{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-5:the-talmagian-catechism",
  "slug": "the-talmagian-catechism",
  "title": "The Talmagian Catechism",
  "subtitle": "A shorter catechism, drawn from the sermons of Mr. Talmage.",
  "excerpt": "A mock-catechism — question and answer in the manner of Westminster — distilling Talmage's sermons into their essence, and showing just how strange the orthodox position actually is when stated plainly.",
  "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/the-talmagian-catechism/",
  "wordCount": 15602,
  "body": "_As Mr. Talmage delivered the series of sermons\nreferred to in these interviews, for the purpose\nof furnishing arguments to the young, so that they\nmight not be misled by the sophistry of modern\ninfi-delity, I have thought it best to set forth,\nfor use in Sunday schools, the pith and marrow of\nwhat he has been pleased to say, in the form of_\n\nA Shorter Catechism\n\nQuestion. Who made you?\n\nAnswer. Jehovah, the original Presbyterian.\n\nQuestion. What else did he make?\n\nAnswer. He made the world and all things.\n\nQuestion. Did he make the world out of nothing?\n\nAnswer. No.\n\nQuestion. What did he make it out of?\n\nAnswer. Out of his \"omnipotence.\" Many infidels\nhave pretended that if God made the universe, and if\nthere was nothing until he did make it, he had nothing\nto make it out of. Of course this is perfectly absurd\nwhen we remember that he always had his \"omnipo-\ntence and that is, undoubtedly, the material used.\n\n364\n\nQuestion. Did he create his own \"omnipotence\"?\n\nAnswer. Certainly not, he was always omnipo-\ntent.\n\nQuestion. Then if he always had \"omnipotence,\"\nhe did not \"create\" the material of which the uni-\nverse is made; he simply took a portion of his\n\"omnipotence\" and changed it to \"universe\"?\n\nAnswer. Certainly, that is the way I under-\nstand it.\n\nQuestion. Is he still omnipotent, and has he as\nmuch \"omnipotence\" now as he ever had?\n\nAnswer. Well, I suppose he has.\n\nQuestion. How long did it take God to make the\nuniverse?\n\nAnswer. Six \"good-whiles.\"\n\nQuestion. How long is a \"good-while\"?\n\nAnswer. That will depend upon the future dis-\ncoveries of geologists. \"Good-whiles\" are of such\na nature that they can be pulled out, or pushed up;\nand it is utterly impossible for any infidel, or scien-\ntific geologist, to make any period that a \"good-while\"\nwon't fit.\n\nQuestion. What do you understand by \"the\n\"morning and evening\" of a \"good-while\"?\n\nAnswer. Of course the words \"morning and\n\n365\n\n\"evening\" are used figuratively, and mean simply\nthe beginning and the ending, of each \"good-while.\"\n\nQuestion. On what day did God make vegetation?\n\nAnswer. On the third day.\n\nQuestion. Was that before the sun was made?\n\nAnswer. Yes; a \"good-while\" before.\n\nQuestion. How did vegetation grow without sun-\nlight?\n\nAnswer. My own opinion is, that it was either\n\"nourished by the glare of volcanoes in the moon\nor \"it may have gotten sufficient light from rivers\n\"of molten granite;\" or, \"sufficient light might have\n\"been emitted by the crystallization of rocks.\" It\nhas been suggested that light might have been fur-\nnished by fire-flies and phosphorescent bugs and\nworms, but this I regard as going too far.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that light emitted by\nrocks would be sufficient to produce trees?\n\nAnswer. Yes, with the assistance of the \"Aurora\n\"Borealis, or even the Aurora Australis;\" but with\nboth, most assuredly.\n\nQuestion. If the light of which you speak was\nsufficient, why was the sun made?\n\nAnswer. To keep time with.\n\nQuestion. What did God make man of?\n\n366\n\nAnswer. He made man of dust and \"omnipo-\n\"tence.\"\n\nQuestion. Did he make a woman at the same\ntime that he made a man?\n\nAnswer. No; he thought at one time to avoid\nthe necessity of making a woman, and he caused all\nthe animals to pass before Adam, to see what he\nwould call them, and to see whether a fit companion\ncould be found for him. Among them all, not one\nsuited Adam, and Jehovah immediately saw that he\nwould have to make an help-meet on purpose.\n\nQuestion. What was woman made of?\n\nAnswer. She was made out of \"man's side, out of\nhis right side,\" and some more \"omnipotence.\" Infi-\ndels say that she was made out of a rib, or a bone, but\nthat is because they do not understand Hebrew.\n\nQuestion. What was the object of making woman\nout of man's side?\n\nAnswer. So that a young man would think more\nof a neighbor's girl than of his own uncle or grand-\nfather.\n\nQuestion. What did God do with Adam and Eve\nafter he got them done?\n\nAnswer. He put them into a garden to see what\nthey would do.\n\n367\n\nQuestion. Do we know where the Garden of Eden\nwas, and have we ever found any place where a\n\"river parted and became into four heads\"?\n\nAnswer. We are not certain where this garden\nwas, and the river that parted into four heads cannot\nat present be found. Infidels have had a great deal\nto say about these four rivers, but they will wish\nthey had even one, one of these days.\n\nQuestion. What happened to Adam and Eve in\nthe garden?\n\nAnswer. They were tempted by a snake who was\nan exceedingly good talker, and who probably came\nin walking on the end of his tail. This supposition\nis based upon the fact that, as a punishment, he was\ncondemned to crawl on his belly. Before that time,\nof course, he walked upright.\n\nQuestion. What happened then?\n\nAnswer. Our first parents gave way, ate of the\nforbidden fruit, and in consequence, disease and\ndeath entered the world. Had it not been for this,\nthere would have been no death and no disease.\nSuicide would have been impossible, and a man\ncould have been blown into a thousand atoms by\ndynamite, and the pieces would immediately have\ncome together again. Fire would have refused to\n\n368\n\nburn and water to drown; there could have been no\nhunger, no thirst; all things would have been equally\nhealthy.\n\nQuestion. Do you mean to say that there would\nhave been no death in the world, either of animals,\ninsects, or persons?\n\nAnswer. Of course.\n\nQuestion. Do you also think that all briers and\nthorns sprang from the same source, and that had\nthe apple not been eaten, no bush in the world\nwould have had a thorn, and brambles and thistles\nwould have been unknown?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Would there have been no poisonous\nplants, no poisonous reptiles?\n\nAnswer. No, sir; there would have been none;\nthere would have been no evil in the world if Adam\nand Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit.\n\nQuestion. Was the snake who tempted them to\neat, evil?\n\nAnswer. Certainly. '\n\nQuestion. Was he in the world before the for-\nbidden fruit was eaten?\n\nAnswer. Of course he was; he tempted them to\neat it\n\n369\n\nQuestion. How, then, do you account for the fact\nthat, before the forbidden fruit was eaten, an evil\nserpent was in the world?\n\nAnswer. Perhaps apples had been eaten in other\nworlds.\n\nQuestion. Is it not wonderful that such awful con-\nsequences flowed from so small an act?\n\nAnswer. It is not for you to reason about it; you\nshould simply remember that God is omnipotent.\nThere is but one way to answer these things, and\nthat is to admit their truth. Nothing so puts the\nInfinite out of temper as to see a human being\nimpudent enough to rely upon his reason. The\nmoment we rely upon our reason, we abandon God,\nand try to take care of ourselves. Whoever relies\nentirely upon God, has no need of reason, and\nreason has no need of him.\n\nQuestion. Were our first parents under the im-\nmediate protection of an infinite God?\n\nAnswer. They were.\n\nQuestion. Why did he not protect them? Why\ndid he not warn them of this snake? Why did he\nnot put them on their guard? Why did he not\nmake them so sharp, intellectually, that they could\nnot be deceived? Why did he not destroy that\n\n370\n\nsnake; or how did he come to make him; what did\nhe make him for?\n\nAnswer. You must remember that, although God\nmade Adam and Eve perfectly good, still he was very\nanxious to test them. He also gave them the power\nof choice, knowing at the same time exactly what they\nwould choose, and knowing that he had made them\nso that they must choose in a certain way. A being\nof infinite wisdom tries experiments. Knowing ex-\nactly what will happen, he wishes to see if it will.\n\nQuestion. What punishment did God inflict upon\nAdam and Eve for the sin of having eaten the for-\nbidden fruit?\n\nAnswer. He pronounced a curse upon the woman,\nsaying that in sorrow she should bring forth children,\nand that her husband should rule over her; that she,\nhaving tempted her husband, was made his slave;\nand through her, all married women have been de-\nprived of their natural liberty. On account of the\nsin of Adam and Eve, God cursed the ground, saying\nthat it should bring forth thorns and thistles, and\nthat man should eat his bread in sorrow, and that he\nshould eat the herb of the field.\n\nQuestion. Did he turn them out of the garden\nbecause of their sin?\n\n371\n\nAnswer. No. The reason God gave for turning\nthem out of the garden was: \"Behold the man is\n\"become as one of us, to know good and evil; and\n\"now, lest he put forth his hand and take of the\n\"tree of life and eat and live forever, therefore, the\n\"Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden\n\"to till the ground from whence he was taken.\"\n\nQuestion. If the man had eaten of the tree of life,\nwould he have lived forever?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Was he turned out to prevent his\neating?\n\nAnswer. He was.\n\nQuestion. Then the Old Testament tells us how we\nlost immortality, not that we are immortal, does it?\n\nAnswer. Yes; it tells us how we lost it.\n\nQuestion. Was God afraid that Adam and Eve\nmight get back into the garden, and eat of the fruit\nof the tree of life?\n\nAnswer. I suppose he was, as he placed \"cher-\n\"ubim and a flaming sword which turned every\n\"way to guard the tree of life.\"\n\nQuestion. Has any one ever seen any of these\ncherubim?\n\nAnswer. Not that I know of.\n\n372\n\nQuestion. Where is the flaming sword now?\n\nAnswer. Some angel has it in heaven.\n\nQuestion. Do you understand that God made\ncoats of skins, and clothed Adam and Eve when\nhe turned them out of the garden?\n\nAnswer. Yes, sir.\n\nQuestion. Do you really believe that the infinite\nGod killed some animals, took their skins from them,\ncut out and sewed up clothes for Adam and Eve?\n\nAnswer. The Bible says so; we know that he\nhad patterns for clothes, because he showed some\nto Moses on Mount Sinai.\n\nQuestion. About how long did God continue\nto pay particular attention to his children in this\nworld?\n\nAnswer. For about fifteen hundred years; and\nsome of the people lived to be nearly a thousand\nyears of age.\n\nQuestion. Did this God establish any schools or\ninstitutions of learning? Did he establish any church?\nDid he ordain any ministers, or did he have any re-\nvivals?\n\nAnswer. No; he allowed the world to go on\npretty much in its own way. He did not even keep\nhis own boys at home. They came down and made\n\n373\n\nlove to the daughters of men, and finally the world\ngot exceedingly bad.\n\nQuestion. What did God do then?