The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 5
(of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 5 (of 12)
Dresden Edition--Discussions
Author: Robert G. Ingersoll
Release Date: February 9, 2012 [EBook #38805]
Last Updated: November 15, 2012
Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
Produced by David Widger
INGERSOLL'S INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.
A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.
CONTENTS
OF VOLUME V.
SIX INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.
(1882.)
Preface—First Interview: Great Men as Witnesses
to the Truth of the Gospel—No man should quote
the Words of
Another unless he is willing to
Accept all the Opinions of that Man—Reasons
of
more Weight than Reputations—Would a general
Acceptance
of Unbelief fill the Penitentiaries?—
My Creed—Most
Criminals Orthodox—Relig-ion and
Morality not Necessarily
Associates—On the
Creation of the Universe out of Omnipotence—Mr.
Talmage's Theory about the Pro-duction of Light
prior to the Creation
of the Sun—The Deluge and
the Ark—Mr. Talmage's tendency
to Belittle the
Bible Miracles—His Chemical, Geological, and
Agricultural Views—His Disregard of Good Manners-
-Second
Interview: An Insulting Text—God's Design
in Creating Guiteau
to be the Assassin of
Garfield—Mr. Talmage brings the Charge of
Blasphemy—Some Real Blasphemers—The Tabernacle
Pastor
tells the exact Opposite of the Truth about
Col. Ingersoll's Attitude
toward the Circulation
of Immoral Books—"Assassinating" God—Mr.
Talmage finds Nearly All the Invention of Modern
Times Mentioned in
the Bible—The Reverend
Gentleman corrects the Translators of
the Bible in
the Matter of the Rib Story—Denies that Polygamy
is permitted by the Old Testament—His De-fence of
Queen
Victoria and Violation of the Grave of
George Eliot—Exhibits a
Christian Spirit—Third
Interview: Mr. Talmage's Partiality in
the
Bestowal of his Love—Denies the Right of Laymen
to
Examine the Scriptures—Thinks the Infidels
Victims of
Bibliophobia —He explains the Stopping
of the Sun and Moon at
the Command of Joshua—
Instances a Dark Day in the Early Part
of the
Century—Charges that Holy Things are Made Light
of—Reaffirms
his Confidence in the Whale and
Jonah Story—The Commandment
which Forbids the
making of Graven Images—Affirmation that the
Bible is the Friend of Woman—The Present
Condition of Woman—Fourth
Interview: Colonel
Ingersoll Compared by Mr. Talmage tojehoiakim, who
Consigned Writings of Jeremiah to the Flames—An
Intimation that
Infidels wish to have all copies
of the Bible Destroyed by Fire—Laughter
Deprecated—Col. Ingersoll Accused of Denouncing
his Father—Mr.
Talmage holds that a Man may be
Perfectly Happy in Heaven with His
Mother in Hell-
-Challenges the Infidel to Read a Chapter from St.
John—On the "Chief Solace of the World"—Dis-
covers an
Attempt is being made to Put Out the
Light-houses of the Farther
Shore—Affirms our
Debt to Christianity for Schools, Hospitals,
etc.—Denies that Infidels have ever Done any
Good—
Fifth Interview: Inquiries if Men gather Grapes of
Thorns, or
Figs of Thistles, and is Answered in
the Negative—Resents the
Charge that the Bible is
a Cruel Book—Demands to Know where the
Cruelty of
the Bible Crops out in the Lives of Christians—
Col. Ingersoll Accused of saying that the Bible
is a Collection of
Polluted Writings—Mr. Talmage
Asserts the Orchestral Harmony of
the Scriptures
from Genesis to Revelation, and Repudiates the
Theory of Contradictions—His View of Mankind
Indicated in
Quotations from his Confession of
Faith—He Insists that the
Bible is Scientific—
Traces the New Testament to its Source
with St.
John—Pledges his Word that no Man ever Died for a
Lie Cheerfully and Triumphantly—As to Prophecies
and
Predictions—Alleged "Prophetic" Fate of the
Jewish People—Sixth
Interview: Dr. Talmage takes
the Ground that the Unrivalled
Circulation of the
Bible Proves that it is Inspired—Forgets'
that a
Scientific Fact does not depend on the Vote of
Numbers—Names
some Christian Millions—His
Arguments Characterized as the
Poor-est, Weakest,
and Best Possible in Support of the Doctrine of
Inspira-tion—Will God, in Judging a Man, take
into
Consideration the Cir-cumstances of that
Man's Life?—Satisfactory
Reasons for Not Believ-
ing that the Bible is inspired.
THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.
The Pith and Marrow of what Mr.
Talmage has been
Pleased to Say, set forth in the form of a Shorter
Catechism.
A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.
(1877.)
Letter to the New York Observer—An Offer to Pay
One Thousand Dollars in Gold for Proof that Thomas
Paine or Voltaire
Died in Terror because of any
Religious Opinions Either had Expressed—
Proposition to Create a Tribunal to Hear the
Evidence—The
Ob-server, after having Called upon
Col. Ingersoll to Deposit the
Money, and
Characterized his Talk as "Infidel 'Buncombe,'"
Denies its Own Words, but attempts to Prove them—
Its Memory
Refreshed by Col. Ingersoll and the
Slander Refuted—Proof that
Paine did Not Recant -
-Testimony of Thomas Nixon, Daniel Pelton, Mr.
Jarvis, B. F. Has-kin, Dr. Manley, Amasa
Woodsworth, Gilbert Vale,
Philip Graves, M. D.,
Willet Hicks, A. C. Hankinson, John Hogeboom,
W.
J. Hilton, Tames Cheetham, Revs. Milledollar and
Cunningham,
Mrs. Hedden, Andrew A. Dean, William
Carver,—The Statements of
Mary Roscoe and Mary
Hindsdale Examined—William Cobbett's
Account of a
Call upon Mary Hinsdale—Did Thomas Paine live the
Life of a Drunken Beast, and did he Die a Drunken,
Cowardly, and
Beastly Death?—Grant Thorbum's
Charges Examined—Statement
of the Rev. J. D.
Wickham, D.D., shown to be Utterly False—False
Witness of the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D.—W. H.
Ladd, James
Cheetham, and Mary Hinsdale—Paine's
Note to Cheetham—Mr-Staple,
Mr. Purdy, Col. John
Fellows, James Wilburn, Walter Morton, Clio
Rickman, Judge Herttell, H. Margary, Elihu Palmer,
Mr.
XV
Lovett, all these Testified that Paine was a
Temperate Man—Washington's
Letter to Paine—
Thomas Jefferson's—Adams and Washing-ton
on
"Common Sense"—-James Monroe's Tribute—
Quotations from Paine—Paine's Estate and His
Will—The
Observer's Second Attack (p. 492):
Statements of Elkana Watson,
William Carver, Rev.
E. F. Hatfield, D.D., James Cheetham, Dr. J. W.
Francis, Dr. Manley, Bishop Fenwick—Ingersoll's
Second Reply
(p. 516): Testimony Garbled by the
Editor of the Observer—Mary
Roscoeand Mary Hins-
dale the Same Person—Her Reputation for
Veracity-
-Letter from Rev. A. W. Cornell—Grant Thorburn
Exposed by James Parton—The Observer's Admission
that Paine did
not Recant—Affidavit of
William B. Barnes.
PREFACE
SEVERAL people, having read the sermons of
Mr. Talmage in which
he reviews some of my
lectures, have advised me not to pay the
slightest
attention to the Brooklyn divine. They think that
no
new arguments have been brought forward, and
they have even gone so
far as to say that some of
the best of the old ones have been left
out.
After thinking the matter over, I became satisfied
that my friends were mistaken, that they had been car-
ried away by
the general current of modern thought,
and were not in a frame of
mind to feel the force
of the arguments of Mr. Talmage, or to clearly
see
the candor that characterizes his utterances.
At the
first reading, the logic of these sermons does
not impress you. The
style is of a character calculated
VI
to throw the
searcher after facts and arguments off
his guard. The imagination of
the preacher is so
lurid; he is so free from the ordinary forms of
ex-
pression; his statements are so much stranger than
truth,
and his conclusions so utterly independent of
his premises, that the
reader is too astonished to
be convinced. Not until I had read with
great care
the six discourses delivered for my benefit had I any
clear and well-defined idea of the logical force of
Mr. Talmage. I
had but little conception of his
candor, was almost totally ignorant
of his power to
render the simple complex and the plain obscure by
the mutilation of metaphor and the incoherence
of inspired
declamation. Neither did I know the
generous accuracy with which he
states the position
of an opponent, and the fairness he exhibits in a
religious discussion.
He has without doubt studied the Bible as
closely
and critically as he has the works of Buckle and
Darwin,
and he seems to have paid as much attention
to scientific subjects as
most theologians. His theory
of light and his views upon geology are
strikingly
original, and his astronomical theories are certainly as
profound as practical. If his statements can be relied
upon, he has
successfully refuted the teachings of
VII
Humboldt
and Haeckel, and exploded the blunders of
Spencer and Tyndall.
Besides all this, he has the
courage of his convictions—he does
not quail before a
fact, and he does not strike his colors even to a
dem-
onstration. He cares nothing for human experience.
He
cannot be put down with statistics, nor driven
from his position by
the certainties of science. He
cares neither for the persistence of
force, nor the
indestructibility of matter.
He believes in
the Bible, and he has the bravery
to defend his belief. In this, he
proudly stands
almost alone. He knows that the salvation of the
world depends upon a belief in his creed. He
knows that what are
called "the sciences" are of
no importance in the other world. He
clearly sees
that it is better to live and die ignorant here, if you
can wear a crown of glory hereafter. He knows it
is useless to be
perfectly familiar with all the sciences
in this world, and then in
the next "lift up your eyes,
being in torment." He knows, too, that
God will
not punish any man for denying a fact in science.
A man
can deny the rotundity of the earth, the
attraction of gravitation,
the form of the earths orbit,
or the nebular hypothesis, with perfect
impunity.
He is not bound to be correct upon any philo-
VIII
sophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridi-
cule the rule of three, conic sections, and even the
multiplication
table. God permits every human
being to be mistaken upon every
subject but one.
No man can lose his soul by denying physical facts.
Jehovah does not take the slightest pride in his geology,
or in
his astronomy, or in mathematics, or in
any school of philosophy—he
is jealous only of his
reputation as the author of the Bible. You may
deny
everything else in the universe except that book.
This
being so, Mr. Talmage takes the safe side, and
insists that the Bible
is inspired. He knows that at
the day of judgment, not a scientific
question will be
asked. He knows that the Hæckels and Huxleys
will, on that terrible day, regret that they ever
learned to read. He
knows that there is no "saving
grace" in any department of human
knowledge; that
mathematics and all the exact sciences and all the
philosophies will be worse than useless. He knows
that inventors,
discoverers, thinkers and investigators,
have no claim upon the mercy
of Jehovah; that the
educated will envy the ignorant, and that the
writers
and thinkers will curse their books.
He knows that
man cannot be saved through
what he knows—but only by means of
what he
IX
believes. Theology is not a science. If
it were,
God would forgive his children for being mistaken
about
it. If it could be proved like geology, or
astronomy, there would be
no merit in believing it.
From a belief in the Bible, Mr. Talmage is
not to be
driven by uninspired evidence. He knows that his
logic
is liable to lead him astray, and that his reason
cannot be depended
upon. He believes that scien-
tific men are no authority in matters
concerning
which nothing can be known, and he does not wish
to
put his soul in peril, by examining by the light of
reason, the
evidences of the supernatural.
He is perfectly consistent with
his creed. What
happens to us here is of no consequence compared
with eternal joy or pain. The ambitions, honors,
glories and triumphs
of this world, compared with
eternal things, are less than naught.
Better a cross here and a crown there, than a feast
here and a
fire there.
Lazarus was far more fortunate than Dives. The
purple and fine linen of this short life are as nothing
compared with
the robes of the redeemed.
Mr. Talmage knows that philosophy is
unsafe—
that the sciences are sirens luring souls to eternal
wreck. He knows that the deluded searchers after
X
facts are planting thorns in their own pillows—that
the
geologists are digging pits for themselves, and
that the astronomers
are robbing their souls of the
heaven they explore. He knows that
thought, capa-
city, and intellectual courage are dangerous, and this
belief gives him a feeling of personal security.
The Bible is
adapted to the world as it is. Most
people are ignorant, and but few
have the capacity to
comprehend philosophical and scientific
subjects, and
if salvation depended upon understanding even one
of the sciences, nearly everybody would be lost.
Mr. Talmage sees
that it was exceedingly merciful in
God to base salvation on belief
instead of on brain.
Millions can believe, while only a few can
understand.
Even the effort to understand is a kind of treason
born of pride and ingratitude. This being so, it is far
safer, far
better, to be credulous than critical. You are
offered an infinite
reward for believing the Bible. If
you examine it you may find it
impossible for you to
believe it. Consequently, examination is
dangerous.
Mr. Talmage knows that it is not necessary to under-
stand the Bible in order to believe it. You must be-
lieve it first.
Then, if on reading it you find anything
that appears false, absurd,
or impossible, you may
be sure that it is only an appearance, and
that the real
XI
fault is in yourself. It is certain
that persons wholly
incapable of reasoning are absolutely safe, and
that
to be born brainless is to be saved in advance.
Mr.
Talmage takes the ground,—and certainly from
his point of view
nothing can be more reasonable
—that thought should be avoided,
after one has
"experienced religion" and has been the subject of
"regeneration." Every sinner should listen to ser-
mons, read
religious books, and keep thinking, until
he becomes a Christian.
Then he should stop. After
that, thinking is not the road to heaven.
The real
point and the real difficulty is to stop thinking just at
the right time. Young Christians, who have no idea
of what they are
doing, often go on thinking after
joining the church, and in this way
heresy is born, and
heresy is often the father of infidelity. If
Christians
would follow the advice and example of Mr. Talmage
all disagreements about doctrine would be avoided.
In this way the
church could secure absolute in-
tellectual peace and all the
disputes, heartburnings,
jealousies and hatreds born of thought,
discussion
and reasoning, would be impossible.
In the
estimation of Mr. Talmage, the man who
doubts and examines is not fit
for the society of
angels. There are no disputes, no discussions in
XII
heaven. The angels do not think; they believe,
they enjoy. The highest form of religion is re-
pression. We should
conquer the passions and
destroy desire. We should control the mind
and
stop thinking. In this way we "offer ourselves a
"living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God." When
desire dies, when thought
ceases, we shall be pure.
—This is heaven.
Robert G.
Ingersoll.
Washington, D. C,
April; 1882.
INGERSOLL'S
INTERVIEWS ON TALMAGE.
FIRST INTERVIEW.
Polonius. My lord,
I will use them according to
their desert.
Hamlet. God's
bodikins, man, much better: use
every man after his desert, and who
should 'scape
whipping? Use them after your own honor and
dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is
in your bounty.
Question. Have you read the sermon of
Mr. Talmage,
in which he exposes your mis-
representations?
Answer.
I have read such reports as appeared in
some of the New York papers.
Question. What do you think of what he has
to say?
Answer. Some time ago I gave it as my opinion
of Mr.
Talmage that, while he was a man of most
excellent judgment, he was
somewhat deficient in
imagination. I find that he has the disease
that seems
16
to afflict most theologians, and that
is, a kind of intel-
lectual toadyism, that uses the names of
supposed great
men instead of arguments. It is perfectly astonishing
to the average preacher that any one should have the
temerity to
differ, on the subject of theology, with
Andrew Jackson, Daniel
Webster, and other gentlemen
eminent for piety during their lives,
but who,
as a rule, expressed their theological opinions a few
minutes before dissolution. These ministers are per-
fectly delighted
to have some great politician, some
judge, soldier, or president,
certify to the truth of the
Bible and to the moral character of Jesus
Christ.
Mr. Talmage insists that if a witness is false in one
particular, his entire testimony must be thrown away.
Daniel Webster
was in favor of the Fugitive Slave
Law, and thought it the duty of
the North to capture
the poor slave-mother. He was willing to stand
between a human being and his freedom. He was
willing to assist in
compelling persons to work without
any pay except such marks of the
lash as they might
receive. Yet this man is brought forward as a
witness
for the truth of the gospel. If he was false in his
testimony as to liberty, what is his affidavit worth as
to the value
of Christianity? Andrew Jackson was a
brave man, a good general, a
patriot second to none,
17
an excellent judge of
horses, and a brave duelist. I
admit that in his old age he relied
considerably upon
the atonement. I think Jackson was really a very
great
man, and probably no President impressed himself
more
deeply upon the American people than the hero
of New Orleans, but as
a theologian he was, in my
judgment, a most decided failure, and his
opinion as
to the authenticity of the Scriptures is of no earthly
value. It was a subject upon which he knew probably
as little as Mr.
Talmage does about modern infidelity.
Thousands of people will quote
Jackson in favor of
religion, about which he knew nothing, and yet
have
no confidence in his political opinions, although he
devoted the best part of his life to politics.
No man should
quote the words of another, in place
of an argument, unless he is
willing to accept all the
opinions of that man. Lord Bacon denied the
Copernican
system of astronomy, and, according to Mr.
Talmage, having made that mistake, his opinions upon
other subjects
are equally worthless. Mr. Wesley
believed in ghosts, witches, and
personal devils, yet
upon many subjects I have no doubt his opinions
were
correct. The truth is, that nearly everybody is right
about
some things and wrong about most things; and
if a man's testimony is
not to be taken until he is
18
right on every
subject, witnesses will be extremely
scarce.
Personally, I
care nothing about names. It makes
no difference to me what the
supposed great men of
the past have said, except as what they have
said
contains an argument; and that argument is worth to
me the
force it naturally has upon my mind. Chris-
tians forget that in the
realm of reason there are no
serfs and no monarchs. When you submit
to an
argument, you do not submit to the man who made it.
Christianity demands a certain obedience, a certain
blind,
unreasoning faith, and parades before the eyes
of the ignorant, with
great pomp and pride, the names
of kings, soldiers, and statesmen who
have admitted
the truth of the Bible. Mr. Talmage introduces as a
witness the Rev. Theodore Parker. This same The-
odore Parker
denounced the Presbyterian creed as
the most infamous of all creeds,
and said that the worst
heathen god, wearing a necklace of live
snakes, was a
representation of mercy when compared with the God
of John Calvin. Now, if this witness is false in any
particular, of
course he cannot be believed, according
to Mr. Talmage, upon any
subject, and yet Mr.
Talmage introduces him upon the stand as a good
witness.
19
Although I care but little for names,
still I will sug-
gest that, in all probability, Humboldt knew more
upon
this subject than all the pastors in the world. I cer-
tainly would have as much confidence in the opinion
of Goethe as in
that of William H. Seward; and as
between Seward and Lincoln, I
should take Lincoln;
and when you come to Presidents, for my part, if
I
were compelled to pin my faith on the sleeve of any-
body, I
should take Jefferson's coat in preference to
Jackson's. I believe
that Haeckel is, to say the least,
the equal of any theologian we
have in this country,
and the late John W. Draper certainly knew as
much
upon these great questions as the average parson. I
believe
that Darwin has investigated some of these
things, that Tyndall and
Huxley have turned their
minds somewhat in the same direction, that
Helmholtz
has a few opinions, and that, in fact, thousands of able,
intelligent and honest men differ almost entirely with
Webster and
Jackson.
So far as I am concerned, I think more of reasons
than of reputations, more of principles than of persons,
more of
nature than of names, more of facts, than of
faiths.
It is
the same with books as with persons. Proba-
bly there is not a book
in the world entirely destitute
20
of truth, and not
one entirely exempt from error.
The Bible is like other books. There
are mistakes in
it, side by side with truths,—passages
inculcating
murder, and others exalting mercy; laws devilish and
tyrannical, and others filled with wisdom and justice.
It is foolish
to say that if you accept a part, you must
accept the whole. You must
accept that which com-
mends itself to your heart and brain. There
never was
a doctrine that a witness, or a book, should be thrown
entirely away, because false in one particular. If in
any particular
the book, or the man, tells the truth, to
that extent the truth
should be accepted.
Truth is made no worse by the one who tells
it,
and a lie gets no real benefit from the reputation of its
author.
Question. What do you think of the statement
that a general belief in your teachings would fill all
the
penitentiaries, and that in twenty years there
would be a hell in
this world worse than the one
expected in the other?
Answer.
My creed is this:
1. Happiness is the only good.
2.
The way to be happy, is to make others happy.
21
Other things being equal, that man is happiest who is
nearest just—who
is truthful, merciful and intelligent—
in other words, the one
who lives in accordance with
the conditions of life.
3.
The time to be happy is now, and the place to
be happy, is here.
4. Reason is the lamp of the mind—the only torch
of
progress; and instead of blowing that out and de-
pending upon
darkness and dogma, it is far better to
increase that sacred light.
5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietor
of himself,
honest with himself, and intellectually
hospitable; and upon every
brain reason should be
enthroned as king.
6. Every man
must bear the consequences, at
least of his own actions. If he puts
his hands in
the fire, his hands must smart, and not the hands of
another. In other words: each man must eat the
fruit of the tree he
plants.
I can not conceive that the teaching of these doc-
trines would fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows.
The doctrine
of forgiveness—the idea that somebody
else can suffer in place
of the guilty—the notion that
just at the last the whole
account can be settled—
these ideas, doctrines, and notions are
calculated to fill
22
penitentiaries. Nothing breeds
extravagance like the
credit system.
Most criminals of the
present day are orthodox be-
lievers, and the gallows seems to be the
last round of
the ladder reaching from earth to heaven. The Rev.
Dr. Sunderland, of this city, in his sermon on the assas-
sination of
Garfield, takes the ground that God per-
mitted the murder for the
purpose of opening the eyes
of the people to the evil effects of
infidelity. Accord-
ing to this minister, God, in order to show his
hatred
of infidelity, "inspired," or allowed, one Christian to
assassinate another.
Religion and morality do not necessarily
go together.
Mr. Talmage will insist to-day that morality is not
sufficient to save any man from eternal punishment.
As a matter of
fact, religion has often been the enemy
of morality. The moralist has
been denounced by the
theologians. He sustains the same relation to
Chris-
tianity that the moderate drinker does to the total-
abstinence society. The total-abstinence people say
that the example
of the moderate drinker is far worse
upon the young than that of the
drunkard—that the
drunkard is a warning, while the moderate
drinker is
a perpetual temptation. So Christians say of moral-
ists. According to them, the moralist sets a worse
23
example than the criminal. The moralist not only in-
sists that
a man can be a good citizen, a kind husband,
an affectionate father,
without religion, but demon-
strates the truth of his doctrine by his
own life;
whereas the criminal admits that in and of himself he
is nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needs
assistance from the
church and its ministers.
The worst criminals of the modern
world have been
Christians—I mean by that, believers in
Christianity—
and the most monstrous crimes of the modern world
have been committed by the most zealous believers.
There is nothing
in orthodox religion, apart from the
morality it teaches, to prevent
the commission oF crime.
On the other hand, the perpetual proffer of
forgiveness
is a direct premium upon what Christians are pleased
to call the commission of sin.
Christianity has produced no
greater character than
Epictetus, no greater sovereign than Marcus
Aurelius.
The wickedness of the past was a good deal like that
of the present. As a rule, kings have been wicked in
direct
proportion to their power—their power having
been lessened,
their crimes have decreased. As a
matter of fact, paganism, of
itself, did not produce any
great men; neither has Christianity.
Millions of in-
fluences determine individual character, and the re-
24
ligion of the country in which a man happens to be
born may determine many of his opinions, without
influencing, to any
great extent, his real character.
There have been brave,
honest, and intelligent men
in and out of every church.
Question.
Mr. Talmage says that you insist that,
according to the Bible, the
universe was made out of
nothing, and he denounces your statement as
a gross
misrepresentation. What have you stated upon that
subject?
Answer. What I said was substantially this: "We
"are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the
"beginning God
created the heaven and the earth.
"If this means anything, it means
that God pro-
"duced—caused to exist, called into being—the
"heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that
"God formed the
heaven and the earth of previously
"existing matter. Moses conveys,
and intended to
"convey, the idea that the matter of which the
"universe is composed was created."
This has always been my
position. I did not sup-
pose that nothing was used as the raw
material; but
if the Mosaic account means anything, it means
that
whereas there was nothing, God caused something to
25
exist—created what we know as matter. I can not
conceive
of something being made, created, without
anything to make anything
with. I have no more
confidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat
money.
Mr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the uni-
verse
out of nothing, but out of "omnipotence."
Exactly how God
changed "omnipotence" into matter
is not stated. If there was nothing
in the universe,
omnipotence could do you no good. The weakest
man
in the world can lift as much nothing as God.
Mr. Talmage seems to think that to create something
from nothing is
simply a question of strength—that it
requires infinite muscle—that
it is only a question of
biceps. Of course, omnipotence is an
attribute, not an
entity, not a raw material; and the idea that
something
can be made out of omnipotence—using that as the
raw material—is infinitely absurd. It would have
been equally
logical to say that God made the universe
out of his omniscience, or
his omnipresence, or his
unchangeableness, or out of his honesty, his
holiness,
or his incapacity to do evil. I confess my utter in-
ability to understand, or even to suspect, what the
reverend
gentleman means, when he says that God
created the universe out of
his "omnipotence."
I admit that the Bible does not tell when
God created
26
the universe. It is simply said that
he did this "in the
beginning." We are left, however, to infer that
"the
beginning" was Monday morning, and that on the
first Monday
God created the matter in an exceedingly
chaotic state; that on
Tuesday he made a firmament
to divide the waters from the waters;
that on Wednes-
day he gathered the waters together in seas and
allowed the dry land to appear. We are also told that
on that day
"the earth brought forth grass and herb
"yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding
"fruit, whose seed was in itself, after
his kind." This
was before the creation of the sun, but Mr. Talmage
takes the ground that there are many other sources of
light; that
"there may have been volcanoes in active
operation on other planets."
I have my doubts,
however, about the light of volcanoes being
sufficient
to produce or sustain vegetable life, and think it a
little doubtful about trees growing only by "volcanic
glare." Neither
do I think one could depend upon
"three thousand miles of liquid
granite" for the pro-
duction of grass and trees, nor upon "light
that rocks
might emit in the process of crystallization." I doubt
whether trees would succeed simply with the assistance
of the "Aurora
Borealis or the Aurora Australis."
There are other sources of light,
not mentioned by
27
Mr. Talmage—lightning-bugs,
phosphorescent beetles,
and fox-fire. I should think that it would be
humili-
ating, in this age, for an orthodox preacher to insist
that vegetation could exist upon this planet without the
light of the
sun—that trees could grow, blossom and
bear fruit, having no
light but the flames of volcanoes,
or that emitted by liquid granite,
or thrown off by the
crystallization of rocks.
There is
another thing, also, that should not be for-
gotten, and that is,
that there is an even balance for-
ever kept between the totals of
animal and vegetable
life—that certain forms of animal life go
with certain
forms of vegetable life. Mr. Haeckel has shown that
"in the first epoch, algæ and skull-less vertebrates
were found
together; in the second, ferns and fishes;
in the third, pines and
reptiles; in the fourth, foliaceous
forests and mammals."
Vegetable and animal
life sustain a necessary relation; they exist
together;
they act and interact, and each depends upon the other.
The real point of difference between Mr. Talmage and
myself is this:
He says that God made the universe
out of his "omnipotence," and I
say that, although I
know nothing whatever upon the subject, my
opinion
is, that the universe has existed from eternity—that it
continually changes in form, but that it never was
28
created or called into being by any power. I think
that all
that is, is all the God there is.
Question. Mr. Talmage
charges you with having
misrepresented the Bible story of the deluge.
Has he
correctly stated your position?
Answer. Mr.
Talmage takes the ground that the
flood was only partial, and was,
after all, not much of a
flood. The Bible tells us that God said he
would
"destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from
"under heaven, and that everything that is in the
"earth shall die;"
that God also said: "I will destroy
"man, whom I have created, from
the face of the
"earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing
"and the fowls of the air, and every living substance
"that I have
made will I destroy from off the face of
"the earth."
I
did not suppose that there was any miracle in the
Bible larger than
the credulity of Mr. Talmage. The
flood story, however, seems to be a
little more than
he can bear. He is like the witness who stated that
he had read Gullivers Travels, the Stories of Mun-
chausen,
and the Flying Wife, including Robinson
Crusoe, and
believed them all; but that Wirt's Life of
Patrick Henry was a
litde more than he could stand.
29
It is strange
that a man who believes that God
created the universe out of
"omnipotence" should
believe that he had not enough omnipotence left
to
drown a world the size of this. Mr. Talmage seeks
to make the
story of the flood reasonable. The
moment it is reasonable, it ceases
to be miraculous.
Certainly God cannot afford to reward a man with
eternal joy for believing a reasonable story. Faith is
only necessary
when the story is unreasonable, and if
the flood only gets small
enough, I can believe it
myself. I ask for evidence, and Mr. Talmage
seeks
to make the story so little that it can be believed
without evidence. He tells us that it was a kind of
"local option"
flood—a little wet for that part of the
country.
Why
was it necessary to save the birds? They
certainly could have gotten
out of the way of a real
small flood. Of the birds, Noah took
fourteen of each
species. He was commanded to take of the fowls of
the
air by sevens—seven of each sex—and, as there are
at least 12,500 species, Noah collected an aviary of
about 175,000
birds, provided the flood was general.
If it was local, there are no
means of determining the
number. But why, if the flood was local,
should he
have taken any of the fowls of the air into his ark?
30
All they had to do was to fly away, or "roost high;"
and it would have been just as easy for God to have
implanted in
them, for the moment, the instinct of
getting out of the way as the
instinct of hunting the ark.
It would have been quite a saving of
room and pro-
visions, and would have materially lessened the labor
and anxiety of Noah and his sons.
Besides, if it had been a
partial flood, and great
enough to cover the highest mountains in
that country,
the highest mountain being about seventeen thousand
feet, the flood would have been covered with a sheet
of ice several
thousand feet in thickness. If a column
of water could have been
thrown seventeen thousand
feet high and kept stationary, several
thousand feet
of the upper end would have frozen. If, however,
the deluge was general, then the atmosphere would
have been forced
out the same on all sides, and the
climate remained substantially
normal.
Nothing can be more absurd than to attempt to
explain the flood by calling it partial.
Mr. Talmage also says
that the window ran clear
round the ark, and that if I had only known
as much
Hebrew as a man could put on his little finger, I
would
have known that the window went clear round.
To this I reply that, if
his position is correct, then the
31
original
translators of King James' edition did not
know as much Hebrew as
they could have put on
their little fingers; and yet I am obliged to
believe
their translation or be eternally damned. If the
window
went clear round, the inspired writer should
have said so, and the
learned translators should have
given us the truth. No one pretends
that there was
more than one door, and yet the same language is
used about the door, except this—that the exact size
of the
window is given, and the only peculiarity men-
tioned as to the door
is that it shut from the outside.
For any one to see that Mr. Talmage
is wrong on the
window question, it is only necessary to read the
story
of the deluge.
Mr. Talmage also endeavors to
decrease the depth
of the flood. If the flood did not cover the
highest
hills, many people might have been saved. He also
insists that all the water did not come from the rains,
but that "the
fountains of the great deep were broken
"up." What are "the fountains
of the great deep"?
How would their being "broken up" increase the
depth of the water? He seems to imagine that these
"fountains" were
in some way imprisoned—anxious
to get to the surface, and that,
at that time, an oppor-
tunity was given for water to run up hill, or
in some
32
mysterious way to rise above its level.
According to
the account, the ark was at the mercy of the waves for
at least seven months. If this flood was only partial,
it seems a
little curious that the water did not seek its
level in less than
seven months. With anything like
a fair chance, by that time most of
it would have
found its way to the sea again.
There is in
the literature of ignorance no more
perfectly absurd and cruel story
than that of the
deluge.
I am very sorry that Mr. Talmage
should disagree
with some of the great commentators. Dr. Scott
tells us that, in all probability, the angels assisted in
getting the
animals into the ark. Dr. Henry insists
that the waters in the bowels
of the earth, at God's
command, sprung up and flooded the earth. Dr.
Clark tells us that it would have been much easier
for God to have
destroyed all the people and made
some new ones, but that he did not
want to waste
anything. Dr. Henry also tells us that the lions, while
in the ark, ate straw like oxen. Nothing could be
more amusing than
to see a few lions eating good,
dry straw. This commentator assures
us that the
waters rose so high that the loftiest mountains were
overflowed fifteen cubits, so that salvation was not
33
hoped for from any hills or mountains. He tells us
that some of
the people got on top of the ark, and
hoped to shift for themselves,
but that, in all proba-
bility, they were washed off by the rain.
When we
consider that the rain must have fallen at the rate of
about eight hundred feet a day, I am inclined to think
that they were
washed off.
Mr. Talmage has clearly misrepresented the Bible.
He is not prepared to believe the story as it is told.
The seeds of
infidelity seem to be germinating in his
mind. His position no doubt
will be a great relief to
most of his hearers. After this, their
credulity will
not be strained. They can say that there was probably
quite a storm, some rain, to an extent that rendered it
necessary for
Noah and his family—his dogs, cats,
and chickens—to get
in a boat. This would not be
unreasonable. The same thing happens
almost every
year on the shores of great rivers, and consequently
the story of the flood is an exceedingly reasonable
one.
Mr. Talmage also endeavors to account for the
miraculous collection
of the animals in the ark by
the universal instinct to get out of the
rain. There
are at least two objections to this: 1. The animals
went into the ark before the rain commenced; 2. I
34
have never noticed any great desire on the part of
ducks, geese, and
loons to get out of the water. Mr.
Talmage must have been misled by a
line from an old
nursery book that says: "And the little fishes got
"under the bridge to keep out of the rain." He tells
us that Noah
described what he saw. He is the first
theologian who claims that
Genesis was written by
Noah, or that Noah wrote any account of the
flood.
Most Christians insist that the account of the flood
was
written by Moses, and that he was inspired to
write it. Of course, it
will not do for me to say that
Mr. Talmage has misrepresented the
facts.
Question. You are also charged with misrepresen-
tation in your statement as to where the ark at last
rested. It is
claimed by Mr. Talmage that there is
nothing in the Bible to show
that the ark rested on
the highest mountains.
Answer.
Of course I have no knowledge as to
where the ark really came to
anchor, but after it struck
bottom, we are told that a dove was sent
out, and
that the dove found no place whereon to rest her
foot.
If the ark touched ground in the low country,
surely the mountains
were out of water, and an or-
dinary mountain furnishes, as a rule,
space enough
35
for a dove's foot. We must infer
that the ark rested
on the only land then above water, or near enough
above water to strike the keel of Noah's boat. Mount
Ararat is about
seventeen thousand feet high; so I
take it that the top of that
mountain was where Noah
ran aground—otherwise, the account
means nothing.
Here Mr. Talmage again shows his tendency to
belittle the miracles of the Bible. I am astonished
that he should
doubt the power of God to keep an
ark on a mountain seventeen
thousand feet high.
He could have changed the climate for that
occasion.
He could have made all the rocks and glaciers pro-
duce wheat and corn in abundance. Certainly God,
who could overwhelm
a world with a flood, had the
power to change every law and fact in
nature.
I am surprised that Mr. Talmage is not willing to
believe the story as it is told. What right has he to
question the
statements of an inspired writer? Why
should he set up his judgment
against the Websters
and Jacksons? Is it not infinitely impudent in
him
to contrast his penny-dip with the sun of inspiration?
What
right has he to any opinion upon the subject?
He must take the Bible
as it reads. He should
remember that the greater the miracle the
greater
should be his faith.
36
Question.
You do not seem to have any great
opinion of the chemical,
geological, and agricultural
views expressed by Mr. Talmage?
Answer. You must remember that Mr. Talmage
has a certain
thing to defend. He takes the Bible as
actually true, and with the
Bible as his standard, he
compares and measures all sciences. He does
not
study geology to find whether the Mosaic account is
true,
but he reads the Mosaic account for the purpose
of showing that
geology can not be depended upon.
His idea that "one day is as a
thousand years with
"God," and that therefore the "days" mentioned in
the
Mosaic account are not days of twenty-four hours, but
long
periods, is contradicted by the Bible itself. The
great reason given
for keeping the Sabbath day is, that
"God rested on the seventh day
and was refreshed."
Now, it does not say that he rested on the
"seventh
"period," or the "seventh good—while," or the
"seventh long-time," but on the "seventh day." In
imitation of this
example we are also to rest—not on
the seventh good-while, but
on the seventh day.
Nothing delights the average minister more than
to
find that a passage of Scripture is capable of several
interpretations. Nothing in the inspired book is so
37
dangerous as accuracy. If the holy writer uses
general terms,
an ingenious theologian can harmonize
a seemingly preposterous
statement with the most
obdurate fact. An "inspired" book should
contain
neither statistics nor dates—as few names as possible,
and not one word about geology or astronomy. Mr.
Talmage is doing the
best he can to uphold the fables
of the Jews. They are the foundation
of his faith.
He believes in the water of the past and the fire of
the
future—in the God of flood and flame—the eternal
torturer of his helpless children.
It is exceedingly
unfortunate that Mr. Talmage does
not appreciate the importance of
good manners, that
he does not rightly estimate the convincing power
of
kindness and good nature. It is unfortunate that a
Christian,
believing in universal forgiveness, should
exhibit so much of the
spirit of detraction, that he
should run so easily and naturally into
epithets, and
that he should mistake vituperation for logic. Thou-
sands of people, knowing but little of the mysteries of
Christianity—never
having studied theology,—may
become prejudiced against the
church, and doubt the
divine origin of a religion whose defenders
seem to
rely, at least to a great degree, upon malignant per-
sonalities. Mr. Talmage should remember that in a
38
discussion of this kind, he is supposed to represent a
being of
infinite wisdom and goodness. Surely, the
representative of the
infinite can afford to be candid,
can afford to be kind. When he
contemplates the
condition of a fellow-being destitute of religion, a
fellow-being now travelling the thorny path to eternal
fire, he
should be filled with pity instead of hate.
Instead of deforming his
mouth with scorn, his eyes
should be filled with tears. He should
take into
consideration the vast difference between an infidel
and a minister of the gospel,—knowing, as he does,
that a crown
of glory has been prepared for the
minister, and that flames are
waiting for the soul
of the unbeliever. He should bear with
philosophic
fortitude the apparent success of the skeptic, for a
few days in this brief life, since he knows that in a
little while
the question will be eternally settled in
his favor, and that the
humiliation of a day is as
nothing compared with the victory of
eternity. In
this world, the skeptic appears to have the best
of
the argument; logic seems to be on the side
of blasphemy; common
sense apparently goes hand
in hand with infidelity, and the few
things we are
absolutely certain of, seem inconsistent with the
Christian creeds.
39
This, however, as Mr. Talmage
well knows, is but
apparent. God has arranged the world in this way
for the purpose of testing the Christian's faith.
Beyond all these
facts, beyond logic, beyond reason,
Mr. Talmage, by the light of
faith, clearly sees the
eternal truth. This clearness of vision
should give
him the serenity of candor and the kindness born of
absolute knowledge. He, being a child of the light,
should not expect
the perfect from the children of
darkness. He should not judge
Humboldt and
Wesley by the same standard. He should remember
that Wesley was especially set apart and illuminated
by divine
wisdom, while Humboldt was left to grope
in the shadows of nature. He
should also remember
that ministers are not like other people. They
have
been "called." They have been "chosen" by infinite
wisdom.
They have been "set apart," and they
have bread to eat that we know
not of. While
other people are forced to pursue the difficult paths
of investigation, they fly with the wings of faith.
Mr. Talmage
is perfectly aware of the advantages
he enjoys, and yet he deems it
dangerous to be fair.
This, in my judgment, is his mistake. If he
cannot
easily point out the absurdities and contradictions in
infidel lectures, surely God would never have selected
40
him for that task. We cannot believe that imperfect
instruments
would be chosen by infinite wisdom.
Certain lambs have been entrusted
to the care of Mr.
Talmage, the shepherd. Certainly God would not
select a shepherd unable to cope with an average
wolf. Such a
shepherd is only the appearance of
protection. When the wolf is not
there, he is a
useless expense, and when the wolf comes, he goes.
I cannot believe that God would select a shepherd
of that kind.
Neither can the shepherd justify his
selection by abusing the wolf
when out of sight.
The fear ought to be on the other side. A divinely
appointed shepherd ought to be able to convince his
sheep that a wolf
is a dangerous animal, and ought
to be able to give his reasons. It
may be that the
shepherd has a certain interest in exaggerating the
cruelty and ferocity of the wolf, and even the number
of the wolves.
Should it turn out that the wolves
exist only in the imagination of
the shepherd, the
sheep might refuse to pay the salary of their pro-
tector. It will, however, be hard to calculate the
extent to which
the sheep will lose confidence in a
shepherd who has not even the
courage to state the
facts about the wolf. But what must be the
result
when the sheep find that the supposed wolf is, in
41
fact, their friend, and that he is endeavoring to rescue
them from the exactions of the pretended shepherd,
who creates, by
falsehood, the fear on which he
lives?
SECOND INTERVIEW.
Por. Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tear
your
hair.
Sir Hugh. I have been beaten in a discussion,
overwhelmed and humiliated.
Por. Why didn't you call your
adversary a fool?
Sir Hugh. My God! I forgot it!
Question. I want to ask you a few questions
about the second
sermon of Mr. Talmage;
have you read it, and what do you think of it?
Answer. The text taken by the reverend gentle-
man is an
insult, and was probably intended as such:
"The fool hath said in his
heart, there is no God."
Mr. Talmage seeks to apply this text to any
one
who denies that the Jehovah of the Jews was and is
the
infinite and eternal Creator of all. He is per-
fectly satisfied that
any man who differs with him on
this question is a "fool," and he has
the Christian
forbearance and kindness to say so. I presume he
46
is honest in this opinion, and no doubt regards Bruno,
Spinoza and Humboldt as driveling imbeciles. He
entertains the same
opinion of some of the greatest,
wisest and best of Greece and Rome.
No man is fitted to reason upon this question who
has not the
intelligence to see the difficulties in all
theories. No man has yet
evolved a theory that
satisfactorily accounts for all that is. No
matter
what his opinion may be, he is beset by a thousand
difficulties, and innumerable things insist upon an
explanation. The
best that any man can do is to
take that theory which to his mind
presents the
fewest difficulties. Mr. Talmage has been educated
in a certain way—has a brain of a certain quantity,
quality and
form—and accepts, in spite it may be,
of himself, a certain
theory. Others, formed differ-
ently, having lived under different
circumstances,
cannot accept the Talmagian view, and thereupon he
denounces them as fools. In this he follows the
example of David the
murderer; of David, who
advised one of his children to assassinate
another;
of David, whose last words were those of hate and
crime. Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especial
brain to reason
out a "design" in Nature, and in a
moment afterward says that "when
the world slew
47
"Jesus, it showed what it would do
with the eternal
"God, if once it could get its hands on Him." Why
should a God of infinite wisdom create people who
would gladly murder
their Creator? Was there any
particular "design" in that? Does the
existence
of such people conclusively prove the existence of a
good Designer? It seems to me—and I take it that
my thought is
natural, as I have only been born
once—that an infinitely wise
and good God would
naturally create good people, and if he has not,
cer-
tainly the fault is his. The God of Mr. Talmage
knew, when
he created Guiteau, that he would
assassinate Garfield. Why did he
create him? Did
he want Garfield assassinated? Will somebody be
kind enough to show the "design" in this trans-
action? Is it
possible to see "design" in earth-
quakes, in volcanoes, in
pestilence, in famine, in
ruthless and relentless war? Can we find
"design" in
the fact that every animal lives upon some other—
that every drop of every sea is a battlefield where
the strong devour
the weak? Over the precipice
of cruelty rolls a perpetual Niagara of
blood. Is
there "design" in this? Why should a good God
people a
world with men capable of burning their
fellow-men—and capable
of burning the greatest and
48
best? Why does a good
God permit these things?
It is said of Christ that he was infinitely
kind and
generous, infinitely merciful, because when on earth
he
cured the sick, the lame and blind. Has he not
as much power now as
he had then? If he was and
is the God of all worlds, why does he not
now give
back to the widow her son? Why does he with-
hold light
from the eyes of the blind? And why
does one who had the power
miraculously to feed
thousands, allow millions to die for want of
food?
Did Christ only have pity when he was part human?
Are we
indebted for his kindness to the flesh that
clothed his spirit? Where
is he now? Where has he
been through all the centuries of slavery and
crime?
If this universe was "designed," then all that
happens
was "designed." If a man constructs an
engine, the boiler of which
explodes, we say either
that he did not know the strength of his
materials, or
that he was reckless of human life. If an infinite
being
should construct a weak or imperfect machine, he must
be
held accountable for all that happens. He cannot
be permitted to say
that he did not know the strength
of the materials. He is directly
and absolutely re-
sponsible. So, if this world was designed by a
being
of infinite power and wisdom, he is responsible for
49
the result of that design. My position is this: I do
not know. But there are so many objections to the
personal-God
theory, that it is impossible for me to
accept it. I prefer to say
that the universe is all the
God there is. I prefer to make no being
responsible.
I prefer to say: If the naked are clothed, man
must
clothe them; if the hungry are fed, man must
feed them. I prefer to
rely upon human endeavor,
upon human intelligence, upon the heart and
brain
of man. There is no evidence that God has ever
interfered
in the affairs of man. The hand of earth
is stretched uselessly
toward heaven. From the
clouds there comes no help. In vain the
shipwrecked
cry to God. In vain the imprisoned ask for liberty
and light—the world moves on, and the heavens are
deaf and dumb
and blind. The frost freezes, the fire
burns, slander smites, the
wrong triumphs, the good
suffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of
faith.
Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with being
"the champion blasphemer of America"—what do
you understand
blasphemy to be?
Answer. Blasphemy is an epithet
bestowed by su-
perstition upon common sense. Whoever investi-
gates a religion as he would any department of
50
science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradicts
a priest,
whoever has the impudence to use his own
reason, whoever is brave
enough to express his
honest thought, is a blasphemer in the eyes of
the
religionist. When a missionary speaks slightingly of
the
wooden god of a savage, the savage regards him
as a blasphemer. To
laugh at the pretensions of
Mohammed in Constantinople is blasphemy.
