronomers\nof to-day should insist that that astronomer was in-\nspired, and should try to explain, and say that he\nsimply used the language of the common people, and\nwhen he stated that the sun and moon and stars re-\nvolved around the earth, he merely meant that they\n\"apparently revolved,\" and that the earth, in fact,\nturned over, would we consider them honest men?\nYou might as well say that the first painter was in-\nspired, or that the first sculptor had the assistance of\nGod, as to say that the first writer, or the first book-\nmaker, was divinely inspired. It is more probable\nthat the modern geologist is inspired than that the an-\ncient one was, because the modern geologist is nearer\nright. It is more probable that William Lloyd Gar-\nrison was inspired upon the question of slavery than\nthat Moses was. It is more probable that the author\nof the Declaration of Independence spoke by divine\nauthority than that the author of the Pentateuch did.\nIn other words, if there can be any evidence of\n\n342\n\n\"inspiration,\" it must lie in the fact of doing or\nsaying the best possible thing that could have been\ndone or said at that time or upon that subject.\n\nTo make myself clear: The only possible evidence\nof \"inspiration\" would be perfection—a perfection ex-\ncelling anything that man unaided had ever attained.\nAn \"inspired\" book should excel all other books; an\ninspired statue should be the best in this world; an in-\nspired painting should be beyond all others. If the Bible\nhas been improved in any particular, it was not, in that\nparticular, ''inspired.\" If slavery is wrong, the Bible is\nnot inspired. If polygamy is vile and loathsome, the\nBible is not inspired. If wars of extermination are cruel\nand heartless, the Bible is not \"inspired.\" If there is\nwithin that book a contradiction of any natural fact; if\nthere is one ignorant falsehood, if there is one mistake,\nthen it is not \"inspired.\" I do not mean mistakes that\nhave grown out of translations; but if there was in\nthe original manuscript one mistake, then it is not\n\"inspired.\" I do not demand a miracle; I do not\ndemand a knowledge of the future; I simply demand\nan absolute knowledge of the past. I demand an ab-\nsolute knowledge of the then present; I demand a\nknowledge of the constitution of the human mind—\nof the facts in nature, and that is all I demand.\n\n343\n\nQuestion. If I understand you, you think that all\npolitical power should come from the people; do you\nnot believe in any \"special providence,\" and do you\ntake the ground that God does not interest himself\nin the affairs of nations and individuals?\n\nAnswer. The Christian idea is that God made the\nworld, and made certain laws for the government of\nmatter and mind, and that he never interferes except\nupon special occasions, when the ordinary laws fail to\nwork out the desired end. Their notion is, that the\nLord now and then stops the horses simply to show\nthat he is driving. It seems to me that if an infinitely\nwise being made the world, he must have made it\nthe best possible; and that if he made laws for the\ngovernment of matter and mind, he must have made\nthe best possible laws. If this is true, not one of\nthese laws can be violated without producing a posi-\ntive injury. It does not seem probable that infinite\nwisdom would violate a law that infinite wisdom had\nmade.\n\nMost ministers insist that God now and then in-\nterferes in the affairs of this world; that he has not\ninterfered as much lately as he did formerly. When\nthe world was comparatively new, it required alto-\ngether more tinkering and fixing than at present.\n\n344\n\nThings are at last in a reasonably good condition,\nand consequently a great amount of interference is\nnot necessary. In old times it was found necessary fre-\nquently to raise the dead, to change the nature of fire\nand water, to punish people with plagues and famine,\nto destroy cities by storms of fire and brimstone, to\nchange women into salt, to cast hailstones upon\nheathen, to interfere with the movements of our\nplanetary system, to stop the earth not only, but\nsometimes to make it turn the other way, to arrest\nthe moon, and to make water stand up like a wall.