\n\nAnswer. He made up his mind that he would drown\nthem. You see they were all totally depraved,—in\nevery joint and sinew of their bodies, in every drop\nof their blood, and in every thought of their brains.\n\nQuestion. Did he drown them all?\n\nAnswer. No, he saved eight, to start with again.\n\nQuestion. Were these eight persons totally de-\npraved?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Why did he not kill them, and start\nover again with a perfect pair? Would it not have\nbeen better to have had his flood at first, before he\nmade anybody, and drowned the snake?\n\nAnswer. \"God's way are not our ways;\" and\nbesides, you must remember that \"a thousand years\n\"are as one day\" with God.\n\nQuestion. How did God destroy the people?\n\nAnswer. By water; it rained forty days and forty\nnights, and \"the fountains of the great deep were\n\"broken up.\"\n\nQuestion. How deep was the water?\n\nAnswer. About five miles.\n\n374\n\nQuestion. How much did it rain each day?\n\nAnswer. About eight hundred feet; though the\nbetter opinion now is, that it was a local flood. In-\nfidels have raised objections and pressed them to that\ndegree that most orthodox people admit that the\nflood was rather local.\n\nQuestion. If it was a local flood, why did they put\nbirds of the air into the ark? Certainly, birds could\nhave avoided a local flood?\n\nAnswer. If you take this away from us, what do\nyou propose to give us in its place? Some of the\nbest people of the world have believed this story.\nKind husbands, loving mothers, and earnest patriots\nhave believed it, and that is sufficient.\n\nQuestion. At the time God made these people,\ndid he know that he would have to drown them all?\n\nAnswer. Of course he did.\n\nQuestion. Did he know when he made them that\nthey would all be failures?\n\nAnswer. Of course.\n\nQuestion. Why, then, did he make them?\n\nAnswer. He made them for his own glory, and\nno man should disgrace his parents by denying it.\n\nQuestion. Were the people after the flood just as\nbad as they were before?\n\n375\n\nAnswer. About the same.\n\nQuestion. Did they try to circumvent God?\n\nAnswer. They did.\n\nQuestion. How?\n\nAnswer. They got together for the purpose of build-\ning a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,\nso that they could laugh at any future floods, and go\nto heaven at any time they desired.\n\nQuestion. Did God hear about this?\n\nAnswer. He did.\n\nQuestion. What did he say?\n\nAnswer. He said: \"Go to; let us go down,\" and\nsee what the people are doing; I am satisfied they\nwill succeed.\n\nQuestion. How were the people prevented from\nsucceeding?\n\nAnswer. God confounded their language, so that\nthe mason on top could not cry \"mort'!\" to the\nhod-carrier below; he could not think of the word\nto use, to save his life, and the building stopped.\n\nQuestion. If it had not been for the confusion of\ntongues at Babel, do you really think that all the\npeople in the world would have spoken just the same\nlanguage, and would have pronounced every word\nprecisely the same?\n\n376\n\nAnswer. Of course.\n\nQuestion. If it had not been, then, for the con-\nfusion of languages, spelling books, grammars and\ndictionaries would have been useless?\n\nAnswer. I suppose so.\n\nQuestion. Do any two people in the whole world\nspeak the same language, now?\n\nAnswer. Of course they don't, and this is one of\nthe great evidences that God introduced confusion\ninto the languages. Every error in grammar, every\nmistake in spelling, every blunder in pronunciation,\nproves the truth of the Babel story.\n\nQuestion. This being so, this miracle is the best\nattested of all?\n\nAnswer. I suppose it is.\n\nQuestion. Do you not think that a confusion of\ntongues would bring men together instead of separa-\nting them? Would not a man unable to converse\nwith his fellow feel weak instead of strong; and\nwould not people whose language had been con-\nfounded cling together for mutual support?\n\nAnswer. According to nature, yes; according to\ntheology, no; and these questions must be answered\naccording to theology. And right here, it may be\nwell enough to state, that in theology the unnatural\n\n377\n\nis the probable, and the impossible is what has always\nhappened. If theology were simply natural, anybody\ncould be a theologian.\n\nQuestion. Did God ever make any other special\nefforts to convert the people, or to reform the world?\n\nAnswer. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodom\nand Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.\n\nQuestion. Do you suppose it was really brim-\nstone?\n\nAnswer. Undoubtedly.\n\nQuestion. Do you think this brimstone came from\nthe clouds?\n\nAnswer. Let me tell you that you have no right\nto examine the Bible in the light of what people are\npleased to call \"science.\" The natural has nothing\nto do with the supernatural. Naturally there would\nbe no brimstone in the clouds, but supernaturally\nthere might be. God could make brimstone out of\nhis \"omnipotence.\" We do not know really what\nbrimstone is, and nobody knows exactly how brim-\nstone is made. As a matter of fact, all the brimstone\nin the world might have fallen at that time.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Lot's wife was\nchanged into salt?\n\nAnswer. Of course she was. A miracle was per-\n\n378\n\nformed. A few centuries ago, the statue of salt made\nby changing Lot's wife into that article, was standing.\nChristian travelers have seen it.\n\nQuestion. Why do you think she was changed\ninto salt?\n\nAnswer. For the purpose of keeping the event\nfresh in the minds of men.\n\nQuestion. God having failed to keep people in-\nnocent in a garden; having failed to govern them\noutside of a garden; having failed to reform them by\nwater; having failed to produce any good result by a\nconfusion of tongues; having failed to reform them\nwith fire and brimstone, what did he then do?\n\nAnswer. He concluded that he had no time to\nwaste on them all, but that he would have to select\none tribe, and turn his entire attention to just a few\nfolks.\n\nQuestion. Whom did he select?\n\nAnswer. A man by the name of Abram.\n\nQuestion. What kind of man was Abram?\n\nAnswer. If you wish to know, read the twelfth\nchapter of Genesis; and if you still have any doubts\nas to his character, read the twentieth chapter of the\nsame book, and you will see that he was a man who\nmade merchandise of his wife's body. He had had\n\n379\n\nsuch good fortune in Egypt, that he tried the experi-\nment again on Abimelech.\n\nQuestion. Did Abraham show any gratitude?\n\nAnswer. Yes; he offered to sacrifice his son, to\nshow his confidence in Jehovah.\n\nQuestion. What became of Abraham and his\npeople?\n\nAnswer. God took such care of them, that in\nabout two hundred and fifteen years they were all\nslaves in the land of Egypt.\n\nQuestion. How long did they remain in slavery?\n\nAnswer. Two hundred and fifteen years.\n\nQuestion. Were they the same people that God\nhad promised to take care of?\n\nAnswer. They were.\n\nQuestion. Was God at that time, in favor of\nslavery?\n\nAnswer. Not at that time. He was angry at the\nEgyptians for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwards\nauthorized the Jews to enslave other people.\n\nQuestion. What means did he take to liberate\nthe Jews?\n\nAnswer. He sent his agents to Pharaoh, and de-\nmanded their freedom; and upon Pharaoh s refusing,\nhe afflicted the people, who had nothing to do with\n\n380\n\nit, with various plagues,—killed children, and tor-\nmented and tortured beasts.\n\nQuestion. Was such conduct Godlike?\n\nAnswer. Certainly. If you have anything against\nyour neighbor, it is perfectly proper to torture his\nhorse, or torment his dog. Nothing can be nobler\nthan this. You see it is much better to injure his\nanimals than to injure him. To punish animals for\nthe sins of their owners must be just, or God would\nnot have done it. Pharaoh insisted on keeping the\npeople in slavery, and therefore God covered the\nbodies of oxen and cows with boils. He also bruised\nthem to death with hailstones. From this we infer,\nthat \"the loving kindness of God is over all his works.\"\n\nQuestion. Do you consider such treatment of ani-\nmals consistent with divine mercy?\n\nAnswer. Certainly. You know that under the\nMosaic dispensation, when a man did a wrong, he\ncould settle with God by killing an ox, or a sheep,\nor some doves. If the man failed to kill them, of\ncourse God would kill them. It was upon this prin-\nciple that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians.\nThey had sinned, and he merely took his pay.\n\nQuestion. How was it possible, under the old dis-\npensation, to please a being of infinite kindness?\n\n381\n\nAnswer. All you had to do was to take an innocent\nanimal, bring it to the altar, cut its throat, and sprinkle\nthe altar with its blood. Certain parts of it were to be\ngiven to the butcher as his share, and the rest was to\nbe burnt on the altar. When God saw an animal thus\nbutchered, and smelt the warm blood mingled with\nthe odor of burning flesh, he was pacified, and the\nsmile of forgiveness shed its light upon his face.\nOf course, infidels laugh at these things; but what\ncan you expect of men who have not been \"born\n\"again\"? \"The carnal mind is enmity with God.\"\nQuestion. What else did God do in order to in-\nduce Pharaoh to liberate the Jews?\n\nAnswer. He had his agents throw down a cane\nin the presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovah\nchanged this cane into a serpent.\n\nQuestion. Did this convince Pharaoh?\n\nAnswer. No; he sent for his own magicians.\nQuestion. What did they do?\n\nAnswer. They threw down some canes and they\nalso were changed into serpents.\n\nQuestion. Did Jehovah change the canes of the\nEgyptian magicians into snakes?\n\nAnswer. I suppose he did, as he is the only one\ncapable of performing such a miracle.\n\n382\n\nQuestion. If the rod of Aaron was changed into\na serpent in order to convince Pharaoh that God had\nsent Aaron and Moses, why did God change the\nsticks of the Egyptian magicians into serpents—why\ndid he discredit his own agents, and render worth-\nless their only credentials?\n\nAnswer. Well, we cannot explain the conduct of\nJehovah; we are perfectly satisfied that it was for\nthe best. Even in this age of the world God allows\ninfidels to overwhelm his chosen people with argu-\nments; he allows them to discover facts that his\nministers can not answer, and yet we are satisfied\nthat in the end God will give the victory to us. All\nthese things are tests of faith. It is upon this prin-\nciple that God allows geology to laugh at Genesis,\nthat he permits astronomy apparently to contradict\nhis holy word.\n\nQuestion. What did God do with these people\nafter Pharaoh allowed them to go?\n\nAnswer. Finding that they were not fit to settle\na new country, owing to the fact that when hungry\nthey longed for food, and sometimes when their lips\nwere cracked with thirst insisted on having water,\nGod in his infinite mercy had them marched round\nand round, back and forth, through a barren wilder-\n\n383\n\nness, until all, with the exception of two persons,\ndied.\n\nQuestion. Why did he do this?\n\nAnswer. Because he had promised these people\nthat he would take them \"to a land flowing with\n\"milk and honey.\"\n\nQuestion. Was God always patient and kind and\nmerciful toward his children while they were in the\nwilderness?