To say
in St. Petersburg that Mohammed was a prophet of
God is
also blasphemy. There was a time when to
acknowledge the divinity of
Christ in Jerusalem was
blasphemy. To deny his divinity is now
blasphemy
in New York. Blasphemy is to a considerable extent
a
geographical question. It depends not only on what
you say, but where
you are when you say it. Blas-
phemy is what the old calls the new,—what
last
year's leaf says to this year's bud. The founder of
every
religion was a blasphemer. The Jews so re-
garded Christ, and the
Athenians had the same
opinion of Socrates. Catholics have always
looked
upon Protestants as blasphemers, and Protestants have
always held the same generous opinion of Catholics.
To deny that Mary
is the Mother of God is blas-
phemy. To say that she is the Mother of
God is
blasphemy. Some savages think that a dried snake-
51
skin stuffed with leaves is sacred, and he who thinks
otherwise is a blasphemer. It was once blasphemy
to laugh at Diana,
of the Ephesians. Many people
think that it is blasphemous to tell
your real opinion
of the Jewish Jehovah. Others imagine that words
can be printed upon paper, and the paper bound into
a book covered
with sheepskin, and that the book is
sacred, and that to question its
sacredness is blas-
phemy. Blasphemy is also a crime against God, but
nothing can be more absurd than a crime against
God. If God is
infinite, you cannot injure him. You
cannot commit a crime against
any being that you
cannot injure. Of course, the infinite cannot be
in-
jured. Man is a conditioned being. By changing
his
conditions, his surroundings, you can injure him;
but if God is
infinite, he is conditionless. If he is
conditionless, he cannot by
any possibility be injured.
You can neither increase, nor decrease,
the well-being
of the infinite. Consequently, a crime against God
is a demonstrated impossibility. The cry of blasphemy
means only that
the argument of the blasphemer can-
not be answered. The
sleight-of-hand performer,
when some one tries to raise the curtain
behind which
he operates, cries "blasphemer!" The priest, find-
ing that he has been attacked by common sense,—
52
by a fact,—resorts to the same cry. Blasphemy is the
black flag of theology, and it means: No argument
and no quarter! It
is an appeal to prejudice, to
passions, to ignorance. It is the last
resort of a
defeated priest. Blasphemy marks the point where
argument stops and slander begins. In old times, it
was the signal
for throwing stones, for gathering
fagots and for tearing flesh; now
it means falsehood
and calumny.
Question. Then you
think that there is no such
thing as the crime of blasphemy, and that
no such
offence can be committed?
Answer. Any one
who knowingly speaks in favor
of injustice is a blasphemer. Whoever
wishes to
destroy liberty of thought,—the honest expression of
ideas,—is a blasphemer. Whoever is willing to malign
his
neighbor, simply because he differs with him upon
a subject about
which neither of them knows anything
for certain, is a blasphemer. If
a crime can be com-
mitted against God, he commits it who imputes to
God the commission of crime. The man who says
that God ordered the
assassination of women and
babes, that he gave maidens to satisfy the
lust of
soldiers, that he enslaved his own children,—that man
53
is a blasphemer. In my judgment, it would be far
better to deny the existence of God entirely. It
seems to me that
every man ought to give his honest
opinion. No man should suppose
that any infinite
God requires him to tell as truth that which he
knows
nothing about.
Mr. Talmage, in order to make a point
against
infidelity, states from his pulpit that I am in favor of
poisoning the minds of children by the circulation of
immoral books.
The statement is entirely false. He
ought to have known that I
withdrew from the Liberal
League upon the very question whether the
law should
be repealed or modified. I favored a modification
of
that law, so that books and papers could not be
thrown from the mails
simply because they were
"infidel."
I was and am in favor
of the destruction of
every immoral book in the world. I was and am
in favor, not only of the law against the circulation
of such filth,
but want it executed to the letter in every
State of this Union. Long
before he made that state-
ment, I had introduced a resolution to
that effect, and
supported the resolution in a speech. Notwithstand-
ing these facts, hundreds of clergymen have made
haste to tell the
exact opposite of the truth. This
54
they have done
in the name of Christianity, under the
pretence of pleasing their
God. In my judgment, it
is far better to tell your honest opinions,
even upon
the subject of theology, than to knowingly tell a false-
hood about a fellow-man. Mr. Talmage may have
been ignorant of the
truth. He may have been misled
by other ministers, and for his
benefit I make this ex-
planation. I wanted the laws modified so that
bigotry
could not interfere with the literature of intelligence;
but I did not want, in any way, to shield the writers or
publishers
of immoral books. Upon this subject I
used, at the last meeting of
the Liberal League that
I attended, the following language:
"But there is a distinction wide as the Mississippi,
"yes,
wider than the Atlantic, wider than all oceans,
"between the
literature of immorality and the litera-
"ture of free thought. One
is a crawling, slimy lizard,
"and the other an angel with wings of
light. Let us
"draw this distinction. Let us understand ourselves.
"Do not make the wholesale statement that all these
"laws ought to be
repealed. They ought not to be
"repealed. Some of them are good, and
the law
"against sending instruments of vice through the
"mails
is good. The law against sending obscene
"pictures and books is good.
The law against send-
55
"ing bogus diplomas through
the mails, to allow a
"lot of ignorant hyenas to prey upon the sick
people
"of the world, is a good law. The law against rascals
"who are getting up bogus lotteries, and sending their
"circulars in
the mails is a good law. You know, as
"well as I, that there are
certain books not fit to go
"through the mails. You know that. You
know there
"are certain pictures not fit to be transmitted, not fit
"to be delivered to any human being. When these
"books and pictures
come into the control of the
"United States, I say, burn them up! And
when any
"man has been indicted who has been trying to make
"money by pandering to the lowest passions in the
"human breast, then
I say, prosecute him! let the
"law take its course."
I can
hardly convince myself that when Mr.
Talmage made the charge, he was
acquainted with
the facts. It seems incredible that any man, pre-
tending to be governed by the law of common
honesty, could make a
charge like this knowing
it to be untrue. Under no circumstances,
would
I charge Mr. Talmage with being an infamous
man, unless
the evidence was complete and over-
whelming. Even then, I should
hesitate long before
making the charge. The side I take on
theological
56
questions does not render a resort to
slander or
calumny a necessity. If Mr. Talmage is an honor-
able
man, he will take back the statement he has
made. Even if there is a
God, I hardly think that
he will reward one of his children for
maligning
another; and to one who has told falsehoods about
"infidels," that having been his only virtue, I doubt
whether he will
say: "Well done good and faithful
"servant."
Question.
What have you to say to the charge
that you are endeavoring to
"assassinate God,"
and that you are "far worse than the man who at-
"tempts to kill his father, or his mother, or his sister,
"or his
brother"?
Answer. Well, I think that is about as reason-
able as anything he says. No one wishes, so far as I
know, to
assassinate God. The idea of assassinating
an infinite being is of
course infinitely absurd. One
would think Mr. Talmage had lost his
reason! And
yet this man stands at the head of the Presbyterian
clergy. It is for this reason that I answer him. He
is the only
Presbyterian minister in the United
States, so far as I know, able to
draw an audience.
He is, without doubt, the leader of that
denomination.
57
He is orthodox and conservative. He
believes im-
plicitly in the "Five Points" of Calvin, and says
nothing simply for the purpose of attracting attention.
He believes
that God damns a man for his own glory;
that he sends babes to hell
to establish his mercy,
and that he filled the world with disease and
crime
simply to demonstrate his wisdom. He believes that
billions of years before the earth was, God had made
up his mind as
to the exact number that he would
eternally damn, and had counted his
saints. This
doctrine he calls "glad tidings of great joy." He
really believes that every man who is true to himself
is waging war
against God; that every infidel is a
rebel; that every Freethinker is
a traitor, and that
only those are good subjects who have joined the
Presbyterian Church, know the Shorter Catechism by
heart, and
subscribe liberally toward lifting the mort-
gage on the Brooklyn
Tabernacle. All the rest are
endeavoring to assassinate God, plotting
the murder
of the Holy Ghost, and applauding the Jews for the
crucifixion of Christ. If Mr. Talmage is correct in
his views as to
the power and wisdom of God, I
imagine that his enemies at last will
be overthrown,
that the assassins and murderers will not succeed, and
that the Infinite, with Mr. Talmage s assistance, will
58
finally triumph. If there is an infinite God, certainly
he
ought to have made man grand enough to have
and express an opinion of
his own. Is it possible
that God can be gratified with the applause
of moral
cowards? Does he seek to enhance his glory by
receiving
the adulation of cringing slaves? Is God
satisfied with the adoration
of the frightened?
Question. You notice that Mr. Talmage
finds
nearly all the inventions of modern times mentioned
in the
Bible?
Answer: Yes; Mr. Talmage has made an ex-
ceedingly important discovery. I admit that I am
somewhat amazed at
the wisdom of the ancients.
This discovery has been made just in the
nick of
time. Millions of people were losing their respect
for
the Old Testament. They were beginning to
think that there was some
discrepancy between the
prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel and the
latest devel-
opments in physical science. Thousands of preachers
were telling their flocks that the Bible is not a
scientific book;
that Joshua was not an inspired as-
tronomer, that God never
enlightened Moses about
geology, and that Ezekiel did not understand
the
entire art of cookery. These admissions caused
59
some young people to suspect that the Bible, after all,
was not
inspired; that the prophets of antiquity did
not know as much as the
discoverers of to-day. The
Bible was falling into disrepute. Mr.
Talmage has
rushed to the rescue. He shows, and shows conclu-
sively as anything can be shown from the Bible, that
Job understood
all the laws of light thousands of
years before Newton lived; that he
anticipated the
discoveries of Descartes, Huxley and Tyndall; that
he was familiar with the telegraph and telephone;
that Morse, Bell
and Edison simply put his discov-
eries in successful operation; that
Nahum was, in
fact, a master-mechanic; that he understood perfectly
the modern railway and described it so accurately
that Trevethick,
Foster and Stephenson had no diffi-
culty in constructing a
locomotive. He also has
discovered that Job was well acquainted with
the
trade winds, and understood the mysterious currents,
tides
and pulses of the sea; that Lieutenant Maury
was a plagiarist; that
Humboldt was simply a biblical
student. He finds that Isaiah and
Solomon were
far in advance of Galileo, Morse, Meyer and Watt.
This is a discovery wholly unexpected to me. If
Mr. Talmage is right,
I am satisfied the Bible is an
inspired book. If it shall turn out
that Joshua was
60
superior to Laplace, that Moses
knew more about
geology than Humboldt, that Job as a scientist was
the superior of Kepler, that Isaiah knew more than
Copernicus, and
that even the minor prophets ex-
celled the inventors and discoverers
of our time—
then I will admit that infidelity must become
speech-
less forever. Until I read this sermon, I had never
even
suspected that the inventions of modern times
were known to the
ancient Jews. I never supposed
that Nahum knew the least thing about
railroads, or
that Job would have known a telegraph if he had seen
it. I never supposed that Joshua comprehended the
three laws of
Kepler. Of course I have not read
the Old Testament with as much care
as some other
people have, and when I did read it, I was not looking
for inventions and discoveries. I had been told so
often that the
Bible was no authority upon scientific
questions, that I was lulled
into a state of lethargy.
What is amazing to me is, that so many men
did
read it without getting the slightest hint of the
smallest
invention. To think that the Jews read that
book for hundreds and
hundreds of years, and yet
went to their graves without the slightest
notion of
astronomy, or geology, of railroads, telegraphs, or
steamboats! And then to think that the early fathers
61
made it the study of their lives and died without in-
venting
anything! I am astonished that Mr. Talmage
himself does not figure in
the records of the Patent
Office. I cannot account for this, except
upon the
supposition that he is too honest to infringe on the
patents of the patriarchs. After this, I shall read
the Old Testament
with more care.
Question. Do you see that Mr. Talmage
endeav-
ors to convict you of great ignorance in not knowing
that the word translated "rib" should have been
translated "side,"
and that Eve, after all, was not
made out of a rib, but out of Adam's
side?
Answer. I may have been misled by taking the
Bible as it is translated. The Bible account is simply
this: "And the
Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall
"upon Adam, and he slept. And he
took one of
"his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
"and the rib which the Lord God had taken from
"man made he a woman,
and brought her unto the
"man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my
"bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called
"woman, because
she was taken out of man." If
Mr. Talmage is right, then the account
should be as
follows: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep
62
"to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one
"of his sides, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
"and the side
which the Lord God had taken from
"man made he a woman, and brought
her unto the
"man. And Adam said: This is now side of my
"side,
and flesh of my flesh." I do not see that the
story is made any
better by using the word "side"
instead of "rib." It would be just as
hard for God
to make a woman out of a man's side as out of a
rib. Mr. Talmage ought not to question the power
of God to make a
woman out of a bone, and he must
recollect that the less the material
the greater the
miracle.
There are two accounts of the
creation of man,
in Genesis, the first being in the twenty-first
verse
of the first chapter and the second being in the
twenty-first and twenty-second verses of the sec-
ond chapter.
According to the second account, "God formed
"man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into
"his nostrils the breath of life."
And after this,
"God planted a garden eastward in Eden and put
"the man" in this garden. After this, "He made
"every tree to grow
that was good for food and
"pleasant to the sight," and, in addition,
"the tree
63
"of life in the midst of the garden,"
beside "the tree
"of the knowledge of good and evil." And he "put
"the man in the garden to dress it and keep it,"
telling him that he
might eat of everything he saw
except of "the tree of the knowledge
of good and
"evil."
After this, God having noticed that it
"was not
"good for man to be alone, formed out of the ground
"every beast of the field, every fowl of the air, and
"brought them
to Adam to see what he would call
"them, and Adam gave names to all
cattle, and to
"the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.
"But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for
"him."
We are not told how Adam learned the language,
or how he understood
what God said. I can hardly
believe that any man can be created with
the know-
ledge of a language. Education cannot be ready
made
and stuffed into a brain. Each person must
learn a language for
himself. Yet in this account we
find a language ready made for man's
use. And not
only man was enabled to speak, but a serpent also
has the power of speech, and the woman holds a
conversation with this
animal and with her husband;
and yet no account is given of how any
language was
64
learned. God is described as walking
in the garden
in the cool of the day, speaking like a man—holding
conversations with the man and woman, and occa-
sionally addressing
the serpent.
In the nursery rhymes of the world there is
nothing more childish than this "inspired" account
of the creation of
man and woman.
The early fathers of the church held that woman
was inferior to man, because man was not made for
woman, but woman
for man; because Adam was
made first and Eve afterward. They had not
the
gallantry of Robert Burns, who accounted for the
beauty of
woman from the fact that God practiced
on man first, and then gave
woman the benefit of
his experience. Think, in this age of the world,
of a well-educated, intelligent gentleman telling his
little child
that about six thousand years ago a
mysterious being called God made
the world out of
his "omnipotence;" then made a man out of some
dust which he is supposed to have moulded into
form; that he put this
man in a garden for the pur-
pose of keeping the trees trimmed; that
after a little
while he noticed that the man seemed lonesome, not
particularly happy, almost homesick; that then it oc-
curred to this
God, that it would be a good thing for
65
the man to
have some company, somebody to help
him trim the trees, to talk to
him and cheer him up
on rainy days; that, thereupon, this God caused
a deep sleep to fall on the man, took a knife, or a
long, sharp piece
of "omnipotence," and took out one
of the man's sides, or a rib, and
of that made a
woman; that then this man and woman got along
real well till a snake got into the garden and induced
the woman to
eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil; that the woman got
the man to take
a bite; that afterwards both of them were detected by
God, who was walking around in the cool of the
evening, and thereupon
they were turned out of the
garden, lest they should put forth their
hands and eat
of the tree of life, and live forever.
This
foolish story has been regarded as the sacred,
inspired truth; as an
account substantially written by
God himself; and thousands and
millions of people
have supposed it necessary to believe this
childish
falsehood, in order to save their souls. Nothing
more
laughable can be found in the fairy tales and
folk-lore of savages.
Yet this is defended by the
leading Presbyterian divine, and those
who fail to
believe in the truth of this story are called "brazen
"faced fools," "deicides," and "blasphemers."
66
By
this story woman in all Christian countries was
degraded. She was
considered too impure to preach
the gospel, too impure to distribute
the sacramental
bread, too impure to hand about the sacred wine,
too impure to step within the "holy of holies," in the
Catholic
Churches, too impure to be touched by a
priest. Unmarried men were
considered purer than
husbands and fathers. Nuns were regarded as su-
perior to mothers, a monastery holier than a home, a
nunnery nearer
sacred than the cradle. And through
all these years it has been
thought better to love
God than to love man, better to love God than
to
love your wife and children, better to worship an
imaginary
deity than to help your fellow-men.
I regard the rights of men
and women equal. In
Love's fair realm, husband and wife are king and
queen, sceptered and crowned alike, and seated on
the self-same
throne.
Question. Do you still insist that the Old
Testa-
ment upholds polygamy? Mr. Talmage denies this
charge,
and shows how terribly God punished those
who were not satisfied with
one wife.
Answer. I see nothing in what Mr. Talmage has
said calculated to change my opinion. It has been
67
admitted by thousands of theologians that the Old
Testament upholds
polygamy. Mr. Talmage is
among the first to deny it. It will not do
to say that
David was punished for the crime of polygamy
or
concubinage. He was "a man after God's own
"heart." He was made a
king. He was a successful
general, and his blood is said to have
flowed in the
veins of God. Solomon was, according to the ac-
count, enriched with wisdom above all human beings.
Was that a
punishment for having had so many
wives? Was Abraham pursued by the
justice of
God because of the crime against Hagar, or for the
crime against his own wife? The verse quoted by
Mr. Talmage to show
that God was opposed to
polygamy, namely, the eighteenth verse of the
eight-
eenth chapter of Leviticus, cannot by any ingenuity
be
tortured into a command against polygamy. The
most that can be
possibly said of it is, that you shall
not marry the sister of your
wife, while your wife is
living. Yet this passage is quoted by Mr.
Talmage
as "a thunder of prohibition against having more
"than
one wife." In the twentieth chapter of
Leviticus it is enacted: "That
if a man take a wife
"and her mother they shall be burned with fire."
A
commandment like this shows that he might take his
68
wife and somebody else's mother. These passages
have nothing to
do with polygamy. They show
whom you may marry, not how many; and
there is
not in Leviticus a solitary word against polygamy—
not one. Nor is there such a word in Genesis, nor
Exodus, nor in the
entire Pentateuch—not one
word. These books are filled with the
most minute
directions about killing sheep, and goats and doves;
about making clothes for priests, about fashioning
tongs and
snuffers; and yet, they contain not one
word against polygamy. It
never occurred to the in-
spired writers that polygamy was a crime.
Polygamy
was accepted as a matter of course. Women were
simple
property.
Mr. Talmage, however, insists that, although God
was against polygamy, he permitted it, and at the
same time threw his
moral influence against it.
Upon this subject he says: "No doubt God
per-
"mitted polygamy to continue for sometime, just
"as he
permits murder and arson, theft and gam-
"bling to-day to continue,
although he is against
"them." If God is the author of the Ten Com-
mandments, he prohibited murder and theft, but
he said nothing about
polygamy. If he was so
terribly against that crime, why did he forget
to
69
mention it? Was there not room enough on the
tables of stone for just one word on this subject?
Had he no time to
give a commandment against
slavery? Mr. Talmage of course insists
that God
had to deal with these things gradually, his idea being
that if God had made a commandment against them all
at once, the Jews
would have had nothing more to do
with him.
For instance:
if we wanted to break cannibals
of eating missionaries, we should not
tell them all
at once that it was wrong, that it was wicked, to
eat missionaries raw; we should induce them first
to cook the
missionaries, and gradually wean them
from raw flesh. This would be
the first great step.
We would stew the missionaries, and after a
time
put a little mutton in the stew, not enough to excite
the
suspicion of the cannibal, but just enough to get
him in the habit of
eating mutton without knowing it.
Day after day we would put in more
mutton and less
missionary, until finally, the cannibal would be
perfectly
satisfied with clear mutton. Then we would tell him
that it was wrong to eat missionary. After the can-
nibal got so that
he liked mutton, and cared nothing
for missionary, then it would be
safe to have a law
upon the subject.
70
Mr.
Talmage insists that polygamy cannot exist
among people who believe
the Bible. In this he is
mistaken. The Mormons all believe the Bible.
There
is not a single polygamist in Utah who does not insist
upon the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.
The Rev.
Mr. Newman, a kind of peripatetic consu-
lar theologian, once had a
discussion, I believe, with
Elder Orson Pratt, at Salt Lake City,
upon the question
of polygamy. It is sufficient to say of this
discussion
that it is now circulated by the Mormons as a campaign
document. The elder overwhelmed the parson.
Passages of Scripture in
favor of polygamy were
quoted by the hundred. The lives of all the
patriarchs
were brought forward, and poor parson Newman was
driven from the field. The truth is, the Jews at that
time were much
like our forefathers. They were
barbarians, and many of their laws
were unjust
and cruel. Polygamy was the right of all; practiced,
as a matter of fact, by the rich and powerful, and the
rich and
powerful were envied by the poor. In such
esteem did the ancient Jews
hold polygamy, that the
number of Solomons wives was given, simply to
en-
hance his glory. My own opinion is, that Solomon
had very
few wives, and that polygamy was not
general in Palestine. The
country was too poor, and
71
Solomon, in all his
glory was hardly able to support
one wife. He was a poor barbarian
king with a
limited revenue, with a poor soil, with a sparse popu-
lation, without art, without science and without power.
He sustained
about the same relation to other kings
that Delaware does to other
States. Mr. Talmage
says that God persecuted Solomon, and yet, if he
will
turn to the twenty-second chapter of First Chronicles,
he
will find what God promised to Solomon. God,
speaking to David, says:
"Behold a son shall be born
"to thee, who shall be a man of rest, and
I will give him
"rest from his enemies around about; for his name
shall
"be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness
"unto
Israel in his days. He shall build a house in my
"name, and he shall
be my son and I will be his father,
"and I will establish the throne
of his kingdom over
"Israel forever." Did God keep his promise?
So he tells us that David was persecuted by
God, on account of
his offences, and yet I find in
the twenty-eighth verse of the
twenty-ninth chapter
of First Chronicles, the following account of
the death
of David: "And he died in a good old age, full of
"days, riches and honor." Is this true?
Question. What
have you to say to the charge
that you were mistaken in the number of
years that
72
the Hebrews were in Egypt? Mr. Talmage
says that
they were there 430 years, instead of 215 years.
Answer. If you will read the third chapter of
Galatians,
sixteenth and seventeenth verses, you will
find that it was 430 years
from the time God made the
promise to Abraham to the giving of the
law from
Mount Sinai. The Hebrews did not go to Egypt for
215
years after the promise was made to Abraham,
and consequently did not
remain in Egypt more than
215 years. If Galatians is true, I am
right.
Strange that Mr. Talmage should belittle the mira-
cles. The trouble with this defender of the faith is that
he cares
nothing for facts. He makes the strangest
statements, and cares the
least for proof, of any
man I know. I can account for what he says of
me
only upon the supposition that he has not read my
lectures.
He may have been misled by the pirated
editions; Persons have stolen
my lectures, printed the
same ones under various names, and filled
them with
mistakes and things I never said. Mr. C. P. Farrell,
of Washington, is my only authorized publisher.
Yet Mr. Talmage
prefers to answer the mistakes of
literary thieves, and charge their
ignorance to me.
Question. Did you ever attack the
character of
Queen Victoria, or did you draw any parallel between
73
her and George Eliot, calculated to depreciate the
reputation of the Queen?
Answer. I never said a word
against Victoria.
The fact is, I am not acquainted with her—never
met
her in my life, and know but little of her. I never
happened
to see her "in plain clothes, reading the
"Bible to the poor in the
lane,"—neither did I ever
hear her sing. I most cheerfully
admit that her
reputation is good in the neighborhood where she
resides. In one of my lectures I drew a parallel
between George Eliot
and Victoria. I was showing
the difference between a woman who had
won her
position in the world of thought, and one who was
queen
by chance. This is what I said:
"It no longer satisfies the
ambition of a great man
"to be a king or emperor. The last Napoleon
was
"not satisfied with being the Emperor of the French.
"He was
not satisfied with having a circlet of gold
"about his head—he
wanted some evidence that he
"had something of value in his head. So
he wrote
"the life of Julius Cæsar that he might become a
"member of the French Academy. The emperors,
"the kings, the popes,
no longer tower above their
"fellows. Compare King William with the
philoso-
"pher Hæckel. The king is one of the 'anointed
74
"'of the Most High'—as they claim—one upon
"whose head has been poured the divine petroleum
"of authority.
Compare this king with Hæckel, who
"towers an intellectual
Colossus above the crowned
"mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with
Queen
"Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments given
"her by
blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while
"George Eliot wears robes
of glory, woven in the
"loom of her own genius. The world is
beginning
"to pay homage to intellect, to genius, to heart."
I
said not one word against Queen Victoria, and did
not intend to even
intimate that she was not an ex-
cellent woman, wife and mother. I
was simply trying
to show that the world was getting great enough to
place a genius above an accidental queen. Mr. Tal-
mage, true to the
fawning, cringing spirit of ortho-
doxy, lauds the living queen and
cruelly maligns the
genius dead. He digs open the grave of George
Eliot,
and tries to stain the sacred dust of one who was the
greatest woman England has produced. He calls her
"an adultress." He
attacks her because she was an
atheist—because she abhorred
Jehovah, denied the
inspiration of the Bible, denied the dogma of
eternal
pain, and with all her heart despised the Presbyterian
creed. He hates her because she was great and brave
75
and free—because she lived without "faith" and died
without fear—because she dared to give her honest
thought, and
grandly bore the taunts and slanders of
the Christian world.
George Eliot tenderly carried in her heart the
burdens of our
race. She looked through pity's tears
upon the faults and frailties
of mankind. She knew
the springs and seeds of thought and deed, and
saw,
with cloudless eyes, through all the winding ways of
greed,
ambition and deceit, where folly vainly plucks
with thorn-pierced
hands the fading flowers of selfish
joy—the highway of eternal
right. Whatever her
relations may have been—no matter what I
think, or
others say, or how much all regret the one mistake in
all her self-denying, loving life—I feel and know that
in the
court where her own conscience sat as judge, she
stood acquitted—pure
as light and stainless as a star.
How appropriate here, with
some slight change,
the wondrously poetic and pathetic words of
Laertes
at Ophelia's grave:
Leave her i' the earth;
And from her fair and unpolluted flesh
May violets spring!
I
tell thee, churlish priest,
A ministering angel shall this woman be,
When thou liest howling!
I have no words with which to tell
my loathing for
a man who violates a noble woman's grave.
76
Question. Do you think that the spirit in which
Mr. Talmage reviews your lectures is in accordance
with the teachings
of Christianity?
Answer. I think that he talks like a
true Presby-
terian. If you will read the arguments of Calvin
against the doctrines of Castalio and Servetus, you will
see that Mr.
Talmage follows closely in the footsteps
of the founder of his
church. Castalio was such a
wicked and abandoned wretch, that he
taught the
innocence of honest error. He insisted that God
would
not eternally damn a man for being honestly
mistaken. For the
utterance of such blasphemous
sentiments, abhorrent to every
Christian mind, Calvin
called him "a dog of Satan, and a child of
hell." In
short, he used the usual arguments. Castalio was
banished, and died in exile. In the case of Servetus,
after all the
epithets had been exhausted, an appeal
was made to the stake, and the
blasphemous wretch
was burned to ashes.
If you will read
the life of John Knox, you will find
that Mr. Talmage is as orthodox
in his methods of
dealing with infidels, as he is in his creed. In my
opinion, he would gladly treat unbelievers now, as the
Puritans did
the Quakers, as the Episcopalians did the
Presbyterians, as the
Presbyterians did the Baptists,
77
and as the
Catholics have treated all heretics. Of
course, all these sects will
settle their differences in
heaven. In the next world, they will
laugh at the
crimes they committed in this.
The course
pursued by Mr. Talmage is consistent.
The pulpit cannot afford to
abandon the weapons of
falsehood and defamation. Candor sows the
seeds of
doubt. Fairness is weakness. The only way to suc-
cessfully uphold the religion of universal love, is to
denounce all
Freethinkers as blasphemers, adulterers,
and criminals. No matter how
generous they may
appear to be, no matter how fairly they may deal
with
their fellow-men, rest assured that they are actuated
by
the lowest and basest motives. Infidels who out-
wardly live honest
and virtuous lives, are inwardly
vicious, virulent and vile. After
all, morality is only
a veneering. God is not deceived with the
varnish of
good works. We know that the natural man is
totally
depraved, and that until he has been regene-
rated by the spirit of
God, he is utterly incapable of a
good action. The generosity of the
unbeliever is, in
fact, avarice. His honesty is only a form of
larceny.
His love is only hatred. No matter how sincerely
he may
love his wife,—how devoted he may be to
his children,—no
matter how ready he may be 'to
78
sacrifice even his
life for the good of mankind, God,
looking into his very heart, finds
it only a den of
hissing snakes, a lair of wild, ferocious beasts, a
cage
of unclean birds.
The idea that God will save a man
simply because
he is honest and generous, is almost too preposterous
for serious refutation. No man should rely upon his
own goodness. He
should plead the virtue of another.
God, in his infinite justice,
damns a good man on his
own merits, and saves a bad man on the merits
of
another. The repentant murderer will be an angel
of light,
while his honest and unoffending victim will
be a fiend in hell.
A little while ago, a ship, disabled, was blown about
the
Atlantic for eighty days. Everything had been
eaten. Nothing remained
but bare decks and hunger.
The crew consisted of Captain Kruger and
nine others.
For nine days, nothing had been eaten. The captain,
taking a revolver in his hand, said: "Mates, some
"one must die for
the rest. I am willing to sacrifice
"myself for you." One of his
comrades grasped his
hand, and implored him to wait one more day. The
next morning, a sail was seen upon the horizon, and
the dying men
were rescued.
To an ordinary man,—to one guided by the
light of
79
reason,—it is perfectly clear that
Captain Kruger was
about to do an infinitely generous action. Yet Mr.
Talmage will tell us that if that captain was not a
Christian, and if
he had sent the bullet crashing
through his brain in order that his
comrades might eat
his body, and live to reach their wives and homes,—
his soul, from that ship, would have gone, by dark
and tortuous ways,
down to the prison of eternal pain.
Is it possible that Christ
would eternally damn a
man for doing exactly what Christ would have
done,
had he been infinitely generous, under the same cir-
cumstances? Is not self-denial in a man as praise-
worthy as in a
God? Should a God be worshiped,
and a man be damned, for the same
action?
According to Mr. Talmage, every soldier who fought
for our country in the Revolutionary war, who was
not a Christian, is
now in hell. Every soldier, not a
Christian, who carried the flag of
his country to vic-
tory—either upon the land or sea, in the
war of 1812,
is now in hell. Every soldier, not a Christian, who
fought for the preservation of this Union,—to break
the chains
of slavery—to free four millions of people
—to keep the
whip from the naked back—every man
who did this—every one
who died at Andersonville
and Libby, dreaming that his death would
help make
80
the lives of others worth living, is
now a lost and
wretched soul. These men are now in the prison of
God,—a prison in which the cruelties of Libby and
Andersonville
would be regarded as mercies,—in
which famine would be a joy.
THIRD
INTERVIEW.
Sinner. Is God infinite in wisdom and
power?
Parson. He is.
Sinner. Does he at all times
know just what ought
to be done?
Parson. He does.
Sinner. Does he always do just what ought to be
done?
Parson. He does.
Sinner. Why do you pray to him?
Parson. Because he is unchangeable.
Question.
I want to ask you a few questions
about Mr. Talmage's third sermon.
What do
you think of it?
Answer. I often ask myself
the questions: Is
there anything in the occupation of a minister,—any-
thing in his surroundings, that makes him incapable
of treating an
opponent fairly, or decently? Is there
anything in the doctrine of
universal forgiveness that
compels a man to speak of one who differs
with him
only in terms of disrespect and hatred? Is it neces-
sary for those who profess to love the whole world,
to hate the few
they come in actual contact with?
84
Mr. Talmage, no
doubt, professes to love all man-
kind,—Jew and Gentile,
Christian and Pagan. No
doubt, he believes in the missionary effort,
and thinks
we should do all in our power to save the soul of the
most benighted savage; and yet he shows anything
but affection for
the "heathen" at home. He loves
the ones he never saw,—is real
anxious for their wel-
fare,—but for the ones he knows, he
exhibits only
scorn and hatred. In one breath, he tells us that
Christ loves us, and in the next, that we are "wolves
"and dogs." We
are informed that Christ forgave
even his murderers, but that now he
hates an honest
unbeliever with all his heart. He can forgive the
ones who drove the nails into his hands and feet,—
the one who
thrust the spear through his quivering
flesh,—but he cannot
forgive the man who entertains
an honest doubt about the "scheme of
salvation."
He regards the man who thinks, as a "mouth-maker
"at
heaven." Is it possible that Christ is less for-
giving in heaven
than he was in Jerusalem? Did he
excuse murderers then, and does he
damn thinkers
now? Once he pitied even thieves; does he now
abhor an intellectually honest man?
Question. Mr.
Talmage seems to think that you
have no right to give your opinion
about the Bible.
85
Do you think that laymen have
the same right as
ministers to examine the Scriptures?
Answer.
If God only made a revelation for
preachers, of course we will have
to depend on the
preachers for information. But the preachers have
made the mistake of showing the revelation. They
ask us, the laymen,
to read it, and certainly there is
no use of reading it, unless we
are permitted to think
for ourselves while we read. If after reading
the Bible
we believe it to be true, we will say so, if we are
honest. If we do not believe it, we will say so, if we
are honest.
But why should God be so particular about our
believing the
stories in his book? Why should God
object to having his book
examined? We do not
have to call upon legislators, or courts, to
protect
Shakespeare from the derision of mankind. Was not
God
able to write a book that would command the
love and admiration of
the world? If the God of
Mr. Talmage is infinite, he knew exactly how
the
stories of the Old Testament would strike a gentle-
man of
the nineteenth century. He knew that many
would have their doubts,—that
thousands of them—
and I may say most of them,—would
refuse to believe
that a miracle had ever been performed.
86
Now, it seems to me that he should either have left
the
stories out, or furnished evidence enough to con-
vince the world.
According to Mr. Talmage, thou-
sands of people are pouring over the
Niagara of
unbelief into the gulf of eternal pain. Why does not
God furnish more evidence? Just in proportion as
man has developed
intellectually, he has demanded
additional testimony. That which
satisfies a barbarian,
excites only the laughter of a civilized man.
Cer-
tainly God should furnish evidence in harmony with
the
spirit of the age. If God wrote his Bible for the
average man, he
should have written it in such a way
that it would have carried
conviction to the brain and
heart of the average man; and he should
have
made no man in such a way that he could not, by any
possibility, believe it. There certainly should be a
harmony between
the Bible and the human brain. If
I do not believe the Bible, whose
fault is it? Mr.
Talmage insists that his God wrote the Bible for me.
and made me. If this is true, the book and the man
should agree.
There is no sense in God writing
a book for me and then making me in
such a way that
I cannot believe his book.
Question.
But Mr. Talmage says the reason why
you hate the Bible is, that your
soul is poisoned; that
87
the Bible "throws you into
a rage precisely as pure
"water brings on a paroxysm of hydrophobia."
Answer. Is it because the mind of the infidel is
poisoned, that he refuses to believe that an infinite
God commanded
the murder of mothers, maidens and
babes? Is it because their minds
are impure, that
they refuse to believe that a good God established
the institution of human slavery, or that he protected
it when
established? Is it because their minds are
vile, that they refuse to
believe that an infinite God
established or protected polygamy? Is it
a sure
sign of an impure mind, when a man insists that
God never
waged wars of extermination against his
helpless children? Does it
show that a man has
been entirely given over to the devil, because he
refuses to believe that God ordered a father to sacri-
fice his son?
Does it show that a heart is entirely
without mercy, simply because a
man denies the
justice of eternal pain?
I denounce many
parts of the Old Testament
because they are infinitely repugnant to
my sense
of justice,—because they are bloody, brutal and in-
famous,—because they uphold crime and destroy
human liberty. It
is impossible for me to imagine
a greater monster than the God of the
Old Testa-
88
ment. He is unworthy of my worship. He
com-
mands only my detestation, my execration, and my
passionate
hatred. The God who commanded the
murder of children is an infamous
fiend. The God
who believed in polygamy, is worthy only of con-
tempt. The God who established slavery should be
hated by every free
man. The Jehovah of the Jews
was simply a barbarian, and the Old
Testament is
mostly the barbarous record of a barbarous people.
If the Jehovah of the Jews is the real God, I do
not wish to be
his friend. From him I neither ask,
nor expect, nor would I be
willing to receive, even an
eternity of joy. According to the Old
Testament,
he established a government,—a political state,—and
yet, no civilized country to-day would re-enact these
laws of God.
Question. What do you think of the explanation
given by
Mr. Talmage of the stopping of the sun and
moon in the time of
Joshua, in order that a battle
might be completed?
Answer.
Of course, if there is an infinite God,
he could have stopped the sun
and moon. No one
pretends to prescribe limits to the power of the
infinite. Even admitting that such a being existed,
the question
whether he did stop the sun and moon,
89
or not,
still remains. According to the account, these
planets were stopped,
in order that Joshua might con-
tinue the pursuit of a routed enemy.
I take it for
granted that a being of infinite wisdom would not
waste any force,—that he would not throw away any
"omnipotence," and that, under ordinary circum-
stances, he would
husband his resources. I find that
this spirit exists, at least in
embryo, in Mr. Talmage.
He proceeds to explain this miracle. He does
not
assert that the earth was stopped on its axis, but sug-
gests "refraction" as a way out of the difficulty. Now,
while the
stopping of the earth on its axis accounts for
the sun remaining in
the same relative position, it does
not account for the stoppage of
the moon. The moon
has a motion of its own, and even if the earth had
been
stopped in its rotary motion, the moon would have gone
on.
The Bible tells us that the moon was stopped. One
would suppose that
the sun would have given sufficient
light for all practical purposes.
Will Mr. Talmage be
kind enough to explain the stoppage of the moon?
Every one knows that the moon is somewhat obscure
when the sun is in
the midst of the heavens. The moon
when compared with the sun at such
a time, is much
like one of the discourses of Mr. Talmage side by
side
with a chapter from Humboldt;—it is useless.
90
In the same chapter in which the account of the
stoppage of the
sun and moon is given, we find that
God cast down from heaven great
hailstones on
Joshua's enemies. Did he get out of hailstones?
Had he no "omnipotence" left? Was it necessary
for him to stop the
sun and moon and depend entirely
upon the efforts of Joshua? Would
not the force
employed in stopping the rotary motion of the earth
have been sufficient to destroy the enemy? Would
not a millionth part
of the force necessary to stop the
moon, have pierced the enemy's
centre, and rolled up
both his flanks? A resort to lightning would
have
been, in my judgment, much more economical and
rather more
effective. If he had simply opened the
earth, and swallowed them, as
he did Korah and his
company, it would have been a vast saving of
"omnipotent" muscle. Yet, the foremost orthodox
minister of the
Presbyterian Church,—the one who
calls all unbelievers "wolves
and dogs," and "brazen
"fools," in his effort to account for this
miracle, is
driven to the subterfuge of an "optical illusion."
We are seriously informed that "God probably
"changed the nature of
the air," and performed this
feat of ledgerdemain through the
instrumentality of
"refraction." It seems to me it would have been
fully
91
as easy to have changed the nature of the
air breathed
by the enemy, so that it would not have supported
life. He could have accomplished this by changing
only a little air,
in that vicinity; whereas, according
to the Talmagian view, he
changed the atmosphere
of the world. Or, a small "local flood" might
have
done the work. The optical illusion and refraction
view,
ingenious as it may appear, was not original
with Mr. Talmage. The
Rev. Henry M. Morey, of
South Bend, Indiana, used, upon this subject,
the fol-
lowing language; "The phenomenon was simply
"optical.
The rotary motion of the earth was not
"disturbed, but the light of
the sun was prolonged by
"the same laws of refraction and reflection
by which
"the sun now appears to be above the horizon when
"it
is really below. The medium through which the
"sun's rays passed,
might have been miraculously
"influenced so as to have caused the sun
to linger
"above the horizon long after its usual time for dis-
"appearance."
I pronounce the opinion of Mr. Morey to be the
ripest product of Christian scholarship. According to
the
Morey-Talmage view, the sun lingered somewhat
above the horizon. But
this is inconsistent with the
Bible account. We are not told in the
Scriptures that
92
the sun "lingered above the
horizon," but that it "stood
"still in the midst of heaven for about
a whole day."
The trouble about the optical-illusion view is, that it
makes the day too long. If the air was miraculously
changed, so that
it refracted the rays of the sun, while
the earth turned over as
usual for about a whole day,
then, at the end of that time, the sun
must have been
again visible in the east. It would then naturally
shine twelve hours more, so that this miraculous day
must have been
at least thirty-six hours in length.
There were first twelve hours of
natural light, then
twelve hours of refracted and reflected light,
and then
twelve hours more of natural light. This makes the
day
too long. So, I say to Mr. Talmage, as I said to
Mr. Morey: If you
will depend a little less on
refraction, and a little more on
reflection, you will see
that the whole story is a barbaric myth and
foolish
fable.
For my part, I do not see why God should be
pleased to have me believe a story of this character.
I can hardly
think that there is great joy in heaven
over another falsehood
swallowed. I can imagine
that a man may deny this story, and still be
an excel-
lent citizen, a good father, an obliging neighbor, and
in all respects a just and truthful man. I can also
93
imagine that a man may believe this story, and yet
assassinate
a President of the United States.
I am afraid that Mr. Talmage
is beginning to be
touched, in spite of himself, with some new ideas.
He
tells us that worlds are born and that worlds die.
This is
not exactly the Bible view. You would think
that he imagined that a
world was naturally pro-
duced,—that the aggregation of atoms
was natural,
and that disintegration came to worlds, as to men,
through old age. Yet this is not the Bible view.
According to the
Bible, these worlds were not born,—
they were created out of
"nothing," or out of
"omnipotence," which is much the same. According
to the Bible, it took this infinite God six days to make
this atom
called earth; and according to the account,
he did not work nights,—he
worked from the morn-
ings to the evenings,—and I suppose
rested nights,
as he has since that time on Sundays.
Admitting that the battle which Joshua fought
was exceedingly
important—which I do not think—
is it not a little
strange that this God, in all subse-
quent battles of the world's
history, of which we
know anything, has maintained the strictest neu-
trality? The earth turned as usual at Yorktown,
and at Gettysburg the
moon pursued her usual
94
course; and so far as I
know, neither at Waterloo
nor at Sedan were there any peculiar freaks
of "re-
"fraction" or "reflection."
Question. Mr.
Talmage tells us that there was in
the early part of this century a
dark day, when
workmen went home from their fields, and legis-
latures and courts adjourned, and that the darkness
of that day has
not yet been explained. What is
your opinion about that?
Answer. My opinion is, that if at that time we
had been at war
with England, and a battle had
been commenced in the morning, and in
the after-
noon the American forces had been driven from their
position and were hard pressed by the enemy, and
if the day had
become suddenly dark, and so dark
that the Americans were thereby
enabled to escape,
thousands of theologians of the calibre of Mr.
Tal-
mage would have honestly believed that there had
been an
interposition of divine Providence. No
battle was fought that day,
and consequently, even
the ministers are looking for natural causes.
In
olden times, when the heavens were visited by
comets, war,
pestilence and famine were predicted.
If wars came, the prediction
was remembered; if
95
nothing happened, it was
forgotten. When eclipses
visited the sun and moon, the barbarian fell
upon his
knees, and accounted for the phenomena by the
wickedness of his neighbor. Mr. Talmage tells us
that his father was
terrified by the meteoric shower
that visited our earth in 1833. The
terror of the
father may account for the credulity of the son.
Astronomers will be surprised to read the declaration
of Mr. Talmage
that the meteoric shower has never
been explained. Meteors visit the
earth every year
of its life, and in a certain portion of the orbit
they
are always expected, and they always come. Mr.
Newcomb has
written a work on astronomy that
all ministers ought to read.
Question. Mr. Talmage also charges you with
"making
light of holy things," and seems to be aston-
ished that you should
ridicule the anointing oil of
Aaron?
Answer. I find
that the God who had no time to
say anything on the subject of
slavery, and who found
no room upon the tables of stone to say a word
against polygamy, and in favor of the rights of
woman, wife and
mother, took time to give a recipe
for making hair oil. And in order
that the priests
96
might have the exclusive right
to manufacture this oil,
decreed the penalty of death on all who
should
infringe. I admit that I am incapable of seeing the
beauty of this symbol. Neither could I ever see the
necessity of
Masons putting oil on the corner-stone
of a building. Of course, I do
not know the exact
chemical effect that oil has on stone, and I see
no harm
in laughing at such a ceremony. If the oil does good,
the laughter will do no harm; and if the oil will do no
harm, the
laughter will do no good. Personally, I am
willing that Masons should
put oil on all stones; but,
if Masons should insist that I must
believe in the effi-
cacy of the ceremony, or be eternally damned, I
would have about the same feeling toward the
Masons that I now have
toward Mr. Talmage. I
presume that at one time the putting of oil on
a
corner-stone had some meaning; but that it ever did
any good,
no sensible man will insist. It is a custom
to break a bottle of
champagne over the bow of
a newly-launched ship, but I have never
considered
this ceremony important to the commercial interests
of the world.
I have the same opinion about putting oil on
stones, as about putting water on heads. For my
part, I see no good
in the rite of baptism. Still, it
97
may do no harm,
unless people are immersed during
cold weather. Neither have I the
slightest objection
to the baptism of anybody; but if people tell me
that
I must be baptized or suffer eternal agony, then I deny
it.
If they say that baptism does any earthly good, I
deny it. No one
objects to any harmless ceremony;
but the moment it is insisted that
a ceremony is neces-
sary, the reason of which no man can see, then
the
practice of the ceremony becomes hurtful, for the
reason
that it is maintained only at the expense of
intelligence and
manhood.
It is hurtful for people to imagine that they can
please God by any ceremony whatever. If there is
any God, there is
only one way to please him, and
that is, by a conscientious discharge
of your obliga-
tions to your fellow-men. Millions of people imagine
that they can please God by wearing certain kinds
of cloth. Think of
a God who can be pleased with
a coat of a certain cut! Others, to
earn a smile of
heaven, shave their heads, or trim their beards, or
perforate their ears or lips or noses. Others maim
and mutilate their
bodies. Others think to please
God by simply shutting their eyes, by
swinging
censers, by lighting candles, by repeating poor Latin,
by making a sign of the cross with holy water, by
98
ringing bells, by going without meat, by eating fish,
by getting
hungry, by counting beads, by making
themselves miserable Sundays, by
looking solemn,
by refusing to marry, by hearing sermons; and
others imagine that they can please God by calumni-
ating
unbelievers.