\nNow and then, rivers were divided by striking them\nwith a coat, and people were taken to heaven in\nchariots of fire. These miracles, in addition to curing\nthe sick, the halt, the deaf and blind, were in former\ntimes found necessary, but since the \"apostolic age,\"\nnothing of the kind has been resorted to except in\nCatholic countries. Since the death of the last\napostle, God has appeared only to members of the\nCatholic Church, and all modern miracles have been\nperformed for the benefit of Catholicism. There is\nno authentic account of the Virgin Mary having ever\nappeared to a Protestant. The bones of Protestant\nsaints have never cured a solitary disease. Protest-\nants now say that the testimony of the Catholics can\n\n345\n\nnot be relied upon, and yet, the authenticity of every\nbook in the New Testament was established by Cath-\nolic testimony. Some few miracles were performed\nin Scotland, and in fact in England and the United\nStates, but they were so small that they are hardly\nworth mentioning. Now and then, a man was struck\ndead for taking the name of the Lord in vain. Now\nand then, people were drowned who were found in\nboats on Sunday. Whenever anybody was about to\ncommit murder, God has not interfered—the reason\nbeing that he gave man free-will, and expects to hold\nhim accountable in another world, and there is no\nexception to this free-will doctrine, but in cases\nwhere men swear or violate the Sabbath. They are\nallowed to commit all other crimes without any in-\nterference on the part of the Lord.\n\nMy own opinion is, that the clergy found it neces-\nsary to preserve the Sabbath for their own uses, and\nfor that reason endeavored to impress the people\nwith the enormity of its violation, and for that purpose\ngave instances of people being drowned and suddenly\nstruck dead for working or amusing themselves on that\nday. The clergy have objected to any other places of\namusement except their own, being opened on that\nday. They wished to compel people either to go to\n\n346\n\nchurch or stay at home. They have also known\nthat profanity tended to do away with the feelings\nof awe they wished to cultivate, and for that reason\nthey have insisted that swearing was one of the most\nterrible of crimes, exciting above all others the wrath\nof God.\n\nThere was a time when people fell dead for having\nspoken disrespectfully to a priest. The priest at that\ntime pretended to be the visible representative of\nGod, and as such, entitled to a degree of reverence\namounting almost to worship. Several cases are\ngiven in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland where\nmen were deprived of speech for having spoken\nrudely to a parson.\n\nThese stories were calculated to increase the im-\nportance of the clergy and to convince people that\nthey were under the special care of the Deity. The\nstory about the bears devouring the little children\nwas told in the first place, and has been repeated\nsince, simply to protect ministers from the laughter\nof children. There ought to be carved on each side\nof every pulpit a bear with fragments of children in\nits mouth, as this animal has done so much to protect\nthe dignity of the clergy.\n\nBesides the protection of ministers, the drowning\n\n347\n\nof breakers of the Sabbath, and striking a few people\ndead for using profane language, I think there is no\nevidence of any providential interference in the affairs\nof this world in what may be called modern times.\nMinisters have endeavored to show that great calam-\nities have been brought upon nations and cities as a\npunishment for the wickedness of the people. They\nhave insisted that some countries have been visited\nwith earthquakes because the people had failed to\ndischarge their religious duties; but as earthquakes\nhappened in uninhabited countries, and often at sea,\nwhere no one is hurt, most people have concluded\nthat they are not sent as punishments. They have\ninsisted that cities have been burned as a punish-\nment, and to show the indignation of the Lord, but\nat the same time they have admitted that if the\nstreets had been wider, the fire departments better\norganized, and wooden buildings fewer, the design\nof the Lord would have been frustrated.\n\nAfter reading the history of the world, it is some-\nwhat difficult to find which side the Lord is really on.