\n\nAnswer. Yes, he always was merciful and kind\nand patient. Infidels have taken the ground that he\nvisited them with plagues and disease and famine;\nthat he had them bitten by serpents, and now and\nthen allowed the ground to swallow a few thousands\nof them, and in other ways saw to it that they were\nkept as comfortable and happy as was consistent with\ngood government; but all these things were for their\ngood; and the fact is, infidels have no real sense of\njustice.\n\nQuestion. How did God happen to treat the Is-\nraelites in this way, when he had promised Abraham\nthat he would take care of his progeny, and when he\nhad promised the same to the poor wretches while\nthey were slaves in Egypt?\n\nAnswer. Because God is unchangeable in his na-\n\n384\n\nture, and wished to convince them that every being\nshould be perfectly faithful to his promise.\n\nQuestion. Was God driven to madness by the\nconduct of his chosen people?\n\nAnswer. Almost.\n\nQuestion. Did he know exactly what they would\ndo when he chose them?\n\nAnswer. Exactly.\n\nQuestion. Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?\n\nAnswer. They were. They worshiped other gods\n—gods made of wood and stone.\n\nQuestion. Is it not wonderful that they were not\nconvinced of the power of God, by the many mira-\ncles wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness?\n\nAnswer. Yes, it is very wonderful; but the Jews,\nwho must have seen bread rained from heaven; who\nsaw water gush from the rocks and follow them up hill\nand down; who noticed that their clothes did not\nwear out, and did not even get shiny at the knees,\nwhile the elbows defied the ravages of time, and\ntheir shoes remained perfect for forty years; it is\nwonderful that when they saw the ground open\nand swallow their comrades; when they saw God\ntalking face to face with Moses as a man talks with\nhis friend; after they saw the cloud by day and the\n\n385\n\npillar of fire by night,—it is absolutely astonishing\nthat they had more faith in a golden calf that they\nmade themselves, than in Jehovah.\n\nQuestion. How is it that the Jews had no confi-\ndence in these miracles?\n\nAnswer. Because they were there and saw them.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that it is necessary for\nus to believe all the miracles of the Old Testament\nin order to be saved?\n\nAnswer. The Old Testament is the foundation of\nthe New. If the Old Testament is not inspired, then\nthe New is of no value. If the Old Testament is\ninspired, all the miracles are true, and we cannot\nbelieve that God would allow any errors, or false\nstatements, to creep into an inspired volume, and to\nbe perpetuated through all these years.\n\nQuestion. Should we believe the miracles, whether\nthey are reasonable or not?\n\nAnswer. Certainly; if they were reasonable, they\nwould not be miracles. It is their unreasonableness\nthat appeals to our credulity and our faith. It is im-\npossible to have theological faith in anything that\ncan be demonstrated. It is the office of faith to\nbelieve, not only without evidence, but in spite of\nevidence. It is impossible for the carnal mind to\n\n386\n\nbelieve that Samsons muscle depended upon the\nlength of his hair. \"God has made the wisdom of\n\"this world foolishness.\" Neither can the uncon-\nverted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel kept by\nravens. Neither can they believe that a barrel would\nin and of itself produce meal, or that an earthen pot\ncould create oil. But to a Christian, in order that a\nwidow might feed a preacher, the truth of these\nstories is perfectly apparent.\n\nQuestion. How should we regard the wonderful\nstories of the Old Testament?\n\nAnswer. They should be looked upon as \"types\"\nand \"symbols.\" They all have a spiritual signifi-\ncance. The reason I believe the story of Jonah is,\nthat Jonah is a type of Christ.\n\nQuestion. Do you believe the story of Jonah to\nbe a true account of a literal fact?\n\nAnswer. Certainly. You must remember that\nJonah was not swallowed by a whale. God \"pre-\n\"pared a great fish\" for that occasion. Neither is it by\nany means certain that Jonah was in the belly of\nthis whale. \"He probably stayed in his mouth.\"\nEven if he was in his stomach, it was very easy\nfor him to defy the ordinary action of gastric juice\nby rapidly walking up and down..\n\n387\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Jonah was really in\nthe whale's stomach?\n\nAnswer. My own opinion is that he stayed in his\nmouth. The only objection to this theory is, that it\nis more reasonable than the other and requires less\nfaith. Nothing could be easier than for God to make\na fish large enough to furnish ample room for one\npassenger in his mouth. I throw out this suggestion\nsimply that you may be able to answer the objections\nof infidels who are always laughing at this story.\n\nQuestion. Do you really believe that Elijah went\nto heaven in a chariot of fire, drawn by horses of\nfire?\n\nAnswer. Of course he did.\n\nQuestion. What was this miracle performed for?\n\nAnswer. To convince the people of the power of\nGod.\n\nQuestion. Who saw the miracle?\n\nAnswer. Nobody but Elisha.\n\nQuestion. Was he convinced before that time?\n\nAnswer. Oh yes; he was one of God's prophets.\n\nQuestion. Suppose that in these days two men\nshould leave a town together, and after a while one\nof them should come back having on the clothes of\nthe other, and should account for the fact that he had\n\n388\n\nhis friend's clothes by saying that while they were\ngoing along the road together a chariot of fire came\ndown from heaven drawn by fiery steeds, and there-\nupon his friend got into the carriage, threw him his\nclothes, and departed,—would you believe it?\n\nAnswer. Of course things like that don't happen\nin these days; God does not have to rely on wonders\nnow.\n\nQuestion. Do you mean that he performs no\nmiracles at the present day?\n\nAnswer. We cannot say that he does not perform\nmiracles now, but we are not in position to call atten-\ntion to any particular one. Of course he supervises\nthe affairs of nations and men and does whatever in\nhis judgment is necessary.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Samson's strength\ndepended on the length of his hair?\n\nAnswer. The Bible so states, and the Bible is true.\nA physiologist might say that a man could not use\nthe muscle in his hair for lifting purposes, but these\nsame physiologists could not tell you how you move\na finger, nor how you lift a feather; still, actuated by\nthe pride of intellect, they insist that the length of a\nman's hair could not determine his strength. God\nsays it did; the physiologist says that it did not; we\n\n389\n\ncan not hesitate whom to believe. For the purpose\nof avoiding eternal agony I am willing to believe\nanything; I am willing to say that strength depends\nupon the length of hair, or faith upon the length of\nears. I am perfectly willing to believe that a man\ncaught three hundred foxes, and put fire brands be-\ntween their tails; that he slew thousands with a bone,\nand that he made a bee hive out of a lion. I will\nbelieve, if necessary, that when this man's hair was\nshort he hardly had strength enough to stand, and\nthat when it was long, he could carry away the gates\nof a city, or overthrow a temple filled with people.\nIf the infidel is right, I will lose nothing by believing,\nbut if he is wrong, I shall gain an eternity of joy.\nIf God did not intend that we should believe these\nstories, he never would have told them, and why\nshould a man put his soul in peril by trying to dis-\nprove one of the statements of the Lord?\n\nQuestion. Suppose it should turn out that some\nof these miracles depend upon mistranslations of the\noriginal Hebrew, should we still believe them?\n\nAnswer. The safe side is the best side. It is\nfar better to err on the side of belief, than on the\nside of infidelity. God does not threaten anybody\nwith eternal punishment for believing too much.\n\n390\n\nDanger lies on the side of investigation, on the\nside of thought. The perfectly idiotic are absolutely\nsafe. As they diverge from that point,—as they rise\nin the intellectual scale, as the brain develops, as the\nfaculties enlarge, the danger increases. I know that\nsome biblical students now take the ground that\nSamson caught no foxes,—that he only took sheaves\nof wheat that had been already cut and bound, set\nthem on fire, and threw them into the grain still\nstanding. If this is what he did, of course there is\nnothing miraculous about it, and the value of the\nstory is lost. So, others contend that Elijah was not\nfed by the ravens, but by the Arabs. They tell us\nthat the Hebrew word standing for \"Arab\" also\nstands for \"bird,\" and that the word really means\n\"migratory—going from place to place—homeless.\"\nBut I prefer the old version. It certainly will do no\nharm to believe that ravens brought bread and flesh\nto a prophet of God. Where they got their bread\nand flesh is none of my business; how they knew\nwhere the prophet was, and recognized him; or how\nGod talks to ravens, or how he gave them directions,\nI have no right to inquire. I leave these questions\nto the scientists, the blasphemers, and thinkers.\nThere are many people in the church anxious to\n\n391\n\nget the miracles out of the Bible, and thousands,\nI have no doubt, would be greatly gratified to learn\nthat there is, in fact, nothing miraculous in Scripture;\nbut when you take away the miraculous, you take\naway the supernatural; when you take away the\nsupernatural, you destroy the ministry; and when\nyou take away the ministry, hundreds of thousands\nof men will be left without employment.\n\nQuestion. Is it not wonderful that the Egyptians\nwere not converted by the miracles wrought in their\ncountry?\n\nAnswer. Yes, they all would have been, if God\nhad not purposely hardened their hearts to prevent\nit. Jehovah always took great delight in furnishing\nthe evidence, and then hardening the man's heart so\nthat he would not believe it. After all the miracles\nthat had been performed in Egypt,—the most won-\nderful that were ever done in any country, the\nEgyptians were as unbelieving as at first; they pur-\nsued the Israelites, knowing that they were protected\nby an infinite God, and failing to overwhelm them,\ncame back and worshiped their own false gods just as\nfirmly as before. All of which shows the unreason-\nableness of a Pagan, and the natural depravity of\nhuman nature.\n\n392\n\nQuestion. How did it happen that the Canaanites\nwere never convinced that the Jews were assisted by\nJehovah?\n\nAnswer. They must have been an exceedingly\nbrave people to contend so many years with the\nchosen people of God. Notwithstanding all their\ncities were burned time and time again; notwith-\nstanding all the men, women and children were put\nto the edge of the sword; notwithstanding the taking\nof all their cattle and sheep, they went right on\nfighting just as valiantly and desperately as ever.\nEach one lost his life many times, and was just as\nready for the next conflict. My own opinion is, that\nGod kept them alive by raising them from the dead\nafter each battle, for the purpose of punishing the\nJews. God used his enemies as instruments for the\ncivilization of the Jewish people. He did not wish\nto convert them, because they would give him much\nmore trouble as Jews than they did as Canaanites.