There is an old story of an Irishman who, when
dying, sent for a priest. The reputation of the
dying man was so
perfectly miserable, that the priest
refused to administer the rite
of extreme unction.
The priest therefore asked him if he could
recollect
any decent action that he had ever done. The dying
man
said that he could not. "Very well," said the
priest, "then you will
have to be damned." In a
moment, the pinched and pale face
brightened, and
he said to the priest: "I have thought of one good
"action." "What is it?" asked the priest. And the
dying man said,
"Once I killed a gauger."
I suppose that in the next world some
ministers,
driven to extremes, may reply: "Once I told a lie
"about an infidel."
Question. You see that Mr. Talmage
still sticks to
the whale and Jonah story. What do you think of
his argument, or of his explanation, rather, of that
miracle?
99
Answer. The edge of his orthodoxy seems to be
crumbling. He tells us that "there is in the mouth
"of the common
whale a cavity large enough for a
"man to live in without descent
into his stomach,"—
and yet Christ says, that Jonah was in the
whale's
belly, not in his mouth. But why should Mr. Tal-
mage
say that? We are told in the sacred account
that "God prepared a
great fish" for the sole pur-
pose of having Jonah swallowed. The
size of the
present whale has nothing to do with the story. No
matter whether the throat of the whale of to-day is
large or small,—that
has nothing to do with it. The
simple story is, that God prepared a
fish and had
Jonah swallowed. And yet Mr. Talmage throws out
the
suggestion that probably this whale held Jonah
in his mouth for three
days and nights. I admit that
Jonah's chance for air would have been
a little better
in his mouth, and his chance for water a little
worse.
Probably the whale that swallowed Jonah was the
same fish
spoken of by Procopius,—both accounts
being entitled, in my
judgment, to equal credence.
I am a little surprised that Mr. Talmage
forgot
to mention the fish spoken of by Munchausen—an
equally reliable author,—and who has given, not
simply the bald
fact that a fish swallowed a ship, but
100
was good
enough to furnish the details. Mr. Talmage
should remember that out
of Jonah's biography
grew the habit of calling any remarkable lie, "a
fish
"story." There is one thing that Mr. Talmage
should not
forget; and that is, that miracles should
not be explained. Miracles
are told simply to be
believed, not to be understood.
Somebody suggested to Mr. Talmage that, in
all probability, a person
in the stomach of a whale
would be digested in less than three days.
Mr. Tal-
mage, again showing his lack of confidence in God,
refusing to believe that God could change the nature
of gastric
juice,—having no opportunity to rely
upon "refraction or
reflection," frankly admits that
Jonah had to save himself by keeping
on the
constant go and jump. This gastric-juice theory of
Mr.
Talmage is an abandonment of his mouth hy-
pothesis. I do not wonder
that Mr. Talmage thought
of the mouth theory. Possibly, the two
theories had
better be united—so that we may say that Jonah,
when he got tired of the activity necessary to
avoid the gastric
juice, could have strolled into
the mouth for a rest. What a picture!
Jonah
sitting on the edge of the lower jaw, wiping the
perspiration and the gastric juice from his anxious
101
face, and vainly looking through the open mouth
for signs of
land!
In this story of Jonah, we are told that "the Lord
"spake unto the fish." In what language? It must
be remembered that
this fish was only a few hours
old. He had been prepared during the
storm, for
the sole purpose of swallowing Jonah. He was a
fish
of exceedingly limited experience. He had no
hereditary knowledge,
because he did not spring
from ancestors; consequently, he had no
instincts.
Would such a fish understand any language? It
may be
contended that the fish, having been made
for the occasion, was given
a sufficient knowledge
of language to understand an ordinary command-
ment; but, if Mr. Talmage is right, I think an order
to the fish
would have been entirely unnecessary.
When we take into consideration
that a thing the
size of a man had been promenading up and down
the stomach of this fish for three days and three
nights,
successfully baffling the efforts of gastric
juice, we can readily
believe that the fish was as
anxious to have Jonah go, as Jonah was
to leave.
But the whale part is, after all, not the most won-
derful portion of the book of Jonah. According to
this wonderful
account, "the word of the Lord came
102
"to Jonah,"
telling him to "go and cry against the
"city of Nineveh;" but Jonah,
instead of going,
endeavored to evade the Lord by taking ship for
Tarshish. As soon as the Lord heard of this, he
"sent out a great
wind into the sea," and frightened
the sailors to that extent that
after assuring them-
selves, by casting lots, that Jonah was the man,
they
threw him into the sea. After escaping from the
whale, he
went to Nineveh, and delivered his pre-
tended message from God. In
consequence of his
message, Jonah having no credentials from God,—
nothing certifying to his official character, the King
of Nineveh
covered himself with sack-cloth and sat
down in some ashes. He then
caused a decree to
be issued that every man and beast should abstain
from food and water; and further, that every man and
beast should be
covered with sack-cloth. This was
done in the hope that Jonah's God
would repent, and
turn away his fierce anger. When we take into con-
sideration the fact that the people of Nineveh were
not Hebrews, and
had not the slightest confidence in
the God of the Jews—knew no
more of, and cared no
more for, Jehovah than we now care for Jupiter,
or
Neptune; the effect produced by the proclamation of
Jonah is,
to say the least of it, almost incredible.
103
We
are also informed, in this book, that the
moment God saw all the
people sitting in the ashes,
and all the animals covered with
sack-cloth, he
repented. This failure on the part of God to destroy
the unbelievers displeased Jonah exceedingly, and
he was very angry.
Jonah was much like the
modern minister, who seems always to be
personally
aggrieved if the pestilence and famine prophesied by
him do not come. Jonah was displeased to that
degree, that he asked
God to kill him. Jonah then
went out of the city, even after God had
repented,
made him a booth and sat under it, in the shade,
waiting to see what would become of the city. God
then "prepared a
gourd, and made it to come up
"over Jonah that it might be a shadow
over his
"head to deliver him from his grief." And then we
have
this pathetic line: "So Jonah was exceedingly
"glad of the gourd."
God having prepared a fish, and also prepared
a gourd, proposed
next morning to prepare a worm.
And when the sun rose next day, the
worm that
God had prepared, "smote the gourd, so that
"it
withered." I can hardly believe that an in-
finite being prepared a
worm to smite a gourd
so that it withered, in order to keep the sun
from
104
the bald head of a prophet. According to
the
account, after sunrise, and after the worm had
smitten the
gourd, "God prepared a vehement east
"wind." This was not an ordinary
wind, but one
prepared expressly for that occasion. After the wind
had been prepared, "the sun beat upon the head of
"Jonah, and he
fainted, and wished in himself to
"die." All this was done in order
to convince
Jonah that a man who would deplore the loss of a
gourd, ought not to wish for the destruction of a city.
Is it
possible for any intelligent man now to
believe that the history of
Jonah is literally true?
For my part, I cannot see the necessity
either of
believing it, or of preaching it. It has nothing to do
with honesty, with mercy, or with morality. The
bad may believe it,
and the good may hold it in
contempt. I do not see that civilization
has the
slightest interest in the fish, the gourd, the worm, or
the vehement east wind.
Does Mr. Talmage think that it is
absolutely neces-
sary to believe all the story? Does he not
think it
probable that a God of infinite mercy, rather than
damn
the soul of an honest man to hell forever, would
waive, for instance,
the worm,—provided he believed
in the vehement east wind, the
gourd and the fish?
105
Mr. Talmage, by insisting on
the literal truth of
the Bible stories, is doing Christianity great
harm.
Thousands of young men will say: "I can't become
"a
Christian if it is necessary to believe the adven-
"tures of Jonah."
Mr. Talmage will put into the
paths of multitudes of people willing
to do right,
anxious to make the world a little better than it is,—
this stumbling block. He could have explained it,
called it an
allegory, poetical license, a child of the
oriental imagination, a
symbol, a parable, a poem, a
dream, a legend, a myth, a divine
figure, or a great
truth wrapped in the rags and shreds and patches
of
seeming falsehood. His efforts to belittle the miracle,
to
suggest the mouth instead of the stomach,—to
suggest that Jonah
took deck passage, or lodged in
the forecastle instead of in the
cabin or steerage,—
to suggest motion as a means of avoiding
digestion,
is a serious theological blunder, and may cause the
loss of many souls.
If Mr. Talmage will consult with other
ministers,
they will tell him to let this story alone—that he
will
simply "provoke investigation and discussion"—two
things to be avoided. They will tell him that they
are not willing
their salary should hang on so slender
a thread, and will advise him
not to bother his gourd
106
about Jonah's. They will
also tell him that in this
age of the world, arguments cannot be
answered by
"a vehement east wind."
Some people will think
that it would have been
just as easy for God to have pulled the gourd
up, as
to have prepared a worm to bite it.
Question.
Mr. Talmage charges that you have
said there are indecencies in the
Bible. Are you
still of that opinion?
Answer. Mr.
Talmage endeavors to evade the
charge, by saying that "there are
things in the Bible
"not intended to be read, either in the family
circle,
"or in the pulpit, but nevertheless they are to be
"read." My own judgment is, that an infinite being
should not inspire
the writing of indecent things.
It will not do to say, that the Bible
description of sin
"warns and saves." There is nothing in the history
of Tamar calculated to "warn and save and the
same may be said of
many other passages in the
Old Testament. Most Christians would be
glad
to know that all such passages are interpolations.
I regret
that Shakespeare ever wrote a line that
could not be read any where,
and by any person.
But Shakespeare, great as he was, did not rise en-
107
tirely above his time. So of most poets. Nearly all
have stained their pages with some vulgarity; and I
am sorry for it,
and hope the time will come when
we shall have an edition of all the
great writers and
poets from which every such passage is elimi-
nated.
It is with the Bible as with most other books. It
is a mingling of good and bad. There are many
exquisite passages in
the Bible,—many good laws,—
many wise sayings,—and
there are many passages
that should never have been written. I do not
pro-
pose to throw away the good on account of the
bad, neither
do I propose to accept the bad on
account of the good. The Bible need
not be taken
as an entirety. It is the business of every man who
reads it, to discriminate between that which is good
and that which
is bad. There are also many passages
neither good nor bad,—wholly
and totally indifferent
—conveying 110 information—utterly
destitute of
ideas,—and as to these passages, my only objection
to them is that they waste time and paper.
I am in favor of
every passage in the Bible that
conveys information. I am in favor of
every wise
proverb, of every verse coming from human ex-
perience and that appeals to the heart of man. I am
108
in favor of every passage that inculcates justice,
generosity,
purity, and mercy. I am satisfied that
much of the historical part is
false. Some of it
is probably true. Let us have the courage to take
the true, and throw the false away. I am satisfied
that many of the
passages are barbaric, and many of
them are good. Let us have the
wisdom to accept
the good and to reject the barbaric.
No
system of religion should go in partnership
with barbarism. Neither
should any Christian feel
it his duty to defend the savagery of the
past. The
philosophy of Christ must stand independently of the
mistakes of the Old Testament. We should do jus-
tice whether a woman
was made from a rib or from
"omnipotence." We should be merciful
whether
the flood was general, or local. We should be kind
and
obliging whether Jonah was swallowed by a fish
or not. The miraculous
has nothing to do with the
moral. Intelligence is of more value than
inspiration.
Brain is better than Bible. Reason is above all
religion. I do not believe that any civilized human
being clings to
the Bible on account of its barbaric
passages. I am candid enough to
believe that every
Christian in the world would think more of the
Bible,
if it had not upheld slavery, if it had denounced
109
polygamy, if it had cried out against wars of exter-
mination, if it had spared women and babes, if it had
upheld
everywhere, and at all times, the standard of
justice and mercy. But
when it is claimed that the
book is perfect, that it is inspired,
that it is, in fact,
the work of an infinitely wise and good God,—then
it should be without a defect. There should not be
within its lids an
impure word; it should not express
an impure thought. There should
not be one word
in favor of injustice, not one word in favor of
slavery,
not one word in favor of wars of extermination.
There
must be another revision of the Scriptures.
The chaff must be thrown
away. The dross must
be rejected; and only that be retained which is
in
exact harmony with the brain and heart of the
greatest and
the best.
Question. Mr. Talmage charges you with unfair-
ness, because you account for the death of art in
Palestine, by the
commandment which forbids the
making of graven images.
Answer.
I have said that that commandment was
the death of art, and I say so
still. I insist that by
reason of that commandment, Palestine
produced no
painter and no sculptor until after the destruction of
110
Jerusalem. Mr. Talmage, in order to answer that
statement, goes on to show that hundreds and thou-
sands of pictures
were produced in the Middle Ages.
That is a departure in pleading.
Will he give us the
names of the painters that existed in Palestine
from
Mount Sinai to the destruction of the temple? Will
he give
us the names of the sculptors between those
times? Mohammed
prohibited his followers from
making any representation of human or
animal life,
and as a result, Mohammedans have never produced
a
painter nor a sculptor, except in the portrayal and
chiseling of
vegetable forms. They were confined
to trees and vines, and flowers.
No Mohammedan
has portrayed the human face or form. But the
commandment of Jehovah went farther than that of
Momammed, and
prevented portraying the image of
anything. The assassination of art
was complete.
There is another thing that should not be
forgotten.
We are indebted for the encouragement of
art,
not to the Protestant Church; if indebted to any,
it is to the
Catholic. The Catholic adorned the cathedral
with painting and
statue—not the Protestant.
The Protestants opposed music and
painting, and
refused to decorate their temples. But if Mr. Tal-
mage wishes to know to whom we are indebted for
111
art, let him read the mythology of Greece and Rome.
The early
Christians destroyed paintings and statues.
They were the enemies of
all beauty. They hated
and detested every expression of art. They
looked
upon the love of statues as a form of idolatry. They
looked upon every painting as a remnant of Pagan-
ism. They destroyed
all upon which they could lay
their ignorant hands. Hundred of years
afterwards,
the world was compelled to search for the fragments
that Christian fury had left. The Greeks filled the
world with
beauty. For every stream and mountain
and cataract they had a god or
goddess. Their
sculptors impersonated every dream and hope, and
their mythology feeds, to-day, the imagination of
mankind. The Venus
de Milo is the impersonation
of beauty, in ruin—the sublimest
fragment of the
ancient world. Our mythology is infinitely unpoetic
and barren—our deity an old bachelor from eternity,
who once
believed in indiscriminate massacre. Upon
the throne of our heaven,
woman finds no place.
Our mythology is destitute of the maternal.
Question. Mr. Talmage denies your statement
that the Old
Testament humiliates woman. He also
denies that the New Testament
says anything
against woman. How is it?
112
Answer.
Of course, I never considered a book up-
holding polygamy to be the
friend of woman. Eve,
according to that book, is the mother of us
all, and
yet the inspired writer does not tell us how long she
lived,—does not even mention her death,—makes
not the
slightest reference as to what finally became
of her. Methuselah
lived nine hundred and sixty-
nine years, and yet, there is not the
slightest mention
made of Mrs. Methuselah. Enoch was translated,
and his widow is not mentioned. There is not a
word about Mrs. Seth,
or Mrs. Enos, or Mrs. Cainan,
or Mrs. Mahalaleel, or Mrs. Jared. We
do not
know the name of Mrs. Noah, and I believe not the
name of
a solitary woman is given from the creation
of Eve—with the
exception of two of Lamech's
wives—until Sarai is mentioned as
being the wife
of Abram.
If you wish really to know the
Bible estimation of
woman, turn to the fourth and fifth verses of the
twelfth chapter of Leviticus, in which a woman, for
the crime of
having borne a son, is unfit to touch a
hallowed thing, or to come in
the holy sanctuary for
thirty-three days; but if a woman was the
mother
of a girl, then she became totally unfit to enter the
sanctuary, or pollute with her touch a hallowed thing,
113
for sixty-six days. The pollution was twice as great
when she
had borne a daughter.
It is a little difficult to see why it is
a greater crime
to give birth to a daughter than to a son. Surely, a
law like that did not tend to the elevation of woman.
You will also
find in the same chapter that a woman
had to offer a pigeon, or a
turtle-dove, as a sin offer-
ing, in order to expiate the crime of
having become a
mother. By the Levitical law, a mother was unclean.
The priest had to make an atonement for her.
If there is,
beneath the stars, a figure of complete
and perfect purity, it is a
mother holding in her arms
her child. The laws respecting women,
given by
commandment of Jehovah to the Jews, were born of
barbarism, and in this day and age should be re-
garded only with
detestation and contempt. The
twentieth and twenty-first verses of
the nineteenth
chapter of Leviticus show that the same punishment
was not meted to men and women guilty of the
same crime.
The real explanation of what we find in the Old
Testament degrading
to woman, lies in the fact, that
the overflow of Love's mysterious
Nile—the sacred
source of life—was, by its savage
authors, deemed
unclean.
114
Question.
But what have you to say about the
women of the Bible, mentioned by
Mr. Talmage,
and held up as examples for all time of all that is
sweet and womanly?
Answer. I believe that Esther is his
principal
heroine. Let us see who she was.
According to
the book of Esther, Ahasuerus who
was king of Persia, or some such
place, ordered
Vashti his queen to show herself to the people
and the princes, because she was "exceedingly fair
"to look upon."
For some reason—modesty per-
haps—she refused to appear.
And thereupon the
king "sent letters into all his provinces and to
every
"people after their language, that every man should
"bear
rule in his own house;" it being feared that
if it should become
public that Vashti had disobeyed,
all other wives might follow her
example. The king
also, for the purpose of impressing upon all women
the necessity of obeying their husbands, issued a
decree that "Vashti
should come no more before
"him," and that he would "give her royal
estate
"unto another." This was done that "all the
"wives should
give to their husbands honor, both to
"great and small."
After this, "the king appointed officers in all the
115
"provinces of his kingdom that they might gather
"together all
the fair young virgins," and bring
them to his palace, put them in
the custody of
his chamberlain, and have them thoroughly washed.
Then the king was to look over the lot and take
each day the one that
pleased him best until he found
the one to put in the place of
Vashti. A fellow by
the name of Mordecai, living in that part of the
country, hearing of the opportunity to sell a girl,
brought Esther,
his uncle's daughter,—she being an
orphan, and very beautiful—to
see whether she
might not be the lucky one.
The remainder
of the second chapter of this
book, I do not care to repeat. It is
sufficient to say
that Esther at last was chosen.
The king
at this time did not know that Esther
was a Jewess. Mordecai her
kinsman, however,
discovered a plot to assassinate the king, and
Esther
told the king, and the two plotting gentlemen were
hanged
on a tree.
After a while, a man by the name of Haman was
made Secretary of State, and everybody coming in
his presence bowed
except Mordecai. Mordecai was
probably depending on the influence of
Esther.
Haman finally became so vexed, that he made up
116
his mind to have all the Jews in the kingdom
destroyed. (The
number of Jews at that time
in Persia must have been immense.) Haman
there-
upon requested the king to have an order issued to
destroy all the Jews, and in consideration of the
order, proposed to
pay ten thousand talents of silver.
And thereupon, letters were
written to the governors
of the various provinces, sealed with the
king's ring,
sent by post in all directions, with instructions to
kill
all the Jews, both young and old—little children and
women,—in one day. (One would think that the
king copied this
order from another part of the Old
Testament, or had found an
original by Jehovah.) The
people immediately made preparations for
the killing.
Mordecai clothed himself with sack-cloth, and Esther
called upon one of the king's chamberlains, and she
finally got the
history of the affair, as well as a copy
of the writing, and
thereupon made up her mind to
go in and ask the king to save her
people.
At that time, Bismarck's idea of government being
in full force, any one entering the king's presence with-
out an
invitation, was liable to be put to death. And
in case any one did go
in to see the king, if the king
failed to hold out his golden
sceptre, his life was not
spared. Notwithstanding this order, Esther
put on
117
her best clothes, and stood in the inner
court of the
king's house, while the king sat on his royal throne.
When the king saw her standing in the court, he
held out his sceptre,
and Esther drew near, and he
asked her what she wished; and thereupon
she
asked that the king and Haman might take dinner
with her
that day, and it was done. While they were
feasting, the king again
asked Esther what she
wanted; and her second request was, that they
would come and dine with her once more. When
Haman left the palace
that day, he saw Mordecai
again at the gate, standing as stiffly as
usual, and it
filled Haman with indignation. So Haman, taking
the advice of his wife, made a gallows fifty cubits
high, for the
special benefit of Mordecai. The next
day, when Haman went to see the
king, the king,
having the night before refreshed his memory in
respect to the service done him by Mordecai, asked
Haman what ought
to be done for the man whom
the king wished to honor. Haman,
supposing of
course that the king referred to him, said that royal
purple ought to be brought forth, such as the king
wore, and the
horse that the king rode on, and the
crown-royal should be set on the
man's head;—that
one of the most noble princes should lead the
horse,
118
and as he went through the streets,
proclaim: "Thus
"shall it be done to the man whom the king de-
"lighteth to honor."
Thereupon the king told Haman that
Mordecai
was the man that the king wished to honor. And
Haman
was forced to lead this horse, backed by
Mordecai, through the
streets, shouting: "This shall
"be done to the man whom the king
delighteth to
"honor." Immediately afterward, he went to the
banquet that Esther had prepared, and the king
again asked Esther her
petition. She then asked
for the salvation of her people; stating at
the same
time, that if her people had been sold into slavery,
she would have held her tongue; but since they
were about to be
killed, she could not keep silent.
The king asked her who had done
this thing; and
Esther replied that it was the wicked Haman.
Thereupon one of the chamberlains, remembering
the gallows that
had been made for Mordecai, men-
tioned it, and the king immediately
ordered that
Haman be hanged thereon; which was done. And
Mordecai immediately became Secretary of State.
The order against the
Jews was then rescinded; and
Ahasuerus, willing to do anything that
Esther de-
sired, hanged all of Haman's folks. He not only did
119
this, but he immediately issued an order to all the
Jews allowing them to kill the other folks. And the
Jews got together
throughout one hundred and
twenty-seven provinces, "and such was
their power,
"that no man could stand against them; and there-
"upon the Jews smote all their enemies with the
"stroke of the sword,
and with slaughter and de-
"struction, and did whatever they pleased
to those
"who hated them." And in the palace of the king,
the
Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men, besides
ten sons of Haman;
and in the rest of the provinces,
they slew seventy-five thousand
people. And after
this work of slaughter, the Jews had a day of glad-
ness and feasting.
One can see from this, what a beautiful
Bible
character Esther was—how filled with all that is
womanly, gentle, kind and tender!
This story is one of the most
unreasonable, as well
as one of the most heartless and revengeful, in
the
whole Bible. Ahasuerus was a monster, and Esther
equally
infamous; and yet, this woman is held up for
the admiration of
mankind by a Brooklyn pastor.
There is this peculiarity about the
book of Esther:
the name of God is not mentioned in it, and the
deity is not referred to, directly or indirectly;—yet
120
it is claimed to be an inspired book. If Jehovah
wrote it, he
certainly cannot be charged with
egotism.
I most
cheerfully admit that the book of Ruth is
quite a pleasant story, and
the affection of Ruth for
her mother-in-law exceedingly touching, but
I am of
opinion that Ruth did many things that would be re-
garded as somewhat indiscreet, even in the city of
Brooklyn.
All I can find about Hannah is, that she made a
little coat for
her boy Samuel, and brought it to him
from year to year. Where he got
his vest and
pantaloons we are not told. But this fact seems
hardly enough to make her name immortal.
So also Mr. Talmage
refers us to the wonderful
woman Abigail. The story about Abigail,
told in
plain English, is this: David sent some of his fol-
lowers to Nabal, Abigail's husband, and demanded
food. Nabal, who
knew nothing about David, and
cared less, refused. Abigail heard
about it, and took
food to David and his servants. She was very much
struck, apparently, with David and David with her.
A few days
afterward Nabal died—supposed to have
been killed by the Lord—but
probably poisoned;
and thereupon David took Abigail to wife. The
121
whole matter should have been investigated by the
grand jury.
We are also referred to Dorcas, who no doubt was a
good woman—made clothes for the poor and gave
alms, as millions
have done since then. It seems
that this woman died. Peter was sent
for, and there-
upon raised her from the dead, and she is never men-
tioned any more. Is it not a little strange that a
woman who had been
actually raised from the dead,
should have so completely passed out
of the memory
of her time, that when she died the second time, she
was entirely unnoticed?
Is it not astonishing that so little is
in the New
Testament concerning the mother of Christ? My
own
opinion is, that she was an excellent woman, and
the wife of Joseph;
and that Joseph was the actual
father of Christ. I think there can be
no reasonable
doubt that such was the opinion of the authors of the
original gospels. Upon any other hypothesis, it is
impossible to
account for their having given the
genealogy of Joseph to prove that
Christ was of the
blood of David. The idea that he was the Son of
God, or in any way miraculously produced, was an
afterthought, and is
hardly entitled now to serious
consideration. The gospels were
written so long after
122
the death of Christ, that
very little was known of him,
and substantially nothing of his
parents. How is it
that not one word is said about the death of Mary—
not one word about the death of Joseph? How did
it happen that Christ
did not visit his mother after his
resurrection? The first time he
speaks to his mother
is when he was twelve years old. His mother
having
told him that she and his father had been seeking
him, he
replied: "How is it that ye sought me: wist
"ye not that I must be
about my Father s business?"
The second time was at the
marriage feast in Cana,
when he said to her: "Woman, what have I to
do
"with thee?" And the third time was at the cross,
when
"Jesus, seeing his mother standing by the
"disciple whom he loved,
said to her: Woman, be-
"hold thy son;" and to the disciple: "Behold
thy
"mother." And this is all.
The best thing about the
Catholic Church is
the deification of Mary,—and yet this is
denounced
by Protestantism as idolatry. There is something
in
the human heart that prompts man to tell his faults
more freely to
the mother than to the father. The
cruelty of Jehovah is softened by
the mercy of
Mary.
Is it not strange that none of the
disciples of Christ
123
said anything about their
parents,—that we know
absolutely nothing of them? Is there any
evidence
that they showed any particular respect even for the
mother of Christ?
Mary Magdalen is, in many respects, the
tenderest
and most loving character in the New Testament.
According to the account, her love for Christ knew
no abatement,—no
change—true even in the hopeless
shadow of the cross. Neither
did it die with his
death. She waited at the sepulchre; she hasted in
the early morning to his tomb, and yet the only
comfort Christ gave
to this true and loving soul lies
in these strangely cold and
heartless words: "Touch
"me not."
There is nothing tending
to show that the women
spoken of in the Bible were superior to the
ones we
know. There are to-day millions of women making
coats
for their sons,—hundreds of thousands of
women, true not simply
to innocent people, falsely
accused, but to criminals. Many a loving
heart is
as true to the gallows as Mary was to the cross.
There
are hundreds of thousands of women accept-
ing poverty and want and
dishonor, for the love they
bear unworthy men; hundreds and
thousands, hun-
dreds and thousands, working day and night, with
124
strained eyes and tired hands, for husbands and
children,—clothed in rags, housed in huts and hovels,
hoping
day after day for the angel of death. There are
thousands of women in
Christian England, working in
iron, laboring in the fields and
toiling in mines. There
are hundreds and thousands in Europe,
everywhere,
doing the work of men—deformed by toil, and who
would become simply wild and ferocious beasts,
except for the love
they bear for home and child.
You need not go back four
thousand years for
heroines. The world is filled with them to-day.
They do not belong to any nation, nor to any religion,
nor
exclusively to any race. Wherever woman is
found, they are found.
There is no description of any women in the Bible
that equal
thousands and thousands of women known
to-day. The women mentioned by
Mr. Talmage fall
almost infinitely below, not simply those in real
life, but
the creations of the imagination found in the world of
fiction. They will not compare with the women born
of Shakespeare's
brain. You will find none like
Isabella, in whose spotless life, love
and reason
blended into perfect truth; nor Juliet, within whose
heart passion and purity met, like white and red within
the bosom of
a rose; nor Cordelia, who chose to
125
suffer loss
rather than show her wealth of love with
those who gilded dross with
golden words in hope
of gain; nor Miranda, who told her love as
freely
as a flower gives its bosom to the kisses of the sun;
nor
Imogene, who asked: "What is it to be false?"
nor Hermione, who bore
with perfect faith and hope
the cross of shame, and who at last
forgave with all
her heart; nor Desdemona, her innocence so perfect
and her love so pure, that she was incapable of sus-
pecting that
another could suspect, and sought with
dying words to hide her
lover's crime.
If we wish to find what the Bible thinks of
woman, all that is necessary to do is to read it.
We will find that
everywhere she is spoken of
simply as property,—as belonging
absolutely to the
man. We will find that whenever a man got tired
of his wife, all he had to do was to give her a writing
of
divorcement, and that then the mother of his
children became a
houseless and a homeless wanderer.
We will find that men were allowed
to have as
many wives as they could get, either by courtship,
purchase, or conquest. The Jewish people in the
olden time were in
many respects like their barbarian
neighbors.
If we read
the New Testament, we will find in the
126
epistle
of Paul to Timothy, the following gallant
passages:
"Let
the woman learn in silence, with all
"subjection."
"But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
"authority over the man,
but to be in silence."
And for these kind, gentle and civilized
remarks,
the apostle Paul gives the following reasons:
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
"And Adam was not
deceived, but the woman
"being deceived was in the transgression."
Certainly women ought to feel under great obli-
gation to the
apostle Paul.
In the fifth chapter of the same epistle, Paul,
advising Timothy as to what kind of people he
should admit into his
society or church, uses the
following language:
"Let not a
widow be taken into the number under
"threescore years old, having
been the wife of one
"man."
"But the younger widows
refuse, for when they
"have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they
will
"marry."
This same Paul did not seem to think
polygamy
wrong, except in a bishop. He tells Timothy that:
127
"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one
"wife."
He also lays down the rule that a deacon should be
the husband of one wife, leaving us to infer that the
other members
might have as many as they could get.
In the second epistle to
Timothy, Paul speaks of
"grandmother Lois," who was referred to in
such
extravagant language by Mr. Talmage, and nothing
is said
touching her character in the least. All her
virtues live in the
imagination, and in the imagina-
tion alone.
Paul, also,
in his epistle to the Ephesians, says:
"Wives, submit
yourselves unto your own hus-
"bands, as unto the Lord. For the
husband is the
"head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
"church."
"Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ,
"so let the wives be to their own husbands, in
"everything."
You will find, too, that in the seventh chapter of
First
Corinthians, Paul laments that all men are not
bachelors like
himself, and in the second verse of
that chapter he gives the only
reason for which he
was willing that men and women should marry. He
advised all the unmarried, and all widows, to remain
128
as he was. In the ninth verse of this same chapter
is a slander
too vulgar for repetition,—an estimate
of woman and of woman's
love so low and vile, that
every woman should hold the inspired
author in
infinite abhorrence.
Paul sums up the whole
matter, however, by telling
those who have wives or husbands, to stay
with
them—as necessary evils only to be tolerated—but
sincerely regrets that anybody was ever married;
and finally says
that:
"They that have wives should be as though they
"had
none;" because, in his opinion:
"He that is unmarried careth
for the things that
"belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
"but he that is married careth for the things that are
"of the world,
how he may please his wife."
"There is this difference also,"
he tells us, "be-
"tween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman
"careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be
"holy both in
body and in spirit; but she that is
"married careth for the things of
the world, how she
" may please her husband."
Of course,
it is contended that these things have
tended to the elevation of
woman.
The idea that it is better to love the Lord than to
129
love your wife, or your husband, is infinitely
absurd.
Nobody ever did love the Lord,—nobody can—until
he becomes acquainted with him.
Saint Paul also tells us that
"Man is the image
"and glory of God; but woman is the glory of
"man;" and for the purpose of sustaining this posi-
tion, says:
"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman
"of the man;
neither was the man created for the
"woman, but the woman for the
man."
Of course, we can all see that man could have
gotten
along well enough without woman, but woman,
by no possibility, could
have gotten along without
man. And yet, this is called "inspired;"
and this
apostle Paul is supposed to have known more than
all
the people now upon the earth. No wonder Paul
at last was constrained
to say: "We are fools for
"Christ's sake."
Question.
How do you account for the present
condition of woman in what is
known as "the civilized
"world," unless the Bible has bettered her
condition?
Answer. We must remember that thousands of
things enter into the problem of civilization. Soil,
climate, and
geographical position, united with count-
130
less
other influences, have resulted in the civilization
of our time. If
we want to find what the influence of
the Bible has been, we must
ascertain the condition
of Europe when the Bible was considered as
abso-
lutely true, and when it wielded its greatest influence.
Christianity as a form of religion had actual posses-
sion of
Europe during the Middle Ages. At that
time, it exerted its greatest
power. Then it had the
opportunity of breaking the shackles from the
limbs
of woman. Christianity found the Roman matron a
free
woman. Polygamy was never known in Rome;
and although divorces were
allowed by law, the
Roman state had been founded for more than five
hundred years before either a husband or a wife
asked for a divorce.
From the foundation of Chris-
tianity,—I mean from the time it
became the force in
the Roman state,—woman, as such, went down
in
the scale of civilization. The sceptre was taken from
her
hands, and she became once more the slave and
serf of man. The men
also were made slaves, and
woman has regained her liberty by the same
means
that man has regained his,—by wresting authority
from the hands of the church. While the church had
power, the wife
and mother was not considered as
good as the begging nun; the husband
and father
was far below the vermin-covered monk; homes
were of
no value compared with the cathedral; for
God had to have a house, no
matter how many of
his children were wanderers. During all the years
in
which woman has struggled for equal liberty with
man, she has
been met with the Bible doctrine that
she is the inferior of the man;
that Adam was made
first, and Eve afterwards; that man was not made
for
woman, but that woman was made for man.
I find that in
this day and generation, the meanest
men have the lowest estimate of
woman; that the
greater the man is, the grander he is, the more he
thinks of mother, wife and daughter. I also find that
just in the
proportion that he has lost confidence in the
polygamy of Jehovah and
in the advice and philosophy
of Saint Paul, he believes in the rights
and liberties of
woman. As a matter of fact, men have risen from a
perusal of the Bible, and murdered their wives. They
have risen from
reading its pages, and inflicted cruel
and even mortal blows upon
their children. Men
have risen from reading the Bible and torn the
flesh
of others with red-hot pincers. They have laid
down the
sacred volume long enough to pour molten
lead into the ears of
others. They have stopped
reading the sacred Scriptures for a
sufficient time to
132
incarcerate their fellow-men,
to load them with chains,
and then they have gone back to their
reading,
allowing their victims to die in darkness and despair.
Men have stopped reading the Old Testament long
enough to drive a
stake into the ground and collect a
few fagots and burn an honest
man. Even ministers
have denied themselves the privilege of reading
the
sacred book long enough to tell falsehoods about
their
fellow-men. There is no crime that Bible
readers and Bible believers
and Bible worshipers and
Bible defenders have not committed. There is
no
meanness of which some Bible reader, believer, and
defender,
has not been guilty. Bible believers and
Bible defenders have filled
the world with calumnies
and slanders. Bible believers and Bible
defenders
have not only whipped their wives, but they have
murdered them; they have murdered their children.
I do not say that
reading the Bible will necessarily
make men dishonest, but I do say,
that reading the
Bible will not prevent their committing crimes. I do
not say that believing the Bible will necessarily make
men commit
burglary, but I do say that a belief in the
Bible has caused men to
persecute each other, to
imprison each other, and to burn each other.
Only a little while ago, a British clergyman mur-
133
dered his wife. Only a little while ago, an American
Protestant
clergyman whipped his boy to death be-
cause the boy refused to say a
prayer.
The Rev. Mr. Crowley not only believed the Bible,
but was licensed to expound it. He had been
"called" to the ministry,
and upon his head had
been laid the holy hands; and yet, he
deliberately
starved orphans, and while looking upon their
sunken eyes and hollow cheeks, sung pious hymns
and quoted with great
unction: "Suffer little chil-
"dren to come unto me."
As a
matter of fact, in the last twenty years,
more money has been stolen
by Christian cashiers,
Christian presidents, Christian directors,
Christian
trustees and Christian statesmen, than by all other
convicts in all the penitentiaries in all the Christian
world.
The assassin of Henry the Fourth was a Bible reader
and a Bible
believer. The instigators of the massacre
of St. Bartholomew were
believers in your sacred
Scriptures. The men who invested their money
in the
slave-trade believed themselves filled with the Holy
Ghost, and read with rapture the Psalms of David and
the Sermon on
the Mount. The murderers of Scotch
Presbyterians were believers in
Revelation, and the
134
Presbyterians, when they murdered
others, were also
believers. Nearly every man who expiates a crime
upon the gallows is a believer in the Bible. For a
thousand years,
the daggers of assassination and the
swords of war were blest by
priests—by the believers
in the sacred Scriptures. The assassin
of President
Garfield is a believer in the Bible, a hater of
infidelity,
a believer in personal inspiration, and he expects in a
few weeks to join the winged and redeemed in
heaven.
If a
man would follow, to-day, the teachings of the
Old Testament, he
would be a criminal. If he would
follow strictly the teachings of the
New, he would be
insane.
FOURTH INTERVIEW.
Son. There is no devil.
Mother. I know there is.
Son. How do you know?
Mother. Because they make pictures
that look just
like him.
Son. But, mother—
Mother. Don't "mother" me! You are trying to
disgrace your
parents.
Question. I want to ask you a few questions
about
Mr. Talmage's fourth sermon against you, entitled:
"The
Meanness of Infidelity," in which he compares
you to Jehoiakim, who
had the temerity to throw
some of the writings of the weeping
Jeremiah into
the fire?
Answer. So far as I am
concerned, I really re-
gret that a second edition of Jeremiah's roll
was
gotten out. It would have been far better for us all,
if it
had been left in ashes. There was nothing but
curses and prophecies
of evil, in the sacred roll that
138
Jehoiakim
burned. The Bible tells us that Jehovah
became exceedingly wroth
because of the destruction
of this roll, and pronounced a curse upon
Jehoiakim
and upon Palestine. I presume it was on account of
the
burning of that roll that the king of Babylon
destroyed the chosen
people of God. It was on
account of that sacrilege that the Lord said
of
Jehoiakim: "He shall have none to sit upon the
"throne of
David; and his dead body shall be cast
"out in the day to the heat,
and in the night to the
"frost." Any one can see how much a dead body
would suffer under such circumstances. Imagine an
infinitely wise,
good and powerful God taking ven-
geance on the corpse of a barbarian
king! What
joy there must have been in heaven as the angels
watched the alternate melting and freezing of the
dead body of
Jehoiakim!
Jeremiah was probably the most accomplished
croaker of all time. Nothing satisfied him. He was
a prophetic
pessimist,—an ancient Bourbon. He
was only happy when
predicting war, pestilence and
famine. No wonder Jehoiakim despised
him, and
hated all he wrote.
One can easily see the
character of Jeremiah from
the following occurrence: When the
Babylonians
139
had succeeded in taking Jerusalem,
and in sacking
the city, Jeremiah was unfortunately taken prisoner;
but Captain Nebuzaradan came to Jeremiah, and told
him that he would
let him go, because he had pro-
phesied against his own country. He
was regarded
as a friend by the enemy.
There was, at that
time, as now, the old fight
between the church and the civil power.
Whenever
a king failed to do what the priests wanted, they
immediately prophesied overthrow, disaster, and de-
feat. Whenever
the kings would hearken to their
voice, and would see to it that the
priests had plenty
to eat and drink and wear, then they all declared
that Jehovah would love that king, would let him live
out all his
days, and allow his son to reign in his
stead. It was simply the old
conflict that is still being
waged, and it will be carried on until
universal civil-
ization does away with priestcraft and superstition.
The priests in the days of Jeremiah were the same
as now. They
sought to rule the State. They pre-
tended that, at their request,
Jehovah would withhold
or send the rain; that the seasons were within
their
power; that they with bitter words could blight the
fields
and curse the land with want and death. They
gloried then, as now, in
the exhibition of God's wrath.
140
In prosperity,
the priests were forgotten. Success
scorned them; Famine flattered
them; Health laughed
at them; Pestilence prayed to them; Disaster was
their only friend.
These old prophets prophesied nothing but
evil,
and consequently, when anything bad happened, they
claimed
it as a fulfillment, and pointed with pride to
the fact that they
had, weeks or months, or years
before, foretold something of that
kind. They were
really the originators of the phrase, "I told you
so!"
There was a good old Methodist class-leader that
lived down near a place called Liverpool, on the
Illinois river. In
the spring of 1861 the old man,
telling his experience, among other
things said, that he
had lived there by the river for more than
thirty
years, and he did not believe that a year had passed
that
there were not hundreds of people during the
hunting season shooting
ducks on Sunday; that he
had told his wife thousands of times that no
good
would come of it; that evil would come of it; "And
"now,
said the old man, raising his voice with the
importance of the
announcement, "war is upon us!"
Question. Do you wish,
as Mr. Talmage says, to de-
stroy the Bible—to have all the
copies burned to ashes?
What do you wish to have done with the Bible?
141
Answer. I want the Bible treated exactly as we
treat other books—preserve the good and throw
away the foolish
and the hurtful. I am fighting the
doctrine of inspiration. As long
as it is believed that
the Bible is inspired, that book is the master—no
mind is free. With that belief, intellectual liberty is
impossible.
With that belief, you can investigate
only at the risk of losing your
soul. The Catholics
have a pope. Protestants laugh at them, and yet
the
pope is capable of intellectual advancement. In
addition to
this, the pope is mortal, and the church
cannot be afflicted with the
same idiot forever. The
Protestants have a book for their pope. The
book
cannot advance. Year after year, and century after
century,
the book remains as ignorant as ever. It is
only made better by those
who believe in its inspira-
tion giving better meanings to the words
than their
ancestors did. In this way it may be said that the
Bible grows a little better.
Why should we have a book for a
master? That
which otherwise might be a blessing, remains a curse.
If every copy of the Bible were destroyed, all that is
good in that
book would be reproduced in a single
day. Leave every copy of the
Bible as it is, and
have every human being believe in its
inspiration,
142
and intellectual liberty would
cease to exist. The
whole race, from that moment, would go back to-
ward the night of intellectual death.
The Bible would do more
harm if more people
really believed it, and acted in accordance with
its
teachings. Now and then a Freeman puts the knife
to the
heart of his child. Now and then an assassin
relies upon some sacred
passage; but, as a rule, few
men believe the Bible to be absolutely
true.
There are about fifteen hundred million people in
the world. There are not two million who have read
the Bible through.
There are not two hundred
million who ever saw the Bible. There are
not five
hundred million who ever heard that such a book
exists.
Christianity is claimed to be a religion for all
mankind. It
was founded more than eighteen cen-
turies ago; and yet, not one
human being in three
has ever heard of it. As a matter of fact, for
more
than fourteen centuries and-a-half after the crucifixion
of
Christ, this hemisphere was absolutely unknown.
There was not a
Christian in the world who knew
there was such a continent as ours,
and all the
inhabitants of this, the New World, were deprived
of
the gospel for fourteen centuries and-a-half, and
143
knew nothing of its blessings until they were in-
formed by
Spanish murderers and marauders. Even
in the United States,
Christianity is not keeping pace
with the increase of population.
When we take
into consideration that it is aided by the momentum
of eighteen centuries, is it not wonderful that it is not
to-day
holding its own? The reason of this is, that
we are beginning to
understand the Scriptures. We
are beginningto see, and to see
clearly, that they are
simply of human origin, and that the Bible
bears
the marks of the barbarians who wrote it. The best
educated among the clergy admit that we know but
little as to the
origin of the gospels; that we do not
positively know the author of
one of them; that it is
really a matter of doubt as to who wrote the
five
books attributed to Moses. They admit now, that
Isaiah was
written by more than one person; that
Solomon's Song was not written
by that king; that
Job is, in all probability, not a Jewish book;
that
Ecclesiastes must have been written by a Freethinker,
and
by one who had his doubts about the immortality
of the soul. The best
biblical students of the so-
called orthodox world now admit that
several stories
were united to make the gospel of Saint Luke; that
Hebrews is a selection from many fragments, and
144
that no human being, not afflicted with delirium
tremens, can
understand the book of Revelation.
I am not the only one
engaged in the work of
destruction. Every Protestant who expresses a
doubt
as to the genuineness of a passage, is destroying the
Bible. The gentlemen who have endeavored to treat
hell as a question
of syntax, and to prove that eternal
punishment depends upon grammar,
are helping to
bring the Scriptures into contempt. Hundreds of
years ago, the Catholics told the Protestant world that
it was
dangerous to give the Bible to the people.
The Catholics were right;
the Protestants were
wrong. To read is to think. To think is to
investi-
gate. To investigate is, finally, to deny. That book
should have been read only by priests. Every copy
should have been
under the lock and key of bishop,
cardinal and pope. The common
people should have
received the Bible from the lips of the ministers.
The world should have been kept in ignorance. In
that way, and in
that way only, could the pulpit have
maintained its power. He who
teaches a child
the alphabet sows the seeds of heresy. I have lived
to see the schoolhouse in many a village larger than
the church.
Every man who finds a fact, is the
enemy of theology. Every man who
expresses an
145
honest thought is a soldier in the
army of intellectual
liberty.
Question. Mr. Talmage
thinks that you laugh too
much,—that you exhibit too much
mirth, and that no
one should smile at sacred things?
Answer.
The church has always feared ridicule.
The minister despises
laughter. He who builds upon
ignorance and awe, fears intelligence
and mirth. The
theologians always begin by saying: "Let us be
"solemn." They know that credulity and awe are
twins. They also know
that while Reason is the
pilot of the soul, Humor carries the lamp.
Whoever
has the sense of humor fully developed, cannot, by
any
possibility, be an orthodox theologian. He would
be his own laughing
stock. The most absurd stories,
the most laughable miracles, read in
a solemn, stately
way, sound to the ears of ignorance and awe like
truth. It has been the object of the church for
eighteen hundred
years to prevent laughter.
A smile is the dawn of a doubt.
Ministers are always talking about death, and
coffins, and
dust, and worms,—the cross in this life,
and the fires of
another. They have been the
enemies of human happiness. They hate to
hear
146
even the laughter of children. There seems
to have
been a bond of sympathy between divinity and
dyspepsia,
between theology and indigestion. There
is a certain pious hatred of
pleasure, and those who
have been "born again" are expected to
despise
"the transitory joys of this fleeting life." In this,
they follow the example of their prophets, of whom
they proudly say:
"They never smiled."