\nHe has allowed Catholics to overwhelm and de-\nstroy Protestants, and then he has allowed Protestants\nto overwhelm and destroy Catholics. He has allowed\nChristianity to triumph over Paganism, and he allowed\n\n348\n\nMohammedans to drive back the hosts of the cross\nfrom the sepulchre of his son. It is curious that this\nGod would allow the slave trade to go on, and yet\npunish the violators of the Sabbath. It is simply\nwonderful that he would allow kings to wage cruel\nand remorseless war, to sacrifice millions upon the\naltar of heartless ambition, and at the same time\nstrike a man dead for taking his name in vain. It is\nwonderful that he allowed slavery to exist for centu-\nries in the United States; that he allows polygamy\nnow in Utah; that he cares nothing for liberty in\nRussia, nothing for free speech in Germany, nothing\nfor the sorrows of the overworked, underpaid millions\nof the world; that he cares nothing for the innocent\nlanguishing in prisons, nothing for the patriots con-\ndemned to death, nothing for the heart-broken\nwidows and orphans, nothing for the starving, and\nyet has ample time to note a sparrow's fall. If he\nwould only strike dead the would-be murderers; if\nhe would only palsy the hands of husbands' uplifted\nto strike their wives; if he would render speechless\nthe cursers of children, he could afford to overlook\nthe swearers and breakers of his Sabbath.\n\nFor one, I am not satisfied with the government\nof this world, and I am going to do what little I can\n\n349\n\nto make it better. I want more thought and less\nfear, more manhood and less superstition, less prayer\nand more help, more education, more reason, more\nintellectual hospitality, and above all, and over all,\nmore liberty and kindness.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that God, if there be one,\nwhen he saves or damns a man, will take into con-\nsideration all the circumstances of the man's life?\n\nAnswer. Suppose that two orphan boys, James\nand John, are given homes. James is taken into a\nChristian family and John into an infidel. James\nbecomes a Christian, and dies in the faith. John be-\ncomes an infidel, and dies without faith in Christ.\nAccording to the Christian religion, as commonly\npreached, James will go to heaven, and John to hell.\n\nNow, suppose that God knew that if James had\nbeen raised by the infidel family, he would have died\nan infidel, and that if John had been raised by the\nChristian family, he would have died a Christian.\nWhat then? Recollect that the boys did not choose\nthe families in which they were placed.\n\nSuppose that a child, cast away upon an island in\nwhich he found plenty of food, grew to manhood;\nand suppose that after he had reached mature years,\n\n350\n\nthe island was visited by a missionary who taught a\nfalse religion; and suppose that this islander was con-\nvinced that he ought to worship a wooden idol; and\nsuppose, further, that the worship consisted in sacri-\nficing animals; and suppose the islander, actuated\nonly by what he conceived to be his duty and by\nthankfulness, sacrificed a toad every night and every\nmorning upon the altar of his wooden god; that\nwhen the sky looked black and threatening he sacri-\nficed two toads; that when feeling unwell he sacrificed\nthree; and suppose that in all this he was honest, that\nhe really believed that the shedding of toad-blood\nwould soften the heart of his god toward him? And\nsuppose that after he had become fully-convinced\nof the truth of his religion, a missionary of the\n\"true religion\" should visit the island, and tell the\nhistory of the Jews—unfold the whole scheme of\nsalvation? And suppose that the islander should\nhonestly reject the true religion? Suppose he should\nsay that he had \"internal evidence\" not only, but\nthat many miracles had been performed by his god,\nin his behalf; that often when the sky was black\nwith storm, he had sacrificed a toad, and in a few\nmoments the sun was again visible, the heavens blue,\nand without a cloud; that on several occasions, having\n\n351\n\nforgotten at evening to sacrifice his toad, he found\nhimself unable to sleep—that his conscience smote\nhim, he had risen, made the sacrifice, returned to his\nbed, and in a few moments sunk into a serene and\nhappy slumber? And suppose, further, that the man\nhonestly believed that the efficacy of the sacrifice\ndepended largely on the size of the toad? Now\nsuppose that in this belief the man had died,—what\nthen?\n\nIt must be remembered that God knew when the\nmissionary of the false religion went to the island;\nand knew that the islander would be convinced of the\ntruth of the false religion; and he also knew that the\nmissionary of the true religion could not, by any\npossibility, convince the islander of the error of his\nway; what then?\n\nIf God is infinite, we cannot speak of him as\nmaking efforts, as being tired. We cannot con-\nsistently say that one thing is easy to him, and\nanother thing is hard, providing both are possible.