\nHe had all the Jews he could conveniently take care\nof. He found it much easier to kill a hundred\nCanaanites than to civilize one Jew.\n\nQuestion. How do you account for the fact that\nthe heathen were not surprised at the stopping of the\nsun and moon?\n\n393\n\nAnswer. They were so ignorant that they had\nnot the slightest conception of the real cause of\nthe phenomenon. Had they known the size of\nthe earth, and the relation it sustained to the other\nheavenly bodies; had they known the magnitude of\nthe sun, and the motion of the moon, they would,\nin all probability, have been as greatly astonished as\nthe Jews were; but being densely ignorant of as-\ntronomy, it must have produced upon them not the\nslightest impression. But we must remember that\nthe sun and moon were not stopped for the purpose\nof converting these people, but to give Joshua more\ntime to kill them. As soon as we see clearly the\npurpose of Jehovah, we instantly perceive how ad-\nmirable were the means adopted.\n\nQuestion. Do you not consider the treatment\nof the Canaanites to have been cruel and ferocious?\n\nAnswer. To a totally depraved man, it does look\ncruel; to a being without any good in him,—to one\nwho has inherited the rascality of many generations,\nthe murder of innocent women and little children\ndoes seem horrible; to one who is \"contaminated in\n\"all his parts,\" by original sin,—who was \"conceived\n\"in sin, and brought forth in iniquity,\" the assassina-\ntion of men, and the violation of captive maidens,\n\n394\n\ndo not seem consistent with infinite goodness. But\nwhen one has been \"born again,\" when \"the love\n\"of God has been shed abroad in his heart,\" when\nhe loves all mankind, when he \"overcomes evil with\n\"good,\" when he \"prays for those who despite-\n\"fully use him and persecute him,\"—to such a man,\nthe extermination of the Canaanites, the violation\nof women, the slaughter of babes, and the destruc-\ntion of countless thousands, is the highest evidence\nof the goodness, the mercy, and the long-suffering\nof God. When a man has been \"born again,\" all\nthe passages of the Old Testament that appear so\nhorrible and so unjust to one in his natural state,\nbecome the dearest, the most consoling, and the\nmost beautiful of truths. The real Christian reads\nthe accounts of these ancient battles with the greatest\npossible satisfaction. To one who really loves his\nenemies, the groans of men, the shrieks of women,\nand the cries of babes, make music sweeter than the\nzephyr's breath.\n\nQuestion. In your judgment, why did God destroy\nthe Canaanites?\n\nAnswer. To prevent their contaminating his\nchosen people. He knew that if the Jews were\nallowed to live with such neighbors, they would\n\n395\n\nfinally become as bad as the Canaanites themselves.\nHe wished to civilize his chosen people, and it was\ntherefore necessary for him to destroy the heathen.\n\nQuestion. Did God succeed in civilizing the Jews\nafter he had \"removed\" the Canaanites?\n\nAnswer. Well, not entirely. He had to allow the\nheathen he had not destroyed to overrun the whole\nland and make captives of the Jews. This was done\nfor the good of his chosen people.\n\nQuestion. Did he then succeed in civilizing them?\n\nAnswer. Not quite.\n\nQuestion. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizing\nthem?\n\nAnswer. Well, we must admit that the experi-\nment never was a conspicuous success. The Jews\nwere chosen by the Almighty 430 years before he\nappeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. He was their\ndirect Governor. He attended personally to their\nreligion and politics, and gave up a great part of his\nvaluable time for about two thousand years, to the\nmanagement of their affairs; and yet, such was the\ncondition of the Jewish people, after they had had all\nthese advantages, that when there arose among them\na perfectly kind, just, generous and honest man, these\npeople, with whom God had been laboring for so\n\n396\n\nmany centuries, deliberately put to death that good\nand loving man.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that God really endeav-\nored to civilize the Jews?\n\nAnswer. This is an exceedingly hard question.\nIf he had really tried to do it, of course he could\nhave done it. We must not think of limiting the\npower of the infinite. But you must remember that\nif he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, if he had\neducated them up to the plane of intellectual liberty,\nand made them just and kind and merciful, like him-\nself, they would not have crucified Christ, and you\ncan see at once the awful condition in which we\nwould all be to-day. No atonement could have\nbeen made; and if no atonement had been made,\nthen, according to the Christian system, the whole\nworld would have been lost. We must admit that\nthere was no time in the history of the Jews from\nSinai to Jerusalem, that they would not have put a\nman like Christ to death.\n\nQuestion. So you think that, after all, it was not\nGod's intention that the Jews should become civilized?\n\nAnswer. We do not know. We can only say\nthat \"God's ways are not our ways.\" It may be\nthat God took them in his special charge, for the\n\n397\n\npurpose of keeping them bad enough to make the\nnecessary sacrifice. That may have been the divine\nplan. In any event, it is safer to believe the explana-\ntion that is the most unreasonable.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Christ knew the\nJews would crucify him?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that when he chose\nJudas he knew that he would betray him?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Did he know when Judas went to the\nchief priest and made the bargain for the delivery\nof Christ?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Why did he allow himself to be be-\ntrayed, if he knew the plot?\n\nAnswer. Infidelity is a very good doctrine to live\nby, but you should read the last words of Paine and\nVoltaire.\n\nQuestion. If Christ knew that Judas would betray\nhim, why did he choose him?\n\nAnswer. Nothing can exceed the atrocities of the\nFrench Revolution—when they carried a woman\nthrough the streets and worshiped her as the goddess\nof Reason.\n\n398\n\nQuestion. Would not the mission of Christ have\nbeen a failure had no one betrayed him?\n\nAnswer. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and re-\ncanted on his death-bed, and died a blaspheming\ninfidel besides.\n\nQuestion. Is it not clear that an atonement was\nnecessary; and is it not equally clear that the atone-\nment could not have been made unless somebody\nhad betrayed Christ; and unless the Jews had been\nwicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?\n\nAnswer. Of course the atonement had to be\nmade. It was a part of the \"divine plan\" that Christ\nshould be betrayed, and that the Jews should be\nwicked enough to kill him. Otherwise, the world\nwould have been lost.\n\nQuestion. Suppose Judas had understood the\ndivine plan, what ought he to have done? Should\nhe have betrayed Christ, or let somebody else do it;\nor should he have allowed the world to perish, in-\ncluding his own soul?\n\nAnswer. If you take the Bible away from the\nworld, \"how would it be possible to have witnesses\n\"sworn in courts;\" how would it be possible to ad-\nminister justice?\n\nQuestion. If Christ had not been betrayed and\n\n399\n\ncrucified, is it true that his own mother would be in\nperdition to-day?\n\nAnswer. Most assuredly. There was but one\nway by which she could be saved, and that was by\nthe death of her son—through the blood of the\natonement. She was totally depraved through the\nsin of Adam, and deserved eternal death. Even her\nlove for the infant Christ was, in the sight of God,—\nthat is to say, of her babe,—wickedness. It can not\nbe repeated too often that there is only one way to\nbe saved, and that is, to believe in the Lord Jesus\nChrist.\n\nQuestion. Could Christ have prevented the Jews\nfrom crucifying him?\n\nAnswer. He could.\n\nQuestion. If he could have saved his life and did\nnot, was he not guilty of suicide?\n\nAnswer. No one can understand these questions\nwho has not read the prophecies of Daniel, and has\nnot a clear conception of what is meant by \"the full-\n\"ness of time.\"\n\nQuestion. What became of all the Canaanites, the\nEgyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and Romans and\nChinese? What became of the billions who died\nbefore the promise was made to Abraham; of the\n\n400\n\nbillions and billions who never heard of the Bible,\nwho never heard the name, even, of Jesus Christ—\nnever knew of \"the scheme of salvation\"? What\nbecame of the millions and billions who lived in this\nhemisphere, and of whose existence Jehovah himself\nseemed perfectly ignorant?\n\nAnswer. They were undoubtedly lost. God\nhaving made them, had a right to do with them as\nhe pleased. They are probably all in hell to-day, and\nthe fact that they are damned, only adds to the joy\nof the redeemed. It is by contrast that we are able\nto perceive the infinite kindness with which God has\ntreated us.\n\nQuestion. Is it not possible that something can\nbe done for a human soul in another world as well as\nin this?\n\nAnswer. No; this is the only world in which\nGod even attempts to reform anybody. In the\nother world, nothing is done for the purpose of\nmaking anybody better. Here in this world, where\nman lives but a few days, is the only opportunity\nfor moral improvement. A minister can do a thou-\nsand times more for a soul than its creator; and this\ncountry is much better adapted to moral growth than\nheaven itself. A person who lived on this earth a\n\n401\n\nfew years, and died without having been converted,\nhas no hope in another world. The moment he arrives\nat the judgment seat, nothing remains but to damn\nhim. Neither God, nor the Holy Ghost, nor Jesus\nChrist, can have the least possible influence with\nhim there.\n\nQuestion. When God created each human being,\ndid he know exactly what would be his eternal fate?\n\nAnswer. Most assuredly he did.\n\nQuestion. Did he know that hundreds and millions\nand billions would suffer eternal pain?\n\nAnswer. Certainly. But he gave them freedom\nof choice between good and evil.\n\nQuestion. Did he know exactly how they would\nuse that freedom?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Did he know that billions would use\nit wrong?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Was it optional with him whether he\nshould make such people or not?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Had these people any option as to\nwhether they would be made or not?\n\nAnswer, No.\n\n402\n\nQuestion. Would it not have been far better to\nleave them unconscious dust?\n\nAnswer. These questions show how foolish it is\nto judge God according to a human standard. What\nto us seems just and merciful, God may regard in an\nexactly opposite light; and we may hereafter be\ndeveloped to such a degree that we will regard the\nagonies of the damned as the highest possible evi-\ndence of the goodness and mercy of God.