Whoever laughs at a holy falsehood, is
called a
"scoffer." Whoever gives vent to his natural feel-
ings
is regarded as a "blasphemer," and whoever
examines the Bible as he
examines other books, and
relies upon his reason to interpret it, is
denounced
as a "reprobate."
Let us respect the truth, let
us laugh at miracles,
and above all, let us be candid with each
other.
'Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have, in
your lectures, satirized your early home; that you
have described
with bitterness the Sundays that were
forced upon you in your youth;
and that in various
ways you have denounced your father as a
"tyrant,"
or a "bigot," or a "fool"?
Answer. I have
described the manner in which
Sunday was kept when I was a boy. My
father for
147
many years regarded the Sabbath as a
sacred day.
We kept Sunday as most other Christians did. I think
that my father made a mistake about that day. I
have no doubt he was
honest about it, and really
believed that it was pleasing to God for
him to keep
the Sabbath as he did.
I think that Sunday
should not be a day of gloom,
of silence and despair, or a day in
which to hear that
the chances are largely in favor of your being
eternally
damned. That day, in my opinion, should be one of
joy;
a day to get acquainted with your wife and
children; a day to visit
the woods, or the sea, or the
murmuring stream; a day to gather
flowers, to visit
the graves of your dead, to read old poems, old
letters, old books; a day to rekindle the fires of
friendship and
love.
Mr. Talmage says that my father was a Christian,
and
he then proceeds to malign his memory. It
seems to me that a living
Christian should at least
tell the truth about one who sleeps the
silent sleep
of death.
I have said nothing, in any of my
lectures, about
my father, or about my mother, or about any of my
relatives. I have not the egotism to bring them
forward. They have
nothing to do with the subject
148
in hand. That my
father was mistaken upon the
subject of religion, I have no doubt. He
was a good,
a brave and honest man. I loved him living, and
I
love him dead. I never said to him an unkind
word, and in my heart
there never was of him an
unkind thought. He was grand enough to say
to
me, that I had the same right to my opinion that he
had to
his. He was great enough to tell me to read
the Bible for myself, to
be honest with myself, and if
after reading it I concluded it was not
the word of
God, that it was my duty to say so.
My mother
died when I was but a child; and from
that day—the darkest of
my life—her memory has
been within my heart a sacred thing, and
I have felt,
through all these years, her kisses on my lips.
I know that my parents—if they are conscious now
—do
not wish me to honor them at the expense of
my manhood. I know that
neither my father nor my
mother would have me sacrifice upon their
graves my
honest thought. I know that I can only please them by
being true to myself, by defending what I believe is
good, by
attacking what I believe is bad. Yet this min-
ister of Christ is
cruel enough, and malicious enough,
to attack the reputation of the
dead. What he says
about my father is utterly and unqualifiedly
false.
149
Right here, it may be well enough for me
to say,
that long before my father died, he threw aside, as
unworthy of a place in the mind of an intelligent
man, the infamous
dogma of eternal fire; that he
regarded with abhorrence many passages
in the Old
Testament; that he believed man, in another world,
would have the eternal opportunity of doing right,
and that the pity
of God would last as long as the
suffering of man. My father and my
mother were
good, in spite of the Old Testament. They were mer-
ciful, in spite of the one frightful doctrine in the New.
They did
not need the religion of Presbyterianism.
Presbyterianism never made
a human being better.
If there is anything that will freeze the
generous
current of the soul, it is Calvinism. If there is any
creed that will destroy charity, that will keep the
tears of pity
from the cheeks of men and women, it
is Presbyterianism. If there is
any doctrine calcu-
lated to make man bigoted, unsympathetic, and
cruel, it is the doctrine of predestination. Neither
my father, nor
my mother, believed in the damnation
of babes, nor in the inspiration
of John Calvin.
Mr. Talmage professes to be a Christian. What
effect has the religion of Jesus Christ had upon him?
Is he the
product—the natural product—of Chris-
150
tianity? Does the real Christian violate the sanctity
of death?
Does the real Christian malign the
memory of the dead? Does the good
Christian
defame unanswering and unresisting dust?
But why
should I expect kindness from a Chris-
tian? Can a minister be
expected to treat with
fairness a man whom his God intends to damn?
If
a good God is going to burn an infidel forever, in
the world
to come, surely a Christian should have
the right to persecute him a
little here.
What right has a Christian to ask anybody to love
his father, or mother, or wife, or child? According
to the gospels,
Christ offered a reward to any one
who would desert his father or his
mother. He
offered a premium to gentlemen for leaving their
wives, and tried to bribe people to abandon their
little children. He
offered them happiness in this
world, and a hundred fold in the next,
if they would
turn a deaf ear to the supplications of a father, the
beseeching cry of a wife, and would leave the out-
stretched arms of
babes. They were not even
allowed to bury their fathers and their
mothers. At
that time they were expected to prefer Jesus to their
wives and children. And now an orthodox minister
says that a man
ought not to express his honest
151
thoughts,
because they do not happen to be in accord
with the belief of his
father or mother.
Suppose Mr. Talmage should read the Bible
care-
fully and without fear, and should come to the honest
conclusion that it is not inspired, what course would
he pursue for
the purpose of honoring his parents?
Would he say, "I cannot tell the
truth, I must lie,
"for the purpose of shedding a halo of glory
around
"the memory of my mother"? Would he say: "Of
"course, my
father and mother would a thousand
"times rather have their son a
hypocritical Christian
"than an honest, manly unbeliever"? This might
please Mr. Talmage, and accord perfectly with his
view, but I prefer
to say, that my father wished me to
be an honest man. If he is in
"heaven" now, I am
sure that he would rather hear me attack the
"inspired" word of God, honestly and bravely, than
to hear me, in the
solemn accents of hypocrisy, defend
what I believe to be untrue.
I may be mistaken in the estimate angels put upon
human beings.
It may be that God likes a pretended
follower better than an honest,
outspoken man—one
who is an infidel simply because he does not
under-
stand this God. But it seems to me, in my unregenerate
condition, touched and tainted as I am by original sin,
152
that a God of infinite power and wisdom ought to be
able to
make a man brave enough to have an opinion
of his own. I cannot
conceive of God taking any
particular pride in any hypocrite he has
ever made.
Whatever he may say through his ministers, or
whatever the angels may repeat, a manly devil
stands higher in my
estimation than an unmanly
angel. I do not mean by this, that there
are any
unmanly angels, neither do I pretend that there
are any
manly devils. My meaning is this: If I have
a Creator, I can only
honor him by being true to
myself, and kind and just to my
fellow-men. If I wish
to shed lustre upon my father and mother, I can
only do so by being absolutely true to myself.
Never will I lay the
wreath of hypocrisy upon the
tombs of those I love.
Mr.
Talmage takes the ground that we must defend
the religious belief of
our parents. He seems to
forget that all parents do not believe
exactly alike,
and that everybody has at least two parents. Now,
suppose that the father is an infidel, and the mother
a Christian,
what must the son do? Must he "drive
"the ploughshare of contempt
through the grave of
"the father," for the purpose of honoring the
mother;
or must he drive the ploughshare through the grave
153
of the mother to honor the father; or must he com-
promise, and talk one way and believe another? If
Mr. Talmage's
doctrine is correct, only persons who
have no knowledge of their
parents can have liberty
of opinion. Foundlings would be the only
free
people. I do not suppose that Mr. Talmage would
go so far
as to say that a child would be bound by
the religion of the person
upon whose door-steps he
was found. If he does not, then over every
foundling
hospital should be these words: "Home of Intel-
"lectual Liberty."
Question. Do you suppose that we will
care
nothing in the next world for those we loved in this?
Is it
worse in a man than in an angel, to care nothing
for his mother?
Answer. According to Mr. Talmage, a man can
be perfectly
happy in heaven, with his mother in hell.
He will be so entranced
with the society of Christ,
that he will not even inquire what has
become of his
wife. The Holy Ghost will keep him in such a state
of happy wonder, of ecstatic joy, that the names,
even, of his
children will never invade his memory.
It may be that I am lacking in
filial affection, but
I would much rather be in hell, with my parents
154
in heaven, than be in heaven with my parents in hell.
I think a thousand times more of my parents than I
do of Christ. They
knew me, they worked for me,
they loved me, and I can imagine no
heaven, no
state of perfect bliss for me, in which they have no
share. If God hates me, because I love them,
I cannot love him.
I cannot truthfully say that I look forward with any
great
degree of joy, to meeting with Haggai and
Habakkuk; with Jeremiah,
Nehemiah, Obadiah,
Zechariah or Zephaniah; with Ezekiel, Micah, or
Malachi; or even with Jonah. From what little
I have read of their
writings, I have not formed a
very high opinion of the social
qualities of these
gentlemen.
I want to meet the persons I
have known; and if
there is another life, I want to meet the really
and
the truly great—men who have been broad enough to
be
tender, and great enough to be kind.
Because I differ with my
parents, because I am
convinced that my father was wrong in some of
his religious opinions, Mr. Talmage insists that I dis-
grace my
parents. How did the Christian religion
commence? Did not the first
disciples advocate
theories that their parents denied? Were they
155
not false,—in his sense of the word,—to
their
fathers and mothers? How could there have been
any
progress in this world, if children had not
gone beyond their
parents? Do you consider that
the inventor of a steel plow cast a
slur upon his
father who scratched the ground with a wooden
one?
I do not consider that an invention by the
son is a slander upon the
father; I regard each
invention simply as an improvement; and every
father should be exceedingly proud of an ingenious
son. If Mr.
Talmage has a son, it will be impossible
for him to honor his father
except by differing with
him.
It is very strange that Mr.
Talmage, a believer in
Christ, should object to any man for not
loving his
mother and his father, when his Master, according
to
the gospel of Saint Luke, says: "If any man
"come to me, and hate not
his father, and mother,
"and wife, and children, and brethren, and
sis-
"ters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
"disciple."
According to this, I have to make my choice be-
tween my wife, my children, and Jesus Christ. I have
concluded to
stand by my folks—both in this world,
and in "the world to
come."
156
Question. Mr. Talmage asks you
whether, in your
judgment, the Bible was a good, or an evil, to your
parents?
Answer. I think it was an evil. The worst thing
about my father was his religion. He would have
been far happier, in
my judgment, without it. I
think I get more real joy out of life than
he did.
He was a man of a very great and tender heart. He
was
continually thinking—for many years of his
life—of the
thousands and thousands going down to
eternal fire. That doctrine
filled his days with
gloom, and his eyes with tears. I think that my
father and mother would have been far happier had
they believed as I
do. How any one can get any
joy out of the Christian religion is past
my compre-
hension. If that religion is true, hundreds of mil-
lions are now in hell, and thousands of millions yet
unborn will be.
How such a fact can form any part
of the "glad tidings of great joy,"
is amazing to me.
It is impossible for me to love a being who would
create countless millions for eternal pain. It is
impossible for me
to worship the God of the Bible,
or the God of Calvin, or the God of
the Westminster
Catechism.
157
Question.
I see that Mr. Talmage challenges you
to read the fourteenth chapter
of Saint John. Are
you willing to accept the challenge; or have you
ever read that chapter?
Answer. I do not claim to be
very courageous,
but I have read that chapter, and am very glad that
Mr. Talmage has called attention to it. According
to the gospels,
Christ did many miracles. He healed
the sick, gave sight to the
blind, made the lame
walk, and raised the dead. In the fourteenth
chapter
of Saint John, twelfth verse, I find the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you: He that believeth
"on me, the
works that I do shall he do also; and
"greater works than these shall
he do, because I go
"unto my Father."
I am willing to
accept that as a true test of a
believer. If Mr. Talmage really
believes in Jesus
Christ, he ought to be able to do at least as great
miracles as Christ is said to have done. Will Mr.
Talmage have the
kindness to read the fourteenth
chapter of John, and then give me
some proof, in
accordance with that chapter, that he is a believer in
Jesus Christ? Will he have the kindness to perform
a miracle?—for
instance, produce a "local flood,"
make a worm to smite a gourd, or
"prepare a fish"?
158
Can he do anything of that
nature? Can he even
cause a "vehement east wind"? What evidence,
according to the Bible, can Mr. Talmage give of his
belief? How does
he prove that he is a Christian?
By hating infidels and maligning
Christians? Let
Mr. Talmage furnish the evidence, according to the
fourteenth chapter of Saint John, or forever after
hold his peace.
He has my thanks for calling my attention to the
fourteenth
chapter of Saint John.
Question. Mr. Talmage charges
that you are at-
tempting to destroy the "chief solace of the world,"
without offering any substitute. How do you answer
this?
Answer. If he calls Christianity the "chief solace
"of the
world," and if by Christianity he means that all
who do not believe
in the inspiration of the Scrip-
tures, and have no faith in Jesus
Christ, are to be
eternally damned, then I admit that I am doing the
best I can to take that "solace" from the human
heart. I do not
believe that the Bible, when prop-
erly understood, is, or ever has
been, a comfort to
any human being. Surely, no good man can be
comforted by reading a book in which he finds that
159
a large majority of mankind have been sentenced to
eternal
fire. In the doctrine of total depravity there
is no "solace." In the
doctrine of "election" there can
be no joy until the returns are in,
and a majority
found for you.
Question. Mr. Talmage
says that you are taking
away the world's medicines, and in place of
anaes-
thetics, in place of laudanum drops, you read an
essay to
the man in pain, on the absurdities of mor-
phine and nervines in
general.
Answer. It is exactly the other way. I say, let
us depend upon morphine, not upon prayer. Do
not send for the
minister—take a little laudanum.
Do not read your Bible,—chloroform
is better. Do
not waste your time listening to meaningless ser-
mons, but take real, genuine soporifics.
I regard the
discoverer of ether as a benefactor.
I look upon every great surgeon
as a blessing to
mankind. I regard one doctor, skilled in his profes-
sion, of more importance to the world than all the
orthodox
ministers.
Mr. Talmage should remember that for hundreds
of years, the church fought, with all its power, the
science of
medicine. Priests used to cure diseases
160
by
selling little pieces of paper covered with cabalistic
marks. They
filled their treasuries by the sale of
holy water. They healed the
sick by relics—the teeth
and ribs of saints, the finger-nails
of departed wor-
thies, and the hair of glorified virgins. Infidelity
said: "Send for the doctor." Theology said: "Stick
"to the priest."
Infidelity,—that is to say, science,—
said: "Vaccinate
him." The priest said: "Pray;—
"I will sell you a charm." The
doctor was regarded
as a man who was endeavoring to take from God his
means of punishment. He was supposed to spike
the artillery of
Jehovah, to wet the powder of the
Almighty, and to steal the flint
from the musket of
heavenly retribution.
Infidelity has
never relied upon essays, it has
never relied upon words, it has
never relied upon
prayers, it has never relied upon angels or gods;
it
has relied upon the honest efforts of men and women.
It has
relied upon investigation, observation, experi-
ence, and above all,
upon human reason.
We, in America, know how much prayers are
worth. We have lately seen millions of people upon
their knees. What
was the result?
In the olden times, when a plague made its ap-
pearance, the people fell upon their knees and died.
161
When pestilence came, they rushed to their ca-
thedrals, they
implored their priests—and died. God
had no pity upon his
ignorant children. At last,
Science came to the rescue. Science,—not
in the
attitude of prayer, with closed eyes, but in the atti-
tude of investigation, with open eyes,—looked for and
discovered some of the laws of health. Science
found that cleanliness
was far better than godliness. It
said: Do not spend your time in
praying;—clean your
houses, clean your streets, clean
yourselves. This pest-
ilence is not a punishment. Health is not
simply a favor
of the gods. Health depends upon conditions, and
when the conditions are violated, disease is inevitable,
and no God
can save you. Health depends upon
your surroundings, and when these
are favorable,
the roses are in your cheeks.
We find in
the Old Testament that God gave
to Moses a thousand directions for
ascertaining
the presence of leprosy. Yet it never occurred
to
this God to tell Moses how to cure the disease.
Within the lids of
the Old Testament, we have no
information upon a subject of such
vital importance
to mankind.
It may, however, be claimed
by Mr. Talmage, that
this statement is a little too broad, and I will
therefore
162
give one recipe that I find in the
fourteenth chapter
of Leviticus:
"Then shall the priest
command to take for him
" that is to be cleansed two birds alive and
clean, and
"cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and the priest
"shall command that one of the birds be killed in an
"earthen vessel
over running water. As for the
"living bird, he shall take it, and
the cedar wood,
"and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them
"and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was
"killed over
the running water. And he shall
"sprinkle upon him that is to be
cleansed from the
"leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him
clean,
"and shall let the living bird loose into the open
"field."
Prophets were predicting evil—filling the
country
with their wails and cries, and yet it never occurred
to
them to tell one solitary thing of the slightest
importance to
mankind. Why did not these inspired
men tell us how to cure some of
the diseases that
have decimated the world? Instead of spending
forty days and forty nights with Moses, telling him
how to build a
large tent, and how to cut the gar-
ments of priests, why did God not
give him a little
useful information in respect to the laws of
health?
163
Mr. Talmage must remember that the
church has
invented no anodynes, no anaesthetics, no medicines,
and has affected no cures. The doctors have not
been inspired. All
these useful things men have
discovered for themselves, aided by no
prophet and
by no divine Savior. Just to the extent that man
has
depended upon the other world, he has failed to
make the best of
this. Just in the proportion that he
has depended on his own efforts,
he has advanced.
The church has always said:
"Consider the
lilies of the field; they toil not,
"neither do they spin." "Take no
thought for the
"morrow." Whereas, the real common sense of this
world has said: "No matter whether lilies toil and
spin, or not, if
you would succeed, you must work;
you must take thought for the
morrow, you must
look beyond the present day, you must provide for
your wife and your children."
What can I be expected to give as
a substitute for
perdition? It is enough to show that it does not
exist. What does a man want in place of a disease?
Health. And what
is better calculated to increase
the happiness of mankind than to
know that the
doctrine of eternal pain is infinitely and absurdly
false?
164
Take theology from the world, and natural
Love
remains, Science is still here, Music will not be lost,
the
page of History will still be open, the walls of
the world will still
be adorned with Art, and the
niches rich with Sculpture.
Take theology from the world, and we all shall
have a common hope,—and
the fear of hell will be
removed from every human heart.
Take theology from the world, and millions of
men will be compelled
to earn an honest living.
Impudence will not tax credulity. The
vampire of
hypocrisy will not suck the blood of honest toil.
Take theology from the world, and the churches
can be schools,
and the cathedrals universities.
Take theology from the world,
and the money
wasted on superstition will do away with want.
Take theology from the world, and every brain
will find itself
without a chain.
There is a vast difference between what is
called
infidelity and theology.
Infidelity is honest. When
it reaches the confines
of reason, it says: "I know no further."
Infidelity does not palm its guess upon an ignorant
world as a
demonstration.
165
Infidelity proves nothing by
slander—establishes
nothing by abuse.
Infidelity has
nothing to hide. It has no "holy
"of holies," except the abode of
truth. It has no
curtain that the hand of investigation has not the
right to draw aside. It lives in the cloudless light,
in the very
noon, of human eyes.
Infidelity has no bible to be blasphemed.
It does
not cringe before an angry God.
Infidelity says to
every man: Investigate for
yourself. There is no punishment for
unbelief.
Infidelity asks no protection from legislatures. It
wants no man fined because he contradicts its doc-
trines.
Infidelity relies simply upon evidence—not evi-
dence of the
dead, but of the living.
Infidelity has no infallible pope. It
relies only
upon infallible fact. It has no priest except the
interpreter of Nature. The universe is its church.
Its bible is
everything that is true. It implores every
man to verify every word
for himself, and it implores
him to say, if he does not believe it,
that he does
not.
Infidelity does not fear contradiction.
It is not
afraid of being laughed at. It invites the scrutiny
166
of all doubters, of all unbelievers. It does not rely
upon awe, but upon reason. It says to the whole
world: It is
dangerous not to think. It is dan-
gerous not to be honest. It is
dangerous not to
investigate. It is dangerous not to follow where
your reason leads.
Infidelity requires every man to judge for
himself.
Infidelity preserves the manhood of man.
Question.
Mr. Talmage also says that you are
trying to put out the light-houses
on the coast of the
next world; that you are "about to leave
everybody
"in darkness at the narrows of death"?
Answer.
There can be no necessity for these
light-houses, unless the God of
Mr. Talmage has
planted rocks and reefs within that unknown sea.
If there is no hell, there is no need of any light-
house on the
shores of the next world; and only
those are interested in keeping up
these pretended
light-houses who are paid for trimming invisible
wicks and supplying the lamps with allegorical oil.
Mr. Talmage is
one of these light-house keepers,
and he knows that if it is
ascertained that the coast
is not dangerous, the light-house will be
abandoned,
and the keeper will have to find employment else-
167
where. As a matter of fact, every church is a use-
less light-house. It warns us only against breakers
that do not
exist. Whenever a mariner tells one of
the keepers that there is no
danger, then all the
keepers combine to destroy the reputation of
that
mariner.
No one has returned from the other world to
tell
us whether they have light-houses on that shore or
not; or
whether the light-houses on this shore—one
of which Mr. Talmage
is tending—have ever sent a
cheering ray across the sea.
Nature has furnished every human being with
a light more or
less brilliant, more or less powerful.
That light is Reason; and he
who blows that light
out, is in utter darkness. It has been the
business of
the church for centuries to extinguish the lamp of the
mind, and to convince the people that their own
reason is utterly
unreliable. The church has asked
all men to rely only upon the light
of the church.
Every priest has been not only a light-house but
a guide-board. He has threatened eternal damna-
tion to all who
travel on some other road. These
guide-boards have been toll-gates,
and the principal
reason why the churches have wanted people to go
their road is, that tolls might be collected. They
168
have regarded unbelievers as the owners of turnpikes
do people
who go 'cross lots. The toll-gate man
always tells you that other
roads are dangerous—
filled with quagmires and quicksands.
Every church is a kind of insurance society, and
proposes, for
a small premium, to keep you from
eternal fire. Of course, the man
who tells you that
there is to be no fire, interferes with the
business,
and is denounced as a malicious meddler and blas-
phemer. The fires of this world sustain the same
relation to
insurance companies that the fires of the
next do to the churches.
Mr. Talmage also insists that I am breaking up the
"life-boats." Why should a ship built by infinite
wisdom, by an
infinite shipbuilder, carry life-boats?
The reason we have life-boats
now is, that we are
not entirely sure of the ship. We know that man
has not yet found out how to make a ship that can
certainly brave all
the dangers of the deep. For this
reason we carry life-boats. But
infinite wisdom must
surely build ships that do not need life-boats.
Is there
to be a wreck at last? Is God's ship to go down in
storm and darkness? Will it be necessary at last to
forsake his ship
and depend upon life-boats?
For my part, I do not wish to be
rescued by a life-
169
boat. When the ship, bearing
the whole world, goes
down, I am willing to go down with it—with
my
wife, with my children, and with those I have loved.
I will
not slip ashore in an orthodox canoe with
somebody else's folks,—I
will stay with my own.
What a picture is presented by the
church! A few
in life's last storm are to be saved; and the saved,
when they reach shore, are to look back with joy
upon the great ship
going down to the eternal depths!
This is what I call the unutterable
meanness of or-
thodox Christianity.
Mr. Talmage speaks of
the "meanness of in-
"fidelity."
The meanness of orthodox
Christianity permits the
husband to be saved, and to be ineffably
happy, while
the wife of his bosom is suffering the tortures of hell.
The meanness of orthodox Christianity tells the
boy that he can
go to heaven and have an eternity
of bliss, and that this bliss will
not even be clouded
by the fact that the mother who bore him writhes
in
eternal pain.
The meanness of orthodox Christianity
allows
a soul to be so captivated with the companionship
of
angels as to forget all the old loves and friend-
ships of this
world.
170
The meanness of orthodox Christianity,
its un-
speakable selfishness, allows a soul in heaven to exult
in the fact of its own salvation, and at the same time
to care
nothing for the damnation of all the rest.
The orthodox
Christian says that if he can only
save his little soul, if he can
barely squeeze into
heaven, if he can only get past Saint Peter's
gate,
if he can by hook or crook climb up the opposite
bank of
Jordan, if he can get a harp in his hand, it
matters not to him what
becomes of brother or
sister, father or mother, wife or child. He is
willing
that they should burn if he can sing.
Oh, the
unutterable meanness of orthodox Chris-
tianity, the infinite
heartlessness of the orthodox
angels, who with tearless eyes will
forever gaze upon
the agonies of those who were once blood of their
blood and flesh of their flesh!
Mr. Talmage describes a picture
of the scourging
of Christ, painted by Rubens, and he tells us that
he was so appalled by this picture—by the sight of
the naked
back, swollen and bleeding—that he could
not have lived had he
continued to look; yet this
same man, who could not bear to gaze upon
a
painted pain, expects to be perfectly happy in heaven,
while
countiess billions of actual—not painted—men,
171
women, and children writhe—not in a pictured flame,
but
in the real and quenchless fires of hell.
Question. Mr.
Talmage also claims that we are
indebted to Christianity for schools,
colleges, univer-
sities, hospitals and asylums?
Answer.
This shows that Mr. Talmage has not
read the history of the world.
Long before Chris-
tianity had a place, there were vast libraries.
There
were thousands of schools before a Christian existed
on
the earth. There were hundreds of hospitals
before a line of the New
Testament was written.
Hundreds of years before Christ, there were
hospitals
in India,—not only for men, women and children, but
even for beasts. There were hospitals in Egypt long
before Moses was
born. They knew enough then
to cure insanity with music. They
surrounded the
insane with flowers, and treated them with kindness.
The great libraries at Alexandria were not Chris-
tian. The
most intellectual nation of the Middle
Ages was not Christian. While
Christians were
imprisoning people for saying that the earth is
round,
the Moors in Spain were teaching geography with
globes.
They had even calculated the circumference
of the earth by the tides
of the Red Sea.
Where did education come from? For a thousand
172
years Christianity destroyed books and paintings and
statues. For a thousand years Christianity was filled
with hatred
toward every effort of the human mind.
We got paper from the Moors.
Printing had been
known thousands of years before, in China. A few
manuscripts, containing a portion of the literature of
Greece, a few
enriched with the best thoughts of
the Roman world, had been
preserved from the
general wreck and ruin wrought by Christian hate.
These became the seeds of intellectual progress.
For a thousand years
Christianity controlled Europe.
The Mohammedans were far in advance
of the
Christians with hospitals and asylums and institutions
of
learning.
Just in proportion that we have done away with
what is known as orthodox Christianity, humanity
has taken its place.
Humanity has built all the asy-
lums, all the hospitals. Humanity,
not Christianity,
has done these things. The people of this country
are all willing to be taxed that the insane may be
cared for, that
the sick, the helpless, and the desti-
tute may be provided for, not
because they are
Christians, but because they are humane; and they
are not humane because they are Christians.
The colleges of
this country have been poisoned by
173
theology, and
their usefulness almost destroyed. Just
in proportion that they have
gotten from ecclesiastical
control, they have become a good. That
college, to-
day, which has the most religion has the least true
learning; and that college which is the nearest free,
does the most
good. Colleges that pit Moses against
modern geology, that undertake
to overthrow the
Copernican system by appealing to Joshua, have
done, and are doing, very little good in this world.
Suppose
that in the first century Pagans had said
to Christians: Where are
your hospitals, where are
your asylums, where are your works of
charity, where
are your colleges and universities?
The
Christians undoubtedly would have replied:
We have not been in power.
There are but few
of us. We have been persecuted to that degree
that it has been about as much as we could do to
maintain ourselves.
Reasonable Pagans would have regarded such an
answer as
perfectly satisfactory. Yet that question
could have been asked of
Christianity after it had
held the reins of power for a thousand
years, and
Christians would have been compelled to say: We
have
no universities, we have no colleges, we have
no real asylums.
174
The Christian now asks of the atheist: Where
is
your asylum, where is your hospital, where is your
university? And
the atheist answers: There have
been but few atheists. The world is
not yet suffi-
ciently advanced to produce them. For hundreds
and hundreds of years, the minds of men have been
darkened by the
superstitions of Christianity. Priests
have thundered against human
knowledge, have de-
nounced human reason, and have done all within
their power to prevent the real progress of mankind.
You must
also remember that Christianity has
made more lunatics than it ever
provided asylums
for. Christianity has driven more men and women
crazy than all other religions combined. Hundreds
and thousands and
millions have lost their reason in
contemplating the monstrous
falsehoods of Chris-
tianity. Thousands of mothers, thinking of their
sons in hell—thousands of fathers, believing their
boys and
girls in perdition, have lost their reason.
So, let it be
distinctly understood, that Christianity
has made ten lunatics—twenty—one
hundred—
where it has provided an asylum for one.
Mr. Talmage also speaks of the hospitals. When
we take into
consideration the wars that have been
waged on account of religion,
the countless thou-
175
sands who have been maimed
and wounded, through
all the years, by wars produced by theology—then
I
say that Christianity has not built hospitals enough
to take
care of her own wounded—not enough to
take care of one in a
hundred. Where Christianity
has bound up the wounds of one, it has
pierced the
bodies of a hundred others with sword and spear,
with bayonet and ball. Where she has provided
one bed in a hospital,
she has laid away a hundred
bodies in bloody graves.
Of
course I do not expect the church to do
anything but beg. Churches
produce nothing. They
are like the lilies of the field. "They toil
not, neither
"do they spin, yet Solomon in all his glory was not
"arrayed like most of them."
The churches raise no corn nor
wheat. They
simply collect tithes. They carry the alms' dish.
They pass the plate. They take toll. Of course
a mendicant is not
expected to produce anything.
He does not support,—he is
supported. The church
does not help. She receives, she devours, she
consumes, and she produces only discord. She ex-
changes mistakes for
provisions, faith for food,
prayers for pence. The church is a
beggar. But we
have this consolation: In this age of the world, this
176
beggar is not on horseback, and even the walking is
not good.
Question. Mr. Talmage says that infidels have
done no good?
Answer. Well, let us see. In the first
place,
what is an "infidel"? He is simply a man in advance
of
his time. He is an intellectual pioneer. He is
the dawn of a new day.
He is a gentleman with an
idea of his own, for which he gave no
receipt to the
church. He is a man who has not been branded as
the property of some one else. An "infidel" is one
who has made a
declaration of independence. In
other words, he is a man who has had
a doubt. To
have a doubt means that you have thought upon
the
subject—that you have investigated the question;
and he who
investigates any religion will doubt.
All the advance that has
been made in the religious
world has been made by "infidels," by
"heretics,"
by "skeptics," by doubters,—that is to say, by
thoughtful men. The doubt does not come from the
ignorant members of
your congregations. Heresy is
not born of stupidity,—it is not
the child of the brain-
less. He who is so afraid of hurting the
reputation
of his father and mother that he refuses to advance,
177
is not a "heretic." The "heretic" is not true to
falsehood. Orthodoxy is. He who stands faithfully
by a mistake is
"orthodox." He who, discovering
that it is a mistake, has the courage
to say so, is an
"infidel."
An infidel is an intellectual
discoverer—one who
finds new isles, new continents, in the vast
realm of
thought. The dwellers on the orthodox shore de-
nounce
this brave sailor of the seas as a buccaneer.
And yet we are
told that the thinkers of new
thoughts have never been of value to
the world.
Voltaire did more for human liberty than all the
orthodox ministers living and dead. He broke a
thousand times more
chains than Luther. Luther
simply substituted his chain for that of
the Catholics.
Voltaire had none. The Encyclopaedists of France
did more for liberty than all the writers upon theology.
Bruno did
more for mankind than millions of "be-
"lievers." Spinoza contributed
more to the growth
of the human intellect than all the orthodox
theolo-
gians.
Men have not done good simply because they
have
believed this or that doctrine. They have done good
in the
intellectual world as they have thought and
secured for others the
liberty to think and to ex-
178
press their
thoughts. They have done good in the
physical world by teaching their
fellows how to
triumph over the obstructions of nature. Every
man who has taught his fellow-man to think, has
been a benefactor.
Every one who has supplied his
fellow-men with facts, and insisted
upon their right
to think, has been a blessing to his kind.
Mr. Talmage, in order to show what Christians
have done, points
us to Whitefield, Luther, Oberlin,
Judson, Martyn, Bishop Mcllvaine
and Hannah
More. I would not for one moment compare George
Whitefield with the inventor of movable type, and
there is no
parallel between Frederick Oberlin and
the inventor of paper; not the
slightest between
Martin Luther and the discoverer of the New World;
not the least between Adoniram Judson and the in-
ventor of the
reaper, nor between Henry Martyn
and the discoverer of photography.
Of what use to
the world was Bishop Mcllvaine, compared with
the
inventor of needles? Of what use were a
hundred such priests compared
with the inventor
of matches, or even of clothes-pins? Suppose that
Hannah More had never lived? about the same
number would read her
writings now. It is hardly fair
to compare her with the inventor of
the steamship?
179
The progress of the world—its
present improved
condition—can be accounted for only by the
discov-
eries of genius, only by men who have had the
courage to
express their honest thoughts.
After all, the man who invented
the telescope
found out more about heaven than the closed eyes of
prayer had ever discovered. I feel absolutely certain
that the
inventor of the steam engine was a greater
benefactor to mankind than
the writer of the Presby-
terian creed. I may be mistaken, but I
think that
railways have done more to civilize mankind, than any
system of theology. I believe that the printing press
has done more
for the world than the pulpit. It is
my opinion that the discoveries
of Kepler did a
thousand times more to enlarge the minds of men
than the prophecies of Daniel. I feel under far
greater obligation to
Humboldt than to Haggai.
The inventor of the plow did more good than
the
maker of the first rosary—because, say what you
will,
plowing is better than praying; we can live by
plowing without
praying, but we can not live by
praying without plowing. So I put my
faith in the
plow.
As Jehovah has ceased to make garments
for his
children,—as he has stopped making coats of skins,
180
I have great respect for the inventors of the
spinning-
jenny and the sewing machine. As no more laws
are
given from Sinai, I have admiration for the real
statesmen. As
miracles have ceased, I rely on
medicine, and on a reasonable
compliance with the
conditions of health.
I have infinite
respect for the inventors, the
thinkers, the discoverers, and above
all, for the un-
known millions who have, without the hope of fame,
lived and labored for the ones they loved.
FIFTH
INTERVIEW.
Parson. You had belter join the church;
it is
the safer way.
Sinner. I can't live up to your
doctrines, and you
know it.
Parson. Well, you can come as
near it in the
church as out; and forgiveness
will be
easier if you join us.
Sinner. What do you mean by that?
Parson. I will tell you. If you join the church,
and happen to
back-slide now and then, Christ will
say to his Father: "That man is
a "friend of mine,
and you may charge his account to me."
Question. What have you to say about the
fifth sermon of
the Rev. Mr. Talmage in reply
to you?
Answer. The
text from which he preached is:
"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles?"
I am compelled to answer these questions in the
negative. That is one reason why I am an infidel.
I do not believe
that anybody can gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles. That
is exactly my doctrine.
But the doctrine of the church is, that you
can. The
184
church says, that just at the last, no
matter if you
have spent your whole life in raising thorns and
thistles,
in planting and watering and hoeing and plowing
thorns
and thistles—that just at the last, if you will
repent, between
hoeing the last thistle and taking the
last breath, you can reach out
the white and palsied
hand of death and gather from every thorn a
cluster
of grapes and from every thistle an abundance of
figs.
The church insists that in this way you can
gather enough grapes and
figs to last you through all
eternity.
My doctrine is,
that he who raises thorns must
harvest thorns. If you sow thorns, you
must reap
thorns; and there is no way by which an innocent
being
can have the thorns you raise thrust into his
brow, while you gather
his grapes.
But Christianity goes even further than this. It
insists that a man can plant grapes and gather thorns.
Mr. Talmage
insists that, no matter how good you
are, no matter how kind, no
matter how much you
love your wife and children, no matter how many
self-denying acts you do, you will not be allowed to
eat of the
grapes you raise; that God will step be-
tween you and the natural
consequences of your
goodness, and not allow you to reap what you
sow.
185
Mr. Talmage insists, that if you have no
faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ, although you have been good
here, you will reap eternal pain as your harvest; that
the effect of
honesty and kindness will not be peace
and joy, but agony and pain.
So that the church
does insist not only that you can gather grapes
from
thorns, but thorns from grapes.
I believe exactly the
other way. If a man is a
good man here, dying will not change him,
and he
will land on the shore of another world—if there is
one—the same good man that he was when he left
this; and I do
not believe there is any God in this
universe who can afford to damn
a good man. This
God will say to this man: You loved your wife,
your children, and your friends, and I love you.
You treated others
with kindness; I will treat you
in the same way. But Mr. Talmage
steps up to
his God, nudges his elbow, and says: Although he
was
a very good man, he belonged to no church;
he was a blasphemer; he
denied the whale story, and
after I explained that Jonah was only in
the whale's
mouth, he still denied it; and thereupon Mr. Tal-
mage expects that his infinite God will fly in a
passion, and in a
perfect rage will say: What! did
he deny that story? Let him be
eternally damned!
186
Not only this, but Mr. Talmage
insists that a man
may have treated his wife like a wild beast; may
have
trampled his child beneath the feet of his rage; may
have
lived a life of dishonesty, of infamy, and yet,
having repented on
his dying bed, having made his
peace with God through the
intercession of his Son,
he will be welcomed in heaven with shouts of
joy.
I deny it. I do not believe that angels can be so
quickly
made from rascals. I have but little confi-
dence in repentance
without restitution, and a hus-
band who has driven a wife to
insanity and death by
his cruelty—afterward repenting and
finding himself
in heaven, and missing his wife,—were he worthy
to
be an angel, would wander through all the gulfs of
hell until
he clasped her once again..
Now, the next question is, What
must be done with
those who are sometimes good and sometimes bad?
That is my condition. If there is another world, I
expect to have the
same opportunity of behaving
myself that I have here. If, when I get
there, I fail
to act as I should, I expect to reap what I sow. If,
when I arrive at the New Jerusalem, I go into the
thorn business, I
expect to harvest what I plant. If
I am wise enough to start a
vineyard, I expect to
have grapes in the early fall. But if I do
there as I
187
have done here—plant some
grapes and some thorns,
and harvest them together—I expect to
fare very
much as I have fared here. But I expect year by
year
to grow wiser, to plant fewer thorns every
spring, and more grapes.
Question. Mr. Talmage charges that you have
taken the
ground that the Bible is a cruel book, and
has produced cruel people?
Answer. Yes, I have taken that ground, and I
maintain
it. The Bible was produced by cruel people,
and in its turn it has
produced people like its authors.
The extermination of the Canaanites
was cruel.
Most of the laws of Moses were bloodthirsty and
cruel. Hundreds of offences were punishable by
death, while now, in
civilized countries, there are only
two crimes for which the
punishment is capital. I
charge that Moses and Joshua and David and
Samuel
and Solomon were cruel. I believe that to read and
believe the Old Testament naturally makes a man
careless of human
life. That book has produced
hundreds of religious wars, and it has
furnished the
battle-cries of bigotry for fifteen hundred years.
The Old Testament is filled with cruelty, but its
cruelty stops
with this world, its malice ends with
188
death;
whenever its victim has reached the grave,
revenge is satisfied. Not
so with the New Testament.
It pursues its victim forever. After
death, comes
hell; after the grave, the worm that never dies. So
that, as a matter of fact, the New Testament is in-
finitely more
cruel than the Old.
Nothing has so tended to harden the human
heart
as the doctrine of eternal punishment, and that
passage:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be
"saved, and he that
believeth not shall be damned,"
has shed more blood than all the
other so-called
"sacred books" of all this world.
I insist
that the Bible is cruel. The Bible invented
instruments of torture.
The Bible laid the foundations
of the Inquisition. The Bible
furnished the fagots and
the martyrs. The Bible forged chains not
only for the
hands, but for the brains of men. The Bible was at
the bottom of the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
Every man who has been
persecuted for religion's
sake has been persecuted by the Bible. That
sacred
book has been a beast of prey.
The truth is,
Christians have been good in spite of
the Bible. The Bible has lived
upon the reputations of
good men and good women,—men and women
who
were good notwithstanding the brutality they found
189
upon the inspired page. Men have said: "My mother
"believed in the Bible; my mother was good; there-
"fore, the Bible
is good," when probably the mother
never read a chapter in it.
The Bible produced the Church of Rome, and
Torquemada was a
product of the Bible. Philip of
Spain and the Duke of Alva were
produced by the
Bible. For thirty years Europe was one vast battle-
field, and the war was produced by the Bible. The re-
vocation of the
Edict of Nantes was produced by the
sacred Scriptures. The
instruments of torture—the
pincers, the thumb-screws, the
racks, were produced
by the word of God. The Quakers of New England
were whipped and burned by the Bible—their children
were stolen
by the Bible. The slave-ship had for its
sails the leaves of the
Bible. Slavery was upheld in
the United States by the Bible. The
Bible was the
auction-block. More than this, worse than this,
infinitely beyond the computation of imagination, the
despotisms of
the old world all rested and still rest
upon the Bible. "The powers
that be" were sup-
posed to have been "ordained of God;" and he who
rose against his king periled his soul.
In this connection, and
in order to show the state
of society when the church had entire
control of civil
190
and ecclesiastical affairs, it
may be well enough to
read the following, taken from the New York
Sun of
March 21, 1882. From this little extract, it will be
easy in the imagination to re-organize the government
that then
existed, and to see clearly the state of so-
ciety at that time. This
can be done upon the same
principle that one scale tells of the
entire fish, or one
bone of the complete animal:
"From
records in the State archives of Hesse-
"Darmstadt, dating back to
the thirteenth century,
"it appears that the public executioner's fee
for boiling
"a criminal in oil was twenty-four florins; for decapi-
"tating with the sword, fifteen florins and-a-half; for
"quartering,
the same; for breaking on the wheel,
"five florins, thirty kreuzers;
for tearing a man to
"pieces, eighteen florins. Ten florins per head
was
"his charge for hanging, and he burned delinquents
"alive at
the rate of fourteen florins apiece. For ap-
"plying the 'Spanish
boot' his fee was only two
"florins. Five florins were paid to him
every time he
"subjected a refractory witness to the torture of the
"rack. The same amount was his due for 'branding
"'the sign of the
gallows with a red-hot iron upon
"'the back, forehead, or cheek of a
thief,' as well as
"for 'cutting off the nose and ears of a slanderer
or
191
"'blasphemer.' Flogging with rods was a cheap
"punishment, its remuneration being fixed at three
"florins, thirty
kreuzers."
The Bible has made men cruel. It is a cruel book.
And yet, amidst its thorns, amidst its thistles, amidst
its nettles
and its swords and pikes, there are some
flowers, and these I wish,
in common with all good
men, to save.
I do not believe
that men have ever been made
merciful in war by reading the Old
Testament. I do
not believe that men have ever been prompted to
break the chain of a slave by reading the Pentateuch.
The question is
not whether Florence Nightingale and
Miss Dix were cruel. I have said
nothing about
John Howard, nothing about Abbott Lawrence.
I say
nothing about people in this connection. The
question is: Is the
Bible a cruel book? not: Was
Miss Nightingale a cruel woman? There
have been
thousands and thousands of loving, tender and char-
itable Mohammedans. Mohammedan mothers love
their children as well as
Christian mothers can.
Mohammedans have died in defence of the Koran—
died for the honor of an impostor. There were
millions of charitable
people in India—millions in
Egypt—and I am not sure that
the world has ever
192
produced people who loved one
another better than
the Egyptians.
I think there are many
things in the Old Testament
calculated to make man cruel. Mr. Talmage
asks:
"What has been the effect upon your children? As
"they
have become more and more fond of the
"Scriptures have they become
more and more fond
"of tearing off the wings of flies and pinning
grass-
"hoppers and robbing birds' nests?"
I do not
believe that reading the bible would make
them tender toward flies or
grasshoppers. According
to that book, God used to punish animals for
the
crimes of their owners. He drowned the animals in
a flood.
He visited cattle with disease. He bruised
them to death with
hailstones—killed them by the
thousand. Will the reading of
these things make
children kind to animals? So, the whole system of
sacrifices in the Old Testament is calculated to harden
the heart.
The butchery of oxen and lambs, the killing
of doves, the perpetual
destruction of life, the con-
tinual shedding of blood—these
things, if they have
any tendency, tend only to harden the heart of
child-
hood.
The Bible does not stop simply with the
killing of
animals. The Jews were commanded to kill their
193
neighbors—not only the men, but the women; not
only the women, but the babes. In accordance with
the command of God,
the Jews killed not only their
neighbors, but their own brothers; and
according to
this book, which is the foundation, as Mr. Talmage
believes, of all mercy, men were commanded to kill
their wives
because they differed with them on the
subject of religion.
Nowhere in the world can be found laws more un-
just and cruel
than in the Old Testament.
Question. Mr. Talmage wants
you to tell where
the cruelty of the Bible crops out in the lives of
Chris-
tians?
Answer. In the first place, millions
of Christians
have been persecutors. Did they get the idea of
persecution from the Bible? Will not every honest
man admit that the
early Christians, by reading the
Old Testament, became convinced that
it was not
only their privilege, but their duty, to destroy heathen
nations? Did they not, by reading the same book,
come to the
conclusion that it was their solemn duty
to extirpate heresy and
heretics? According to the
New Testament, nobody could be saved
unless he
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. The early Chris-
194
tians believed this dogma. They also believed that
they had a right to defend themselves and their
children from
"heretics."
We all admit that a man has a right to defend his
children against the assaults of a would-be murderer,
and he has the
right to carry this defence to the
extent of killing the assailant.
If we have the right
to kill people who are simply trying to kill the
bodies
of our children, of course we have the right to kill
them
when they are endeavoring to assassinate, not
simply their bodies,
but their souls. It was in this
way Christians reasoned. If the
Testament is right,
their reasoning was correct. Whoever believes the
New Testament literally—whoever is satisfied that it
is
absolutely the word of God, will become a perse-
cutor. All religious
persecution has been, and is, in
exact harmony with the teachings of
the Old and
New Testaments. Of course I mean with some of
the
teachings. I admit that there are passages in
both the Old and New
Testaments against persecu-
tion. These are passages quoted only in
time of
peace. Others are repeated to feed the flames of
war.
I find, too, that reading the Bible and believing the
Bible do
not prevent even ministers from telling false-
195
hoods about their opponents. I find that the Rev.
Mr. Talmage is
willing even to slander the dead,—
that he is willing to stain
the memory of a Christian,
and that he does not hesitate to give
circulation
to what he knows to be untrue. Mr. Talmage
has
himself, I believe, been the subject of a church
trial. How many of
the Christian witnesses against
him, in his judgment, told the truth?