\nThis being so, why did not God reveal himself to\nevery human being? Instead of having an inspired\nbook, why did he not make inspired folks? Instead\nof having his commandments put on tables of stone,\nwhy did he not write them on each human brain?\n\n352\n\nWhy was not the mind of each man so made that\nevery religious truth necessary to his salvation was\nan axiom?\n\nDo we not know absolutely that man is greatly\ninfluenced by his surroundings? If Mr. Talmage\nhad been born in Turkey, is it not probable that\nhe would now be a whirling Dervish? If he had\nfirst seen the light in Central Africa, he might now\nhave been prostrate before some enormous serpent;\nif in India, he might have been a Brahmin, running a\nprayer-machine; if in Spain, he would probably have\nbeen a priest, with his beads and holy water. Had\nhe been born among the North American Indians,\nhe would speak of the \"Great Spirit,\" and solemnly\nsmoke the the pipe of peace.\n\nMr. Talmage teaches that it is the duty of children\nto perpetuate the errors of their parents; conse-\nquently, the religion of his parents determined his\ntheology. It is with him not a question of reason,\nbut of parents; not a question of argument, but of\nfilial affection. He does not wish to be a philoso-\npher, but an obedient son. Suppose his father had\nbeen a Catholic, and his mother a Protestant,—what\nthen? Would he show contempt for his mother by\nfollowing the path of his father; or would he show\n\n353\n\ndisrespect for his father, by accepting the religion of\nhis mother; or would he have become a Protestant\nwith Catholic proclivities, or a Catholic with Protest-\nant leanings? Suppose his parents had both been\ninfidels—what then?\n\nIs it not better for each one to decide honestly for\nhimself? Admitting that your parents were good and\nkind; admitting that they were honest in their views,\nwhy not have the courage to say, that in your opinion,\nfather and mother were both mistaken? No one can\nhonor his parents by being a hypocrite, or an intellectu-\nal coward. Whoever is absolutely true to himself, is\ntrue to his parents, and true to the whole world. Who-\never is untrue to himself, is false to all mankind. Re-\nligion must be an individual matter. If there is a God,\nand if there is a day of judgment, the church that a man\nbelongs to will not be tried, but the man will be tried.\n\nIt is a fact that the religion of most people was made\nfor them by others; that they have accepted certain\ndogmas, not because they have examined them, but\nbecause they were told that they were true. Most of\nthe people in the United States, had they been born in\nTurkey, would now be Mohammedans, and most of\nthe Turks, had they been born in Spain, would now\nbe Catholics.\n\n354\n\nIt is almost, if not quite, impossible for a man to\nrise entirely above the ideas, views, doctrines and re-\nligions of his tribe or country. No one expects to\nfind philosophers in Central Africa, or scientists\namong the Fejees. No one expects to find philoso-\nphers or scientists in any country where the church\nhas absolute control.\n\nIf there is an infinitely good and wise God, of\ncourse he will take into consideration the surround-\nings of every human being. He understands the\nphilosophy of environment, and of heredity. He\nknows exactly the influence of the mother, of all\nassociates, of all associations. He will also take into\nconsideration the amount, quality and form of each\nbrain, and whether the brain was healthy or diseased.\nHe will take into consideration the strength of the\npassions, the weakness of the judgment. He will\nknow exactly the force of all temptation—what was\nresisted. He will take an account of every effort\nmade in the right direction, and will understand\nall the winds and waves and quicksands and shores\nand shallows in, upon and around the sea of every\nlife.\n\nMy own opinion is, that if such a being exists, and\nall these things are taken into consideration, we will\n\n355\n\nbe absolutely amazed to see how small the difference\nis between the \"good\" and the \"bad.\" Certainly\nthere is no such difference as would justify a being\nof infinite wisdom and benevolence in rewarding one\nwith eternal joy and punishing the other with eternal\npain.\n\nQuestion. What are the principal reasons that\nhave satisfied you that the Bible is not an inspired\nbook?\n\nAnswer. The great evils that have afflicted this\nworld are:\n\nFirst. Human slavery—where men have bought\nand sold their fellow-men—sold babes from mothers,\nand have practiced) every conceivable cruelty upon\nthe helpless.\n\nSecond. Polygamy—an institution that destroys\nthe home, that treats woman as a simple chattel, that\ndoes away with the sanctity of marriage, and with all\nthat is sacred in love.