\n\nQuestion. How do you account for the fact that\nGod did not make himself known except to Abra-\nham and his descendants? Why did he fail to\nreveal himself to the other nations—nations that,\ncompared with the Jews, were learned, cultivated\nand powerful? Would you regard a revelation now\nmade to the Esquimaux as intended for us; and\nwould it be a revelation of which we would be\nobliged to take notice?\n\nAnswer. Of course, God could have revealed him-\nself, not only to all the great nations, but to each\nindividual. He could have had the Ten Command-\nments engraved on every heart and brain; or he\ncould have raised up prophets in every land; but\nhe chose, rather, to allow countless millions of his\nchildren to wander in the darkness and blackness of\n\n403\n\nNature; chose, rather, that they should redden their\nhands in each other's blood; chose, rather, that they\nshould live without light, and die without hope;\nchose, rather, that they should suffer, not only in this\nworld, but forever in the next. Of course we have\nno right to find fault with the choice of God.\n\nQuestion. Now you can tell a sinner to \"believe\n\"on the Lord Jesus Christ;\" what could a sinner have\nbeen told in Egypt, three thousand years ago; and\nin what language would you have addressed a Hindu\nin the days of Buddha—the \"divine scheme\" at that\ntime being a secret in the divine breast?\n\nAnswer. It is not for us to think upon these\nquestions. The moment we examine the Christian\nsystem, we begin to doubt. In a little while, we shall\nbe infidels, and shall lose the respect of those who\nrefuse to think. It is better to go with the majority.\nThese doctrines are too sacred to be touched. You\nshould be satisfied with the religion of your father\nand your mother. \"You want some book on the\n\"centre-table,\" in the parlor; it is extremely handy\nto have a Family Record; and what book, other than\nthe Bible, could a mother give a son as he leaves the\nold homestead?\n\nQuestion. Is it not wonderful that all the writers\n\n404\n\nof the four gospels do not give an account of the\nascension of Jesus Christ?\n\nAnswer. This question has been answered long\nago, time and time again.\n\nQuestion. Perhaps it has, but would it not be\nwell enough to answer it once more? Some may\nnot have seen the answer?\n\nAnswer. Show me the hospitals that infidels\nhave built; show me the asylums that infidels\nhave founded.\n\nQuestion. I know you have given the usual an-\nswer; but after all, is it not singular that a miracle\nso wonderful as the bodily ascension of a man, should\nnot have been mentioned by all the writers of that\nman's life? Is it not wonderful that some of them\nsaid that he did ascend, and others that he agreed to\nstay with his disciples always?\n\nAnswer. People unacquainted with the Hebrew,\ncan have no conception of these things. A story\nin plain English, does not sound as it does in Hebrew.\nMiracles seem altogether more credible, when told in\na dead language.\n\nQuestion. What, in your judgment, became of\nthe dead who were raised by Christ? Is it not\nsingular that they were never mentioned afterward?\n\n405\n\nWould not a man who had been raised from the\ndead naturally be an object of considerable interest,\nespecially to his friends and acquaintances? And\nis it not also wonderful that Christ, after having\nwrought so many miracles, cured so many lame and\nhalt and blind, fed so many thousands miraculously,\nand after having entered Jerusalem in triumph as a\nconqueror and king, had to be pointed out by one\nof his own disciples who was bribed for the purpose?\n\nAnswer. Of course, all these things are exceed-\ningly wonderful, and if found in any other book,\nwould be absolutely incredible; but we have no\nright to apply the same kind of reasoning to the\nBible that we apply to the Koran or to the sacred\nbooks of the Hindus. For the ordinary affairs of\nthis world, God has given us reason; but in the\nexamination of religious questions, we should de-\npend upon credulity and faith.\n\nQuestion. If Christ came to offer himself a sacri-\nfice, for the purpose of making atonement for the\nsins of such as might believe on him, why did he\nnot make this fact known to all of his disciples?\n\nAnswer. He did. This was, and is, the gospel.\n\nQuestion. How is it that Matthew says nothing\nabout \"salvation by faith,\" but simply says that God\n\n406\n\nwill be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgive\nthe forgiving, and says not one word about the\nnecessity of believing anything?\n\nAnswer. But you will remember that Mark says,\nin the last chapter of his gospel, that \"whoso be-\n\"lieveth not shall be damned.\"\n\nQuestion. Do you admit that Matthew says\nnothing on the subject?\n\nAnswer. Yes, I suppose I must.\n\nQuestion. Is not that passage in Mark generally\nadmitted to be an interpolation?\n\nAnswer. Some biblical scholars say that it is.\n\nQuestion. Is that portion of the last chapter of\nMark found in the Syriac version of the Bible?\n\nAnswer. It is not.\n\nQuestion. If it was necessary to believe on Jesus\nChrist, in order to be saved, how is it that Matthew\nfailed to say so?\n\nAnswer. \"There are more copies of the Bible\n\"printed to-day, than of any other book in the world,\n\"and it is printed in more languages than any other\n\"book.\"\n\nQuestion. Do you consider it necessary to be\n\"regenerated\"—to be \"born again\"—in order to be\nsaved?\n\n407\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Did Matthew say anything on the sub-\nject of \"regeneration\"?\n\nAnswer. No.\n\nQuestion. Did Mark?\n\nAnswer. No.\n\nQuestion. Did Luke?\n\nAnswer. No.\n\nQuestion. Is Saint John the only one who speaks\nof the necessity of being \"born again\"?\n\nAnswer. He is.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Matthew, Mark and\nLuke knew anything about the necessity of \"regen-\n\"eration\"?\n\nAnswer. Of course they did.\n\nQuestion. Why did they fail to speak of it?\n\nAnswer. There is no civilization without the Bible.\nThe moment you throw away the sacred Scriptures,\nyou are all at sea—you are without an anchor and\nwithout a compass.\n\nQuestion. You will remember that, according to\nMark, Christ said to his disciples: \"Go ye into all\n\"the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.\"\nDid he refer to the gospel set forth by Mark?\n\nAnswer. Of course he did.\n\n408\n\nQuestion. Well, in the gospel set forth by Mark,\nthere is not a word about \"regeneration,\" and no\nword about the necessity of believing anything—ex-\ncept in an interpolated passage. Would it not seem\nfrom this, that \"regeneration\" and a \"belief in the\n\"Lord Jesus Christ,\" are no part of the gospel?\n\nAnswer. Nothing can exceed in horror the last\nmoments of the infidel; nothing can be more ter-\nrible than the death of the doubter. When the\nglories of this world fade from the vision; when am-\nbition becomes an empty name; when wealth turns\nto dust in the palsied hand of death, of what use is\nphilosophy then? Who cares then for the pride of\nintellect? In that dread moment, man needs some-\nthing to rely on, whether it is true or not.\n\nQuestion. Would it not have been more con-\nvincing if Christ, after his resurrection, had shown\nhimself to his enemies as well as to his friends?\nWould it not have greatly strengthened the evidence\nin the case, if he had visited Pilate; had presented\nhimself before Caiaphas, the high priest; if he had\nagain entered the temple, and again walked the\nstreets of Jerusalem?\n\nAnswer. If the evidence had been complete and\noverwhelming, there would have been no praise-\n\n409\n\nworthiness in belief; even publicans and sinners\nwould have believed, if the evidence had been suffi-\ncient. The amount of evidence required is the test\nof the true Christian spirit.\n\nQuestion. Would it not also have been better\nhad the ascension taken place in the presence of\nunbelieving thousands; it seems such a pity to have\nwasted such a demonstration upon those already\nconvinced?\n\nAnswer. These questions are the natural fruit of\nthe carnal mind, and can be accounted for only by\nthe doctrine of total depravity. Nothing has given\nthe church more trouble than just such questions.\nUnholy curiosity, a disposition to pry into the divine\nmysteries, a desire to know, to investigate, to explain\n—in short, to understand, are all evidences of a re-\nprobate mind.\n\nQuestion. How can we account for the fact that\nMatthew alone speaks of the wise men of the East\ncoming with gifts to the infant Christ; that he alone\nspeaks of the little babes being killed by Herod? Is\nit possible that the other writers never heard of these\nthings?\n\nAnswer. Nobody can get any good out of the\nBible by reading it in a critical spirit. The contra-\n\n410\n\ndictions and discrepancies are only apparent, and melt\naway before the light of faith. That which in other\nbooks would be absolute and palpable contradiction,\nis, in the Bible, when spiritually discerned, a perfect\nand beautiful harmony. My own opinion is, that\nseeming contradictions are in the Bible for the pur-\npose of testing and strengthening the faith of Chris-\ntians, and for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels,\n\"that they might believe a lie and be damned.\"\nQuestion. Is it possible that a good God would\ntake pains to deceive his children?\n\nAnswer. The Bible is filled with instances of that\nkind, and all orthodox ministers now know that\nfossil animals—that is, representations of animals in\nstone, were placed in the rocks on purpose to mis-\nlead men like Darwin and Humboldt, Huxley and\nTyndall. It is also now known that God, for the\npurpose of misleading the so-called men of science,\nhad hairy elephants preserved in ice, made stomachs\nfor them, and allowed twigs of trees to be found in\nthese stomachs, when, as a matter of fact, no such\nelephants ever lived or ever died. These men who\nare endeavoring to overturn the Scriptures with the\nlever of science will find that they have been de-\nceived. Through all eternity they will regret their\n\n411\n\nphilosophy. They will wish, in the next world, that\nthey had thrown away geology and physiology and\nall other \"ologies\" except theology. The time is\ncoming when Jehovah will \"mock at their fears and\n\"laugh at their calamity.\"\n\nQuestion. If Joseph was not the father of Christ,\nwhy was his genealogy given to show that Christ\nwas of the blood of David; why would not the\ngenealogy of any other Jew have done as well?\n\nAnswer. That objection was raised and answered\nhundreds of years ago.\n\nQuestion. If they wanted to show that Christ was of\nthe blood of David, why did they not give the gene-\nalogy of his mother if Joseph was not his father?\n\nAnswer. That objection was answered hundreds\nof years ago.\n\nQuestion. How was it answered?\n\nAnswer. When Voltaire was dying, he sent for a\npriest.\n\nQuestion. How does it happen that the two gene-\nalogies given do not agree?\n\nAnswer. Perhaps they were written by different\npersons.\n\nQuestion. Were both these persons inspired by\nthe same God?\n\n412\n\nAnswer. Of course.\n\nQuestion. Why were the miracles recorded in the\nNew Testament performed?\n\nAnswer. The miracles were the evidence relied\non to prove the supernatural origin and the divine\nmission of Jesus Christ.\n\nQuestion. Aside from the miracles, is there any\nevidence to show the supernatural origin or character\nof Jesus Christ?\n\nAnswer. Some have considered that his moral\nprecepts are sufficient, of themselves, to show that\nhe was divine.