Yet they were
all Bible readers and Bible believers. What effect, in
his judgment, did the reading of the Bible have upon
his enemies? Is
he willing to admit that the testi-
mony of a Bible, reader and
believer is true? Is he
willing to accept the testimony even of
ministers?
—of his brother ministers? Did reading the Bible
make them bad people? Was it a belief in the Bible
that colored their
testimony? Or, was it a belief in
the Bible that made Mr. Talmage
deny the truth of
their statements?
Question. Mr.
Talmage charges you with having
said that the Scriptures are a
collection of polluted
writings?
Answer. I have
never said such a thing. I have
said, and I still say, that there are
passages in the
Bible unfit to be read—passages that never
should
196
have been written—passages, whether
inspired or
uninspired, that can by no possibility do any human
being any good. I have always admitted that there
are good passages
in the Bible—many good, wise
and just laws—many things
calculated to make men
better—many things calculated to make
men worse.
I admit that the Bible is a mixture of good and bad,
of truth and falsehood, of history and fiction, of sense
and
nonsense, of virtue and vice, of aspiration and
revenge, of liberty
and tyranny.
I have never said anything against Solomon's
Song. I like it better than I do any book that pre-
cedes it, because
it touches upon the human. In the
desert of murder, wars of
extermination, polygamy,
concubinage and slavery, it is an oasis
where the
trees grow, where the birds sing, and where human
love
blossoms and fills the air with perfume. I do
not regard that book as
obscene. There are many
things in it that are beautiful and tender,
and it is
calculated to do good rather than harm.
Neither
have I any objection to the book of Eccle-
siastes—except a few
interpolations in it. That book
was written by a Freethinker, by a
philosopher.
There is not the slightest mention of God in it, nor
of another state of existence. All portions in which
197
God is mentioned are interpolations. With some of
this book I
agree heartily. I believe in the doctrine
of enjoying yourself, if
you can, to-day. I think it
foolish to spend all your years in
heaping up treas-
ures, not knowing but he who will spend them is to
be an idiot. I believe it is far better to be happy with
your wife
and child now, than to be miserable here,
with angelic expectations
in some other world.
Mr. Talmage is mistaken when he supposes
that all
Bible believers have good homes, that all Bible readers
are kind in their families. As a matter of fact, nearly all
the
wife-whippers of the United States are orthodox.
Nine-tenths of the
people in the penitentiaries are
believers. Scotland is one of the
most orthodox
countries in the world, and one of the most intem-
perate. Hundreds and hundreds of women are
arrested every year in
Glasgow for drunkenness.
Visit the Christian homes in the
manufacturing dis-
tricts of England. Talk with the beaters of
children
and whippers of wives, and you will find them be-
lievers. Go into what is known as the "Black
"Country," and you will
have an idea of the Chris-
tian civilization of England.
Let me tell you something about the "Black
"Country." There women
work in iron; there women
198
do the work of men.
Let me give you an instance:
A commission was appointed by Parliament
to ex-
amine into the condition of the women in the "Black
"Country," and a report was made. In that report
I read the
following:
"A superintendent of a brickyard where women
"were engaged in carrying bricks from the yard to
"the kiln, said to
one of the women:
"'Eliza, you don't appear to be very uppish
this
"morning.'"
"'Neither would you be very uppish, sir,'
she re-
"plied, 'if you had had a child last night.'"
This
gives you an idea of the Christian civilization
of England.
England and Ireland produce most of the prize-
fighters. The
scientific burglar is a product of Great
Britain. There is not the
great difference that Mr.
Talmage supposes, between the morality of
Pekin
and of New York. I doubt if there is a city in
the world
with more crime according to the population
than New York, unless it
be London, or it may be
Dublin, or Brooklyn, or possibly Glasgow,
where
a man too pious to read a newspaper published on
Sunday,
stole millions from the poor.
I do not believe there is a
country in the world
199
where there is more robbery
than in Christian lands—
no country where more cashiers are
defaulters, where
more presidents of banks take the money of
depositors,
where there is more adulteration of food, where
fewer ounces make a pound, where fewer inches make
a yard, where
there is more breach of trust, more
respectable larceny under the
name of embezzlement,
or more slander circulated as gospel.
Question. Mr. Talmage insists that there are no
contradictions in the Bible—that it is a perfect har-
mony from
Genesis to Revelation—a harmony as
perfect as any piece of
music ever written by
Beethoven or Handel?
Answer.
Of course, if God wrote it, the Bible
ought to be perfect. I do not
see why a minister
should be so perfectly astonished to find that an
inspired book is consistent with itself throughout.
Yet the truth is,
the Bible is infinitely inconsistent.
Compare the two systems—the
system of Jehovah
and that of Jesus. In the Old Testament the
doctrine
of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was
taught. In the New Testament, "forgive your
"enemies," and "pray for
those who despitefully
"use you and persecute you." In the Old
Testament
200
it is kill, burn, massacre, destroy;
in the New forgive.
The two systems are inconsistent, and one is just
about as far wrong as the other. To live for and
thirst for revenge,
to gloat over the agony of an
enemy, is one extreme; to "resist not
evil" is the
other extreme; and both these extremes are equally
distant from the golden mean of justice.
The four gospels do
not even agree as to the terms
of salvation. And yet, Mr. Talmage
tells us that
there are four cardinal doctrines taught in the Bible—
the goodness of God, the fall of man, the sympathetic
and forgiving
nature of the Savior, and two desti-
nies—one for believers and
the other for unbelievers.
That is to say:
1. That God is
good, holy and forgiving.
2. That man is a lost sinner.
3. That Christ is "all sympathetic," and ready to
take the
whole world to his heart.
4. Heaven for believers and hell for
unbelievers.
First. I admit that the Bible says that God
is
good and holy. But this Bible also tells what God
did,
and if God did what the Bible says he did, then I
insist that God is
not good, and that he is not holy,
or forgiving. According to the
Bible, this good
God believed in religious persecution; this good
201
God believed in extermination, in polygamy, in con-
cubinage, in human slavery; this good God com-
manded murder and
massacre, and this good God
could only be mollified by the shedding
of blood.
This good God wanted a butcher for a priest. This
good
God wanted husbands to kill their wives—
wanted fathers and
mothers to kill their children.
This good God persecuted animals on
account of the
crimes of their owners. This good God killed the
common people because the king had displeased him.
This good God
killed the babe even of the maid
behind the mill, in order that he
might get even with
a king. This good God committed every possible
crime.
Second. The statement that man is a lost sinner
is not true. There are thousands and thousands of
magnificent Pagans—men
ready to die for wife, or
child, or even for friend, and the history
of Pagan
countries is filled with self-denying and heroic acts.
If man is a failure, the infinite God, if there be one,
is to blame.
Is it possible that the God of Mr. Tal-
mage could not have made man
a success? Accord-
ing to the Bible, his God made man knowing that in
about fifteen hundred years he would have to drown
all his
descendants.
202
Why would a good God create a man
that he
knew would be a sinner all his life, make hundreds
of
thousands of his fellow-men unhappy, and who at
last would be doomed
to an eternity of suffering?
Can such a God be good? How could a
devil have
done worse?
Third. If God is infinitely
good, is he not fully as
sympathetic as Christ? Do you have to employ
Christ to mollify a being of infinite mercy? Is Christ
any more
willing to take to his heart the whole world
than his Father is?
Personally, I have not the
slightest objection in the world to
anybody believing
in an infinitely good and kind God—not the
slightest
objection to any human being worshiping an infi-
nitely tender and merciful Christ—not the slightest
objection
to people preaching about heaven, or about
the glories of the future
state—not the slightest.
Fourth. I object to the
doctrine of two destinies
for the human race. I object to the
infamous false-
hood of eternal fire. And yet, Mr. Talmage is en-
deavoring to poison the imagination of men, women
and children with
the doctrine of an eternal hell.
Here is what he preaches, taken from
the "Constitu-
"tion of the Presbyterian Church of the United
"States:"
203
"By the decrees of God, for the
manifestation of
"his glory, some men and angels are predestinated
"to everlasting life, and others foreordained to ever-
"lasting
death."
That is the doctrine of Mr. Talmage. He wor-
ships
a God who damns people "for the manifesta-
"tion of his glory,"—a
God who made men, knowing
that they would be damned—a God who
damns
babes simply to increase his reputation with the
angels.
This is the God of Mr. Talmage. Such a
God I abhor, despise and
execrate.
Question. What does Mr. Talmage think of man-
kind? What is his opinion of the "unconverted"?
How does he regard
the great and glorious of the
earth, who have not been the victims of
his particular
superstition? What does he think of some of the
best the earth has produced?
Answer. I will tell you how
he looks upon all
such. Read this from his "Confession of Faith:"
"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety
"of the
tempter, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.
"By this sin, they
fell from their original righteous-
"ness and communion with God, and
so became
"dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties
204
"and parts of soul and body; and they being the
"root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was
"imputed, and the
same death in sin and corrupted
"nature conveyed to all their
posterity. From this
"original corruption—whereby we are
utterly indis-
"posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,
"and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual
"transgressions."
This is Mr. Talmage's view of humanity.
Why did his God make a devil? Why did he
allow the devil to
tempt Adam and Eve? Why did
he leave innocence and ignorance at the
mercy of
subtlety and wickedness? Why did he put "the
"tree of
the knowledge of good and evil" in the
garden? For what reason did he
place temptation
in the way of his children? Was it kind, was it
just,
was it noble, was it worthy of a good God? No
wonder
Christ put into his prayer: "Lead us not
"into temptation."
At the time God told Adam and Eve not to eat,
why did he not
tell them of the existence of Satan?
Why were they not put upon their
guard against the
serpent? Why did not God make his appearance
just before the sin, instead of just after. Why did
he not play the
role of a Savior instead of that of a
205
detective?
After he found that Adam and Eve had
sinned—knowing as he did
that they were then
totally corrupt—knowing that all their
children
would be corrupt, knowing that in fifteen hundred
years
he would have to drown millions of them, why
did he not allow Adam
and Eve to perish in accord-
ance with natural law, then kill the
devil, and make a
new pair?
When the flood came, why did
he not drown all?
Why did he save for seed that which was "perfectly
"and thoroughly corrupt in all its parts and facul-
"ties"? If God
had drowned Noah and his sons
and their families, he could have then
made a new
pair, and peopled the world with men not "wholly
"defiled in all their faculties and parts of soul and
"body."
Jehovah learned nothing by experience. He per-
sisted in his
original mistake. What would we think
of a man who finding that a
field of wheat was
worthless, and that such wheat never could be
raised with profit, should burn all of the field with the
exception
of a few sheaves, which he saved for seed?
Why save such seed? Why
should God have pre-
served Noah, knowing that he was totally
corrupt,
and that he would again fill the world with infamous
206
people—people incapable of a good action? He
must have known at that time, that by preserving
Noah, the Canaanites
would be produced, that these
same Canaanites would have to be
murdered, that
the babes in the cradles would have to be strangled.
Why did he produce them? He knew at that time,
that Egypt would
result from the salvation of Noah,
that the Egyptians would have to
be nearly de-
stroyed, that he would have to kill their first-born,
that he would have to visit even their cattle with
disease and
hailstones. He knew also that the
Egyptians would oppress his chosen
people for two
hundred and fifteen years, that they would upon the
back of toil inflict the lash. Why did he preserve
Noah? He should
have drowned all, and started
with a new pair. He should have warned
them
against the devil, and he might have succeeded, in
that
way, in covering the world with gentlemen and
ladies, with real men
and real women.
We know that most of the people now in the
world are not Christians. Most who have heard the
gospel of Christ
have rejected it, and the Presby-
terian Church tells us what is to
become of all these
people. This is the "glad tidings of great joy."
Let us see:
207
"All mankind, by their fall, lost
communion with
"God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made
"liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself,
"and to
the pains of hell forever."
According to this good Presbyterian
doctrine, all
that we suffer in this world, is the result of Adam's
fall. The babes of to-day suffer for the crime of the
first parents.
Not only so; but God is angry at us
for what Adam did. We are under
the wrath of an
infinite God, whose brows are corrugated with eternal
hatred.
Why should God hate us for being what we are
and
necessarily must have been? A being that God
made—the devil—for
whose work God is responsible,
according to the Bible wrought this
woe. God of his
own free will must have made the devil. What did
he make him for? Was it necessary to have a devil
in heaven? God,
having infinite power, can of
course destroy this devil to-day. Why
does he per-
mit him to live? Why did he allow him to thwart his
plans? Why did he permit him to pollute the inno-
cence of Eden? Why
does he allow him now to
wrest souls by the million from the
redeeming hand
of Christ?
According to the Scriptures, the
devil has always
208
been successful. He enjoys
himself. He is called
"the prince of the power of the air." He has no
conscientious scruples. He has miraculous power.
All miraculous power
must come of God, otherwise
it is simply in accordance with nature.
If the devil
can work a miracle, it is only with the consent and
by the assistance of the Almighty. Is the God of
Mr. Talmage in
partnership with the devil? Do
they divide profits?
We are
also told by the Presbyterian Church—
I quote from their
Confession of Faith—that "there
"is no sin so small but it
deserves damnation.'' Yet
Mr. Talmage tells us that God is good, that
he is filled
with mercy and loving-kindness. A child nine or ten
years of age commits a sin, and thereupon it deserves
eternal
damnation. That is what Mr. Talmage calls,
not simply justice, but
mercy; and the sympathetic
heart of Christ is not touched. The same
being who
said: "Suffer little children to come unto me," tells
us that a child, for the smallest sin, deserves to be
eternally
damned. The Presbyterian Church tells us
that infants, as well as
adults, in order to be saved,
need redemption by the blood of Christ,
and regen-
eration by the Holy Ghost.
I am charged with
trying to take the consolation
209
of this doctrine
from the world. I am a criminal
because I am endeavoring to convince
the mother
that her child does not deserve eternal punishment.
I
stand by the graves of those who "died in their
"sins," by the tombs
of the "unregenerate," over the
ashes of men who have spent their
lives working for
their wives and children, and over the sacred dust
of
soldiers who died in defence of flag and country,
and I say
to their friends—I say to the living who
loved them, I say to
the men and women for whom
they worked, I say to the children whom
they edu-
cated, I say to the country for which they died:
These
fathers, these mothers, these wives, these
husbands, these soldiers
are not in hell.
Question. Mr. Talmage insists that the
Bible is
scientific, and that the real scientific man sees no
contradiction between revelation and science; that,
on the contrary,
they are in harmony. What is your
understanding of this matter?
Answer. I do not believe the Bible to be a sci-
entific
book. In fact, most of the ministers now admit
that it was not
written to teach any science. They
admit that the first chapter of
Genesis is not geo-
logically true. They admit that Joshua knew
nothing
210
of science. They admit that four-footed
birds did
not exist in the days of Moses. In fact, the only
way
they can avoid the unscientific statements of the
Bible, is to assert
that the writers simply used the
common language of their day, and
used it, not with
the intention of teaching any scientific truth, but
for
the purpose of teaching some moral truth. As a
matter of
fact, we find that moral truths have been
taught in all parts of this
world. They were taught
in India long before Moses lived; in Egypt
long be-
fore Abraham was born; in China thousands of
years
before the flood. They were taught by hundreds
and thousands and
millions before the Garden of
Eden was planted.
It would
be impossible to prove the truth of a
revelation simply because it
contained moral truths.
If it taught immorality, it would be
absolutely certain
that it was not a revelation from an infinitely
good
being. If it taught morality, it would be no reason
for
even suspecting that it had a divine origin. But
if the Bible had
given us scientific truths; if the
ignorant Jews had given us the
true theory of our
solar system; if from Moses we had learned the
nature of light and heat; if from Joshua we had
learned something of
electricity; if the minor pro-
211
phets had given
us the distances to other planets;
if the orbits of the stars had
been marked by the
barbarians of that day, we might have admitted
that
they must have been inspired. If they had said any-
thing
in advance of their day; if they had plucked
from the night of
ignorance one star of truth, we
might have admitted the claim of
inspiration; but
the Scriptures did not rise above their source, did
not rise above their ignorant authors—above the
people who
believed in wars of extermination, in
polygamy, in concubinage, in
slavery, and who taught
these things in their "sacred Scriptures."
The greatest men in the scientific world have not
been, and are
not, believers in the inspiration of the
Scriptures. There has been
no greater astronomer
than Laplace. There is no greater name than
Humboldt. There is no living scientist who stands
higher than Charles
Darwin. All the professors in
all the religious colleges in this
country rolled into
one, would not equal Charles Darwin. All the cow-
ardly apologists for the cosmogony of Moses do not
amount to as much
in the world of thought as Ernst
Haeckel. There is no orthodox
scientist the equal
of Tyndall or Huxley. There is not one in this
country the equal of John Fiske. I insist, that the
212
foremost men to-day in the scientific world reject the
dogma of
inspiration. They reject the science of the
Bible, and hold in utter
contempt the astronomy of
Joshua, and the geology of Moses.
Mr. Talmage tells us "that Science is a boy and
"Revelation is
a man." Of course, like the most he
says, it is substantially the
other way. Revelation,
so-called, was the boy. Religion was the
lullaby of
the cradle, the ghost-story told by the old woman,
Superstition. Science is the man. Science asks for
demonstration.
Science impels us to investigation,
and to verify everything for
ourselves. Most pro-
fessors of American colleges, if they were not
afraid
of losing their places, if they did not know that
Christians were bad enough now to take the bread
from their mouths,
would tell their students that the
Bible is not a scientific book.
I admit that I have said:
1. That the Bible is cruel.
2. That in many passages it is impure.
3. That it is
contradictory.
4. That it is unscientific.
Let me
now prove these propositions one by one.
First. The Bible is
cruel.
I have opened it at random, and the very first
213
chapter that has struck my eye is the sixth of First
Samuel. In the nineteenth verse of that chapter, I
find the
following:
"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because
"they had looked into the ark of the Lord; even he
"smote of the
people fifty thousand and three-score
"and ten men."
All
this slaughter was because some people had
looked into a box that was
carried upon a cart. Was
that cruel?
I find, also, in the
twenty-fourth chapter of Second
Samuel, that David was moved by God
to number
Israel and Judah. God put it into his heart to take
a
census of his people, and thereupon David said to
Joab, the captain
of his host:
"Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from
"Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people,
"that I may know
the number of the people."
At the end of nine months and twenty
days, Joab
gave the number of the people to the king, and
there
were at that time, according to that census,
"eight hundred thousand
valiant men that drew the
"sword," in Israel, and in Judah, "five
hundred
"thousand men," making a total of thirteen hundred
thousand men of war. The moment this census was
214
taken, the wrath of the Lord waxed hot against
David, and thereupon
he sent a seer, by the name of
Gad, to David, and asked him to choose
whether he
would have seven years of famine, or fly three
months
before his enemies, or have three days of
pestilence. David concluded
that as God was so
merciful as to give him a choice, he would be more
merciful than man, and he chose the pestilence.
Now, it must be
remembered that the sin of taking
the census had not been committed
by the people,
but by David himself, inspired by God, yet the
people were to be punished for David's sin. So,,
when David chose the
pestilence, God immediately
killed "seventy thousand men, from Dan
even to
"Beersheba."
"And when the angel stretched out his
hand upon
"Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of
"the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the
"people, It is
enough; stay now thine hand."
Was this cruel?
Why
did a God of infinite mercy destroy seventy
thousand men? Why did he
fill his land with widows
and orphans, because King David had taken
the cen-
sus? If he wanted to kill anybody, why did he not
kill
David? I will tell you why. Because at that
215
time, the people were considered as the property of
the king. He
killed the people precisely as he killed
the cattle. And yet, I am
told that the Bible is not a
cruel book.
In the
twenty-first chapter of Second Samuel, I
find that there were three
years of famine in the days
of David, and that David inquired of the
Lord the
reason of the famine; and the Lord told him that it
was
because Saul had slain the Gibeonites. Why did
not God punish Saul
instead of the people? And
David asked the Gibeonites how he should
make
atonement, and the Gibeonites replied that they
wanted no
silver nor gold, but they asked that seven
of the sons of Saul might
be delivered unto them, so
that they could hang them before the Lord,
in Gibeah.
And David agreed to the proposition, and thereupon
he
delivered to the Gibeonites the two sons of Rizpah,
Saul's concubine,
and the five sons of Michal, the
daughter of Saul, and the Gibeonites
hanged all
seven of them together. And Rizpah, more tender
than
them all, with a woman's heart of love kept
lonely vigil by the dead,
"from the beginning of har-
"vest until water dropped upon them out
of heaven,
"and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest upon
"them by day, nor the beast of the field by night."
216
I want to know if the following, from the fifteenth
chapter of
First Samuel, is inspired:
"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I
remember that
"which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for
"him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now
"go and smite Amalek,
and utterly destroy all that
"they have, and spare them not, but slay
both man
"and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
"camel
and ass."
We must remember that those he was commanded
to
slay had done nothing to Israel. It was something
done by their
forefathers, hundreds of years before;
and yet they are commanded to
slay the women and
children and even the animals, and to spare none.
It seems that Saul only partially carried into exe-
cution this
merciful command of Jehovah. He spared
the life of the king. He
"utterly destroyed all the
"people with the edge of the sword," but
he kept
alive the best of the sheep and oxen and of the fat-
lings and lambs. Then God spake unto Samuel and
told him that he was
very sorry he had made Saul
king, because he had not killed all the
animals, and
because he had spared Agag; and Samuel asked
Saul:
"What meaneth this bleating of sheep in mine
"ears, and the lowing of
the oxen which I hear?"
217
Are stories like this
calculated to make soldiers
merciful?
So I read in the
sixth chapter of Joshua, the fate
of the city of Jericho: "And they
utterly destroyed
"all that was in the city, both man and woman,
"young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the
"edge of the
sword. And they burnt the city with
"fire, and all that was therein."
But we are told that
one family was saved by Joshua, out of the
general
destruction: "And Joshua saved Rahab, the harlot,
"alive, and her father's household, and all that she
"had." Was this
fearful destruction an act of
mercy?
It seems that they
saved the money of their
victims: "the silver and gold and the
vessels of brass
"and of iron they put into the treasury of the house
"of the Lord."
After all this pillage and carnage, it appears
that there was a suspicion in Joshua's mind that
somebody was keeping
back a part of the treasure.
Search was made, and a man by the name
of Achan
admitted that he had sinned against the Lord, that he
had seen a Babylonish garment among the spoils, and
two hundred
shekels of silver and a wedge of gold of
fifty shekels' weight, and
that he took them and hid
2l8
them in his tent. For
this atrocious crime it seems
that the Lord denied any victories to
the Jews until
they found out the wicked criminal. When they dis-
covered poor Achan, "they took him and his sons
"and his daughters,
and his oxen and his asses and
"his sheep, and all that he had, and
brought them unto
"the valley of Achor; and all Israel stoned him
with
"stones and burned them with fire after they had
"stoned
them with stones."
After Achan and his sons and his daughters
and
his herds had been stoned and burned to death, we
are told
that "the Lord turned from the fierceness of
"his anger."
And yet it is insisted that this God "is merciful,
"and that his
loving-kindness is over all his works."
In the eighth chapter of this
same book, the infi-
nite God, "creator of heaven and earth and all
that is
"therein," told his general, Joshua, to lay an ambush
for a city—to "lie in wait against the city, even be-
"hind the
city; go not very far from the city, but be
"ye all ready." He told
him to make an attack and
then to run, as though he had been beaten,
in order
that the inhabitants of the city might follow, and
thereupon his reserves that he had ambushed might
rush into the city
and set it on fire. God Almighty
219
planned the
battle. God himself laid the snare. The
whole programme was carried
out. Joshua made
believe that he was beaten, and fled, and then the
soldiers in ambush rose out of their places, enter-
ed the city, and
set it on fire. Then came the
slaughter. They "utterly destroyed all
the inhabit-
"ants of Ai," men and maidens, women and babes,
sparing only their king till evening, when they
hanged him on a tree,
then "took his carcase down
"from the tree and cast it at the
entering of the
"gate, and raised thereon a great heap of stones
"which remaineth unto this day." After having
done all this, "Joshua
built an altar unto the Lord
"God of Israel, and offered burnt
offerings unto the
"Lord." I ask again, was this cruel?
Again I ask, was the treatment of the Gibeonites
cruel when they
sought to make peace but were
denied, and cursed instead; and
although permitted
to live, were yet made slaves? Read the mandate
consigning them to bondage: "Now therefore ye
"are cursed, and there
shall none of you be freed
"from being bondmen and hewers of wood and
"drawers of water for the house of my God."
Is it possible, as
recorded in the tenth chapter of
Joshua, that the Lord took part in
these battles, and
220
cast down great hail-stones
from the battlements of
heaven upon the enemies of the Israelites, so
that
"they were more who died with hail-stones, than
"they whom
the children of Israel slew with the
"sword"?
Is it
possible that a being of infinite power would
exercise it in that way
instead of in the interest of
kindness and peace?
I find,
also, in this same chapter, that Joshua took
Makkedah and smote it
with the edge of the sword,
that he utterly destroyed all the souls
that were
therein, that he allowed none to remain.
I find
that he fought against Libnah, and smote
it with the edge of the
sword, and utterly destroyed
all the souls that were therein, and
allowed none to
remain, and did unto the king as he did unto the king
of Jericho.
I find that he also encamped against Lachish, and
that God gave him that city, and that he "smote it
"with the edge of
the sword, and all the souls that
"were therein," sparing neither old
nor young, help-
less women nor prattling babes.
He also
vanquished Horam, King of Gezer, "and
"smote him and his people until
he left him none
"remaining."
221
He encamped
against the city of Eglon, and killed
every soul that was in it, at
the edge of the sword,
just as he had done to Lachish and all the
others.
He fought against Hebron, "and took it and
"smote
it with the edge of the sword, and the king
"thereof,"—and it
appears that several cities, their
number not named, were included in
this slaughter,
for Hebron "and all the cities thereof and all the
"souls that were therein," were utterly destroyed.
He then
waged war against Debir and took it, and
more unnumbered cities with
it, and all the souls that
were therein shared the same horrible fate—he
did
not leave a soul alive.
And this chapter of horrors
concludes with this
song of victory:
"So Joshua smote all
the country of the hills, and
"of the south, and of the vale, and of
the springs,
"and all their kings: he left none remaining, but
"utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord
"God of Israel
commanded. And Joshua smote
"them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza,
and all the
"country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these
"kings and their land did Joshua take at one time,
"because the Lord
God of Israel fought for Israel."
Was God, at that time, merciful?
222
I find, also, in the twenty-first chapter that many
Icings met, with their armies, for the purpose of
overwhelming
Israel, and the Lord said unto Joshua:
"Be not afraid because of
them, for to-morrow about
"this time I will deliver them all slain
before Israel.
"I will hough their horses and burn their chariots
"with fire." Were animals so treated by the com-
mand of a merciful
God?
Joshua captured Razor, and smote all the souls
that
were therein with the edge of the sword, there
was not one left to
breathe; and he took all the
cities of all the kings that took up
arms against him,
and utterly destroyed all the inhabitants thereof.
He took the cattle and spoils as prey unto himself,
and smote every
man with the edge of the sword;
and not only so, but left not a human
being to
breathe.
I find the following directions given to
the Israel-
ites who were waging a war of conquest. They are
in
the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, from the
tenth to the
eighteenth verses:
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight
"against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it
"shall be, if it
make thee an answer of peace, and
"open unto thee, then it shall be
that all the people
223
"that is found therein shall
be tributaries unto thee,
"and they shall serve thee. And if it will
make no
"peace with thee, but will war against thee, then
"thou
shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy
"God hath delivered it into
thine hands, thou shalt
"smite every male thereof with the edge of
the
"sword; but the women, and the little ones, and
"the cattle,
and all that is in the city, even the spoil
"thereof, shalt thou take
unto thyself; and thou
"shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which
the
"Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou
"do unto all
the cities which are very far off from
"thee, which are not of the
cities of these nations."
It will be seen from this that people could
take
their choice between death and slavery, provided
these
people lived a good ways from the Israelites.
Now, let us see how
they were to treat the inhabit-
ants of the cities near to them:
"But of the cities of these people which the Lord
"thy God doth
give thee for an inheritance, thou
"shalt save alive nothing that
breatheth. But thou
"shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the
Hittites,
"and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,
"the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God
"hath commanded
thee."
224
It never occurred to this merciful God to
send
missionaries to these people. He built them no
schoolhouses, taught them no alphabet, gave them
no book; they were
not supplied even with a copy of
the Ten Commandments. He did not say
"Reform,"
but "Kill;" not "Educate," but "Destroy." He gave
them
no Bible, built them no church, sent them no
preachers. He knew when
he made them that he
would have to have them murdered. When he
created them he knew that they were not fit to live;
and yet, this is
the infinite God who is infinitely
merciful and loves his children
better than an earthly
mother loves her babe.
In order to
find just how merciful God is, read the
twenty-eighth chapter of
Deuteronomy, and see what
he promises to do with people who do not
keep all of
his commandments and all of his statutes. He curses
them in their basket and store, in the fruit of their
body, in the
fruit of their land, in the increase of their
cattle and sheep. He
curses them in the city and in
the field, in their coming in and
their going out. He
curses them with pestilence, with consumption,
with
fever, with inflammation, with extreme burning, with
sword,
with blasting, with mildew. He tells them
that the heavens shall be
as brass over their heads
225
and the earth as iron
under their feet; that the rain
shall be powder and dust and shall
come down on
them and destroy them; that they shall flee seven
ways before their enemies; that their carcasses shall
be meat for the
fowls of the air, and the beasts of the
earth; that he will smite
them with the botch of
Egypt, and with the scab, and with the itch,
and with
madness and blindness and astonishment; that he
will
make them grope at noonday; that they shall be
oppressed and spoiled
evermore; that one shall be-
troth a wife and another shall have her;
that they
shall build a house and not dwell in it; plant a vine-
yard and others shall eat the grapes; that their
sons and daughters
shall be given to their enemies;
that he will make them mad for the
sight of their
eyes; that he will smite them in the knees and in the
legs with a sore botch that cannot be healed, and
from the sole of
the foot to the top of the head;
that they shall be a by-word among
all nations; that
they shall sow much seed and gather but little;
that
the locusts shall consume their crops; that they shall
plant vineyards and drink no wine,—that they shall
gather
grapes, but worms shall eat them; that they
shall raise olives but
have no oil; beget sons and
daughters, but they shall go into
captivity; that all
226
the trees and fruit of the
land shall be devoured by
locusts, and that all these curses shall
pursue them
and overtake them, until they be destroyed; that they
shall be slaves to their enemies, and be constantly in
hunger and
thirst and nakedness, and in want of all
things. And as though this
were not enough, the
Lord tells them that he will bring a nation
against
them swift as eagles, a nation fierce and savage, that
will show no mercy and no favor to old or young,
and leave them
neither corn, nor wine, nor oil, nor
flocks, nor herds; and this
nation shall besiege them
in their cities until they are reduced to
the necessity
of eating the flesh of their own sons and daughters;
so that the men would eat their wives and their
children, and women
eat their husbands and their
own sons and daughters, and their own
babes.
All these curses God pronounced upon them if they
did not observe to do all the words of the law that
were written in
his book.
This same merciful God threatened that he would
bring upon them all the diseases of Egypt—every
sickness and
every plague; that he would scatter
them from one end of the earth to
the other; that
they should find no rest; that their lives should
hang
in perpetual doubt; that in the morning they would
227
say: Would God it were evening! and in the even-
ing,
Would God it were morning! and that he would
finally take them back
to Egypt where they should
be again sold for bondmen and bondwomen.
This curse, the foundation of the Anathema
maranatha;
this curse, used by the pope of Rome to
prevent the spread of
thought; this curse used even
by the Protestant Church; this curse
born of barba-
rism and of infinite cruelty, is now said to have
issued from the lips of an infinitely merciful God. One
would suppose
that Jehovah had gone insane; that
he had divided his kingdom like
Lear, and from the
darkness of insanity had launched his curses upon
a
world.
In order that there may be no doubt as to the
mercy of Jehovah, read the thirteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy:
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy
"son, or thy
daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or
"thy friend, which is as thine
own soul, entice thee
"secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other
gods,
"which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers;
" * * *
thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
"hearken unto him; neither shall
thine eyes pity him,
"neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal
228
"him; but thou shalt surely kill him:
thine hand
"shall be first upon him to put him to death, and
"afterwards the hand of all the people; and thou
"shalt stone him
with stones that he die, because he
"hath sought to entice thee away
from the Lord thy
"God."
This, according to Mr. Talmage,
is a commandment
of the infinite God. According to him, God ordered
a man to murder his own son, his own wife, his own
brother, his own
daughter, if they dared even to sug-
gest the worship of some other
God than Jehovah.
For my part, it is impossible not to despise such
a God—a God not willing that one should worship
what he must.
No one can control his admiration,
and if a savage at sunrise falls
upon his knees and
offers homage to the great light of the East, he
can-
not help it. If he worships the moon, he cannot help
it. If
he worships fire, it is because he cannot control
his own spirit. A
picture is beautiful to me in spite
of myself. A statue compels the
applause of my
brain. The worship of the sun was an exceedingly
natural religion, and why should a man or woman be
destroyed for
kneeling at the fireside of the world?
No wonder that this same
God, in the very next
chapter of Deuteronomy to that quoted, says to
his
229
chosen people: "Ye shall not eat of anything
that
"dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger
"that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou
"mayest sell
it unto an alien: for thou art a holy
"people unto the Lord thy God."
What a mingling of heartlessness and thrift—the
religion
of sword and trade!
In the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy,
Jehovah
gives his own character. He tells the Israelites that
there are seven nations greater and mightier than
themselves, but
that he will deliver them to his chosen
people, and that they shall
smite them and utterly
destroy them; and having some fear that a drop
of
pity might remain in the Jewish heart, he says:
"Thou
shalt make no covenant with them, nor
"show mercy unto them. * * *
Know therefore
"that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God,
"which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that
"love him and keep
his commandments to a thousand
"generations, and repayeth them that
hate him to
"their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to
"him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face."
This is the
description which the merciful, long-suffer-
ing Jehovah gives of
himself.
So, he promises great prosperity to the Jews if
230
they will only obey his commandments, and says:
"And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness,
"and will put
none of the evil diseases of Egypt
"upon thee, but will lay them upon
all them that
"hate thee. And thou shalt consume all the people
"which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine
"eye shall have no
pity upon them."
Under the immediate government of Jehovah,
mercy was a crime. According to the law of God,
pity was weakness,
tenderness was treason, kindness
was blasphemy, while hatred and
massacre were
virtues.
In the second chapter of
Deuteronomy we find
another account tending to prove that Jehovah is
a
merciful God. We find that Sihon, king of Heshbon,
would not
let the Hebrews pass by him, and the
reason given is, that "the Lord
God hardened his
"spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might
"deliver him into the hand" of the Hebrews. Sihon,
his heart having
been hardened by God, came out
against the chosen people, and God
delivered him to
them, and "they smote him, and his sons, and all his
"people, and took all his cities, and utterly destroyed
"the men and
the women, and the little ones of
"every city: they left none to
remain." And in this
231
same chapter this same God
promises that the dread
and fear of his chosen people should be "upon
all the
"nations that are under the whole heaven," and that
"they should "tremble and be in anguish because of"
the Hebrews.
Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and see
how the
Midianites were slain. You will find that
"the children of Israel
took all the women of Midian
"captives, and their little ones," that
they took "all
"their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their
goods,"
that they slew all the males, and burnt all their cities
and castles with fire, that they brought the captives
and the prey
and the spoil unto Moses and Eleazar
the priest; that Moses was wroth
with the officers
of his host because they had saved all the women
alive, and thereupon this order was given: "Kill
"every male among
the little ones, and kill every
"woman, * * * but all the women
children
"keep alive for yourselves."
After this, God
himself spake unto Moses, and
said: "Take the sum of the prey that
was taken,
"both of man and of beast, thou and Eleazar the
"priest * * * and divide the prey into two
"parts, between those who
went to war, and between
"all the congregation, and levy a tribute
unto the
232
"Lord, one soul of five hundred of the
persons,
"and the cattle; take it of their half and give it to
"the priest for an offering * * * and of the
"children of Israel's
half, take one portion of fifty of
"the persons and the animals and
give them unto
"the Levites. * * * And Moses and the priest
"did
as the Lord had commanded." It seems that
they had taken six hundred
and seventy-five thou-
sand sheep, seventy-two thousand beeves,
sixty-one
thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand women
children
and maidens. And it seems, by the fortieth
verse, that the Lord's
tribute of the maidens was thirty-
two,—the rest were given
to the soldiers and to the
congregation of the Lord.
Was
anything more infamous ever recorded in the
annals of barbarism? And
yet we are told that the
Bible is an inspired book, that it is not a
cruel book,
and that Jehovah is a being of infinite mercy.
In the twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers we find
that the Israelites
had joined themselves unto Baal-
Peor, and thereupon the anger of the
Lord was
kindled against them, as usual. No being ever lost
his
temper more frequently than this Jehovah. Upon
this particular
occasion, "the Lord said unto Moses,
"Take all the heads of the
people, and hang them
233
"up before the Lord
against the sun, that the fierce
"anger of the Lord may be turned
away from Israel."
And thereupon "Moses said unto the judges of
Israel,
"Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto
"Baal-peor."
Just as soon as these people were killed, and
their
heads hung up before the Lord against the sun, and
a
horrible double murder of a too merciful Israelite
and a Midianitish
woman, had been committed by
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, "the
plague was stayed
"from the children of Israel." Twenty-four thousand
had died. Thereupon, "the Lord spake unto Moses
"and said"—and
it is a very merciful commandment
—"Vex the Midianites and
smite them."
In the twenty-first chapter of Numbers is more
evi-
dence that God is merciful and compassionate.
The
children of Israel had become discouraged.
They had wandered so long
in the desert that they
finally cried out: "Wherefore have ye brought
us
"up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There
"is no
bread, there is no water, and our soul loatheth
"this light bread."
Of course they were hungry and
thirsty. Who would not complain under
similar cir-
cumstances? And yet, on account of this complaint,
the God of infinite tenderness and compassion sent
234
serpents among them, and these serpents bit them—
bit the
cheeks of children, the breasts of maidens,
and the withered faces of
age. Why would a God
do such an infamous thing? Why did he not, as
the
leader of this people, his chosen children, feed them
better? Certainly an infinite God had the power
to satisfy their
hunger and to quench their thirst.
He who overwhelmed a world with
water, certainly
could have made a few brooks, cool and babbling,
to follow his chosen people through all their jour-
neying. He could
have supplied them with miracu-
lous food.
How fortunate
for the Jews that Jehovah was not
revengeful, that he was so slow to
anger, so patient,
so easily pleased. What would they have done had
he been exacting, easily incensed, revengeful, cruel,
or
blood-thirsty?
In the sixteenth chapter of Numbers, an account
is
given of a rebellion. It seems that Korah, Dathan
and Abiram
got tired of Moses and Aaron. They
thought the priests were taking a
little too much
upon themselves. So Moses told them to have two
hundred and fifty of their men bring their censers
and put incense in
them before the Lord, and stand
in the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation
235
with Moses and Aaron. That being
done, the Lord
appeared, and told Moses and Aaron to separate
themselves from the people, that he might consume
them all in a
moment. Moses and Aaron, having a
little compassion, begged God not
to kill everybody.
The people were then divided, and Dathan and
Abiram came out and stood in the door of their
tents with their wives
and their sons and their little
children. And Moses said:
"Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent
"me to do all these
works; for I have not done them
"of my mine own mind. If these men
die the
"common death of all men, or if they be visited
"after
the common visitation of all men, then the
"Lord hath not sent me.
But if the Lord make a
"new thing, and the earth open her mouth and
"swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them,
"and they go
down quick into the pit, then ye shall
"understand that these men
have provoked the
"Lord." The moment he ceased speaking, "the
"ground clave asunder that was under them; and
"the earth opened her
mouth and swallowed them up,
"and their houses, and all the men that
appertained
"unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that
"appertained to them went down alive into the pit,
236
"and the earth closed upon them, and they perished
"from among
the congregation."
This, according to Mr. Talmage, was the act
of an
exceedingly merciful God, prompted by infinite kind-
ness,
and moved by eternal pity. What would he
have done had he acted from
motives of revenge?
What would he Jiave done had he been remorse-
lessly cruel and wicked?
In addition to those swallowed by the
earth, the
two hundred and fifty men that offered the incense
were consumed by "a fire that came out from the
"Lord." And not only
this, but the same merciful
Jehovah wished to consume all the people,
and he
would have consumed them all, only that Moses pre-
vailed
upon Aaron to take a censer and put fire
therein from off the altar
of incense and go quickly
to the congregation and make an atonement
for them.
He was not quick enough. The plague had already
begun;
and before he could possibly get the censers
and incense among the
people, fourteen thousand and
seven hundred had died of the plague.
How many
more might have died, if Jehovah had not been so
slow
to anger and so merciful and tender to his
children, we have no means
of knowing.
In the thirteenth chapter of the same book of
237
Numbers, we find that some spies were sent over
into the promised land, and that they brought back
grapes and figs
and pomegranates, and reported that
the whole land was flowing with
milk and honey, but
that the people were strong, that the cities were
walled, and that the nations in the promised land
were mightier than
the Hebrews. They reported that
all the people they met were men of a
great stature,
that they had seen "the giants, the sons of Anak
"which come of giants," compared with whom the
Israelites were "in
their own sight as grasshoppers,
"and so were we in their sight."
Entirely discour-
aged by these reports, "all the congregation lifted
up
"their voice and cried, and the people wept that
"night * * *
and murmured against Moses and
"against Aaron, and said unto them:
Would God
"that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would
"God
we had died in this wilderness!" Some of
them thought that it would
be better to go back,—
that they might as well be slaves in
Egypt as to be
food for giants in the promised land. They did not
want their bones crunched between the teeth of the
sons of Anak.
Jehovah got angry again, and said to Moses:
"How long will
these people provoke me? * * *
238
"I will smite
them with pestilence, and disinherit
"them." But Moses said: Lord, if
you do this,
the Egyptians will hear of it, and they will say that
you were not able to bring your people into the
promised land. Then
he proceeded to flatter him by
telling him how merciful and
long-suffering he had
been. Finally, Jehovah concluded to pardon the
people this time, but his pardon depended upon the
violation of his
promise, for he said: "They shall
"not see the land which I sware
unto their fathers,
"neither shall any of them that provoked me see
it;
"but my servant Caleb, * * * him will I bring
"into the
land." And Jehovah said to the people:
"Your carcasses shall fall in
this wilderness, and all
"that were numbered of you according to your
"whole number, from twenty years old and upward,
"which have murmured
against me, ye shall not
"come into the land concerning which I sware
to
"make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of
"Jephunneh,
and Joshua the son of Nun. But your
"little ones, which ye said
should be a prey, them
"will I bring in, and they shall know the land
"which ye have despised. But as for you, your
"carcasses shall fall
in this wilderness. And your
"children shall wander in the wilderness
forty
239
"years * * * until your carcasses be
wasted in
"the wilderness."
And all this because the
people were afraid of
giants, compared with whom they were but as
grass-
hoppers.
So we find that at one time the people
became
exceedingly hungry. They had no flesh to eat.
There were
six hundred thousand men of war, and
they had nothing to feed on but
manna. They
naturally murmured and complained, and thereupon a
wind from the Lord went forth and brought quails
from the sea,
(quails are generally found in the sea,)
"and let them fall by the
camp, as it were a day's
"journey on this side, and as it were a
day's journey
"on the other side, round about the camp, and as it
"were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
"And the people
stood up all that day, and all that
"night, and all the next day, and
they gathered the
"quails. * * * And while the flesh was yet be-
"tween their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of
"the Lord was
kindled against the people, and the
"Lord smote the people with a
very great plague."
Yet he is slow to anger, long-suffering,
merciful
and just.
In the thirty-second chapter of Exodus,
is the ac-
240
count of the golden calf. It must be
borne in mind
that the worship of this calf by the people was before
the Ten Commandments had been given to them.
Christians now insist
that these commandments must
have been inspired, because no human
being could
have constructed them,—could have conceived of
them.
It seems, according to this account, that Moses had
been up in the mount with God, getting the Ten Com-
mandments, and
that while he was there the people
had made the golden calf. When he
came down and
saw them, and found what they had done, having in
his hands the two tables, the work of God, he cast
the tables out of
his hands, and broke them beneath
the mount. He then took the calf
which they had
made, ground it to powder, strewed it in the water,
and made the children of Israel drink of it. And in the
twenty-seventh verse we are told what the Lord did:
"Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel: Put every man
"his sword by his side, and go in
and out from gate
"to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man
"his brother, and every man his companion, and
"every man his
neighbor. And the children of Levi
"did according to the word of
Moses; and there fell
"of the people that day about three thousand
men."
241
The reason for this slaughter is thus
given: "For
"Moses had said: Consecrate yourselves to-day to
"the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon
" his brother, that
he may bestow upon you a blessing
"this day."
Now, it must
be remembered that there had not
been as yet a promulgation of the
commandment
u Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This
was
a punishment for the infraction of a law before
the law was known—before
the commandment had
been given. Was it cruel, or unjust?
Does the following sound as though spoken by a
God of mercy: "I will
make mine arrows drunk
"with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh"?
And yet this is but a small part of the vengeance and
destruction
which God threatens to his enemies, as
recorded in the thirty-second
chapter of the book of
Deuteronomy.
In the sixty-eighth
Psalm is found this merciful
passage: "That thy foot may be dipped in
the blood
"of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the
"same.
So we find in the eleventh chapter of Joshua the
reason why the Canaanites and other nations made
war upon the Jews.
It is as follows: "For it was of
242
"the Lord to
harden their hearts that they should
"come against Israel in battle,
that he might destroy
"them utterly, and that they might have no
favor, but
"that he might destroy them."
Read the
thirtieth chapter of Exodus and you will
find that God gave to Moses
a recipe for making
the oil of holy anointment, and in the
thirty-second
verse we find that no one was to make any oil like it
and in the next verse it is declared that whoever
compounded any like
it, or whoever put any of it on
a stranger, should be cut off from
the Lord's people.
In the same chapter, a recipe is given for
per-
fumery, and it is declared that whoever shall make
any like
it, or that smells like it, shall suffer death.
In the next
chapter, it is decreed that if any one fails
to keep the Sabbath "he
shall be surely put to death."
There are in the Pentateuch
hundreds and hun-
dreds of passages showing the cruelty of Jehovah.