\n\nThird. Wars of conquest and extermination—\nby which nations have been made the food of the\nsword.\n\nFourth. The idea entertained by each nation that\nall other nations are destitute of rights—in other\n\n356\n\nwords, patriotism founded upon egotism, prejudice,\nand love of plunder.\n\nFifth. Religious persecution.\n\nSixth. The divine right of kings—an idea that\nrests upon the inequality of human rights, and insists\nthat people should be governed without their con-\nsent; that the right of one man to govern another\ncomes from God, and not from the consent of the\ngoverned. This is caste—one of the most odious\nforms of slavery.\n\nSeventh. A belief in malicious supernatural be-\nings—devils, witches, and wizards.\n\nEighth. A belief in an infinite being who or-\ndered, commanded, established and approved all\nthese evils.\n\nNinth. The idea that one man can be good for\nanother, or bad for another—that is to say, that one\ncan be rewarded for the goodness of another, or\njustly punished for the sins of another.\n\nTenth. The dogma that a finite being can commit\nan infinite sin, and thereby incur the eternal dis-\npleasure of an infinitely good being, and be justly\nsubjected to eternal torment.\n\nMy principal objection to the Bible is that it sus-\ntains all of these ten evils—that it is the advocate of\n\n357\n\nhuman slavery, the friend of polygamy; that within\nits pages I find the command to wage wars of ex-\ntermination; that I find also that the Jews were\ntaught to hate foreigners—to consider all human\nbeings as inferior to themselves; I also find persecu-\ntion commanded as a religious duty; that kings were\nseated upon their thrones by the direct act of God,\nand that to rebel against a king was rebellion against\nGod. I object to the Bible also because I find within\nits pages the infamous spirit of caste—I see the sons\nof Levi set apart as the perpetual beggars and\ngovernors of a people; because I find the air filled\nwith demons seeking to injure and betray the sons\nof men; because this book is the fountain of modern\nsuperstition, the bulwark of tyranny and the fortress\nof caste. This book also subverts the idea of justice\nby threatening infinite punishment for the sins of a\nfinite being.\n\nAt the same time, I admit—as I always have ad-\nmitted—that there are good passages in the Bible—\ngood laws, good teachings, with now and then a true\nline of history. But when it is asserted that every\nword was written by inspiration—that a being of in-\nfinite wisdom and goodness is its author,—then\nI raise the standard of revolt.\n\n358\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the declaration\nof Mr. Talmage that the Bible will be read in heaven\nthroughout all the endless ages of eternity?\n\nAnswer. Of course I know but very little as to\nwhat is or will be done in heaven. My knowledge\nof that country is somewhat limited, and it may be\npossible that the angels will spend most of their time\nin turning over the sacred leaves of the Old Testa-\nment. I can not positively deny the statement of the\nReverend Mr. Talmage as I have but very little idea\nas to how the angels manage to kill time.\n\nThe Reverend Mr. Spurgeon stated in a sermon\nthat some people wondered what they would do\nthrough all eternity in heaven. He said that, as for\nhimself, for the first hundred thousand years he\nwould look at the wound in one of the Savior's\nfeet, and for the next hundred thousand years he\nwould look at the wound in his other foot, and\nfor the next hundred thousand years he would\nlook at the wound in one of his hands, and for\nthe next hundred thousand years he would look at\nthe wound in the other hand, and for the next\nhundred thousand years he would look at the wound\nin his side.\n\nSurely, nothing could be more delightful than this\n\n359\n\nA man capable of being happy in such employment,\ncould of course take great delight in reading even\nthe genealogies of the Old Testament. It is very\neasy to see what a glow of joy would naturally over-\nspread the face of an angel while reading the history\nof the Jewish wars, how the seraphim and cherubim\nwould clasp their rosy palms in ecstasy over the fate\nof Korah and his company, and what laughter would\nwake the echoes of the New Jerusalem as some one\ntold again the story of the children and the bears;\nand what happy groups, with folded pinions, would\nsmilingly listen to the 109th Psalm.\n\n[Illustration:  371]\n\nAn orthodox \"state of mind\"\n"
}