\n\nQuestion. Had all of his moral precepts been\ntaught before he lived?\n\nAnswer. The same things had been said, but they\ndid not have the same meaning.\n\nQuestion. Does the fact that Buddha taught the\nsame tend to show that he was of divine origin?\n\nAnswer. Certainly not. The rules of evidence\napplicable to the Bible are not applicable to other\nbooks. We examine other books in the light of\nreason; the Bible is the only exception. So, we\nshould not judge of Christ as we do of any other\nman.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Christ wrought\n\n413\n\nmany of his miracles because he was good, charitable,\nand filled with pity?\n\nAnswer. Certainly\n\nQuestion. Has he as much power now as he had\nwhen on earth?\n\nAnswer. Most assuredly.\n\nQuestion. Is he as charitable and pitiful now, as\nhe was then?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Why does he not now cure the lame\nand the halt and the blind?\n\nAnswer. It is well known that, when Julian the\nApostate was dying, catching some of his own blood\nin his hand and throwing it into the air he exclaimed:\n\"Galileean, thou hast conquered!\"\n\nQuestion. Do you consider it our duty to love our\nneighbor?\n\nAnswer. Certainly.\n\nQuestion. Is virtue the same in all worlds?\n\nAnswer. Most assuredly.\n\nQuestion. Are we under obligation to render good\nfor evil, and to \"pray for those who despitefully use us\"?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Will Christians in heaven love their\nneighbors?\n\n414\n\nAnswer. Y es; if their neighbors are not in hell.\n\nQuestion. Do good Christians pity sinners in this\nworld?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Why?\n\nAnswer. Because they regard them as being in\ngreat danger of the eternal wrath of God.\n\nQuestion. After these sinners have died, and\nbeen sent to hell, will the Christians in heaven then\npity them?\n\nAnswer. No. Angels have no pity.\n\nQuestion. If we are under obligation to love our\nenemies, is not God under obligation to love his?\nIf we forgive our enemies, ought not God to forgive\nhis? If we forgive those who injure us, ought not\nGod to forgive those who have not injured him?\n\nAnswer. God made us, and he has therefore the\nright to do with us as he pleases. Justice demands\nthat he should damn all of us, and the few that he\nwill save will be saved through mercy and without\nthe slightest respect to anything they may have done\nthemselves. Such is the justice of God, that those\nin hell will have no right to complain, and those in\nheaven will have no right to be there. Hell is justice,\nand salvation is charity.\n\n415\n\nQuestion. Do you consider it possible for a law to\nbe jusdy satisfied by the punishment of an innocent\nperson?\n\nAnswer. Such is the scheme of the atonement.\nAs man is held responsible for the sin of Adam, so\nhe will be credited with the virtues of Christ; and\nyou can readily see that one is exactly as reasonable\nas the other.\n\nQuestion. Suppose a man honestly reads the New\nTestament, and honestly concludes that it is not an\ninspired book; suppose he honestly makes up his\nmind that the miracles are not true; that the devil\nnever really carried Christ to the pinnacle of the\ntemple; that devils were really never cast out of a\nman and allowed to take refuge in swine;—I say,\nsuppose that he is honestly convinced that these\nthings are not true, what ought he to say?\n\nAnswer. He ought to say nothing.\n\nQuestion. Suppose that the same man should read\nthe Koran, and come to the conclusion that it is not\nan inspired book; what ought he to say?\n\nAnswer. He ought to say that it is not inspired;\nhis fellow-men are entitled to his honest opinion, and\nit is his duty to do what he can do to destroy a per-\nnicious superstition.\n\n416\n\nQuestion. Suppose then, that a reader of the Bible,\nhaving become convinced that it is not inspired—\nhonestly convinced—says nothing—keeps his con-\nclusion absolutely to himself, and suppose he dies in\nthat belief, can he be saved?\n\nAnswer. Certainly not.\n\nQuestion. Has the honesty of his belief anything\nto do with his future condition?\n\nAnswer. Nothing whatever.,\n\nQuestion. Suppose that he tried to believe, that\nhe hated to disagree with his friends, and with his\nparents, but that in spite of himself he was forced to\nthe conclusion that the Bible is not the inspired word\nof God, would he then deserve eternal punishment?\n\nAnswer. Certainly he would.\n\nQuestion. Can a man control his belief?\n\nAnswer. He cannot—except as to the Bible.\n\nQuestion. Do you consider it just in God to\ncreate a man who cannot believe the Bible, and then\ndamn him because he does not?\n\nAnswer. Such is my belief.\n\nQuestion. Is it your candid opinion that a man\nwho does not believe the Bible should keep his\nbelief a secret from his fellow-men?\n\nAnswer. It is.\n\n417\n\nQuestion. How do I know that you believe the\nBible? You have told me that if you did not be-\nlieve it, you would not tell me?\n\nAnswer. There is no way for you to ascertain,\nexcept by taking my word for it.\n\nQuestion. What will be the fate of a man who\ndoes not believe it, and yet pretends to believe it?\n\nAnswer. He will be damned.\n\nQuestion. Then hypocrisy will not save him?\n\nAnswer. No.\n\nQuestion. And if he does not believe it, and ad-\nmits that he does not believe it, then his honesty will\nnot save him?\n\nAnswer. No. Honesty on the wrong side is no\nbetter than hypocrisy on the right side.\n\nQuestion. Do we know who wrote the gospels?\n\nAnswer. Yes; we do.\n\nQuestion. Are we absolutely sure who wrote\nthem?\n\nAnswer. Of course; we have the evidence as it\nhas come to us through the Catholic Church.\n\nQuestion. Can we rely upon the Catholic Church\nnow?\n\nAnswer. No; assuredly no! But we have the\ntestimony of Polycarp and Irenaeus and Clement,\n\n418\n\nand others of the early fathers, together with that of\nthe Christian historian, Eusebius.\n\nQuestion. What do we really know about Polycarp?\n\nAnswer. We know that he suffered martyrdom un-\nder Marcus Aurelius, and that for quite a time the fire\nrefused to burn his body, the flames arching over him,\nleaving him in a kind of fiery tent; and we also know\nthat from his body came a fragrance like frankincense,\nand that the Pagans were so exasperated at seeing\nthe miracle, that one of them thrust a sword through\nthe body of Polycarp; that the blood flowed out and\nextinguished the flames and that out of the wound\nflew the soul of the martyr in the form of a dove.\n\nQuestion. Is that all we know about Polycarp?\n\nAnswer. Yes, with the exception of a few more\nlike incidents.\n\nQuestion. Do we know that Polycarp ever met\nSt. John?\n\nAnswer. Yes; Eusebius says so.\n\nQuestion. Are we absolutely certain that he ever\nlived?\n\nAnswer. Yes, or Eusebius could not have written\nabout him.\n\nQuestion. Do we know anything of the character\nof Eusebius?\n\n419\n\nAnswer. Yes; we know that he was untruthful\nonly when he wished to do good. But God can use\neven the dishonest. Other books have to be sub-\nstantiated by truthful men, but such is the power of\nGod, that he can establish the inspiration of the Bible\nby the most untruthful witnesses. If God's witnesses\nwere honest, anybody could believe, and what be-\ncomes of faith, one of the greatest virtues?\n\nQuestion. Is the New Testament now the same as\nit was in the days of the early fathers?\n\nAnswer. Certainly not. Many books now thrown\nout, and not esteemed of divine origin, were esteemed\ndivine by Polycarp and Irenaeus and Clement and\nmany of the early churches. These books are now\ncalled \"apocryphal.\"\n\nQuestion. Have you not the same witnesses in\nfavor of their authenticity, that you have in favor of\nthe gospels?\n\nAnswer. Precisely the same. Except that they\nwere thrown out.\n\nQuestion. Why were they thrown out?\n\nAnswer. Because the Catholic Church did not es-\nteem them inspired.\n\nQuestion. Did the Catholics decide for us which\nare the true gospels and which are the true epistles?\n\n420\n\nAnswer. Yes. The Catholic Church was then the\nonly church, and consequently must have been the\ntrue church.\n\nQuestion. How did the Catholic Church select the\ntrue books?\n\nAnswer. Councils were called, and votes were\ntaken, very much as we now pass resolutions in\npolitical meetings.\n\nQuestion. Was the Catholic Church infallible then?\n\nAnswer. It was then, but it is not now.\n\nQuestion. If the Catholic Church at that time\nhad thrown out the book of Revelation, would it\nnow be our duty to believe that book to have been\ninspired?\n\nAnswer. No, I suppose not.\n\nQuestion. Is it not true that some of these books\nwere adopted by exceedingly small majorities?\n\nAnswer. It is.\n\nQuestion. If the Epistle to the Hebrews and to\nthe Romans, and the book of Revelation had been\nthrown out, could a man now be saved who honestly\nbelieves the rest of the books?\n\nAnswer. This is doubtful.\n\nQuestion. Were the men who picked out the in-\nspired books inspired?\n\n421\n\nAnswer. We cannot tell, but the probability is\nthat they were.\n\nQuestion. Do we know that they picked out the\nright ones?\n\nAnswer. Well, not exactly, but we believe that\nthey did.\n\nQuestion. Are we certain that some of the books\nthat were thrown out were not inspired?\n\nAnswer. Well, the only way to tell is to read\nthem carefully.\n\nQuestion. If upon reading these apocryphal books\na man concludes that they are not inspired, will he be\ndamned for that reason?\n\nAnswer. No. Certainly not.\n\nQuestion. If he concludes that some of them are\ninspired, and believes them, will he then be damned\nfor that belief?\n\nAnswer. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned for\nbelieving too much.\n\nQuestion. Does the fact that the books now com-\nprising the New Testament were picked out by the\nCatholic Church prevent their being examined now\nby an honest man, as they were examined at the time\nthey were picked out?\n\n422\n\nAnswer. No; not if the man comes to the con-\nclusion that they are inspired.\n\nQuestion. Does the fact that the Catholic Church\npicked them out and declared them to be inspired,\nrender it a crime to examine them precisely as you\nwould examine the books that the Catholic Church\nthrew out and declared were not inspired?\n\nAnswer. I think it does.\n\nQuestion. At the time the council was held in which\nit was determined which of the books of the New\nTestament are inspired, a respectable minority voted\nagainst some that were finally decided to be inspired.\nIf they were honest in the vote they gave, and died\nwithout changing their opinions, are they now in hell?\n\nAnswer. Well, they ought to be.\n\nQuestion. If those who voted to leave the book\nof Revelation out of the canon, and the gospel of\nSaint John out of the canon, believed honestly that\nthese were not inspired books, how should they have\nvoted?\n\nAnswer. Well, I suppose a man ought to vote as\nhe honestly believes—except in matters of religion.\n\nQuestion. If the Catholic Church was not infal-\nlible, is the question still open as to what books are,\nand what are not, inspired?\n\n423\n\nAnswer. I suppose the question is still open—\nbut it would be dangerous to decide it.\n\nQuestion. If, then, I examine all the books again,\nand come to the conclusion that some that were\nthrown out were inspired, and some that were ac-\ncepted were not inspired, ought I to say so?