What could have been more cruel than the flood?
What more heartless
than to overwhelm a world?
What more merciless than to cover a
shoreless sea
with the corpses of men, women and children?
The Pentateuch is filled with anathemas, with
curses, with words of
vengeance, of jealousy, of
hatred, and brutality. By reason of these
passages,
243
millions of people have plucked from
their hearts the
flowers of pity and justified the murder of women
and the assassination of babes.
In the second chapter of Second
Kings we find
that the prophet Elisha was on his way to a place
called Bethel, and as he was going, there came forth
little children
out of the city and mocked him and
said: "Go up thou bald head; Go up
thou bald
"head! And he turned back and looked on them
"and
cursed them in the name of the Lord. And
"there came forth two she
bears out of the wood and
"tare forty and two children of them."
Of course he obtained his miraculous power from
Jehovah; and
there must have been some communi-
cation between Jehovah and the
bears. Why did the
bears come? How did they happen to be there?
Here is a prophet of God cursing children in the
name of the Lord,
and thereupon these children
are torn in fragments by wild beasts.
This is the mercy of Jehovah; and yet I am told
that the Bible
has nothing cruel in it; that it preaches
only mercy, justice,
charity, peace; that all hearts
are softened by reading it; that the
savage nature of
man is melted into tenderness and pity by it, and
that
only the totally depraved can find evil in it.
244
And so I might go on, page after page, book after
book, in the
Old Testament, and describe the cruelties
committed in accordance
with the commands of
Jehovah.
But all the cruelties in the
Old Testament are ab-
solute mercies compared with the hell of the
New
Testament. In the Old Testament God stops with
the grave. He
seems to have been satisfied when he
saw his enemies dead, when he
saw their flesh rotting
in the open air, or in the beaks of birds, or
in the teeth
of wild beasts. But in the New Testament, ven-
geance does not stop with the grave. It begins there,
and stops
never. The enemies of Jehovah are to be
pursued through all the ages
of eternity. There is to
be no forgiveness—no cessation, no
mercy, nothing
but everlasting pain.
And yet we are told
that the author of hell is a
being of infinite mercy.
Second;
All intelligent Christians will admit that
there are many passages in
the Bible that, if found in
the Koran, they would regard as impure
and immoral.
It is not necessary for me to specify the
passages,
nor to call the attention of the public to such things.
I am willing to trust the judgment of every honest
reader, and the
memory of every biblical student.
245
The Old
Testament upholds polygamy. That is
infinitely impure. It sanctions
concubinage. That
is impure; nothing could or can be worse. Hun-
dreds of things are publicly told that should have re-
mained unsaid.
No one is made better by reading
the history of Tamar, or the
biography of Lot, or
the memoirs of Noah, of Dinah, of Sarah and
Abraham, or of Jacob and Leah and Rachel and others
that I do not
care to mention. No one is improved
in his morals by reading these
things.
All I mean to say is, that the Bible is like other
books produced by other nations in the same stage
of civilization.
What one age considers pure, the
next considers impure. What one age
may consider
just, the next may look upon as infamous. Civiliza-
tion is a growth. It is continually dying, and continu-
ally being
born. Old branches rot and fall, new buds
appear. It is a perpetual
twilight, and a perpetual
dawn—the death of the old, and the
birth of the new.
I do not say, throw away the Bible because
there
are some foolish passages in it, but I say, throw away
the
foolish passages. Don't throw away wisdom
because it is found in
company with folly; but do not
say that folly is wisdom, because it
is found in its
company. All that is true in the Bible is true
whether
246
it is inspired or not. All that is true
did not need to
be inspired. Only that which is not true needs the
assistance of miracles and wonders. I read the Bible
as I read other
books. What I believe to be good,
I admit is good; what I think is
bad, I say is bad;
what I believe to be true, I say is true, and what
I
believe to be false, I denounce as false.
Third.
Let us see whether there are any contra-
dictions in the Bible.
A little book has been published, called "Self
"Contradictions
of the Bible," by J. P. Mendum, of
The Boston Investigator. I find
many of the apparent
contradictions of the Bible noted in this book.
We all know that the Pentateuch is filled with the
commandments
of God upon the subject of sacrificing
animals. We know that God
declared, again and
again, that the smell of burning flesh was a
sweet
savor to him. Chapter after chapter is filled with direc-
tions how to kill the beasts that were set apart for
sacrifices; what
to do with their blood, their flesh and
their fat. And yet, in the
seventh chapter of Jeremiah,
all this is expressly denied, in the
following language:
"For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded
"them in the day that I brought them out of the land
"of Egypt,
concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices."
247
And
in the sixth chapter of Jeremiah, the same
Jehovah says; "Your burnt
offerings are not ac-
"ceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."
In the Psalms, Jehovah derides the idea of
sacrifices, and
says: "Will I eat of the flesh of
"bulls, or drink the blood of
goats? Offer unto God
"thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most
"High."
So I find in Isaiah the following: "Bring no more
"vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
"the new moons
and sabbaths, the calling of as-
"semblies, I cannot away with; it is
iniquity, even
"the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your
"appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble
"to me; I am
weary to bear them." "To what
"purpose is the multitude of your
sacrifices unto me?
"saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings
of
"rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not
"in the
blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
"When ye come to
appear before me, who hath re-
"quired this at your hand?"
So I find in James: "Let no man say when he is
"tempted: I am tempted
of God; for God cannot be
"tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
man;"
and yet in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis I
248
find this: "And it came to pass after these things,
"that God did tempt Abraham."
In Second Samuel we see that he
tempted David.
He also tempted Job, and Jeremiah says: "O Lord,
"thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." To
such an extent was
Jeremiah deceived, that in the
fourteenth chapter and eighteenth
verse we find him
crying out to the Lord: "Wilt thou be altogether
"unto me as a liar?"
So in Second Thessalonians: "For these
things
"God shall send them strong delusions, that they
"should
believe a lie."
So in First Kings, twenty-second chapter:
"Behold,
"the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
"these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil
"concerning thee."
So in Ezekiel: "And if the prophet be deceived
"when he hath
spoken a thing, I, the Lord, have de-
"ceived that prophet."
So I find: "Thou shalt not bear false witness;"
and in the book
of Revelation: "All liars shall have
"their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and
"brimstone;" yet in First Kings, twenty-second
chapter, I find the following: "And the Lord said:
"Who shall
persuade Ahab, that he may go up and
249
"fall at
Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this
"manner, and another said on that
manner. And
"there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord,
"and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said
"unto him:
Wherewith? And he said: I will go
"forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all
"his prophets. And he said: Thou shalt
persuade
"him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so."
In
the Old Testament we find contradictory laws
about the same thing,
and contradictory accounts of
the same occurrences.
In the
twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first
account of the giving
of the Ten Commandments. In
the thirty-fourth chapter another account
of the same
transaction is given. These two accounts could not
have been written by the same person. Read them,
and you will be
forced to admit that both of them
cannot by any possibility be true.
They differ in so
many particulars, and the commandments themselves
are so different, that it is impossible that both can be
true.
So there are two histories of the creation. If you
will read
the first and second chapters of Genesis,
you will find two accounts
inconsistent with each
other, both of which cannot be true. The first
account
250
ends with the third verse of the second
chapter of
Genesis. By the first account, man and woman were
made at the same time, and made last of all. In the
second account,
not to be too critical, all the beasts
of the field were made before
Eve was, and Adam
was made before the beasts of the field; whereas in
the first account, God made all the animals before he
made Adam. In
the first account there is nothing
about the rib or the bone or the
side,—that is only
found in the second account. In the first
account,
there is nothing about the Garden of Eden, nothing
about the four rivers, nothing about the mist that
went up from the
earth and watered the whole face
of the ground; nothing said about
making man from
dust; nothing about God breathing into his nostrils
the breath of life; yet according to the second ac-
count, the Garden
of Eden was planted, and all the
animals were made before Eve was
formed. It is
impossible to harmonize the two accounts.
So, in the first account, only the word God is
used—"God said
so and so,—God did so and so."
In the second account he is
called Lord God,—"the
"Lord God formed man,"—"the Lord
God caused
"it to rain,"—"the Lord God planted a garden." It
is now admitted that the book of Genesis is made up
251
of two stories, and it is very easy to take them apart
and show
exactly how they were put together.
So there are two stories of
the flood, differing
almost entirely from each other—that is to
say, so
contradictory that both cannot be true.
There are
two accounts of the manner in which
Saul was made king, and the
accounts are inconsistent
with each other.
Scholars now
everywhere admit that the copyists
made many changes, pieced out
fragments, and made
additions, interpolations, and meaningless
repetitions.
It is now generally conceded that the speeches of
Elihu, in Job, were interpolated, and most of the
prophecies were
made by persons whose names even
are not known.
The
manuscripts of the Old Testament were not
alike. The Greek version
differed from the Hebrew,
and there was no generally received text of
the Old
Testament until after the beginning of the Christian
era. Marks and points to denote vowels were in-
vented probably in
the seventh century after Christ;
and whether these marks and points
were put in the
proper places, is still an open question. The Alex-
andrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint,
translated by
seventy-two learned Jews assisted by
252
miraculous
power, about two hundred years before
Christ, could not, it is now
said, have been translated
from the Hebrew text that we now have.
This can
only be accounted for by supposing that we have a
different Hebrew text. The early Christians adopted
the Septuagint
and were satisfied for a time; but so
many errors were found, and so
many were scanning
every word in search of something to assist their
peculiar views, that new versions were produced,
and the new versions
all differed somewhat from the
Septuagint as well as from each other.
These ver-
sions were mostly in Greek. The first Latin Bible
was
produced in Africa, and no one has ever found
out which Latin
manuscript was original. Many were
produced, and all differed from
each other. These
Latin versions were compared with each other and
with the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was made
in the fifth
century, and the old ones held their own
for about four hundred
years, and no one knows
which version was right. Besides, there were
Ethi-
opie, Egyptian, Armenian and several other ver-
sions, all
differing from each other as well as from all
others. It was not
until the fourteenth century that
the Bible was translated into
German, and not until
the fifteenth that Bibles were printed in the
principal
253
languages of Europe; and most of these
Bibles
differed from each other, and gave rise to endless
disputes and to almost numberless crimes.
No man in the world
is learned enough, nor has
he time enough, even if he could live a
thousand
years, to find what books belonged to and consti-
tuted
the Old Testament. He could not ascertain
the authors of the books,
nor when they were written,
nor what they mean. Until a man has
sufficient
time to do all this, no one can tell whether he be-
lieves the Bible or not. It is sufficient, however, to
say that the
Old Testament is filled with contradic-
tions as to the number of men
slain in battle, as to
the number of years certain kings reigned, as
to the
number of a woman's children, as to dates of events,
and
as to locations of towns and cities.
Besides all this, many of
its laws are contradictory,
often commanding and prohibiting the same
thing.
The New Testament also is filled with contradic-
tions. The gospels do not even agree upon the
terms of salvation.
They do not even agree as to
the gospel of Christ, as to the mission
of Christ.
They do not tell the same story regarding the be-
trayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascen-
sion of
Christ. John is the only one that ever heard
254
of
being "born again." The evangelists do not give
the same account of
the same miracles, and the
miracles are not given in the same order.
They do
not agree even in the genealogy of Christ.
Fourth.
Is the Bible scientific? In my judgment
it is not
It is
unscientific to say that this world was "cre-
"ated that the universe
was produced by an infinite
being, who had existed an eternity prior
to such
"creation." My mind is such that I cannot possibly
conceive of a "creation." Neither can I conceive of
an infinite being
who dwelt in infinite space an infi-
nite length of time.
I do not think it is scientific to say that the uni-
verse was made
in six days, or that this world is only
about six thousand years old,
or that man has only
been upon the earth for about six thousand
years.
If the Bible is true, Adam was the first man. The
age of Adam is given, the age of his children, and
the time,
according to the Bible, was kept and known
from Adam, so that if the
Bible is true, man has only
been in this world about six thousand
years. In my
judgment, and in the judgment of every scientific
man whose judgment is worth having or quoting,
man inhabited this
earth for thousands of ages prior
255
to the
creation of Adam. On one point the Bible is
at least certain, and
that is, as to the life of Adam.
The genealogy is given, the pedigree
is there, and it
is impossible to escape the conclusion that,
according
to the Bible, man has only been upon this earth
about
six thousand years. There is no chance there
to say "long periods of
time," or "geological ages."
There we have the years. And as to the
time of the
creation of man, the Bible does not tell the truth.
What is generally called "The Fall of Man" is
unscientific. God
could not have made a moral
character for Adam. Even admitting the
rest of the
story to be true, Adam certainly had to make char-
acter for himself.
The idea that there never would have been
any
disease or death in this world had it not been for the
eating of the forbidden fruit is preposterously unsci-
entific.
Admitting that Adam was made only six
thousand years ago, death was
in the world millions of
years before that time. The old rocks are
filled with re-
mains of what were once living and breathing animals.
Continents were built up with the petrified corpses of
animals. We
know, therefore, that death did not enter
the world because of Adam's
sin. We know that life
and death are but successive links in an
eternal chain.
256
So it is unscientific to say that
thorns and brambles
were produced by Adam's sin.
It is
also unscientific to say that labor was pro-
nounced as a curse upon
man. Labor is not a curse.
Labor is a blessing. Idleness is a curse.
It is unscientific to say that the sons of God,
living, we
suppose, in heaven, fell in love with the
daughters of men, and that
on account of this a
flood was sent upon the earth that covered the
highest mountains.
The whole story of the flood is
unscientific, and no
scientific man worthy of the name, believes it.
Neither is the story of the tower of Babel a scien-
tific
thing. Does any scientific man believe that
God confounded the
language of men for fear they
would succeed in building a tower high
enough to
reach to heaven?
It is not scientific to say
that angels were in the
habit of walking about the earth, eating veal
dressed
with butter and milk, and making bargains about the
destruction of cities.
The story of Lot's wife having been
turned into a
pillar of salt is extremely unscientific.
It
is unscientific to say that people at one time lived
to be nearly a
thousand years of age. The history
257
of the world
shows that human life is lengthening
instead of shortening.
It is unscientific to say that the infinite God
wrestled with
Jacob and got the better of him, put-
ting his thigh out of joint.
It is unscientific to say that God, in the likeness of
a flame
of fire, inhabited a bush.
It is unscientific to say that a
stick could be
changed into a living snake. Living snakes can not
be made out of sticks. There are not the necessary
elements in a
stick to make a snake.
It is not scientific to say that God
changed water
into blood. All the elements of blood are not in
water.
It is unscientific to declare that dust was changed
into lice.
It is not scientific to say that God caused a thick
darkness over the land of Egypt, and yet allowed it
to be light in
the houses of the Jews.
It is not scientific to say that about
seventy people
could, in two hundred and fifteen years increase to
three millions.
It is not scientific to say that an infinitely
good
God would destroy innocent people to get revenge
upon a
king.
258
It is not scientific to say that slavery
was once
right, that polygamy was once a virtue, and that ex-
termination was mercy.
It is not scientific to assert that a
being of infinite
power and goodness went into partnership with in-
sects,—granted letters of marque and reprisal to
hornets.
It is unscientific to insist that bread was really
rained from
heaven.
It is not scientific to suppose that an infinite being
spent forty days and nights furnishing Moses with plans
and
specifications for a tabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat,
cherubs of
gold, a table, four rings, some dishes, some
spoons, one candlestick,
several bowls, a few knobs,
seven lamps, some snuffers, a pair of
tongs, some cur-
tains, a roof for a tent of rams' skins dyed red, a
few
boards, an altar with horns, ash pans, basins and flesh
hooks, shovels and pots and sockets of silver and
ouches of gold and
pins of brass—for all of which this
God brought with him
patterns from heaven.
It is not scientific to say that when a
man commits
a sin, he can settle with God by killing a sheep.
It is not scientific to say that a priest, by laying
his hands
on the head of a goat, can transfer the sins
of a people to the
animal.
259
Was it scientific to endeavor to
ascertain whether
a woman was virtuous or not, by compelling her to
drink water mixed with dirt from the floor of the
sanctuary?
Is it scientific to say that a dry stick budded,
blossomed, and
bore almonds; or that the ashes of a
red heifer mixed with water can
cleanse us of sin;
or that a good being gave cities into the hands of
the
Jews in consideration of their murdering all the in-
habitants?
Is it scientific to say that an animal saw an angel,
and conversed with a man?
Is it scientific to imagine that
thrusting a spear
through the body of a woman ever stayed a plague?
Is it scientific to say that a river cut itself in two
and
allowed the lower end to run off?
Is it scientific to assert
that seven priests blew
seven rams' horns loud enough to blow down
the
walls of a city?
Is it scientific to say that the sun
stood still in the
midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down for
about a whole day, and that the moon also stayed?
Is it
scientifically probable that an angel of the
Lord devoured unleavened
cakes and broth with
fire that came out of the end of a stick, as he
sat
260
under an oak tree; or that God made known
his
will by letting dew fall on wool without wetting the
ground
around it; or that an angel of God appeared
to Manoah in the absence
of her husband, and that
this angel afterwards went up in a flame of
fire, and
as the result of this visit a child was born whose
strength was in his hair?
Is it scientific to say that the
muscle of a man de-
pended upon the length of his locks?
Is it unscientific to deny that water gushed from a
hollow place in a
dry bone?
Is it evidence of a thoroughly scientific mind to
believe that one man turned over a house so large
that three thousand
people were on its roof?
Is it purely scientific to say that a
man was once
fed by the birds of the air, who brought him bread
and meat every morning and evening, and that after-
ward an angel
turned cook and prepared two sup-
pers in one night, for the same
prophet, who ate
enough to last him forty days and forty nights?
Is it scientific to say that a river divided because
the water
had been struck with a cloak; or that a
man actually went to heaven
in a chariot of fire
drawn by horses of fire; or that a being of
infinite
mercy would destroy children for laughing at a bald-
261
headed prophet; or curse children and childrens
children with leprosy for a father's fault; or that he
made iron
float in water; or that when one corpse
touched another it came to
life; or that the sun went
backward in heaven so that the shadow on a
sun-
dial went back ten degrees, as a sign that a miserable
barbarian king would get well?
Is it scientific to say that the
earth not only
stopped in its rotary motion, but absolutely turned
the other way,—that its motion was reversed simply
as a sign to
a petty king?
Is it scientific to say that Solomon made gold
and
silver at Jerusalem as plentiful as stones, when we
know
that there were kings in his day who could
have thrown away the value
of the whole of Palestine
without missing the amount?
Is
it scientific to say that Solomon exceeded all
the kings of the earth
in glory, when his country
was barren, without roads, when his people
were
few, without commerce, without the arts, without the
sciences, without education, without luxuries?
According to the
Bible, as long as Jehovah attended
to the affairs of the Jews, they
had nothing but war,
pestilence and famine; after Jehovah abandoned
them,
and the Christians ceased, in a measure, to persecute
262
them, the Jews became the most prosperous of people.
Since Jehovah in his anger cast them away, they have
produced
painters, sculptors, scientists, statesmen,
composers, soldiers and
philosophers.
It is not scientific to believe that God ever
pre-
vented rain, that he ever caused famine, that he ever
sent
locusts to devour the wheat and corn, that he
ever relied on
pestilence for the government of man-
kind; or that he ever killed
children to get even with
their parents.
It is not
scientific to believe that the king of Egypt
invaded Palestine with
seventy thousand horsemen
and twelve hundred chariots of war. There
was not,
at that time, a road in Palestine over which a chariot
could be driven.
It is not scientific to believe that in a
battle between
Jeroboam and Abijah, the army of Abijah slew in
one day five hundred thousand chosen men.
It is not scientific
to believe that Zerah, the Ethio-
pian, invaded Palestine with a
million of men who
were overthrown and destroyed; or that Jehoshaphat
had a standing army of nine hundred and sixty
thousand men.
It is unscientific to believe that Jehovah advertised
for a
liar, as is related in Second Chronicles.
263
It is
not scientific to believe that fire refused to
burn, or that water
refused to wet.
It is not scientific to believe in dreams, in
visions,
and in miracles.
It is not scientific to believe
that children have
been born without fathers, that the dead have ever
been raised to life, or that people have bodily as-
cended to heaven
taking their clothes with them.
It is not scientific to believe
in the supernatural.
Science dwells in the realm of fact, in the
realm of
demonstration. Science depends upon human ex-
perience,
upon observation, upon reason.
It is unscientific to say that
an innocent man can
be punished in place of a criminal, and for a
criminal,
and that the criminal, on account of such punishment,
can be justified.
It is unscientific to say that a finite sin
deserves
infinite punishment.
It is unscientific to
believe that devils can inhabit
human beings, or that they can take
possession of
swine, or that the devil could bodily take a man, or
the Son of God, and carry him to the pinnacle of a
temple.
In short, the foolish, the unreasonable, the false,
the miraculous
and the supernatural are unscientific.
264
Question.
Mr. Talmage gives his reason for
accepting the New Testament, and
says: "You
"can trace it right out. Jerome and Eusebius in the
"first century, and Origen in the second century,
"gave lists of the
writers of the New Testament.
"These lists correspond with our list
of the writers
"of the New Testament, showing that precisely as
"we have it, they had it in the third and fourth cen-
"turies. Where
did they get it? From Irenæus.
"Where did he get it? From
Polycarp. Where did
"Polycarp get it? From Saint John, who was a per-
"sonal associate of Jesus. The line is just as clear
"as anything
ever was clear." How do you under-
stand this matter, and has Mr.
Talmage stated the
facts?
Answer. Let us examine
first the witnesses pro-
duced by Mr. Talmage. We will also call
attention
to the great principle laid down by Mr. Talmage for
the examination of evidence,—that where a witness
is found
false in one particular, his entire testimony
must be thrown away.
Eusebius was born somewhere about two hundred
and seventy years
after Christ. After many vicissi-
tudes he became, it is said, the
friend of Constantine.
He made an oration in which he extolled the
virtues
265
of this murderer, and had the honor of
sitting at the
right hand of the man who had shed the blood of his
wife and son. In the great controversy with regard
to the position
that Christ should occupy in the Trinity,
he sided with Arius, "and
lent himself to the perse-
"cution of the orthodox with Athanasius."
He in-
sisted that Jesus Christ was not the same as God,
and
that he was not of equal power and glory. Will
Mr. Talmage admit that
his witness told the truth in
this? "He would not even call the Son
co-eternal
"with God."
Eusebius must have been an
exceedingly truthful
man. He declared that the tracks of Pharaoh's
chariots
were in his day visible upon the shores of the Red
Sea;
that these tracks had been through all the years
miraculously
preserved from the action of wind and
wave, as a supernatural
testimony to the fact that
God miraculously overwhelmed Pharaoh and
his
hosts.
Eusebius also relates that when Joseph and Mary
arrived in Eygpt they took up their abode in Hermopolis,
a city
of Thebæus, in which was the superb
temple of Serapis. When
Joseph and Mary entered
the temple, not only the great idol, but all
the lesser
idols fell down before him.
266
"It
is believed by the learned Dr. Lardner, that
"Eusebius was the one
guilty of the forgery in the
"passage found in Josephus concerning
Christ. Un-
"blushing falsehoods and literary forgeries of the
"vilest character darkened the pages of his historical
"writings."
(Waites History.)
From the same authority I learn that Eusebius
invented an eclipse, and some earthquakes, to agree
with the account
of the crucifixion. It is also be-
lieved that Eusebius quoted from
works that never
existed, and that he pretended a work had been
written by Porphyry, entitled: "The Philosophy of
"Oracles," and then
quoted from it for the purpose
of proving the truth of the Christian
religion.
The fact is, Eusebius was utterly destitute of truth.
He believed, as many still believe, that he could
please God by the
fabrication of lies.
Irenæus lived somewhere about the
end of the
second century. "Very little is known of his early
"history, and the accounts given in various biogra-
"phies are for
the most part conjectural." The
writings of Irenæus are known
to us principally
through Eusebius, and we know the value of his
testimony.
Now, if we are to take the testimony of Irenæus,
267
why not take it? He says that the ministry of Christ
lasted for twenty years, and that Christ was fifty years
old at the
time of his crucifixion. He also insisted
that the "Gospel of Paul"
was written by Luke, "a
"statement made to give sanction to the
gospel of
"Luke."
Irenæus insisted that there were
four gospels, that
there must be, and "he speaks frequently of these
"gospels, and argues that they should be four in
"number, neither
more nor less, because there are
"four universal winds, and four
quarters of the
"world;" and he might have added: because
donkeys have four legs.
These facts can be found in "The
History of the
"Christian Religion to A. D. 200," by Charles B.
Waite,—a book that Mr. Talmage ought to read.
According
to Mr. Waite, Irenæus, in the thirty-
third chapter of his
fifth book, Adversus Hæreses,
cites from Papias the
following sayings of Christ:
"The days will come in which vines shall
grow
"which shall have ten thousand branches, and on
"each
branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig
"ten thousand shoots, and
in each shoot ten thousand
"clusters, and in every one of the
clusters ten
"thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed
268
"will give five and twenty metrets of wine." Also
that "one thousand million pounds of clear, pure, fine
"flour will be
produced from one grain of wheat."
Irenæus adds that "these
things were borne witness
"to by Papias the hearer of John and the
companion
"of Polycarp."
Is it possible that the eternal
welfare of a human
being depends upon believing the testimony of
Poly-
carp and Irenæus? Are people to be saved or lost
on
the reputation of Eusebius? Suppose a man is
firmly convinced that
Polycarp knew nothing about
Saint John, and that Saint John knew
nothing about
Christ,—what then? Suppose he is convinced that
Eusebius is utterly unworthy of credit,—what then?
Must a man
believe statements that he has every
reason to think are false?
The question arises as to the witnesses named by
Mr. Talmage,
whether they were competent to decide
as to the truth or falsehood of
the gospels. We have
the right to inquire into their mental traits
for the
purpose of giving only due weight to what they have
said.
Mr. Bronson C. Keeler is the author of a book
called: "A Short History of the Bible." I avail
myself of a few of
the facts he has there collected. I
269
find in this
book, that Irenæus, Clement and Origen
believed in the fable of
the Phoenix, and insisted that
God produced the bird on purpose to
prove the
probability of the resurrection of the body. Some
of
the early fathers believed that the hyena changed
its sex every year.
Others of them gave as a reason
why good people should eat only
animals with a
cloven foot, the fact that righteous people lived not
only in this world, but had expectations in the next.
They also
believed that insane people were pos-
sessed by devils; that angels
ate manna; that some
angels loved the daughters of men and fell; that
the
pains of women in childbirth, and the fact that ser-
pents
crawl on their bellies, were proofs that the
account of the fall, as
given in Genesis, is true; that
the stag renewed its youth by eating
poisonous
snakes; that eclipses and comets were signs of God's
anger; that volcanoes were openings into hell; that
demons blighted
apples; that a corpse in a cemetery
moved to make room for another
corpse to be placed
beside it. Clement of Alexandria believed that
hail
storms, tempests and plagues were caused by demons.
He also
believed, with Mr. Talmage, that the events
in the life of Abraham
were typical and prophetical
of arithmetic and astronomy.
270
Origen, another of the witnesses of Mr. Talmage,
said
that the sun, moon and stars were living crea-
tures, endowed with
reason and free will, and occa-
sionally inclined to sin. That they
had free will, he
proved by quoting from Job; that they were rational
creatures, he inferred from the fact that they moved.
The sun, moon
and stars, according to him, were
"subject to vanity," and he
believed that they prayed
to God through his only begotten son.
These intelligent witnesses believed that the blight-
ing of
vines and fruit trees, and the disease and de-
struction that came
upon animals and men, were all
the work of demons; but that when they
had entered
into men, the sign of the cross would drive them out.
They derided the idea that the earth is round, and
one of them said:
"About the antipodes also, one
"can neither hear nor speak without
laughter. It is
"asserted as something serious that we should be-
"lieve that there are men who have their feet oppo-
"site to ours.
The ravings of Anaxagoras are more
"tolerable, who said that snow was
black."
Concerning these early fathers, Professor Davidson,
as quoted by Mr. Keeler, uses the following lan-
guage: "Of the three
fathers who contributed
"most to the growth of the canon, Irenæus
was
271
"credulous and blundering; Tertullian
passionate
"and one-sided; and Clement of Alexandria, im-
"bued
with the treasures of Greek wisdom, was
"mainly occupied with
ecclesiastical ethics. Their
"assertions show both ignorance and
exaggeration."
These early fathers relied upon by Mr. Talmage,
quoted from books now regarded as apocryphal—
books that have
been thrown away by the church
and are no longer considered as of the
slightest
authority. Upon this subject I again quote Mr.
Keeler:
"Clement quoted the 'Gospel according to
"'the Hebrews,' which is now
thrown away by the
"church; he also quoted from the Sibylline books
"and the Pentateuch in the same sentence. Origen
"frequently cited
the Gospel of the Hebrews. Jerome
"did the same, and Clement believed
in the 'Gospel
"'according to the Egyptians.' The Shepherd of
"Hermas, a book in high repute in the early church,
"and one which
distinctly claims to have been
"inspired, was quoted by Irenæus
as Scripture.
"Clement of Alexandria said it was a divine revela-
"tion. Origen said it was divinely inspired, and
"quoted it as Holy
Scripture at the same time that
"he cited the Psalms and Epistles of
Paul. Jerome
"quoted the 'Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,'
272
"as divine Scripture. Origen quotes the 'Wisdom
"of Solomon' as the 'Word of God' and 'the
"'words of Christ
himself.' Eusebius of Cæsarea
"cites it as a * Divine Oracle,'
and St. Chrysostom
"used it as Scripture. So Eusebius quotes the
"thirteenth chapter of Daniel as Scripture, but as a
"matter of fact,
Daniel has not a thirteenth chapter,—
"the church has taken it
away. Clement spoke of
"the writer of the fourth book of Esdras as a
prophet;
"he thought Baruch as much the word of God as
"any
other book, and he quotes it as divine Scripture.
"Clement cites
Barnabas as an apostle. Origen
"quotes from the Epistle of Barnabas,
calls it 'Holy
" 'Scripture,' and places it on a level with the
Psalms
"and the Epistles of Paul; and Clement of Alexan-
"dria
believed in the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' and the
"'Revelation, of
Peter,' and wrote comments upon
"these holy books."
Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early
fathers, unless it may
be their ignorance. They be-
lieved everything that was miraculous.
They believed
everything except the truth. Anything that really
happened was considered of no importance by them.
They looked for
wonders, miracles, and monstrous
things, and—generally found
them. They revelled
273
in the misshapen and the
repulsive. They did not
think it wrong to swear falsely in a good
cause.
They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to
suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted
from persons who
never wrote. They misrepresented
those who had written, and their
evidence is abso-
lutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous,
mendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted,
hypocritical,
and for the most part, insane. Read the
book of Revelation, and you
will agree with me that
nothing that ever emanated from a madhouse
can
more than equal it for incoherence. Most of the
writings of
the early fathers are of the same kind.
As to Saint John, the
real truth is, that we know
nothing certainly of him. We do not know
that he
ever lived.
We know nothing certainly of Jesus
Christ. We
know nothing of his infancy, nothing of his youth,
and we are not sure that such a person ever existed.
We know
nothing of Polycarp. We do not know
where he was born, or where, or
how he died. We
know nothing for certain about Irenæus. All the
names quoted by Mr. Talmage as his witnesses
are surrounded by clouds
and doubts, by mist and
darkness. We only know that many of their
274
statements are false, and do not know that any of
them are true.
Question. What do you think of the
following state-
ment by Mr. Talmage: "Oh, I have to tell you that no
"man ever died for a lie cheerfully and triumphantly"?
Answer.
There was a time when men "cheerfully
"and triumphantly died" in
defence of the doctrine
of the "real presence" of God in the wafer
and wine.
Does Mr. Talmage believe in the doctrine of "tran-
"substantiation"? Yet hundreds have died "cheer-
"fully and
triumphantly" for it. Men have died for
the idea that baptism by
immersion is the only
scriptural baptism. Did they die for a lie? If
not,
is Mr. Talmage a Baptist?
Giordano Bruno was an
atheist, yet he perished at
the stake rather than retract his
opinions. He did
not expect to be welcomed by angels and by God.
He did not look for a crown of glory. He expected
simply death and
eternal extinction. Does the fact
that he died for that belief prove
its truth?
Thousands upon thousands have died in defence of
the religion of Mohammed. Was Mohammed an im-
postor? Thousands have
welcomed death in defence
of the doctrines of Buddha. Is Buddhism
true?
275
So I might make a tour of the world, and
of all
ages of human history, and find that millions and
millions have died "cheerfully and triumphantly" in
defence of their
opinions. There is not the slightest
truth in Mr. Talmage's
statement.
A little while ago, a man shot at the Czar of
Russia.
On the day of his execution he was asked if he
wished
religious consolation. He replied that he
believed in no religion.
What did that prove? It
proved only the man's honesty of opinion. All
the
martyrs in the world cannot change, never did
change, a
falsehood into a truth, nor a truth into
a falsehood. Martyrdom
proves nothing but the
sincerity of the martyr and the cruelty and
mean-
ness of his murderers. Thousands and thousands of
people
have imagined that they knew things, that
they were certain, and have
died rather than retract
their honest beliefs.
Mr. Talmage
now says that he knows all about the
Old Testament, that the
prophecies were fulfilled,
and yet he does not know when the
prophecies were
made—whether they were made before or after the
fact. He does not know whether the destruction of
Babylon was told
before it happened, or after. He
knows nothing upon the subject. He
does not know
276
who made the pretended prophecies.
He does not
know that Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Habakkuk, or
Hosea
ever lived in this world. He does not know
who wrote a single book of
the Old Testament. He
knows nothing on the subject. He believes in
the
inspiration of the Old Testament because ancient
cities
finally fell into decay—were overrun and de-
stroyed by
enemies, and he accounts for the fact that
the Jew does not lose his
nationality by saying that
the Old Testament is true.
The
Jews have been persecuted by the Christians,
and they are still
persecuted by them; and Mr. Tal-
mage seems to think that this
persecution was a part
of Gods plan, that the Jews might, by
persecution,
be prevented from mingling with other nationalities,
and so might stand, through the instrumentality of
perpetual hate and
cruelty, the suffering witnesses of
the divine truth of the Bible.
The Jews do not testify to the truth of the Bible,
but to the
barbarism and inhumanity of Christians—
to the meanness and
hatred of what we are pleased
to call the "civilized world." They
testify to the fact
that nothing so hardens the human heart as
religion.
There is no prophecy in the Old Testament fore-
telling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one
277
word in the Old Testament referring to him in any
way—not
one word. The only way to prove this
is to take your Bible, and
wherever you find these
words: "That it might be fulfilled," and
"which
"was spoken," turn to the Old Testament and
find what was
written, and you will see that it had
not the slightest possible
reference to the thing re-
counted in the New Testament—not the
slightest.
Let us take some of the prophecies of the Bible,
and see how plain they are, and how beautiful they
are. Let us see
whether any human being can tell
whether they have ever been
fulfilled or not.
Here is a vision of Ezekiel: "I looked, and
be-
"hold a whirlwind came out of the north, a great
"cloud, and
a fire infolding itself, and a brightness
"was about it, and out of
the midst thereof as the
"color of amber, out of the midst of the
fire. Also
"out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four
"living creatures. And this was their appearance;
"they had the
likeness of a man. And every one
"had four faces, and every one had
four wings.
"And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of
"their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they
"sparkled
like the color of burnished brass. And
"they had the hands of a man
under their wings on
278
"their four sides; and they
four had their faces and
"their wings. Their wings were joined one to
"another; they turned not when-they went; they
"went every one
straight forward. As for the like-
"ness of their faces, they four
had the face of a man,
"and the face of a lion, on the right side:
and they
"four had the face of an ox on the left side; they
"four also had the face of an eagle.
"Thus were their faces:
and their wings were
"stretched upward; two wings of every one were
"joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.
"And they went
every one straight forward: whither
"the spirit was to go, they went;
and they turned not
"when they went.
"As for the likeness
of the living creatures, their
"appearance was like burning coals of
fire, and like
"the appearance of lamps: it went up and down
"among the living creatures; and the fire was bright,
"and out of the
fire went forth lightning. And the
"living creatures ran and returned
as the appearance
"of a flash of lightning.
"Now as I
beheld the living creatures, behold one
"wheel upon the earth by the
living creatures, with
"his four faces. The appearance of the wheels
and
"their work was like unto the color of a beryl: and
279
"they four had one likeness: and their appearance
"and
their work was as it were a wheel in the middle
"of a wheel. When
they went, they went upon
"their four sides: and they turned not when
they
"went. As for their rings, they were so high that
"they
were dreadful; and their rings were full of
"eyes round about them
four. And when the living
"creatures went, the wheels went by them:
and
"when the living creatures were lifted up from the
"earth,
the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever
"the spirit was to go, they
went, thither was their
"spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up
over
"against them: for the spirit of the living creature
"was
in the wheels. When those went, these went;
"and when those stood,
these stood; and when those
"were lifted up from the earth, the
wheels were
"lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the
"living creature was in the wheels. And the like-
"ness of the
firmament upon the heads of the living
"creature was as the color of
the terrible crystal,
"stretched forth over their heads above. And
under
"the firmament were their wings straight, the one
"toward
the other; every one had two, which
"covered on this side, and every
one had two,
"which covered on that side, their bodies."
280
Is such a vision a prophecy? Is it calculated
to
convey the slightest information? If so, what?
So, the
following vision of the prophet Daniel is
exceedingly important and
instructive:
"Daniel spake and said: I saw in my vision by
"night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven
"strove upon the
great sea. And four great beasts
"came up from the sea, diverse one
from another.
"The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings:
"I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it
"was lifted up
from the earth, and made stand upon
"the feet as a man, and a man's
heart was given to
"it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a
"bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had
"three ribs in
the mouth of it between the teeth of
"it: and they said thus unto it,
Arise, devour much
"flesh.
"After this I beheld, and lo
another, like a leopard,
"which had upon the back of it four wings of
a fowl;
"the beast had also four heads, and dominion was
"given
to it.
"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold
"a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong ex-
"ceedingly;
and it had great iron teeth; it devoured
"and brake in pieces, and
stamped the residue with
281
"the feet of it; and it
was diverse from all the beasts
"that were before it, and it had ten
horns. I con-
"sidered the horns, and, behold, there came up
"among them another little horn, before whom
"there were three of the
first horns plucked up by
"the roots: and behold, in this horn were
eyes like
"the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great
"things."
I have no doubt that this prophecy has been liter-
ally
fulfilled, but I am not at present in condition to
give the time,
place, or circumstances.
A few moments ago, my attention was
called to
the following extract from The New York Herald of
the thirteenth of March, instant:
"At the Fifth Avenue Baptist
Church, Dr. Armi-
"tage took as his text, 'A wheel in the middle of a
"'wheel'—Ezekiel, i., 16. Here, said the preacher,
"are three
distinct visions in one—the living crea-
"tures, the moving
wheels and the fiery throne. We
"have time only to stop the wheels of
this mystic
"chariot of Jehovah, that we may hold holy converse
"with Him who rides upon the wings of the wind.
"In this vision of
the prophet we have a minute and
"amplified account of these
magnificent symbols or
"hieroglyphics, this wondrous machinery which
de-
282
"notes immense attributes and agencies and
voli-
"tions, passing their awful and mysterious course of
"power and intelligence in revolution after revolu-
"tion of the
emblematical mechanism, in steady and
"harmonious advancement to the
object after which
"they are reaching. We are compelled to look
"upon the whole as symbolical of that tender and
"endearing
providence of which Jesus spoke when
"He said, 'The very hairs of
your head are num-
"* bered.'"
Certainly, an ordinary
person, not having been
illuminated by the spirit of prophecy, would
never
have even dreamed that there was the slightest re-
ference
in Ezekiel's vision to anything like counting
hairs. As a
commentator, the Rev. Dr. Armitage
has no equal; and, in my judgment,
no rival. He
has placed himself beyond the reach of ridicule. It
is impossible to say anything about his sermon as
laughable as his
sermon.
Question. Have you no confidence in any pro-
phecies? Do you take the ground that there never
has been a human
being who could predict the
future?
Answer. I admit
that a man of average intelli-
283
gence knows that
a certain course, when pursued
long enough, will bring national
disaster, and it is
perfectly safe to predict the downfall of any and
every country in the world. In my judgment,
nations, like
individuals, have an average life.
Every nation is mortal. An
immortal nation cannot
be constructed of mortal individuals. A nation
has
a reason for existing, and that reason sustains the
same
relation to the nation that the acorn does to
the oak. The nation
will attain its growth—other
things being equal. It will reach
its manhood and
its prime, but it will sink into old age, and at last
must die. Probably, in a few thousand years, men
will be able to
calculate the average life of nations,
as they now calculate the
average life of persons.
There has been no period since the morning
of his-
tory until now, that men did not know of dead and
dying
nations. There has always been a national
cemetery. Poland is dead,
Turkey is dying. In
every nation are the seeds of dissolution. Not
only
nations die, but races of men. A nation is born,
becomes
powerful, luxurious, at last grows weak, is
overcome, dies, and
another takes its place, In this
way civilization and barbarism, like
day and night,
alternate through all of history's years.
284
In every nation there are at least two classes of
men:
First, the enthusiastic, the patriotic, who be-
lieve that the nation
will live forever,—that its flag
will float while the earth has
air; Second, the owls
and ravens and croakers, who are always
predicting
disaster, defeat, and death. To the last class belong
the Jeremiahs, Ezekiels, and Isaiahs of the Jews.
They were always
predicting the downfall of Jeru-
salem. They revelled in defeat and
captivity. They
loved to paint the horrors of famine and war. For
the most part, they were envious, hateful, misan-
thropic and unjust.
There seems to have been a war between church
and state. The
prophets were endeavoring to pre-
serve the ecclesiastical power.
Every king who would
listen to them, was chosen of God. He instantly
became the model of virtue, and the prophets assured
him that he was
in the keeping of Jehovah. But if
the king had a mind of his own, the
prophets im-
mediately called down upon him all the curses of
heaven, and predicted the speedy destruction of his
kingdom.
If our own country should be divided, if an empire
should rise
upon the ruins of the Republic, it would
be very easy to find that
hundreds and thousands of
285
people had foretold
that very thing. If you will read
the political speeches of the last
twenty-two years,
you will find prophecies to fit any possible future
state of affairs in our country. No matter what
happens, you will
find that somebody predicted it.
If the city of London should lose
her trade, if the
Parliament house should become the abode of moles
and bats, if "the New Zealander should sit upon the
"ruins of London
Bridge," all these things would be
simply the fulfillment of
prophecy. The fall of every
nation under the sun has been predicted
by hundreds
and thousands of people.
The prophecies of the
Old Testament can be made
to fit anything that may happen, or that
may not
happen. They will apply to the death of a king, or
to
the destruction of a people,—to the loss of com-
merce, or the
discovery of a continent. Each pro-
phecy is a jugglery of words, of
figures, of symbols,
so put together, so used, so interpreted, that
they
can mean anything, everything, or nothing.
Question.
Do you see anything "prophetic" in
the fate of the Jewish people
themselves? Do you
think that God made the Jewish people wanderers,
so
that they might be perpetual witnesses to the truth
of the
Scriptures?
286
Answer. I cannot believe that
an infinitely good
God would make anybody a wanderer. Neither can
I believe that he would keep millions of people with-
out country and
without home, and allow them to be
persecuted for thousands of years,
simply that they
might be used as witnesses. Nothing could be more
absurdly cruel than this.
The Christians justify their
treatment of the Jews
on the ground that they are simply fulfilling
prophecy.
The Jews have suffered because of the horrid story
that their ancestors crucified the Son of God. Chris-
tianity, coming
into power, looked with horror upon
the Jews, who denied the truth of
the gospel. Each
Jew was regarded as a dangerous witness against
Christianity. The early Christians saw how neces-
sary it was that
the people who lived in Jerusalem
at the time of Christ should be
convinced that
he was God, and should testify to the miracles he
wrought. Whenever a Jew denied it, the Christian
was filled with
malignity and hatred, and immediately
excited the prejudice of other
Christians against the
man simply because he was a Jew. They forgot,
in
their general hatred, that Mary, the mother of Christ,
was a
Jewess; that Christ himself was of Jewish
blood; and with an
inconsistency of which, of all
287
religions,
Christianity alone could have been guilty,
the Jew became an object
of especial hatred and
aversion.
When we remember that
Christianity pretends to
be a religion of love and kindness, of
charity and for-
giveness, must not every intelligent man be shocked
by the persecution of the Jews? Even now, in learned
and cultivated
Germany, the Jew is treated as though
he were a wild beast. The
reputation of this great
people has been stained by a persecution
spring-
ing only from ignorance and barbarian prejudice.
So in
Russia, the Christians are anxious to shed
every drop of Jewish
blood, and thousands are to-day
fleeing from their homes to seek a
refuge from Chris-
tian hate. And Mr. Talmage believes that all these
persecutions are kept up by the perpetual intervention
of God, in
order that the homeless wanderers of the
seed of Abraham may testify
to the truth of the Old
and New Testaments. He thinks that every
burning
Jewish home sheds light upon the gospel,—that
every gash in Jewish flesh cries out in favor of the
Bible,—that
every violated Jewish maiden shows the
interest that God still takes
in the preservation of
his Holy Word.
I am endeavoring to
do away with religious
288
prejudice. I wish to
substitute humanity for super-
stition, the love of our fellow-men,
for the fear of
God. In the place of ignorant worship, let us put
good deeds. We should be great enough and grand
enough to know that
the rights of the Jew are pre-
cisely the same as our own. We cannot
trample
upon their rights, without endangering our own; and
no
man who will take liberty from another, is great
enough to enjoy
liberty himself.
Day by day Christians are laying the
foundation
of future persecution. In every Sunday school little
children are taught that Jews killed the God of this
universe. Their
little hearts are filled with hatred
against the Jewish people. They
are taught as a
part of the creed to despise the descendants of the
only people with whom God is ever said to have had
any conversation
whatever.
When we take into consideration what the Jewish
people have suffered, it is amazing that every one of
them does not
hate with all his heart and soul and
strength the entire Christian
world. But in spite of
the persecutions they have endured, they are
to-day,
where they are permitted to enjoy reasonable liberty,
the most prosperous people on the globe. The idea
that their
condition shows, or tends to show, that
289
upon
them abides the wrath of Jehovah, cannot be
substantiated by the
facts.
The Jews to-day control the commerce of the
world.
They control the money of the world. It is
for them to say whether
nations shall or shall not go
to war. They are the people of whom
nations borrow
money. To their offices kings come with their hats
in their hands. Emperors beg them to discount their
notes. Is all
this a consequence of the wrath of
God?
We find upon our
streets no Jewish beggars. It is
a rare sight to find one of these
people standing as
a criminal before a court. They do not fill our
alms-
houses, nor our penitentiaries, nor our jails. In-
tellectually and morally they are the equal of any
people. They have
become illustrious in every de-
partment of art and science. The old
cry against
them is at last perceived to be ignorant. Only a few
years ago, Christians would rob a Jew, strip him of
his possessions,
steal his money, declare him an out-
cast, and drive him forth. Then
they would point
to him as a fulfillment of prophecy.
If
you wish to see the difference between some
Jews and some Christians,
compare the addresses of
Felix Adler with the sermons of Mr. Talmage.
290
I cannot convince myself that an infinitely good
and wise God holds a Jewish babe in the cradle of
to-day responsible
for the crimes of Caiaphas the
high priest. I hardly think that an
infinitely good
being would pursue this little babe through all its
life
simply to get revenge on those who died two thou-
sand
years ago. An infinite being ought certainly to
know that the child
is not to blame; and an infinite
being who does not know this, is not
entitled to the
love or adoration of any honest man.
There
is a strange inconsistency in what Mr. Tal-
mage says. For instance,
he finds great fault with
me because I do not agree with the
religious ideas
of my father; and he finds fault equally with the
Jews who do. The Jews who were true to the re-
ligion of their
fathers, according to Mr. Talmage,
have been made a by-word and a
hissing and a re-
proach among all nations, and only those Jews were
fortunate and blest who abandoned the religion of
their fathers. The
real reason for this inconsistency
is this: Mr. Talmage really thinks
that a man can
believe as he wishes. He imagines that evidence de-
pends simply upon volition; consequently, he holds
every one
responsible for his belief. Being satisfied
that he has the exact
truth in this matter, he meas-
291
ures all other
people by his standard, and if they
fail by that measurement, he
holds them personally
responsible, and believes that his God does the
same.
If Mr. Talmage had been born in Turkey, he would
in all
probability have been a Mohammedan, and
would now be denouncing some
man who had denied
the inspiration of the Koran, as the "champion
blas-
"phemer" of Constantinople. Certainly he would
have been,
had his parents been Mohammedans;
because, according to his doctrine,
he would have
been utterly lacking in respect and love for his father
and mother had he failed to perpetuate their errors.
So, had he been
born in Utah, of Mormon parents,
he would now have been a defender of
polygamy.
He would not "run the ploughshare of contempt
"through
the graves of his parents," by taking the
ground that polygamy is
wrong.
I presume that all of Mr. Talmage's forefathers
were not Presbyterians. There must have been
a time when one of his
progenitors left the faith of
his father, and joined the Presbyterian
Church. Ac-
cording to the reasoning of Mr. Talmage, that particular
progenitor was an exceedingly bad man; but had it
not been for the
crime of that bad man, Mr. Talmage
might not now have been on the
road to heaven.
292
I hardly think that all the
inventors, the thinkers,
the philosophers, the discoverers,
dishonored their
parents. Fathers and mothers have been made
immortal by such sons. And yet these sons demon-
strated the errors
of their parents. A good father
wishes to be excelled by his
children.
SIXTH INTERVIEW.
It is a
contradiction in terms and ideas to call
anything a revelation that
comes to us at second-
hand, either verbally or in writing.
Revelation is
necessarily limited to the first communication—
after this, it is only an account of something
which that person says
was a revelation made to
him; and though he may find himself obliged
to
believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the
same manner; for it was not a
revelation made to me, and I have only
his word
for it that it was made to him.—Thomas Paine.
Question. What do you think of the argu-
ments presented
by Mr. Talmage in favor of
the inspiration of the Bible?
Answer. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that
there are more
copies of the Bible than of any
other book, and that consequently it
must be in-
spired.
It seems to me that this kind of
reasoning proves
entirely too much. If the Bible is the inspired word
of God, it was certainly just as true when there was
only one copy,
as it is to-day; and the facts con-
tained in it were just as true
before they were
296
written, as afterwards. We all
know that it is a fact
in human nature, that a man can tell a
falsehood so
often that he finally believes it himself; but I never
suspected, until now, that a mistake could be printed
enough times to
make it true.
There may have been a time, and probably there
was, when there were more copies of the Koran
than of the Bible. When
most Christians were ut-
terly ignorant, thousands of Moors were
educated;
and it is well known that the arts and sciences
flourished in Mohammedan countries in a far greater
degree than in
Christian. Now, at that time, it may
be that there were more copies
of the Koran than of
the Bible. If some enterprising Mohammedan had
only seen the force of such a fact, he might have
established the
inspiration of the Koran beyond
a doubt; or, if it had been found by
actual count that
the Koran was a little behind, a few years of in-
dustry spent in the multiplication of copies, might
have furnished
the evidence of its inspiration.
Is it not simply amazing that
a doctor of divinity,
a Presbyterian clergyman, in this day and age,
should
seriously rely upon the number of copies of the Bible
to
substantiate the inspiration of that book? Is it
possible to conceive
of anything more fig-leaflessly
297
absurd? If there
is anything at all in this argument,
it is, that all books are true
in proportion to the
number of copies that exist. Of course, the same
rule will work with newspapers; so that the news-
paper having the
largest circulation can consistently
claim infallibility. Suppose
that an exceedingly absurd
statement should appear in The New York
Herald,
and some one should denounce it as utterly without
any foundation in fact or probability; what would
Mr. Talmage think
if the editor of the Herald, as an
evidence of the truth of the
statement, should rely
on the fact that his paper had the largest
circulation
of any in the city? One would think that the whole
church had acted upon the theory that a falsehood re-
peated often
enough was as good as the truth.
Another evidence brought
forward by the reverend
gentleman to prove the inspiration of the
Scriptures,
is the assertion that if Congress should undertake to
pass a law to take the Bible from the people, thirty,
millions would
rise in defence of that book.
This argument also seems to me to
prove too much,
and as a consequence, to prove nothing. If Con-
gress should pass a law prohibiting the reading of
Shakespeare, every
American would rise in defence
of his right to read the works of the
greatest man
298
this world has known. Still, that
would not even
tend to show that Shakespeare was inspired. The
fact is, the American people would not allow Con-
gress to pass a law
preventing them from reading
any good book. Such action would not
prove the
book to be inspired; it would prove that the American
people believe in liberty.
There are millions of people in
Turkey who would
peril their lives in defence of the Koran. A fact
like
this does not prove the truth of the Koran; it simply
proves what Mohammedans think of that book, and
what they are willing
to do for its preservation.
It can not be too often repeated,
that martyrdom
does not prove the truth of the thing for which the
martyr dies; it only proves the sincerity of the martyr
and the
cruelty of his murderers. No matter how
many people regard the Bible
as inspired,—that fact
furnishes no evidence that it is
inspired. Just as many
people have regarded other books as inspired;
just as
many millions have been deluded about the inspiration
of
books ages and ages before Christianity was born.
The simple
belief of one man, or of millions of men,
is no evidence to another.
Evidence must be based,
not upon the belief of other people, but upon
facts.
A believer may state the facts upon which his belief
299
is founded, and the person to whom he states them
gives them the weight that according to the con-
struction and
constitution of his mind he must. But
simple, bare belief is not
testimony. We should build
upon facts, not upon beliefs of others,
nor upon the
shifting sands of public opinion. So much for this
argument.
The next point made by the reverend gentleman
is, that an infidel cannot be elected to any office in
the United
States, in any county, precinct, or ward.
For the sake of the
argument, let us admit that this
is true. What does it prove? There
was a time
when no Protestant could have been elected to any
office. What did that prove? There was a time
when no Presbyterian
could have been chosen to fill
any public station. What did that
prove? The
same may be said of the members of each religious
denomination. What does that prove?
Mr. Talmage says that
Christianity must be true,
because an infidel cannot be elected to
office. Now,
suppose that enough infidels should happen to settle
in one precinct to elect one of their own number to
office; would
that prove that Christianity was not
true in that precinct? There was
a time when no
man could have been elected to any office, who in-
300
sisted on the rotundity of the earth; what did that
prove? There was a time when no man who denied
the existence of
witches, wizards, spooks and devils,
could hold any position of
honor; what did that
prove? There was a time when an abolitionist
could
not be elected to office in any State in this Union;
what
did that prove? There was a time when they
were not allowed to
express their honest thoughts;
what does that prove? There was a time
when a
Quaker could not have been elected to any office;
there
was a time in the history of this country when
but few of them were
allowed to live; what does
that prove? Is it necessary, in order to
ascertain the
truth of Christianity, to look over the election re-
turns? Is "inspiration" a question to be settled by
the ballot? I
admit that it was once, in the first
place, settled that way. I admit
that books were
voted in and voted out, and that the Bible was
finally
formed in accordance with a vote; but does Mr.
Talmage
insist that the question is not still open?
Does he not know, that a
fact cannot by any possi-
bility be affected by opinion? We make laws
for
the whole people, by the whole people. We agree
that a
majority shall rule, but nobody ever pretended
that a question of
taste could be settled by an appeal
301
to
majorities, or that a question of logic could be
affected by numbers.
In the world of thought, each
man is an absolute monarch, each brain
is a king-
dom, that cannot be invaded even by the tyranny of
majorities.
No man can avoid the intellectual responsibility of
deciding for himself.
Suppose that the Christian religion had
been put
to vote in Jerusalem? Suppose that the doctrine of
the
"fall" had been settled in Athens, by an appeal
to the people, would
Mr. Talmage have been willing
to abide by their decision? If he
settles the inspira-
tion of the Bible by a popular vote, he must
settle the
meaning of the Bible by the same means. There are
more Methodists than Presbyterians—why does the
gentleman
remain a Presbyterian? There are more
Buddhists than Christians—why
does he vote against
majorities? He will remember that Christianity
was
once settled by a popular vote—that the divinity of
Christ was submitted to the people, and the people
said: "Crucify
him!"
The next, and about the strongest, argument Mr.
Talmage makes is, that I am an infidel because I was
defeated for
Governor of Illinois.
When put in plain English, his statement
is this:
302
that I was defeated because I was an
infidel, and that
I am an infidel because I was defeated. This, I be-
lieve, is called reasoning in a circle. The truth is,
that a good
many people did object to me because I
was an infidel, and the
probability is, that if I had
denied being an infidel, I might have
obtained an
office. The wonderful part is, that any Christian
should deride me because I preferred honor to po-
litical success. He
who dishonors himself for the
sake of being honored by others, will
find that two
mistakes have been made—one by himself, and the
other, by the people.
I presume that Mr.Talmage really thinks
that I was
extremely foolish to avow my real opinions. After
all, men are apt to judge others somewhat by them-
selves. According
to him, I made the mistake of
preserving my manhood and losing an
office. Now,
if I had in fact been an infidel, and had denied it, for
the sake of position, then I admit that every Christian
might have
pointed at me the finger of contempt.
But I was an infidel, and
admitted it. Surely, I should
not be held in contempt by Christians
for having
made the admission. I was not a believer in the
Bible, and I said so. I was not a Christian, and I said
so. I was not
willing to receive the support of any
303
man under
a false impression. I thought it better to
be honestly beaten, than
to dishonestly succeed.
According to the ethics of Mr. Talmage I made
a
mistake, and this mistake is brought forward as
another
evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
If I had only been
elected Governor of Illinois,—that
is to say, if I had been a
successful hypocrite, I might
now be basking in the sunshine of this
gentleman's
respect. I preferred to tell the truth—to be an
honest man,—and I have never regretted the course
I pursued.
There are many men now in office who, had they
pursued a nobler
course, would be private citizens.
Nominally, they are Christians;
actually, they are
nothing; and this is the combination that
generally
insures political success.
Mr. Talmage is
exceedingly proud of the fact that
Christians will not vote for
infidels. In other words,
he does not believe that in our Government
the
church has been absolutely divorced from the state.
He
believes that it is still the Christian's duty to
make the religious
test. Probably he wishes to get
his God into the Constitution. My
position is this:
Religion is an individual matter—a
something for
each individual to settle for himself, and with which
304
no other human being has any concern, provided the
religion of each human being allows liberty to every
other. When
called upon to vote for men to fill the
offices of this country, I do
not inquire as to the re-
ligion of the candidates. It is none of my
business.
I ask the questions asked by Jefferson: "Is he
"honest; is he capable?" It makes no difference to
me, if he is
willing that others should be free, what
creed he may profess. The
moment I inquire into his
religious belief, I found a little
inquisition of my own;
I repeat, in a small way, the errors of the
past, and
reproduce, in so far as I am capable, the infamy of
the ignorant orthodox years.
Mr. Talmage will accept my thanks
for his frankness.
I now know what controls a Presbyterian when he
casts his vote. He cares nothing for the capacity,
nothing for the
fitness, of the candidate to discharge
the duties of the office to
which he aspires; he
simply asks: Is he a Presbyterian, is he a
Protestant,
does he believe our creed? and then, no matter how
ignorant he may be, how utterly unfit, he receives the
Presbyterian
vote. According to Mr. Talmage, he
would vote for a Catholic who, if
he had the power,
would destroy all liberty of conscience, rather
than
vote for an infidel who, had he the power, would
305
destroy all the religious tyranny of the world, and
allow every
human being to think for himself, and
to worship God, or not, as and
how he pleased.
Mr. Talmage makes the serious mistake of
placing
the Bible above the laws and Constitution of his
country. He places Jehovah above humanity. Such
men are not entirely
safe citizens of any republic.
And yet, I am in favor of giving to
such men all the
liberty I ask for myself, trusting to education and
the
spirit of progress to overcome any injury they may
do, or
seek to do.
When this country was founded, when the Con-
stitution was adopted, the churches agreed to let the
State alone.
They agreed that all citizens should have
equal civil rights. Nothing
could be more dangerous
to the existence of this Republic than to
introduce
religion into politics. The American theory is, that
governments are founded, not by gods, but by men,
and that the right
to govern does not come from
God, but "from the consent of the
governed." Our
fathers concluded that the people were sufficiently
intelligent to take care of themselves—to make good
laws and to
execute them. Prior to that time, all
authority was supposed to come
from the clouds.
Kings were set upon thrones by God, and it was the
306
business of the people simply to submit. In all
really
civilized countries, that doctrine has been abandoned.
The source of political power is here, not in heaven.
We are willing
that those in heaven should control
affairs there; we are willing
that the angels should
have a government to suit themselves; but
while we
live here, and while our interests are upon this earth,
we propose to make and execute our own laws.
If the doctrine of
Mr. Talmage is the true doctrine,
if no man should be voted for
unless he is a Christian,
then no man should vote unless he is a
Christian. It
will not do to say that sinners may vote, that an
infidel
may be the repository of political power, but must not
be voted for. A decent Christian who is not willing
that an infidel
should be elected to an office, would
not be willing to be elected to
an office by infidel
votes. If infidels are too bad to be voted for,
they
are certainly not good enough to vote, and no
Christian
should be willing to represent such an
infamous constituency.
If the political theory of Mr. Talmage is carried
out, of
course the question will arise in a little while,
What is a
Christian? It will then be necessary to
write a creed to be
subscribed by every person before
he is fit to vote or to be voted
for. This of course
307
must be done by the State,
and must be settled,
under our form of government, by a majority
vote.
Is Mr. Talmage willing that the question, What is
Christianity? should be so settled? Will he pledge
himself in advance
to subscribe to such a creed? Of
course he will not. He will insist
that he has the
right to read the Bible for himself, and that he must
be bound by his own conscience. In this he would
be right. If he has
the right to read the Bible for
himself, so have I. If he is to be
bound by his con-
science, so am I. If he honestly believes the Bible
to
be true, he must say so, in order to preserve his man-
hood;
and if I honestly believe it to be uninspired,—
filled with
mistakes,—I must say so, or lose my man-
hood. How infamous I
would be should I endeavor
to deprive him of his vote, or of his
right to be voted
for, because he had been true to his conscience!
And
how infamous he is to try to deprive me of the right
to
vote, or to be voted for, because I am true to my
conscience!
When we were engaged in civil war, did Mr. Tal-
mage object to
any man's enlisting in the ranks who
was not a Christian? Was he
willing, at that time,
that sinners should vote to keep our flag in
heaven?
Was he willing that the "unconverted" should cover
308
the fields of victory with their corpses, that this nation
might not die? At the same time, Mr. Talmage
knew that every
"unconverted" soldier killed, went
down to eternal fire. Does Mr.
Talmage believe that
it is the duty of a man to fight for a
government in
which he has no rights? Is the man who shoulders
his musket in the defence of human freedom good
enough to cast a
ballot? There is in the heart of this
priest the safne hatred of real
liberty that drew the
sword of persecution, that built dungeons, that
forged
chains and made instruments of torture.
Nobody,
with the exception of priests, would be
willing to trust the
liberties of this country in the
hands of any church. In order to
show the political
estimation in which the clergy are held, in order
to
show the confidence the people at large have in the
sincerity
and wisdom of the clergy, it is sufficient to
state, that no priest,
no bishop, could by any possi-
bility be elected President of the
United States. No
party could carry that load. A fear would fall upon
the mind and heart of every honest man that this
country was about to
drift back to the Middle Ages,
and that the old battles were to be
refought. If the
bishop running for President was of the Methodist
Church, every other church would oppose him. If
309
he was a Catholic, the Protestants would as a body
combine against
him. Why? The churches have
no confidence in each other. Why? Because
they
are acquainted with each other.
As a matter of fact,
the infidel has a thousand
times more reason to vote against the
Christian,
than the Christian has to vote against the infidel.
The Christian believes in a book superior to the
Constitution—superior
to all Constitutions and all
laws. The infidel believes that the
Constitution and
laws are superior to any book. He is not controlled
by any power beyond the seas or above the clouds.
He does not receive
his orders from Rome, or Sinai.
He receives them from his
fellow-citizens, legally and
constitutionally expressed. The
Christian believes in
a power greater than man, to which, upon the
peril
of eternal pain, he must bow. His allegiance, to say
the
best of it, is divided. The Christian puts the for-
tune of his own
soul over and above the temporal
welfare of the entire world; the
infidel puts the good
of mankind here and now, beyond and over all.
There was a time in New England when only
church members were
allowed to vote, and it may be
instructive to state the fact that
during that time
Quakers were hanged, women were stripped, tied to
310
carts, and whipped from town to town, and their
babes sold into slavery, or exchanged for rum. Now
in that same
country, thousands and thousands of
infidels vote, and yet the laws
are nearer just, women
are not whipped and children are not sold.
If all the convicts in all the penitentiaries of the
United
States could be transported to some island in
the sea, and there
allowed to make a government for
themselves, they would pass better
laws than John
Calvin did in Geneva. They would have clearer and
better views of the rights of men, than unconvicted
Christians used
to have. I do not say that these
convicts are better people, but I do
say that, in my
judgment, they would make better laws. They cer-
tainly could not make worse.
If these convicts were taken from
the prisons of
the United States, they would not dream of uniting
church and state. They would have no religious
test. They would allow
every man to vote and to be
voted for, no matter what his religious
views might
be. They would not dream of whipping Quakers, of
burning Unitarians, of imprisoning or burning Uni-
versalists or
infidels. They would allow all the people
to guess for themselves.
Some of these convicts, of
course, would believe in the old ideas,
and would
insist upon the suppression of free thought. Those
coming from Delaware would probably repeat with
great gusto the
opinions of Justice Comegys, and
insist that the whipping-post was
the handmaid of
Christianity.
It would be hard to conceive
of a much worse
government than that founded by the Puritans.
They took the Bible for the foundation of their
political structure.
They copied the laws given to
Moses from Sinai, and the result was
one of the
worst governments that ever disgraced this world.
They believed the Old Testament to be inspired.
They believed that
Jehovah made laws for all people
and for all time. They had not
learned the hypoc-
risy that believes and avoids. They did not say:
This law was once just, but is now unjust; it was
once good, but now
it is infamous; it was given by
God once, but now it can only be
obeyed by the
devil. They had not reached the height of biblical
exegesis on which we find the modern theologian
perched, and who
tells us that Jehovah has reformed.
The Puritans were consistent.
They did what people
must do who honestly believe in the inspiration
of
the Old Testament. If God gave laws from Sinai
what right
have we to repeal them?
312
As people have gained
confidence in each other,
they have lost confidence in the sacred
Scriptures.
We know now that the Bible can not be used as the
foundation of government. It is capable of too many
meanings. Nobody
can find out exactly what it
upholds, what it permits, what it
denounces, what it
denies. These things depend upon what part you
read. If it is all true, it upholds everything bad and
denounces
everything good, and it also denounces
the bad and upholds the good.
Then there are
passages where the good is denounced and the bad
commanded; so that any one can go to the Bible
and find some text,
some passage, to uphold anything
he may desire. If he wishes to
enslave his fellow-
men, he will find hundreds of passages in his
favor.
If he wishes to be a polygamist, he can find his
authority there. If he wishes to make war, to exter-
minate his
neighbors, there his warrant can be found.
If, on the other hand, he
is oppressed himself, and
wishes to make war upon his king, he can
find a
battle-cry. And if the king wishes to put him down,
he
can find text for text on the other side. So, too,
upon all questions
of reform. The teetotaler goes
there to get his verse, and the
moderate drinker
finds within the sacred lids his best excuse.
313
Most intelligent people are now convinced that the
bible is not a guide; that in reading it you must
exercise your
reason; that you can neither safely
reject nor accept all; that he
who takes one passage
for a staff, trips upon another; that while one
text is
a light, another blows it out; that it is such a ming-
ling of rocks and quicksands, such a labyrinth of
clews and snares—so
few flowers among so many
nettles and thorns, that it misleads rather
than di-
rects, and taken altogether, is a hindrance and not
a
help.
Another important point made by Mr. Talmage is,
that
if the Bible is thrown away, we will have nothing
left to swear
witnesses on, and that consequently the
administration of justice
will become impossible.
There was a time when the Bible did not
exist, and
if Mr. Talmage is correct, of course justice was im-
possible then, and truth must have been a stranger
to human lips. How
can we depend upon the testi-
mony of those who wrote the Bible, as
there was no
Bible in existence while they were writing, and con-
sequently there was no way to take their testimony,
and we have no
account of their having been sworn
on the Bible after they got it
finished. It is extremely
sad to think that all the nations of
antiquity were left
314
entirely without the means
of eliciting truth. No
wonder that Justice was painted blindfolded.
What perfect fetichism it is, to imagine that a man
will tell
the truth simply because he has kissed an
old piece of sheepskin
stained with the saliva of all
classes. A farce of this kind adds
nothing to the
testimony of an honest man; it simply allows a rogue
to give weight to his false testimony. This is really
the only result
that can be accomplished by kissing
the Bible. A desperate villain,
for the purpose of
getting revenge, or making money, will gladly go
through the ceremony, and ignorant juries and su-
perstitious judges
will be imposed upon. The whole
system of oaths is false, and does
harm instead of
good. Let every man walk into court and tell his
story, and let the truth of the story be judged by its
reasonableness, taking into consideration the charac-
ter of the
witness, the interest he has, and the posi-
tion he occupies in the
controversy, and then let it
be the business of the jury to ascertain
the real truth
—to throw away the unreasonable and the impossi-
ble, and make up their verdict only upon what they
believe to be
reasonable and true. An honest man
does not need the oath, and a
rascal uses it simply
to accomplish his purpose. If the history of
courts
315
proved that every man, after kissing the
Bible, told
the truth, and that those who failed to kiss it some-
times lied, I should be in favor of swearing all people
on the Bible;
but the experience of every lawyer is,
that kissing the Bible is not
always the preface of a
true story. It is often the ceremonial
embroidery
of a falsehood.
If there is an infinite God who
attends to the
affairs of men, it seems to me almost a sacrilege to
publicly appeal to him in every petty trial. If one
will go into any
court, and notice the manner in
which oaths are administered,—the
utter lack of
solemnity—the matter-of-course air with which the
whole thing is done, he will be convinced that it is a
form of no
importance. Mr. Talmage would probably
agree with the judge of whom
the following story is
told:
A witness was being sworn.
The judge noticed
that he was not holding up his hand. He said to the
clerk: "Let the witness hold up his right hand."
"His right arm was
shot off," replied the clerk. "Let
"him hold up his left, then."
"That was shot off, too,
"your honor." "Well, then, let him raise one
foot;
"no man can be sworn in this court without holding
"something up."
My own opinion is, that if every copy of
the Bible
in the world were destroyed, there would be some
way
to ascertain the truth in judicial proceedings;
and any other book
would do just as well to swear
witnesses upon, or a block in the
shape of a book
covered with some kind of calfskin could do equally
well, or just the calfskin would do. Nothing is more
laughable than
the performance of this ceremony,
and I have never seen in court one
calf kissing the
skin of another, that I did not feel humiliated that
such things were done in the name of Justice.
Mr. Talmage has
still another argument in favor
of the preservation of the Bible. He
wants to
know what book could take its place on the centre-
table.
I admit that there is much force in this. Suppose
we all admitted the Bible to be an uninspired book,
it could still be
kept on the centre-table. It would
be just as true then as it is now.
Inspiration can not
add anything to a fact; neither can inspiration
make
the immoral moral, the unjust just, or the cruel merci-
ful. If it is a fact that God established human slavery,
that does
not prove slavery to be right; it simply
shows that God was wrong. If
I have the right to
use my reason in determining whether the Bible is
317
inspired or not, and if in accordance with my reason
I conclude that it is inspired, I have still the right to
use my
reason in determining whether the command-
ments of God are good or
bad. Now, suppose we
take from the Bible every word upholding
slavery,
every passage in favor of polygamy, every verse
commanding soldiers to kill women and children, it
would be just as
fit for the centre-table as now. Sup-
pose every impure word was
taken from it; suppose
that the history of Tamar was left out, the
biography
of Lot, and all other barbarous accounts of a barbarous
people, it would look just as well upon the centre-
table as now.
Suppose that we should become convinced that
the writers of the
New Testament were mistaken as
to the eternity of punishment, or that
all the passages
now relied upon to prove the existence of perdition
were shown to be interpolations, and were thereupon
expunged, would
not the book be dearer still to
every human being with a heart? I
would like to
see every good passage in the Bible preserved. I
would like to see, with all these passages from the
Bible, the
loftiest sentiments from all other books
that have ever been uttered
by men in all ages and
of all races, bound in one volume, and to see
that
318
volume, filled with the greatest, the
purest and the
best, become the household book.
The
average Bible, on the average centre-table, is
about as much used as
though it were a solid block.
It is scarcely ever opened, and people
who see its
covers every day are unfamiliar with its every page.
I admit that some things have happened some-
what hard to
explain, and tending to show that the
Bible is no ordinary book. I
heard a story, not long
ago, bearing upon this very subject.
A man was a member of the church, but after a
time, having had
bad luck in business affairs, became
somewhat discouraged. Not
feeling able to con-
tribute his share to the support of the church,
he
ceased going to meeting, and finally became an
average
sinner. His bad luck pursued him until he
found himself and his
family without even a crust to
eat. At this point, his wife told him
that she be-
lieved they were suffering from a visitation of God,
and begged him to restore family worship, and see if
God would not do
something for them. Feeling that
he could not possibly make matters
worse, he took
the Bible from its resting place on a shelf where
it had quietly slumbered and collected the dust of
many months, and
gathered his family about him.
319
He opened the
sacred volume, and to his utter as-
tonishment, there, between the
divine leaves, was a
ten-dollar bill. He immediately dropped on his
knees. His wife dropped on hers, and the children on
theirs, and with
streaming eyes they returned thanks
to God. He rushed to the
butcher's and bought
some steak, to the baker's and bought some
bread,
to the grocer's and got some eggs and butter and tea,
and
joyfully hastened home. The supper was cooked,
it was on the table,
grace was said, and every face
was radiant with joy. Just at that
happy moment a
knock was heard, the door was opened, and a police-
man entered and arrested the father for passing
counterfeit money.
Mr. Talmage is also convinced that the Bible is
inspired and
should be preserved because there is no
other book that à
mother could give her son as he
leaves the old home to make his way
in the world.
Thousands and thousands of mothers have pre-
sented their sons with Bibles without knowing really
what the book
contains. They simply followed the
custom, and the sons as a rule
honored the Bible, not
because they knew anything of it, but because
it was
a gift from mother. But surely, if all the passages
upholding polygamy were out, the mother would give
320
the book to her son just as readily, and he would re-
ceive it
just as joyfully. If there were not one word
in it tending to degrade
the mother, the gift would cer-
tainly be as appropriate. The fact
that mothers have
presented Bibles to their sons does not prove that
the
book is inspired. The most that can be proved by
this fact
is that the mothers believed it to be inspired.
It does not even tend
to show what the book is,
neither does it tend to establish the truth
of one
miracle recorded upon its pages. We cannot believe
that
fire refused to burn, simply because the state-
ment happens to be in
a book presented to a son by
his mother, and if all the mothers of
the entire world
should give Bibles to all their children, this would
not
prove that it was once right to murder mothers, or to
enslave mothers, or to sell their babes.
The inspiration of the
Bible is not a question of
natural affection. It can not be decided
by the love
a mother bears her son. It is a question of fact, to
be substantiated like other facts. If the Turkish
mother should give
a copy of the Koran to her
son, I would still have my doubts about
the in-
spiration of that book; and if some Turkish soldier
saved his life by having in his pocket a copy of
the Koran that
accidentally stopped a bullet just
321
opposite his
heart, I should still deny that Mohammed
was a prophet of God.
Nothing can be more childish than to ascribe
mysterious powers
to inanimate objects. To imagine
that old rags made into pulp,
manufactured into
paper, covered with words, and bound with the skin
of a calf or a sheep, can have any virtues when thus
put together
that did not belong to the articles out
of which the book was
constructed, is of course
infinitely absurd.
In the days
of slavery, negroes used to buy dried
roots of other negroes, and put
these roots in their
pockets, so that a whipping would not give them
pain. Kings have bought diamonds to give them
luck. Crosses and
scapularies are still worn for the
purpose of affecting the
inevitable march of events.
People still imagine that a verse in the
Bible can step
in between a cause and its effect; really believe that
an amulet, a charm, the bone of some saint, a piece
of a cross, a
little image of the Virgin, a picture of a
priest, will affect the
weather, will delay frost, will
prevent disease, will insure safety
at sea, and in some
cases prevent hanging. The banditti of Italy have
great confidence in these things, and whenever they
start upon an
expedition of theft and plunder, they
322
take
images and pictures of saints with them, such
as have been blest by a
priest or pope. They pray
sincerely to the Virgin, to give them luck,
and see not
the slightest inconsistency in appealing to all the
saints in the calendar to assist them in robbing honest
people.
Edmund About tells a story that illustrates the belief
of the
modern Italian. A young man was gambling.
Fortune was against him. In
the room was a little
picture representing the Virgin and her child.
Before
this picture he crossed himself, and asked the assist-
ance of the child. Again he put down his money
and again lost.
Returning to the picture, he told the
child that he had lost all but
one piece, that he was
about to hazard that, and made a very urgent
request
that he would favor him with divine assistance. He
put
down the last piece. He lost. Going to the
picture and shaking his
fist at the child, he cried out:
"Miserable bambino, I am glad they
crucified you!"
The confidence that one has in an image, in a
relic,
in a book, comes from the same source,—fetichism.
To ascribe supernatural virtues to the skin of a snake,
to a picture,
or to a bound volume, is intellectually
the same.
Mr.
Talmage has still another argument in favor
323
of
the inspiration of the Scriptures. He takes the
ground that the Bible
must be inspired, because so
many people believe it.
Mr.
Talmage should remember that a scientific
fact does not depend upon
the vote of numbers;—
it depends simply upon demonstration; it
depends
upon intelligence and investigation, not upon an
ignorant multitude; it appeals to the highest, in-
stead of to the
lowest. Nothing can be settled
by popular prejudice.
According to Mr. Talmage, there are about three
hundred million
Christians in the world. Is this true?
In all countries claiming to
be Christian—including
all of civilized Europe, Russia in Asia,
and every
country on the Western hemisphere, we have nearly
four
hundred millions of people. Mr. Talmage claims
that three hundred
millions are Christians. I sup-
pose he means by this, that if all
should perish to-
night, about three hundred millions would wake up
in heaven—having lived and died good and consist-
ent
Christians.
There are in Russia about eighty millions of people
—how many Christians? I admit that they have re-
cently given
more evidence of orthodox Christianity
than formerly. They have been
murdering old men;
324
they have thrust daggers into
the breasts of women;
they have violated maidens—because they
were Jews.
Thousands and thousands are sent each year to the
mines of Siberia, by the Christian government of
Russia. Girls
eighteen years of age, for having ex-
pressed a word in favor of
human liberty, are to-day
working like beasts of burden, with chains
upon
their limbs and with the marks of whips upon
their backs.
Russia, of course, is considered by Mr.
Talmage as a Christian
country—a country utterly
destitute of liberty—without
freedom of the press,
without freedom of speech, where every mouth is
locked and every tongue a prisoner—a country filled
with
victims, soldiers, spies, thieves and executioners.
What would Russia
be, in the opinion of Mr. Tal-
mage, but for Christianity? How could
it be worse,
when assassins are among the best people in it?
The
truth is, that the people in Russia, to-day, who
are in favor of
human liberty, are not Christians.
The men willing to sacrifice their
lives for the good
of others, are not believers in the Christian
religion.
The men who wish to break chains are infidels;
the men
who make chains are Christians. Every
good and sincere Catholic of
the Greek Church
is a bad citizen, an enemy of progress, a foe of
325
human liberty. Yet Mr. Talmage regards Russia
as
a Christian country.
The sixteen millions of people in Spain
are claimed
as Christians. Spain, that for centuries was the as-
sassin of human rights; Spain, that endeavored to
spread Christianity
by flame and fagot; Spain, the
soil where the Inquisition flourished,
where bigotry
grew, and where cruelty was worship,—where
murder was prayer. I admit that Spain is a Chris-
tian nation. I
admit that infidelity has gained no
foothold beyond the Pyrenees. The
Spaniards are
orthodox. They believe in the inspiration of the
Old and New Testaments. They have no doubts
about miracles—no
doubts about heaven, no doubts
about hell. I admit that the priests,
the highway-
men, the bishops and thieves, are equally true be-
lievers. The man who takes your purse on the
highway, and the priest
who forgives the robber,
are alike orthodox.
It gives me
pleasure, however, to say that even in
Spain there is a dawn. Some
great men, some men
of genius, are protesting against the tyranny of
Cath-
olicism. Some men have lost confidence in the
cathedral,
and are beginningto ask the State to erect
the schoolhouse. They are
beginning to suspect
326
that priests are for the
most part impostors and
plunderers.
According to Mr.
Talmage, the twenty-eight mil-
lions in Italy are Christians. There
the Christian
Church was early established, and the popes are to-
day the successors of St. Peter. For hundreds and
hundreds of years,
Italy was the beggar of the world,
and to her, from every land,
flowed streams of gold
and silver. The country was covered with
convents,
and monasteries, and churches, and cathedrals filled
with monks and nuns. Its roads were crowded with
pilgrims, and its
dust was on the feet of the world.
What has Christianity done for
Italy—Italy, its soil a
blessing, its sky a smile—Italy,
with memories great
enough to kindle the fires of enthusiasm in any
human breast?
Had it not been for a few Freethinkers, for a few
infidels, for such men as Garibaldi and Mazzini, the
heaven of Italy
would still have been without a star.
I admit that Italy, with
its popes and bandits, with
its superstition and ignorance, with its
sanctified
beggars, is a Christian nation; but in a little while,—
in a few days,—when according to the prophecy of
Garibaldi
priests, with spades in their hands, will
dig ditches to drain the
Pontine marshes; in a little
327
while, when the
pope leaves the Vatican, and seeks
the protection of a nation he has
denounced,—asking
alms of intended victims; when the nuns shall
marry,
and the monasteries shall become factories, and the
whirl
of wheels shall take the place of drowsy prayers
—then, and not
until then, will Italy be,—not a
Christian nation, but great,
prosperous, and free.
In Italy, Giordano Bruno was burned. Some
day,
his monument will rise above the cross of Rome.
We
have in our day one example,—and so far as I
know, history
records no other,—of the resurrection
of a nation. Italy has
been called from the grave of
superstition. She is "the first fruits
of them that
"slept."
I admit with Mr. Talmage that
Portugal is a Chris-
tian country—that she engaged for hundreds
of years
in the slave trade, and that she justified the infamous
traffic by passages in the Old Testament. I admit,
also, that she
persecuted the Jews in accordance
with the same divine volume. I
admit that all the
crime, ignorance, destitution, and superstition in
that
country were produced by the Catholic Church. I
also admit
that Portugal would be better if it were
Protestant.
Every
Catholic is in favor of education enough to
328
change a barbarian into a Catholic; every Protestant
is in favor of
education enough to change a Catholic
into a Protestant; but
Protestants and Catholics alike
are opposed to education that will
lead to any
real philosophy and science. I admit that Portugal
is what it is, on account of the preaching of the
gospel. I admit
that Portugal can point with pride
to the triumphs of what she calls
civilization within
her borders, and truthfully ascribe the glory to
the
church. But in a litde while, when more railroads
are built,
when telegraphs connect her people with
the civilized world, a spirit
of doubt, of investigation,
will manifest itself in Portugal.
When the people stop counting beads, and go to
the study of
mathematics; when they think more of
plows than of prayers for
agricultural purposes; when
they find that one fact gives more light
to the mind
than a thousand tapers, and that nothing can by any
possibility be more useless than a priest,—then Por-
tugal will
begin to cease to be what is called a
Christian nation.
I
admit that Austria, with her thirty-seven millions,
is a Christian
nation—including her Croats, Hungar-
ians, Servians, and
Gypsies. Austria was one of the
assassins of Poland. When we remember
that John
329
Sobieski drove the Mohammedans from
the gates of
Vienna, and rescued from the hand of the "infidel"
the beleagured city, the propriety of calling Austria a
Christian
nation becomes still more apparent. If one
wishes to know exactly how
"Christian" Austria is,
let him read the history of Hungary, let him
read
the speeches of Kossuth. There is one good thing
about
Austria: slowly but surely she is undermining
the church by
education. Education is the enemy
of superstition. Universal
education does away with
the classes born of the tyranny of
ecclesiasticism—
classes founded upon cunning, greed, and brute
strength. Education also tends to do away with
intellectual
cowardice. The educated man is his
own priest, his own pope, his own
church.
When cunning collects tolls from fear, the church
prospers.
Germany is another Christian nation. Bismarck is
celebrated for his Christian virtues.
Only a little while ago,
Bismarck, when a bill was
under consideration for ameliorating the
condition
of the Jews, stated publicly that Germany was a
Christian nation, that her business was to extend
and protect the
religion of Jesus Christ, and that
being a Christian nation, no laws
should be passed
330
ameliorating the condition of
the Jews. Certainly a
remark like this could not have been made in
any
other than a Christian nation. There is no freedom
of the
press, there is no freedom of speech, in Ger-
many. The Chancellor
has gone so far as to declare
that the king is not responsible to the
people. Ger-
many must be a Christian nation. The king gets his
right to govern, not from his subjects, but from God.
He relies upon
the New Testament. He is satisfied
that "the powers that be in
Germany are ordained
"of God." He is satisfied that treason against
the
German throne is treason against Jehovah. There
are millions
of Freethinkers in Germany. They are
not in the majority, otherwise
there would be more
liberty in that country. Germany is not an
infidel
nation, or speech would be free, and every man
would be
allowed to express his honest thoughts.
Wherever I see Liberty
in chains, wherever the
expression of opinion is a crime, I know that
that
country is not infidel; I know that the people are not
ruled by reason. I also know that the greatest men
of Germany—her
Freethinkers, her scientists, her
writers, her philosophers, are, for
the most part, in-
fidel. Yet Germany is called a Christian nation,
and
ought to be so called until her citizens are free.
331
France is also claimed as a Christian country. This
is not
entirely true. France once was thoroughly
Catholic, completely
Christian. At the time of the
massacre of Saint Bartholomew, the
French were
Christians. Christian France made exiles of the
Huguenots. Christian France for years and years
was the property of
the Jesuits. Christian France
was ignorant, cruel, orthodox and
infamous. When
France was Christian, witnesses were cross-examined
with instruments of torture.
Now France is not entirely under
Catholic control,
and yet she is by far the most prosperous nation in
Europe. I saw, only the other day, a letter from a
Protestant bishop,
in which he states that there are
only about a million Protestants in
France, and only
four or five millions of Catholics, and admits, in a
very melancholy way, that thirty-four or thirty-five
millions are
Freethinkers. The bishop is probably
mistaken in his figures, but
France is the best housed,
the best fed, the best clad country in
Europe.
Only a little while ago, France was overrun, trampled
into the very earth, by the victorious hosts of Ger-
many, and France
purchased her peace with the
savings of centuries. And yet France is
now rich and
prosperous and free, and Germany poor, discontented
332
and enslaved. Hundreds and thousands of Germans,
unable to find liberty at home, are coming to the
United States.
I admit that England is a Christian country. Any
doubts upon
this point can be dispelled by reading
her history—her career
in India, what she has done
in China, her treatment of Ireland, of
the American
Colonies, her attitude during our Civil war; all these
things show conclusively that England is a Christian
nation.
Religion has filled Great Britain with war. The
history of the
Catholics, of the Episcopalians, of
Cromwell—all the burnings,
the maimings, the brand-
ings, the imprisonments, the confiscations,
the civil
wars, the bigotry, the crime—show conclusively that
Great Britain has enjoyed to the full the blessings of
"our most holy
religion."
Of course, Mr. Talmage claims the United States
as a Christian country. The truth is, our country is
not as Christian
as it once was. When heretics were
hanged in New England, when the
laws of Virginia
and Maryland provided that the tongue of any man
who denied the doctrine of the Trinity should be
bored with hot
iron,, and that for the second offence
he should suffer death, I
admit that this country was
333
Christian. When we
engaged in the slave trade,
when our flag protected piracy and murder
in every
sea, there is not the slightest doubt that the United
States was a Christian country. When we believed
in slavery, and when
we deliberately stole the labor
of four millions of people; when we
sold women
and babes, and when the people of the North
enacted a
law by virtue of which every Northern
man was bound to turn hound and
pursue a human
being who was endeavoring to regain his liberty, I
admit that the United States was a Christian nation.
I admit that all
these things were upheld by the Bible
—that the slave trader
was justified by the Old Testa-
ment, that the bloodhound was a kind
of missionary
in disguise, that the auction block was an altar, the
slave pen a kind of church, and that the whipping-
post was
considered almost as sacred as the cross.
At that time, our country
was a Christian nation.
I heard Frederick Douglass say that he
lectured
against slavery for twenty years before the doors
of a
single church were opened to him. In New
England, hundreds of
ministers were driven from
their pulpits because they preached
against the
crime of human slavery. At that time, this country
was a Christian nation.
334
Only a few years ago,
any man speaking in favor
of the rights of man, endeavoring to break
a chain
from a human limb, was in danger of being mobbed
by the
Christians of this country. I admit that Dela-
ware is still a
Christian State. I heard a story about
that State the other day.
About fifty years ago, an old Revolutionary soldier
applied for
a pension. He was asked his age, and he
replied that he was fifty
years old. He was told that
if that was his age, he could not have
been in the
Revolutionary War, and consequently was not en-
titled to any pension. He insisted, however, that he
was only fifty
years old. Again they told him that
there must be some mistake. He
was so wrinkled,
so bowed, had so many marks of age, that he must
certainly be more than fifty years old. "Well," said
the old man, "if
I must explain, I will: I lived forty
"years in Delaware; but I never
counted that time,
"and I hope God won't."
The fact is, we
have grown less and less Christian
every year from 1620 until now,
and the fact is that
we have grown more and more civilized, more and
more charitable, nearer and nearer just.
Mr. Talmage speaks as
though all the people in
what he calls the civilized world were
Christians. Ad-
335
mitting this to be true, I find
that in these countries
millions of men are educated, trained and
drilled to
kill their fellow Christians. I find Europe covered
with forts to protect Christians from Christians, and
the seas filled
with men-of-war for the purpose of
ravaging the coasts and destroying
the cities of Chris-
tian nations. These countries are filled with
prisons,
with workhouses, with jails and with toiling, ignorant
and suffering millions. I find that Christians have
invented most of
the instruments of death, that
Christians are the greatest soldiers,
fighters, de-
stroyers. I find that every Christian country is taxed
to its utmost to support these soldiers; that every
Christian nation
is now groaning beneath the grievous
burden of monstrous debt, and
that nearly all these
debts were contracted in waging war. These
bonds,
these millions, these almost incalculable amounts,
were
given to pay for shot and shell, for rifle and
torpedo, for
men-of-war, for forts and arsenals, and
all the devilish enginery of
death. I find that each
of these nations prays to God to assist it as
against
all others; and when one nation has overrun, ravaged
and
pillaged another, it immediately returns thanks
to the Almighty, and
the ravaged and pillaged kneel
and thank God that it is no worse.
336
Mr. Talmage is welcome to all the evidence he can
find in the history of what he is pleased to call the
civilized
nations of the world, tending to show the
inspiration of the Bible.
And right here it may be well enough to say again,
that the
question of inspiration can not be settled by
the votes of the
superstitious millions. It can not be
affected by numbers. It must be
decided by each
human being for himself. If every man in this world,
with one exception, believed the Bible to be the in-
spired word of
God, the man who was the exception
could not lose his right to think,
to investigate, and to
judge for himself.
Question.
You do not think, then, that any of the
arguments brought forward by
Mr. Talmage for the
purpose of establishing the inspiration of the
Bible,
are of any weight whatever?
Answer. I do
not. I do not see how it is possible
to make poorer, weaker or better
arguments than he
has made.
Of course, there can be no
"evidence" of the in-
spiration of the Scriptures. What is
"inspiration"?
Did God use the prophets simply as instruments?
Did he put his thoughts in their minds, and use their
337
hands to make a record? Probably few Christians
will agree as
to what they mean by "inspiration."
The general idea is, that the
minds of the writers of
the books of the Bible were controlled by the
divine
will in such a way that they expressed, independently
of
their own opinions, the thought of God. I believe it
is admitted that
God did not choose the exact words,
and is not responsible for the
punctuation or syntax.
It is hard to give any reason for claiming
more for
the Bible than is claimed by those who wrote it.