\n\nAnswer. Not if it is contrary to the faith of your\nfather, or calculated to interfere with your own po-\nlitical prospects.\n\nQuestion. Is it as great a sin to admit into the\nBible books that are uninspired as to reject those\nthat are inspired?\n\nAnswer. Well, it is a crime to reject an inspired\nbook, no matter how unsatisfactory the evidence is\nfor its inspiration, but it is not a crime to receive an\nuninspired book. God damns nobody for believing\ntoo much. An excess of credulity is simply to err in\nthe direction of salvation.\n\nQuestion. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspira-\ntion of the New Testament—believes it to be entirely\nthe work of uninspired men; and suppose he also be-\nlieves—but not from any evidence obtained in the New\nTestament—that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and\nthat he made atonement for his soul, can he then be\nsaved without a belief in the inspiration of the Bible?\n\n424\n\nAnswer. This has not yet been decided by\nour church, and I do not wish to venture an\nopinion.\n\nQuestion. Suppose a man denies the inspiration\nof the Scriptures; suppose that he also denies the\ndivinity of Jesus Christ; and suppose, further, that\nhe acts precisely as Christ is said to have acted;\nsuppose he loves his enemies, prays for those who\ndespitefully use him, and does all the good he pos-\nsibly can, is it your opinion that such a man will be\nsaved?\n\nAnswer. No, sir. There is \"none other name\n\"given under heaven and among men,\" whereby a\nsinner can be saved but the name of Christ.\n\nQuestion. Then it is your opinion that God\nwould save a murderer who believed in Christ, and\nwould damn another man, exactly like Christ, who\nfailed to believe in him?\n\nAnswer. Yes; because we have the blessed\npromise that, out of Christ, \"our God is a consuming\n\"fire.\"\n\nQuestion. Suppose a man read the Bible care-\nfully and honestly, and was not quite convinced that\nit was true, and that while examining the subject, he\ndied; what then?\n\n425\n\nAnswer. I do not believe that God would allow\nhim to examine the matter in another world, or to\nmake up his mind in heaven. Of course, he would\neternally perish.\n\nQuestion. Could Christ now furnish evidence\nenough to convince every human being of the truth\nof the Bible?\n\nAnswer. Of course he could, because he is in-\nfinite.\n\nQuestion. Are any miracles performed now?\n\nAnswer. Oh, no!\n\nQuestion. Have we any testimony, except human\ntestimony, to substantiate any miracle?\n\nAnswer. Only human testimony.\n\nQuestion. Do all men give the same force to the\nsame evidence?\n\nAnswer. By no means.\n\nQuestion. Have all honest men who have exam-\nined the Bible believed it to be inspired?\n\nAnswer. Of course they have. Infidels are not\nhonest.\n\nQuestion. Could any additional evidence have\nbeen furnished?\n\nAnswer. With perfect ease.\n\nQuestion. Would God allow a soul to suffer\n\n426\n\neternal agony rather than furnish evidence of the\ntruth of his Bible?\n\nAnswer. God has furnished plenty of evidence,\nand altogether more than was really necessary. We\nshould read the Bible in a believing spirit.\n\nQuestion. Are all parts of the inspired books\nequally true?\n\nAnswer. Necessarily.\n\nQuestion. According to Saint Matthew, God\npromises to forgive all who will forgive others; not\none word is said about believing in Christ, or believ-\ning in the miracles, or in any Bible; did Matthew tell\nthe truth?\n\nAnswer. The Bible must be taken as a whole;\nand if other conditions are added somewhere else,\nthen you must comply with those other conditions.\nMatthew may not have stated all the conditions.\n\nQuestion. I find in another part of the New\nTestament, that a young man came to Christ and\nasked him what was necessary for him to do in order\nthat he might inherit eternal life. Christ did not tell\nhim that he must believe the Bible, or that he must\nbelieve in him, or that he must keep the Sabbath-\nday; was Christ honest with that young man?\n\nAnswer. Well, I suppose he was.\n\n427\n\nQuestion. You will also recollect that Zaccheus\nsaid to Christ, that where he had wronged any man\nhe had made restitution, and further, that half his\ngoods he had given to the poor; and you will re-\nmember that Christ said to Zaccheus: \"This day\n\"hath salvation come to thy house.\" Why did not\nChrist tell Zaccheus that he \"must be born again;\"\nthat he must \"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ\"?\n\nAnswer. Of course there are mysteries in our\nholy religion that only those who have been \"born\n\"again\" can understand. You must remember that\n\"the carnal mind is enmity with God.\"\n\nQuestion. Is it not strange that Christ, in his Ser-\nmon on the Mount, did not speak of \"regeneration,\"\nor of the \"scheme of salvation\"?\n\nAnswer. Well, it may be.\n\nQuestion. Can a man be saved now by living\nexactly in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?\n\nAnswer. He can not.\n\nQuestion. Would then a man, by following the\ncourse of conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermon\non the Mount, lose his soul?\n\nAnswer. He most certainly would, because there\nis not one word in the Sermon on the Mount about\nbelieving on the Lord Jesus Christ; not one word\n\n428\n\nabout believing in the Bible; not one word about the\n\"atonement;\" not one word about \"regeneration.\"\nSo that, if the Presbyterian Church is right, it is abso-\nlutely certain that a man might follow the teachings\nof the Sermon on the Mount, and live in accordance\nwith its every word, and yet deserve and receive the\neternal condemnation of God. But we must remem-\nber that the Sermon on the Mount was preached be-\nfore Christianity existed. Christ was talking to Jews.\n\nQuestion. Did Christ write anything himself, in\nthe New Testament?\n\nAnswer. Not a word.\n\nQuestion. Did he tell any of his disciples to write\nany of his words?\n\nAnswer. There is no account of it, if he did.\n\nQuestion. Do we know whether any of the dis-\nciples wrote anything?\n\nAnswer. Of course they did.\n\nQuestion. How do you know?\n\nAnswer. Because the gospels bear their names.\n\nQuestion. Are you satisfied that Christ was abso-\nlutely God?\n\nAnswer. Of course he was. We believe that\nChrist and God and the Holy Ghost are all the same,\nthat the three form one, and that each one is three.\n\n429\n\nQuestion. Was Christ the God of the universe at\nthe time of his birth?\n\nAnswer. He certainly was.\n\nQuestion. Was he the infinite God, creator\nand controller of the entire universe, before he was\nborn?\n\nAnswer. Of course he was. This is the mystery\nof \"God manifest in the flesh.\" The infidels have\npretended that he was like any other child, and was\nin fact supported by Nature instead of being the\nsupporter of Nature. They have insisted that like\nother children, he had to be cared for by his mother.\nOf course he appeared to be cared for by his mother.\nIt was a part of the plan that in all respects he should\nappear to be like other children.\n\nQuestion. Did he know just as much before he\nwas born as after?\n\nAnswer. If he was God of course he did.\n\nQuestion. How do you account for the fact that\nSaint Luke tells us, in the last verse of the second\nchapter of his gospel, that \"Jesus increased in wis-\n\"dom and stature\"?\n\nAnswer. That I presume is a figure of speech;\nbecause, if he was God, he certainly could not have\nincreased in wisdom. The physical part of him could\n\n430\n\nincrease in stature, but the intellectual part must have\nbeen infinite all the time.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?\n\nAnswer. No; I believe what Luke said. If it\nappears untrue, or impossible, then I know that it is\nfigurative or symbolical.\n\nQuestion. Did I understand you to say that Christ\nwas actually God?\n\nAnswer. Of course he was.\n\nQuestion. Then why did Luke say in the same\nverse of the same chapter that \"Jesus increased in\n\"favor with God\"?\n\nAnswer. I dare you to go into a room by your-\nself and read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John!\n\nQuestion. Is it necessary to understand the Bible\nin order to be saved?\n\nAnswer. Certainly not; it is only necessary that\nyou believe it.\n\nQuestion. Is it necessary to believe all the\nmiracles?\n\nAnswer. It may not be necessary, but as it is im-\npossible to tell which ones can safely be left out, you\nhad better believe them all.\n\nQuestion. Then you regard belief as the safe\nway?\n\n431\n\nAnswer. Of course it is better to be fooled in this\nworld than to be damned in the next.\n\nQuestion. Do you think that there are any cruel-\nties on God's part recorded in the Bible?\n\nAnswer. At first flush, many things done by God\nhimself, as well as by his prophets, appear to be\ncruel; but if we examine them closely, we will find\nthem to be exactly the opposite.\n\nQuestion. How do you explain the story of Elisha\nand the children,—where the two she-bears destroyed\nforty-two children on account of their impudence?\n\nAnswer. This miracle, in my judgment, estab-\nlishes two things: 1. That children should be polite\nto ministers, and 2. That God is kind to animals—\n\"giving them their meat in due season.\" These\nbears have been great educators—they are the\nfoundation of the respect entertained by the young\nfor theologians. No child ever sees a minister now\nwithout thinking of a bear.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the story of\nDaniel—you no doubt remember it? Some men\ntold the king that Daniel was praying contrary to\nlaw, and thereupon Daniel was cast into a den of\nlions; but the lions could not touch him, their\nmouths having been shut by angels. The next\n\n432\n\nmorning, the king, finding that Daniel was still\nintact, had him taken out; and then, for the purpose\nof gratifying Daniels God, the king had all the men\nwho had made the complaint against Daniel, and\ntheir wives and their little children, brought and cast\ninto the lions' den. According to the account, the\nlions were so hungry that they caught these wives\nand children as they dropped, and broke all their\nbones in pieces before they had even touched the\nground. Is it not wonderful that God failed to pro-\ntect these innocent wives and children?\n\nAnswer. These wives and children were heathen;\nthey were totally depraved. And besides, they were\nused as witnesses. The fact that they were devoured\nwith such quickness shows that the lions were\nhungry. Had it not been for this, infidels would\nhave accounted for the safety of Daniel by saying\nthat the lions had been fed.\n\nQuestion. Do you believe that Shadrach, Meshach\nand Abednego were cast \"into a burning fiery furnace\n\"heated one seven times hotter than it was wont to\n\"be heated,\" and that they had on \"their coats, their\n\"hosen and their hats,\" and that when they came\nout \"not a hair of their heads was singed, nor was\n\"the smell of fire upon their garments\"?\n\n433\n\nAnswer. The evidence of this miracle is exceed-\ningly satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion of\nNebuchadnezzar.\n\nQuestion. How do you know he was converted?\n\nAnswer. Because immediately after the miracle\nthe king issued a decree that \"every people, nation\n\"and language that spoke anything amiss against\n\"the God of Shadrach and Company, should be cut\n\"in pieces.\" This decree shows that he had become\na true disciple and worshiper of Jehovah.\n\nQuestion. If God in those days preserved from\nthe fury of the fire men who were true to him and\nwould not deny his name, why is it that he has failed\nto protect thousands of martyrs since that time?\n\nAnswer. This is one of the divine mysteries.\nGod has in many instances allowed his enemies to\nkill his friends. I suppose this was allowed for the\ngood of his enemies, that the heroism of the mar-\ntyrs might convert them.\n\nQuestion. Do you believe all the miracles?\n\nAnswer. I believe them all, because I believe the\nBible to be inspired.\n\nQuestion. What makes you think it is inspired?\n\nAnswer. I have never seen anybody who knew\nit was not; besides, my father and mother believed it.\n\n434\n\nQuestion. Have you any other reasons for be-\nlieving it to be inspired?\n\nAnswer. Yes; there are more copies of the Bible\nprinted than of any other book; and it is printed in\nmore languages. And besides, it would be impossible\nto get along without it.\n\nQuestion. Why could we not get along without it?\n\nAnswer. We would have nothing to swear wit-\nnesses by; no book in which to keep the family\nrecord; nothing for the centre-table, and nothing for\na mother to give her son. No nation can be civilized\nwithout the Bible.\n\nQuestion. Did God always know that a Bible was\nnecessary to civilize a country?\n\nAnswer. Certainly he did.\n\nQuestion. Why did he not give a Bible to\nthe Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and the\nRomans?\n\nAnswer. It is astonishing what perfect fools in-\nfidels are.\n\nQuestion. Why do you call infidels \"fools\"?\n\nAnswer. Because I find in the fifth chapter of the\ngospel according to Matthew the following: \"Who-\n\"soever shall say 'Thou fool!' shall be in danger of\n\"hell fire.\"\n\n435\n\nQuestion. Have I the right to read the Bible?\n\nAnswer. Yes. You not only have the right, but\nit is your duty.\n\nQuestion. In reading the Bible the words make\ncertain impressions on my mind. These impressions\ndepend upon my brain,—upon my intelligence. Is\nnot this true?\n\nAnswer. Of course, when you read the Bible, im-\npressions are made upon your mind.\n\nQuestion. Can I control these impressions?\n\nAnswer. I do not think you can, as long as you\nremain in a sinful state.\n\nQuestion. How am I to get out of this sinful state?\n\nAnswer. You must believe on the Lord Jesus\nChrist, and you must read the Bible in a prayerful\nspirit and with a believing heart.\n\nQuestion. Suppose that doubts force themselves\nupon my mind?\n\nAnswer. Then you will know that you are a sin-\nner, and that you are depraved.\n\nQuestion. If I have the right to read the Bible,\nhave I the right to try to understand it?\n\nAnswer. Most assuredly.\n\nQuestion. Do you admit that I have the right to\nreason about it and to investigate it?\n\n436\n\nAnswer. Yes; I admit that. Of course you can-\nnot help reasoning about what you read.\n\nQuestion. Does the right to read a book include\nthe right to give your opinion as to the truth of what\nthe book contains?\n\nAnswer. Of course,—if the book is not inspired.\nInfidels hate the Bible because it is inspired, and\nChristians know that it is inspired because infidels\nsay that it is not.\n\nQuestion. Have I the right to decide for myself\nwhether or not the book is inspired?\n\nAnswer. You have no right to deny the truth of\nGod's Holy Word.\n\nQuestion. Is God the author of all books?\n\nAnswer. Certainly not.\n\nQuestion. Have I the right to say that God did\nnot write the Koran?\n\nAnswer. Yes.\n\nQuestion. Why?\n\nAnswer. Because the Koran was written by an\nimpostor.\n\nQuestion. How do you know?\n\nAnswer. My reason tells me so.\n\nQuestion. Have you the right to be guided by\nyour reason?\n\n437\n\nAnswer. I must be.\n\nQuestion. Have you the same right to follow your\nreason after reading the Bible?\n\nAnswer. No. The Bible is the standard of reason.\nThe Bible is not to be judged or corrected by your\nreason. Your reason is to be weighed and measured\nby the Bible. The Bible is different from other\nbooks and must not be read in the same critical spirit,\nnor judged by the same standard.\n\nQuestion. What did God give us reason for?\n\nAnswer. So that we might investigate other\nreligions, and examine other so-called sacred books.\n\nQuestion. If a man honestly thinks that the Bible\nis not inspired, what should he say?\n\nAnswer. He should admit that he is mistaken.\n\nQuestion. When he thinks he is right?\n\nAnswer. Yes. The Bible is different from other\nbooks. It is the master of reason. You read the\nBible, not to see if that is wrong, but to see\nwhether your reason is right. It is the only book\nabout which a man has no right to reason. He must\nbelieve. The Bible is addressed, not to the reason,\nbut to the ears: \"He that hath ears to hear, let\n\"him hear.\"\n\nQuestion. Do you think we have the right to tell\n\n438\n\nwhat the Bible means—what ideas God intended to\nconvey, or has conveyed to us, through the medium\nof the Bible?\n\nAnswer. Well, I suppose you have that right.\nYes, that must be your duty. You certainly ought\nto tell others what God has said to you.\n\nQuestion. Do all men get the same ideas from\nthe Bible?\n\nAnswer. No.\n\nQuestion. How do you account for that?\n\nAnswer. Because all men are not alike; they\ndiffer in intellect, in education, and in experience.\n\nQuestion. Who has the right to decide as to the\nreal ideas that God intended to convey?\n\nAnswer. I am a Protestant, and believe in the\nright of private judgment. Whoever does not is a\nCatholic. Each man must be his own judge, but God\nwill hold him responsible.\n\nQuestion. Does God believe in the right of private\njudgment?\n\nAnswer. Of course he does.\n\nQuestion. Is he willing that I should exercise my\njudgment in deciding whether the Bible is inspired or\nnot?\n\nAnswer. No. He believes in the exercise of\n\n439\n\nprivate judgment only in the examination and rejec-\ntion of other books than the Bible.\n\nQuestion. Is he a Catholic?\n\nAnswer. I cannot answer blasphemy! Let me\ntell you that God will \"laugh at your calamity, and\n\"will mock when your fear cometh.\" You will be\naccursed.\n\nQuestion. Why do you curse infidels?\n\nAnswer. Because I am a Christian.\n\nQuestion. Did not Christ say that we ought to\n\"bless those who curse us,\" and that we should\n\"love our enemies\"?\n\nAnswer. Yes, but he cursed the Pharisees and\ncalled them \"hypocrites\" and \"vipers.\"\n\nQuestion. How do you account for that?\n\nAnswer. It simply shows the difference between\ntheory and practice.\n\nQuestion. What do you consider the best way to\nanswer infidels.\n\nAnswer. The old way is the best. You should\nsay that their arguments are ancient, and have been\nanswered over and over again. If this does not\nsatisfy your hearers, then you should attack the\ncharacter of the infidel—then that of his parents—\nthen that of his children.\n\n440\n\nQuestion. Suppose that the infidel is a good man,\nhow will you answer him then?\n\nAnswer. But an infidel cannot be a good man.\nEven if he is, it is better that he should lose his\nreputation, than that thousands should lose their\nsouls. We know that all infidels are vile and infa-\nmous. We may not have the evidence, but we know\nthat it exists.\n\nQuestion. How should infidels be treated? Should\nChristians try to convert them?\n\nAnswer. Christians should have nothing to do\nwith infidels. It is not safe even to converse with\nthem. They are always talking about reason, and\nfacts, and experience. They are filled with sophistry\nand should be avoided.\n\nQuestion. Should Christians pray for the con-\nversion of infidels?\n\nAnswer. Yes; but such prayers should be made\nin public and the name of the infidel should be given\nand his vile and hideous heart portrayed so that the\nyoung may be warned.\n\nQuestion. Whom do you regard as infidels?\n\nAnswer. The scientists—the geologists, the as-\ntronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No one\ncan overestimate the evil that has been wrought\n\n441\n\nby Laplace, Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel,\nRenan, Emerson, Strauss, Bikhner, Tyndall, and\ntheir wretched followers. These men pretended to\nknow more than Moses and the prophets. They\nwere \"dogs baying at the moon.\" They were\n\"wolves\" and \"fools.\" They tried to \"assassinate\n\"God,\" and worse than all, they actually laughed\nat the clergy,\n\nQuestion. Do you think they did, and are doing\ngreat harm?\n\nAnswer. Certainly. Of what use are all the\nsciences, if you lose your own soul? People in hell\nwill care nothing about education. The rich man\nsaid nothing about science, he wanted water.\nNeither will they care about books and theories\nin heaven. If a man is perfectly happy, it makes\nno difference how ignorant he is.\n\nQuestion. But how can he answer these scientists?\n\nAnswer. Well, my advice is to let their argu-\nments alone. Of course, you will deny all their\nfacts; but the most effective way is to attack their\ncharacter.\n\nQuestion. But suppose they are good men,—\nwhat then?\n\nAnswer. The better they are, the worse they are.\n\n442\n\nWe cannot admit that the infidel is really good. He\nmay appear to be good, and it is our duty to strip\nthe mask of appearance from the face of unbelief. If\na man is not a Christian, he is totally depraved, and\nwhy should we hesitate to make a misstatement\nabout a man whom God is going to make miserable\nforever?\n\nQuestion. Are we not commanded to love our\nenemies?\n\nAnswer. Yes, but not the enemies of God.\n\nQuestion. Do you fear the final triumph of infi-\ndelity?\n\nAnswer. No. We have no fear. We believe\nthat the Bible can be revised often enough to agree\nwith anything that may really be necessary to the\npreservation of the church. We can always rely\nupon revision. Let me tell you that the Bible is the\nmost peculiar of books. At the time God inspired his\nholy prophets to write it, he knew exactly what the\ndiscoveries and demonstrations of the future would\nbe, and he wrote his Bible in such a way that the\nwords could always be interpreted in accordance with\nthe intelligence of each age, and so that the words\nused are capable of several meanings, so that, no\nmatter what may hereafter be discovered, the Bible\n\n443\n\nwill be found to agree with it,—for the reason that\nthe knowledge of Hebrew will grow in the exact\nproportion that discoveries are made in other depart-\nments of knowledge. You will therefore see, that all\nefforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible will simply\nresult in giving a better translation.\n\nQuestion. What do you consider is the strongest\nargument in favor of the inspiration of the Scrip-\ntures?\n\nAnswer. The dying words of Christians.\n\nQuestion. What do you consider the strongest\nargument against the truth of infidelity?\n\nAnswer. The dying words of infidels. You know\nhow terrible were the death-bed scenes of Hume,\nVoltaire, Paine and Hobbes, as described by hundreds\nof persons who were not present; while all Christians\nhave died with the utmost serenity, and with their\nlast words have testified to the sustaining power of\nfaith in the goodness of God.\n\nQuestion. What were the last words of Jesus\nChrist?\n\nAnswer. \"My God, my God, why hast thou for-\n\"saken me?\"\n"
}