There
is no claim of "inspiration" made by the writer
of First and Second
Kings. Not one word about the
author having been "inspired" is found
in the book
of Job, or in Ruth, or in Chronicles, or in the Psalms,
or Ecclesiastes, or in Solomon's Song, and nothing is
said about the
author of the book of Esther having
been "inspired." Christians now
say that Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John were "inspired" to write the
four gospels, and yet neither Mark, nor Luke, nor
John, nor Matthew
claims to have been "inspired."
If they were "inspired," certainly
they should have
stated that fact. The very first thing stated in
each
of the gospels should have been a declaration by the
writer
that he had been "inspired," and that he was
about to write the book
under the guidance of God,
338
and at the conclusion
of each gospel there should
have been a solemn statement that the
writer had
put down nothing of himself, but had in all things
followed the direction and guidance of the divine
will. The church
now endeavors to establish the
inspiration of the Bible by force, by
social ostracism,
and by attacking the reputation of every man who
denies or doubts. In all Christian countries, they
begin with the
child in the cradle. Each infant is
told by its mother, by its
father, or by some of its
relatives, that "the Bible is an inspired
book." This
pretended fact, by repetition "in season and out of
"season," is finally burned and branded into the
brain to such a
degree that the child of average
intelligence never outgrows the
conviction that the
Bible is, in some peculiar sense, an "inspired"
book.
The question has to be settled for each generation.
The
evidence is not sufficient, and the foundation of
Christianity is
perpetually insecure. Beneath this great
religious fabric there is no
rock. For eighteen centu-
ries, hundreds and thousands and millions
of people
have been endeavoring to establish the fact that the
Scriptures are inspired, and since the dawn of science,
since the
first star appeared in the night of the
Middle Ages, until this
moment, the number of
339
people who have doubted
the fact of inspiration
has steadily increased. These doubts have not
been
born of ignorance, they have not been suggested by
the
unthinking. They have forced themselves upon
the thoughtful, upon the
educated, and now the ver-
dict of the intellectual world is, that
the Bible is not
inspired. Notwithstanding the fact that the church
has taken advantage of infancy, has endeavored to
control education,
has filled all primers and spelling-
books and readers and text books
with superstition—
feeding all minds with the miraculous and
super-
natural, the growth toward a belief in the natural
and
toward the rejection of the miraculous has been
steady and sturdy
since the sixteenth century. There
has been, too, a moral growth,
until many passages
in the Bible have become barbarous, inhuman and
infamous. The Bible has remained the same, while
the world has
changed. In the light of physical and
moral discovery, "the inspired
volume" seems in
many respects absurd. If the same progress is made
in the next, as in the last, century, it is very easy to
predict the
place that will then be occupied by the
Bible. By comparing long
periods of time, it is easy
to measure the advance of the human race.
Com-
pare the average sermon of to-day with the average
340
sermon of one hundred years ago. Compare what
ministers teach to-day with the creeds they profess
to believe, and
you will see the immense distance
that even the church has traveled
in the last century.
The Christians tell us that scientific men
have
made mistakes, and that there is very little certainty
in
the domain of human knowledge. This I admit.
The man who thought the
world was flat, and who
had a way of accounting for the movement of
the
heavenly bodies, had what he was pleased to call a
philosophy. He was, in his way, a geologist and an
astronomer. We
admit that he was mistaken; but
if we claimed that the first
geologist and the first
astronomer were inspired, it would not do for
us to
admit that any advance had been made, or that any
errors
of theirs had been corrected. We do not
claim that the first
scientists were inspired. We do
not claim that the last are inspired.
We admit that
all scientific men are fallible. We admit that they do
not know everything. We insist that they know but
little, and that
even in that little which they are sup-
posed to know, there is the
possibility of error. The
first geologist said: "The earth is flat."
Suppose
that the geologists of to-day should insist that that
man was inspired, and then endeavor to show that
341
the word "flat," in the "Hebrew," did not mean
quite flat, but just a
little rounded; what would we
think of their honesty? The first
astronomer in-
sisted that the sun and moon and stars revolved
around this earth—that this little earth was the centre
of the
entire system. Suppose that the astronomers
of to-day should insist
that that astronomer was in-
spired, and should try to explain, and
say that he
simply used the language of the common people, and
when he stated that the sun and moon and stars re-
volved around the
earth, he merely meant that they
"apparently revolved," and that the
earth, in fact,
turned over, would we consider them honest men?
You might as well say that the first painter was in-
spired, or that
the first sculptor had the assistance of
God, as to say that the
first writer, or the first book-
maker, was divinely inspired. It is
more probable
that the modern geologist is inspired than that the an-
cient one was, because the modern geologist is nearer
right. It is
more probable that William Lloyd Gar-
rison was inspired upon the
question of slavery than
that Moses was. It is more probable that the
author
of the Declaration of Independence spoke by divine
authority than that the author of the Pentateuch did.
In other words,
if there can be any evidence of
342
"inspiration,"
it must lie in the fact of doing or
saying the best possible thing
that could have been
done or said at that time or upon that subject.
To make myself clear: The only possible evidence
of
"inspiration" would be perfection—a perfection ex-
celling
anything that man unaided had ever attained.
An "inspired" book
should excel all other books; an
inspired statue should be the best
in this world; an in-
spired painting should be beyond all others. If
the Bible
has been improved in any particular, it was not, in that
particular, ''inspired." If slavery is wrong, the Bible is
not
inspired. If polygamy is vile and loathsome, the
Bible is not
inspired. If wars of extermination are cruel
and heartless, the Bible
is not "inspired." If there is
within that book a contradiction of
any natural fact; if
there is one ignorant falsehood, if there is one
mistake,
then it is not "inspired." I do not mean mistakes that
have grown out of translations; but if there was in
the original
manuscript one mistake, then it is not
"inspired." I do not demand a
miracle; I do not
demand a knowledge of the future; I simply demand
an absolute knowledge of the past. I demand an ab-
solute knowledge
of the then present; I demand a
knowledge of the constitution of the
human mind—
of the facts in nature, and that is all I demand.
343
Question. If I understand you, you think that
all
political power should come from the people; do you
not
believe in any "special providence," and do you
take the ground that
God does not interest himself
in the affairs of nations and
individuals?
Answer. The Christian idea is that God made
the
world, and made certain laws for the government of
matter
and mind, and that he never interferes except
upon special occasions,
when the ordinary laws fail to
work out the desired end. Their notion
is, that the
Lord now and then stops the horses simply to show
that he is driving. It seems to me that if an infinitely
wise being
made the world, he must have made it
the best possible; and that if
he made laws for the
government of matter and mind, he must have made
the best possible laws. If this is true, not one of
these laws can be
violated without producing a posi-
tive injury. It does not seem
probable that infinite
wisdom would violate a law that infinite
wisdom had
made.
Most ministers insist that God now and
then in-
terferes in the affairs of this world; that he has not
interfered as much lately as he did formerly. When
the world was
comparatively new, it required alto-
gether more tinkering and fixing
than at present.
344
Things are at last in a
reasonably good condition,
and consequently a great amount of
interference is
not necessary. In old times it was found necessary
fre-
quently to raise the dead, to change the nature of fire
and
water, to punish people with plagues and famine,
to destroy cities by
storms of fire and brimstone, to
change women into salt, to cast
hailstones upon
heathen, to interfere with the movements of our
planetary system, to stop the earth not only, but
sometimes to make
it turn the other way, to arrest
the moon, and to make water stand up
like a wall.
Now and then, rivers were divided by striking them
with a coat, and people were taken to heaven in
chariots of fire.
These miracles, in addition to curing
the sick, the halt, the deaf
and blind, were in former
times found necessary, but since the
"apostolic age,"
nothing of the kind has been resorted to except in
Catholic countries. Since the death of the last
apostle, God has
appeared only to members of the
Catholic Church, and all modern
miracles have been
performed for the benefit of Catholicism. There is
no authentic account of the Virgin Mary having ever
appeared to a
Protestant. The bones of Protestant
saints have never cured a
solitary disease. Protest-
ants now say that the testimony of the
Catholics can
345
not be relied upon, and yet, the
authenticity of every
book in the New Testament was established by
Cath-
olic testimony. Some few miracles were performed
in
Scotland, and in fact in England and the United
States, but they were
so small that they are hardly
worth mentioning. Now and then, a man
was struck
dead for taking the name of the Lord in vain. Now
and
then, people were drowned who were found in
boats on Sunday. Whenever
anybody was about to
commit murder, God has not interfered—the
reason
being that he gave man free-will, and expects to hold
him
accountable in another world, and there is no
exception to this
free-will doctrine, but in cases
where men swear or violate the
Sabbath. They are
allowed to commit all other crimes without any in-
terference on the part of the Lord.
My own opinion is, that the
clergy found it neces-
sary to preserve the Sabbath for their own
uses, and
for that reason endeavored to impress the people
with
the enormity of its violation, and for that purpose
gave instances of
people being drowned and suddenly
struck dead for working or amusing
themselves on that
day. The clergy have objected to any other places
of
amusement except their own, being opened on that
day. They
wished to compel people either to go to
346
church
or stay at home. They have also known
that profanity tended to do
away with the feelings
of awe they wished to cultivate, and for that
reason
they have insisted that swearing was one of the most
terrible of crimes, exciting above all others the wrath
of God.
There was a time when people fell dead for having
spoken
disrespectfully to a priest. The priest at that
time pretended to be
the visible representative of
God, and as such, entitled to a degree
of reverence
amounting almost to worship. Several cases are
given in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland where
men were
deprived of speech for having spoken
rudely to a parson.
These stories were calculated to increase the im-
portance of the
clergy and to convince people that
they were under the special care
of the Deity. The
story about the bears devouring the little children
was told in the first place, and has been repeated
since, simply to
protect ministers from the laughter
of children. There ought to be
carved on each side
of every pulpit a bear with fragments of children
in
its mouth, as this animal has done so much to protect
the
dignity of the clergy.
Besides the protection of ministers, the
drowning
347
of breakers of the Sabbath, and
striking a few people
dead for using profane language, I think there
is no
evidence of any providential interference in the affairs
of this world in what may be called modern times.
Ministers have
endeavored to show that great calam-
ities have been brought upon
nations and cities as a
punishment for the wickedness of the people.
They
have insisted that some countries have been visited
with
earthquakes because the people had failed to
discharge their
religious duties; but as earthquakes
happened in uninhabited
countries, and often at sea,
where no one is hurt, most people have
concluded
that they are not sent as punishments. They have
insisted that cities have been burned as a punish-
ment, and to show
the indignation of the Lord, but
at the same time they have admitted
that if the
streets had been wider, the fire departments better
organized, and wooden buildings fewer, the design
of the Lord would
have been frustrated.
After reading the history of the world,
it is some-
what difficult to find which side the Lord is really on.
He has allowed Catholics to overwhelm and de-
stroy Protestants, and
then he has allowed Protestants
to overwhelm and destroy Catholics.
He has allowed
Christianity to triumph over Paganism, and he allowed
348
Mohammedans to drive back the hosts of the cross
from the sepulchre of his son. It is curious that this
God would
allow the slave trade to go on, and yet
punish the violators of the
Sabbath. It is simply
wonderful that he would allow kings to wage
cruel
and remorseless war, to sacrifice millions upon the
altar
of heartless ambition, and at the same time
strike a man dead for
taking his name in vain. It is
wonderful that he allowed slavery to
exist for centu-
ries in the United States; that he allows polygamy
now in Utah; that he cares nothing for liberty in
Russia, nothing for
free speech in Germany, nothing
for the sorrows of the overworked,
underpaid millions
of the world; that he cares nothing for the
innocent
languishing in prisons, nothing for the patriots con-
demned to death, nothing for the heart-broken
widows and orphans,
nothing for the starving, and
yet has ample time to note a sparrow's
fall. If he
would only strike dead the would-be murderers; if
he
would only palsy the hands of husbands' uplifted
to strike their
wives; if he would render speechless
the cursers of children, he
could afford to overlook
the swearers and breakers of his Sabbath.
For one, I am not satisfied with the government
of this world,
and I am going to do what little I can
349
to make
it better. I want more thought and less
fear, more manhood and less
superstition, less prayer
and more help, more education, more reason,
more
intellectual hospitality, and above all, and over all,
more
liberty and kindness.
Question. Do you think that God,
if there be one,
when he saves or damns a man, will take into con-
sideration all the circumstances of the man's life?
Answer.
Suppose that two orphan boys, James
and John, are given homes. James
is taken into a
Christian family and John into an infidel. James
becomes a Christian, and dies in the faith. John be-
comes an
infidel, and dies without faith in Christ.
According to the Christian
religion, as commonly
preached, James will go to heaven, and John to
hell.
Now, suppose that God knew that if James had
been
raised by the infidel family, he would have died
an infidel, and that
if John had been raised by the
Christian family, he would have died a
Christian.
What then? Recollect that the boys did not choose
the
families in which they were placed.
Suppose that a child, cast
away upon an island in
which he found plenty of food, grew to
manhood;
and suppose that after he had reached mature years,
350
the island was visited by a missionary who taught a
false religion; and suppose that this islander was con-
vinced that
he ought to worship a wooden idol; and
suppose, further, that the
worship consisted in sacri-
ficing animals; and suppose the islander,
actuated
only by what he conceived to be his duty and by
thankfulness, sacrificed a toad every night and every
morning upon
the altar of his wooden god; that
when the sky looked black and
threatening he sacri-
ficed two toads; that when feeling unwell he
sacrificed
three; and suppose that in all this he was honest, that
he really believed that the shedding of toad-blood
would soften the
heart of his god toward him? And
suppose that after he had become
fully-convinced
of the truth of his religion, a missionary of the
"true religion" should visit the island, and tell the
history of the
Jews—unfold the whole scheme of
salvation? And suppose that the
islander should
honestly reject the true religion? Suppose he should
say that he had "internal evidence" not only, but
that many miracles
had been performed by his god,
in his behalf; that often when the sky
was black
with storm, he had sacrificed a toad, and in a few
moments the sun was again visible, the heavens blue,
and without a
cloud; that on several occasions, having
351
forgotten at evening to sacrifice his toad, he found
himself unable
to sleep—that his conscience smote
him, he had risen, made the
sacrifice, returned to his
bed, and in a few moments sunk into a
serene and
happy slumber? And suppose, further, that the man
honestly believed that the efficacy of the sacrifice
depended largely
on the size of the toad? Now
suppose that in this belief the man had
died,—what
then?
It must be remembered that God knew
when the
missionary of the false religion went to the island;
and knew that the islander would be convinced of the
truth of the
false religion; and he also knew that the
missionary of the true
religion could not, by any
possibility, convince the islander of the
error of his
way; what then?
If God is infinite, we cannot
speak of him as
making efforts, as being tired. We cannot con-
sistently say that one thing is easy to him, and
another thing is
hard, providing both are possible.
This being so, why did not God
reveal himself to
every human being? Instead of having an inspired
book, why did he not make inspired folks? Instead
of having his
commandments put on tables of stone,
why did he not write them on
each human brain?
352
Why was not the mind of each
man so made that
every religious truth necessary to his salvation was
an axiom?
Do we not know absolutely that man is greatly
influenced by his surroundings? If Mr. Talmage
had been born in
Turkey, is it not probable that
he would now be a whirling Dervish?
If he had
first seen the light in Central Africa, he might now
have been prostrate before some enormous serpent;
if in India, he
might have been a Brahmin, running a
prayer-machine; if in Spain, he
would probably have
been a priest, with his beads and holy water. Had
he been born among the North American Indians,
he would speak of the
"Great Spirit," and solemnly
smoke the the pipe of peace.
Mr. Talmage teaches that it is the duty of children
to perpetuate the
errors of their parents; conse-
quently, the religion of his parents
determined his
theology. It is with him not a question of reason,
but of parents; not a question of argument, but of
filial affection.
He does not wish to be a philoso-
pher, but an obedient son. Suppose
his father had
been a Catholic, and his mother a Protestant,—what
then? Would he show contempt for his mother by
following the path of
his father; or would he show
353
disrespect for his
father, by accepting the religion of
his mother; or would he have
become a Protestant
with Catholic proclivities, or a Catholic with
Protest-
ant leanings? Suppose his parents had both been
infidels—what then?
Is it not better for each one to
decide honestly for
himself? Admitting that your parents were good
and
kind; admitting that they were honest in their views,
why
not have the courage to say, that in your opinion,
father and mother
were both mistaken? No one can
honor his parents by being a
hypocrite, or an intellectu-
al coward. Whoever is absolutely true to
himself, is
true to his parents, and true to the whole world. Who-
ever is untrue to himself, is false to all mankind. Re-
ligion must
be an individual matter. If there is a God,
and if there is a day of
judgment, the church that a man
belongs to will not be tried, but the
man will be tried.
It is a fact that the religion of most
people was made
for them by others; that they have accepted certain
dogmas, not because they have examined them, but
because they were
told that they were true. Most of
the people in the United States,
had they been born in
Turkey, would now be Mohammedans, and most of
the Turks, had they been born in Spain, would now
be Catholics.
354
It is almost, if not quite, impossible for a man to
rise entirely above the ideas, views, doctrines and re-
ligions of
his tribe or country. No one expects to
find philosophers in Central
Africa, or scientists
among the Fejees. No one expects to find
philoso-
phers or scientists in any country where the church
has
absolute control.
If there is an infinitely good and wise God,
of
course he will take into consideration the surround-
ings of
every human being. He understands the
philosophy of environment, and
of heredity. He
knows exactly the influence of the mother, of all
associates, of all associations. He will also take into
consideration
the amount, quality and form of each
brain, and whether the brain was
healthy or diseased.
He will take into consideration the strength of
the
passions, the weakness of the judgment. He will
know exactly
the force of all temptation—what was
resisted. He will take an
account of every effort
made in the right direction, and will
understand
all the winds and waves and quicksands and shores
and
shallows in, upon and around the sea of every
life.
My own
opinion is, that if such a being exists, and
all these things are
taken into consideration, we will
355
be absolutely
amazed to see how small the difference
is between the "good" and the
"bad." Certainly
there is no such difference as would justify a being
of infinite wisdom and benevolence in rewarding one
with eternal joy
and punishing the other with eternal
pain.
Question.
What are the principal reasons that
have satisfied you that the Bible
is not an inspired
book?
Answer. The great evils
that have afflicted this
world are:
First. Human
slavery—where men have bought
and sold their fellow-men—sold
babes from mothers,
and have practiced) every conceivable cruelty
upon
the helpless.
Second. Polygamy—an
institution that destroys
the home, that treats woman as a simple
chattel, that
does away with the sanctity of marriage, and with all
that is sacred in love.
Third. Wars of conquest and
extermination—
by which nations have been made the food of the
sword.
Fourth. The idea entertained by each nation that
all other nations are destitute of rights—in other
356
words, patriotism founded upon egotism, prejudice,
and love of
plunder.
Fifth. Religious persecution.
Sixth.
The divine right of kings—an idea that
rests upon the
inequality of human rights, and insists
that people should be
governed without their con-
sent; that the right of one man to govern
another
comes from God, and not from the consent of the
governed. This is caste—one of the most odious
forms of
slavery.
Seventh. A belief in malicious supernatural be-
ings—devils, witches, and wizards.
Eighth. A
belief in an infinite being who or-
dered, commanded, established and
approved all
these evils.
Ninth. The idea that one
man can be good for
another, or bad for another—that is to say,
that one
can be rewarded for the goodness of another, or
justly
punished for the sins of another.
Tenth. The dogma that
a finite being can commit
an infinite sin, and thereby incur the
eternal dis-
pleasure of an infinitely good being, and be justly
subjected to eternal torment.
My principal objection to the
Bible is that it sus-
tains all of these ten evils—that it is
the advocate of
357
human slavery, the friend of
polygamy; that within
its pages I find the command to wage wars of
ex-
termination; that I find also that the Jews were
taught to
hate foreigners—to consider all human
beings as inferior to
themselves; I also find persecu-
tion commanded as a religious duty;
that kings were
seated upon their thrones by the direct act of God,
and that to rebel against a king was rebellion against
God. I object
to the Bible also because I find within
its pages the infamous spirit
of caste—I see the sons
of Levi set apart as the perpetual
beggars and
governors of a people; because I find the air filled
with demons seeking to injure and betray the sons
of men; because
this book is the fountain of modern
superstition, the bulwark of
tyranny and the fortress
of caste. This book also subverts the idea
of justice
by threatening infinite punishment for the sins of a
finite being.
At the same time, I admit—as I always have
ad-
mitted—that there are good passages in the Bible—
good laws, good teachings, with now and then a true
line of history.
But when it is asserted that every
word was written by inspiration—that
a being of in-
finite wisdom and goodness is its author,—then
I raise the standard of revolt.
358
Question.
What do you think of the declaration
of Mr. Talmage that the Bible
will be read in heaven
throughout all the endless ages of eternity?
Answer. Of course I know but very little as to
what is
or will be done in heaven. My knowledge
of that country is somewhat
limited, and it may be
possible that the angels will spend most of
their time
in turning over the sacred leaves of the Old Testa-
ment. I can not positively deny the statement of the
Reverend Mr.
Talmage as I have but very little idea
as to how the angels manage to
kill time.
The Reverend Mr. Spurgeon stated in a sermon
that some people wondered what they would do
through all eternity in
heaven. He said that, as for
himself, for the first hundred thousand
years he
would look at the wound in one of the Savior's
feet,
and for the next hundred thousand years he
would look at the wound in
his other foot, and
for the next hundred thousand years he would
look at the wound in one of his hands, and for
the next hundred
thousand years he would look at
the wound in the other hand, and for
the next
hundred thousand years he would look at the wound
in
his side.
Surely, nothing could be more delightful than this
359
A man capable of being happy in such employment,
could of course take great delight in reading even
the genealogies of
the Old Testament. It is very
easy to see what a glow of joy would
naturally over-
spread the face of an angel while reading the history
of the Jewish wars, how the seraphim and cherubim
would clasp their
rosy palms in ecstasy over the fate
of Korah and his company, and
what laughter would
wake the echoes of the New Jerusalem as some one
told again the story of the children and the bears;
and what happy
groups, with folded pinions, would
smilingly listen to the 109th
Psalm.
[Illustration: 371]
An orthodox "state of
mind"
THE TALMAGIAN CATECHISM.
As Mr.
Talmage delivered the series of sermons
referred to in these
interviews, for the purpose
of furnishing arguments to the young, so
that they
might not be misled by the sophistry of modern
infi-delity, I have thought it best to set forth,
for use in Sunday
schools, the pith and marrow of
what he has been pleased to say, in
the form of
A SHORTER CATECHISM.
Question. Who made you?
Answer. Jehovah,
the original Presbyterian.
Question. What else did he
make?
Answer. He made the world and all things.
Question. Did he make the world out of nothing?
Answer.
No.
Question. What did he make it out of?
Answer.
Out of his "omnipotence." Many infidels
have pretended that if God
made the universe, and if
there was nothing until he did make it, he
had nothing
to make it out of. Of course this is perfectly absurd
when we remember that he always had his "omnipo-
tence and that is,
undoubtedly, the material used.
364
Question.
Did he create his own "omnipotence"?
Answer. Certainly
not, he was always omnipo-
tent.
Question. Then if
he always had "omnipotence,"
he did not "create" the material of
which the uni-
verse is made; he simply took a portion of his
"omnipotence" and changed it to "universe"?
Answer.
Certainly, that is the way I under-
stand it.
Question.
Is he still omnipotent, and has he as
much "omnipotence" now as he
ever had?
Answer. Well, I suppose he has.
Question.
How long did it take God to make the
universe?
Answer.
Six "good-whiles."
Question. How long is a "good-while"?
Answer. That will depend upon the future dis-
coveries
of geologists. "Good-whiles" are of such
a nature that they can be
pulled out, or pushed up;
and it is utterly impossible for any
infidel, or scien-
tific geologist, to make any period that a
"good-while"
won't fit.
Question. What do you
understand by "the
"morning and evening" of a "good-while"?
Answer. Of course the words "morning and
365
"evening" are used figuratively, and mean simply
the beginning
and the ending, of each "good-while."
Question. On what
day did God make vegetation?
Answer. On the third day.
Question. Was that before the sun was made?
Answer.
Yes; a "good-while" before.
Question. How did vegetation
grow without sun-
light?
Answer. My own opinion is,
that it was either
"nourished by the glare of volcanoes in the moon
or "it may have gotten sufficient light from rivers
"of molten
granite;" or, "sufficient light might have
"been emitted by the
crystallization of rocks." It
has been suggested that light might
have been fur-
nished by fire-flies and phosphorescent bugs and
worms, but this I regard as going too far.
Question. Do
you think that light emitted by
rocks would be sufficient to produce
trees?
Answer. Yes, with the assistance of the "Aurora
"Borealis, or even the Aurora Australis;" but with
both, most
assuredly.
Question. If the light of which you speak was
sufficient, why was the sun made?
Answer. To keep time
with.
Question. What did God make man of?
366
Answer. He made man of dust and "omnipo-
"tence."
Question. Did he make a woman at the same
time that he
made a man?
Answer. No; he thought at one time to avoid
the necessity of making a woman, and he caused all
the animals to
pass before Adam, to see what he
would call them, and to see whether
a fit companion
could be found for him. Among them all, not one
suited Adam, and Jehovah immediately saw that he
would have to make
an help-meet on purpose.
Question. What was woman made
of?
Answer. She was made out of "man's side, out of
his right side," and some more "omnipotence." Infi-
dels say that she
was made out of a rib, or a bone, but
that is because they do not
understand Hebrew.
Question. What was the object of
making woman
out of man's side?
Answer. So that a
young man would think more
of a neighbor's girl than of his own uncle
or grand-
father.
Question. What did God do with
Adam and Eve
after he got them done?
Answer. He put
them into a garden to see what
they would do.
367
Question. Do we know where the Garden of Eden
was, and
have we ever found any place where a
"river parted and became into
four heads"?
Answer. We are not certain where this
garden
was, and the river that parted into four heads cannot
at
present be found. Infidels have had a great deal
to say about these
four rivers, but they will wish
they had even one, one of these days.
Question. What happened to Adam and Eve in
the garden?
Answer. They were tempted by a snake who was
an
exceedingly good talker, and who probably came
in walking on the end
of his tail. This supposition
is based upon the fact that, as a
punishment, he was
condemned to crawl on his belly. Before that time,
of course, he walked upright.
Question. What happened
then?
Answer. Our first parents gave way, ate of the
forbidden fruit, and in consequence, disease and
death entered the
world. Had it not been for this,
there would have been no death and
no disease.
Suicide would have been impossible, and a man
could
have been blown into a thousand atoms by
dynamite, and the pieces
would immediately have
come together again. Fire would have refused
to
368
burn and water to drown; there could have
been no
hunger, no thirst; all things would have been equally
healthy.
Question. Do you mean to say that there would
have been no death in the world, either of animals,
insects, or
persons?
Answer. Of course.
Question.
Do you also think that all briers and
thorns sprang from the same
source, and that had
the apple not been eaten, no bush in the world
would have had a thorn, and brambles and thistles
would have been
unknown?
Answer. Certainly.
Question.
Would there have been no poisonous
plants, no poisonous reptiles?
Answer. No, sir; there would have been none;
there would
have been no evil in the world if Adam
and Eve had not partaken of
the forbidden fruit.
Question. Was the snake who tempted
them to
eat, evil?
Answer. Certainly. '
Question. Was he in the world before the for-
bidden fruit was
eaten?
Answer. Of course he was; he tempted them to
eat it
369
Question. How, then, do you
account for the fact
that, before the forbidden fruit was eaten, an
evil
serpent was in the world?
Answer. Perhaps
apples had been eaten in other
worlds.
Question. Is
it not wonderful that such awful con-
sequences flowed from so small
an act?
Answer. It is not for you to reason about it;
you
should simply remember that God is omnipotent.
There is but
one way to answer these things, and
that is to admit their truth.
Nothing so puts the
Infinite out of temper as to see a human being
impudent enough to rely upon his reason. The
moment we rely upon our
reason, we abandon God,
and try to take care of ourselves. Whoever
relies
entirely upon God, has no need of reason, and
reason has
no need of him.
Question. Were our first parents under
the im-
mediate protection of an infinite God?
Answer.
They were.
Question. Why did he not protect them? Why
did he not warn them of this snake? Why did he
not put them on their
guard? Why did he not
make them so sharp, intellectually, that they
could
not be deceived? Why did he not destroy that
370
snake; or how did he come to make him; what did
he make him
for?
Answer. You must remember that, although God
made Adam and Eve perfectly good, still he was very
anxious to test
them. He also gave them the power
of choice, knowing at the same time
exactly what they
would choose, and knowing that he had made them
so that they must choose in a certain way. A being
of infinite wisdom
tries experiments. Knowing ex-
actly what will happen, he wishes to
see if it will.
Question. What punishment did God
inflict upon
Adam and Eve for the sin of having eaten the for-
bidden fruit?
Answer. He pronounced a curse upon the
woman,
saying that in sorrow she should bring forth children,
and that her husband should rule over her; that she,
having tempted
her husband, was made his slave;
and through her, all married women
have been de-
prived of their natural liberty. On account of the
sin of Adam and Eve, God cursed the ground, saying
that it should
bring forth thorns and thistles, and
that man should eat his bread in
sorrow, and that he
should eat the herb of the field.
Question.
Did he turn them out of the garden
because of their sin?
371
Answer. No. The reason God gave for turning
them out of the garden was: "Behold the man is
"become as one of us,
to know good and evil; and
"now, lest he put forth his hand and take
of the
"tree of life and eat and live forever, therefore, the
"Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden
"to till the ground
from whence he was taken."
Question. If the man had
eaten of the tree of life,
would he have lived forever?
Answer.
Certainly.
Question. Was he turned out to prevent his
eating?
Answer. He was.
Question. Then
the Old Testament tells us how we
lost immortality, not that we are
immortal, does it?
Answer. Yes; it tells us how we lost
it.
Question. Was God afraid that Adam and Eve
might get back into the garden, and eat of the fruit
of the tree of
life?
Answer. I suppose he was, as he placed "cher-
"ubim and a flaming sword which turned every
"way to guard the tree
of life."
Question. Has any one ever seen any of these
cherubim?
Answer. Not that I know of.
372
Question. Where is the flaming sword now?
Answer.
Some angel has it in heaven.
Question. Do you understand
that God made
coats of skins, and clothed Adam and Eve when
he
turned them out of the garden?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you really believe that the infinite
God
killed some animals, took their skins from them,
cut out and sewed up
clothes for Adam and Eve?
Answer. The Bible says so; we
know that he
had patterns for clothes, because he showed some
to
Moses on Mount Sinai.
Question. About how long did God
continue
to pay particular attention to his children in this
world?
Answer. For about fifteen hundred years; and
some of the people lived to be nearly a thousand
years of age.
Question. Did this God establish any schools or
institutions of learning? Did he establish any church?
Did he ordain
any ministers, or did he have any re-
vivals?
Answer.
No; he allowed the world to go on
pretty much in its own way. He did
not even keep
his own boys at home. They came down and made
373
love to the daughters of men, and finally the world
got exceedingly bad.
Question. What did God do then?
Answer. He made up his mind that he would drown
them.
You see they were all totally depraved,—in
every joint and
sinew of their bodies, in every drop
of their blood, and in every
thought of their brains.
Question. Did he drown them
all?
Answer. No, he saved eight, to start with again.
Question. Were these eight persons totally de-
praved?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why did he not kill
them, and start
over again with a perfect pair? Would it not have
been better to have had his flood at first, before he
made anybody,
and drowned the snake?
Answer. "God's way are not our
ways;" and
besides, you must remember that "a thousand years
"are as one day" with God.
Question. How did God destroy
the people?
Answer. By water; it rained forty days and
forty
nights, and "the fountains of the great deep were
"broken
up."
Question. How deep was the water?
Answer.
About five miles.
374
Question. How much did
it rain each day?
Answer. About eight hundred feet;
though the
better opinion now is, that it was a local flood. In-
fidels have raised objections and pressed them to that
degree that
most orthodox people admit that the
flood was rather local.
Question. If it was a local flood, why did they put
birds of the air into the ark? Certainly, birds could
have avoided a
local flood?
Answer. If you take this away from us, what
do
you propose to give us in its place? Some of the
best people
of the world have believed this story.
Kind husbands, loving mothers,
and earnest patriots
have believed it, and that is sufficient.
Question. At the time God made these people,
did he know
that he would have to drown them all?
Answer. Of course
he did.
Question. Did he know when he made them that
they would all be failures?
Answer. Of course.
Question. Why, then, did he make them?
Answer.
He made them for his own glory, and
no man should disgrace his
parents by denying it.
Question. Were the people after
the flood just as
bad as they were before?
375
Answer. About the same.
Question. Did they try to
circumvent God?
Answer. They did.
Question.
How?
Answer. They got together for the purpose of build-
ing a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,
so that they
could laugh at any future floods, and go
to heaven at any time they
desired.
Question. Did God hear about this?
Answer. He did.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. He said: "Go to; let us go down," and
see what
the people are doing; I am satisfied they
will succeed.
Question.
How were the people prevented from
succeeding?
Answer.
God confounded their language, so that
the mason on top could not cry
"mort'!" to the
hod-carrier below; he could not think of the word
to use, to save his life, and the building stopped.
Question.
If it had not been for the confusion of
tongues at Babel, do you
really think that all the
people in the world would have spoken just
the same
language, and would have pronounced every word
precisely the same?
376
Answer. Of course.
Question. If it had not been, then, for the con-
fusion
of languages, spelling books, grammars and
dictionaries would have
been useless?
Answer. I suppose so.
Question.
Do any two people in the whole world
speak the same language, now?
Answer. Of course they don't, and this is one of
the
great evidences that God introduced confusion
into the languages.
Every error in grammar, every
mistake in spelling, every blunder in
pronunciation,
proves the truth of the Babel story.
Question.
This being so, this miracle is the best
attested of all?
Answer. I suppose it is.
Question. Do you not
think that a confusion of
tongues would bring men together instead of
separa-
ting them? Would not a man unable to converse
with his
fellow feel weak instead of strong; and
would not people whose
language had been con-
founded cling together for mutual support?
Answer. According to nature, yes; according to
theology,
no; and these questions must be answered
according to theology. And
right here, it may be
well enough to state, that in theology the
unnatural
377
is the probable, and the impossible is
what has always
happened. If theology were simply natural, anybody
could be a theologian.
Question. Did God ever make any
other special
efforts to convert the people, or to reform the world?
Answer. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodom
and
Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.
Question.
Do you suppose it was really brim-
stone?
Answer.
Undoubtedly.
Question. Do you think this brimstone came
from
the clouds?
Answer. Let me tell you that you
have no right
to examine the Bible in the light of what people are
pleased to call "science." The natural has nothing
to do with the
supernatural. Naturally there would
be no brimstone in the clouds,
but supernaturally
there might be. God could make brimstone out of
his "omnipotence." We do not know really what
brimstone is, and
nobody knows exactly how brim-
stone is made. As a matter of fact,
all the brimstone
in the world might have fallen at that time.
Question. Do you think that Lot's wife was
changed into
salt?
Answer. Of course she was. A miracle was per-
378
formed. A few centuries ago, the statue of salt made
by changing Lot's wife into that article, was standing.
Christian
travelers have seen it.
Question. Why do you think she
was changed
into salt?
Answer. For the purpose of
keeping the event
fresh in the minds of men.
Question.
God having failed to keep people in-
nocent in a garden; having
failed to govern them
outside of a garden; having failed to reform
them by
water; having failed to produce any good result by a
confusion of tongues; having failed to reform them
with fire and
brimstone, what did he then do?
Answer. He concluded
that he had no time to
waste on them all, but that he would have to
select
one tribe, and turn his entire attention to just a few
folks.
Question. Whom did he select?
Answer.
A man by the name of Abram.
Question. What kind of man
was Abram?
Answer. If you wish to know, read the twelfth
chapter of Genesis; and if you still have any doubts
as to his
character, read the twentieth chapter of the
same book, and you will
see that he was a man who
made merchandise of his wife's body. He had
had
379
such good fortune in Egypt, that he tried
the experi-
ment again on Abimelech.
Question. Did
Abraham show any gratitude?
Answer. Yes; he offered to
sacrifice his son, to
show his confidence in Jehovah.
Question.
What became of Abraham and his
people?
Answer. God
took such care of them, that in
about two hundred and fifteen years
they were all
slaves in the land of Egypt.
Question.
How long did they remain in slavery?
Answer. Two hundred
and fifteen years.
Question. Were they the same people
that God
had promised to take care of?
Answer. They
were.
Question. Was God at that time, in favor of
slavery?
Answer. Not at that time. He was angry at the
Egyptians for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwards
authorized the
Jews to enslave other people.
Question. What means did
he take to liberate
the Jews?
Answer. He sent his
agents to Pharaoh, and de-
manded their freedom; and upon Pharaoh s
refusing,
he afflicted the people, who had nothing to do with
380
it, with various plagues,—killed children, and
tor-
mented and tortured beasts.
Question. Was such
conduct Godlike?
Answer. Certainly. If you have anything
against
your neighbor, it is perfectly proper to torture his
horse, or torment his dog. Nothing can be nobler
than this. You see
it is much better to injure his
animals than to injure him. To punish
animals for
the sins of their owners must be just, or God would
not have done it. Pharaoh insisted on keeping the
people in slavery,
and therefore God covered the
bodies of oxen and cows with boils. He
also bruised
them to death with hailstones. From this we infer,
that "the loving kindness of God is over all his works."
Question.
Do you consider such treatment of ani-
mals consistent with divine
mercy?
Answer. Certainly. You know that under the
Mosaic dispensation, when a man did a wrong, he
could settle with God
by killing an ox, or a sheep,
or some doves. If the man failed to
kill them, of
course God would kill them. It was upon this prin-
ciple that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians.
They had
sinned, and he merely took his pay.
Question. How was it
possible, under the old dis-
pensation, to please a being of infinite
kindness?
381
Answer. All you had to do was
to take an innocent
animal, bring it to the altar, cut its throat,
and sprinkle
the altar with its blood. Certain parts of it were to be
given to the butcher as his share, and the rest was to
be burnt on
the altar. When God saw an animal thus
butchered, and smelt the warm
blood mingled with
the odor of burning flesh, he was pacified, and
the
smile of forgiveness shed its light upon his face.
Of
course, infidels laugh at these things; but what
can you expect of
men who have not been "born
"again"? "The carnal mind is enmity with
God."
Question. What else did God do in order to in-
duce
Pharaoh to liberate the Jews?
Answer. He had his agents
throw down a cane
in the presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovah
changed this cane into a serpent.
Question. Did this
convince Pharaoh?
Answer. No; he sent for his own
magicians.
Question. What did they do?
Answer.
They threw down some canes and they
also were changed into serpents.
Question. Did Jehovah change the canes of the
Egyptian
magicians into snakes?
Answer. I suppose he did, as he
is the only one
capable of performing such a miracle.
382
Question. If the rod of Aaron was changed into
a serpent
in order to convince Pharaoh that God had
sent Aaron and Moses, why
did God change the
sticks of the Egyptian magicians into serpents—why
did he discredit his own agents, and render worth-
less their only
credentials?
Answer. Well, we cannot explain the conduct
of
Jehovah; we are perfectly satisfied that it was for
the best.
Even in this age of the world God allows
infidels to overwhelm his
chosen people with argu-
ments; he allows them to discover facts that
his
ministers can not answer, and yet we are satisfied
that in
the end God will give the victory to us. All
these things are tests
of faith. It is upon this prin-
ciple that God allows geology to
laugh at Genesis,
that he permits astronomy apparently to contradict
his holy word.
Question. What did God do with these
people
after Pharaoh allowed them to go?
Answer.
Finding that they were not fit to settle
a new country, owing to the
fact that when hungry
they longed for food, and sometimes when their
lips
were cracked with thirst insisted on having water,
God in
his infinite mercy had them marched round
and round, back and forth,
through a barren wilder-
383
ness, until all, with
the exception of two persons,
died.
Question. Why
did he do this?
Answer. Because he had promised these
people
that he would take them "to a land flowing with
"milk and
honey."
Question. Was God always patient and kind and
merciful toward his children while they were in the
wilderness?
Answer. Yes, he always was merciful and kind
and
patient. Infidels have taken the ground that he
visited them with
plagues and disease and famine;
that he had them bitten by serpents,
and now and
then allowed the ground to swallow a few thousands
of them, and in other ways saw to it that they were
kept as
comfortable and happy as was consistent with
good government; but all
these things were for their
good; and the fact is, infidels have no
real sense of
justice.
Question. How did God happen
to treat the Is-
raelites in this way, when he had promised Abraham
that he would take care of his progeny, and when he
had promised the
same to the poor wretches while
they were slaves in Egypt?
Answer. Because God is unchangeable in his na-
384
ture, and wished to convince them that every being
should be
perfectly faithful to his promise.
Question. Was God
driven to madness by the
conduct of his chosen people?
Answer.
Almost.
Question. Did he know exactly what they would
do when he chose them?
Answer. Exactly.
Question.
Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?
Answer. They were.
They worshiped other gods
—gods made of wood and stone.
Question. Is it not wonderful that they were not
convinced of the power of God, by the many mira-
cles wrought in
Egypt and in the wilderness?
Answer. Yes, it is very
wonderful; but the Jews,
who must have seen bread rained from heaven;
who
saw water gush from the rocks and follow them up hill
and
down; who noticed that their clothes did not
wear out, and did not
even get shiny at the knees,
while the elbows defied the ravages of
time, and
their shoes remained perfect for forty years; it is
wonderful that when they saw the ground open
and swallow their
comrades; when they saw God
talking face to face with Moses as a man
talks with
his friend; after they saw the cloud by day and the
385
pillar of fire by night,—it is absolutely
astonishing
that they had more faith in a golden calf that they
made themselves, than in Jehovah.
Question. How is it
that the Jews had no confi-
dence in these miracles?
Answer.
Because they were there and saw them.
Question. Do you
think that it is necessary for
us to believe all the miracles of the
Old Testament
in order to be saved?
Answer. The Old
Testament is the foundation of
the New. If the Old Testament is not
inspired, then
the New is of no value. If the Old Testament is
inspired, all the miracles are true, and we cannot
believe that God
would allow any errors, or false
statements, to creep into an
inspired volume, and to
be perpetuated through all these years.
Question. Should we believe the miracles, whether
they
are reasonable or not?
Answer. Certainly; if they were
reasonable, they
would not be miracles. It is their unreasonableness
that appeals to our credulity and our faith. It is im-
possible to
have theological faith in anything that
can be demonstrated. It is
the office of faith to
believe, not only without evidence, but in
spite of
evidence. It is impossible for the carnal mind to
386
believe that Samsons muscle depended upon the
length
of his hair. "God has made the wisdom of
"this world foolishness."
Neither can the uncon-
verted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel
kept by
ravens. Neither can they believe that a barrel would
in
and of itself produce meal, or that an earthen pot
could create oil.
But to a Christian, in order that a
widow might feed a preacher, the
truth of these
stories is perfectly apparent.
Question.
How should we regard the wonderful
stories of the Old Testament?
Answer. They should be looked upon as "types"
and
"symbols." They all have a spiritual signifi-
cance. The reason I
believe the story of Jonah is,
that Jonah is a type of Christ.
Question. Do you believe the story of Jonah to
be a true
account of a literal fact?
Answer. Certainly. You must
remember that
Jonah was not swallowed by a whale. God "pre-
"pared a great fish" for that occasion. Neither is it by
any means
certain that Jonah was in the belly of
this whale. "He probably
stayed in his mouth."
Even if he was in his stomach, it was very easy
for him to defy the ordinary action of gastric juice
by rapidly
walking up and down..
387
Question. Do you
think that Jonah was really in
the whale's stomach?
Answer.
My own opinion is that he stayed in his
mouth. The only objection to
this theory is, that it
is more reasonable than the other and
requires less
faith. Nothing could be easier than for God to make
a fish large enough to furnish ample room for one
passenger in his
mouth. I throw out this suggestion
simply that you may be able to
answer the objections
of infidels who are always laughing at this
story.
Question. Do you really believe that Elijah went
to heaven in a chariot of fire, drawn by horses of
fire?
Answer. Of course he did.
Question. What was this
miracle performed for?
Answer. To convince the people of
the power of
God.
Question. Who saw the miracle?
Answer. Nobody but Elisha.
Question. Was he
convinced before that time?
Answer. Oh yes; he was one
of God's prophets.
Question. Suppose that in these days
two men
should leave a town together, and after a while one
of
them should come back having on the clothes of
the other, and should
account for the fact that he had
388
his friend's
clothes by saying that while they were
going along the road together
a chariot of fire came
down from heaven drawn by fiery steeds, and
there-
upon his friend got into the carriage, threw him his
clothes, and departed,—would you believe it?
Answer.
Of course things like that don't happen
in these days; God does not
have to rely on wonders
now.
Question. Do you mean
that he performs no
miracles at the present day?
Answer.
We cannot say that he does not perform
miracles now, but we are not
in position to call atten-
tion to any particular one. Of course he
supervises
the affairs of nations and men and does whatever in
his judgment is necessary.
Question. Do you think that
Samson's strength
depended on the length of his hair?
Answer.
The Bible so states, and the Bible is true.
A physiologist might say
that a man could not use
the muscle in his hair for lifting purposes,
but these
same physiologists could not tell you how you move
a
finger, nor how you lift a feather; still, actuated by
the pride of
intellect, they insist that the length of a
man's hair could not
determine his strength. God
says it did; the physiologist says that
it did not; we
389
can not hesitate whom to believe.
For the purpose
of avoiding eternal agony I am willing to believe
anything; I am willing to say that strength depends
upon the length
of hair, or faith upon the length of
ears. I am perfectly willing to
believe that a man
caught three hundred foxes, and put fire brands
be-
tween their tails; that he slew thousands with a bone,
and
that he made a bee hive out of a lion. I will
believe, if necessary,
that when this man's hair was
short he hardly had strength enough to
stand, and
that when it was long, he could carry away the gates
of a city, or overthrow a temple filled with people.
If the infidel
is right, I will lose nothing by believing,
but if he is wrong, I
shall gain an eternity of joy.
If God did not intend that we should
believe these
stories, he never would have told them, and why
should a man put his soul in peril by trying to dis-
prove one of the
statements of the Lord?
Question. Suppose it should turn
out that some
of these miracles depend upon mistranslations of the
original Hebrew, should we still believe them?
Answer.
The safe side is the best side. It is
far better to err on the side
of belief, than on the
side of infidelity. God does not threaten
anybody
with eternal punishment for believing too much.
390
Danger lies on the side of investigation, on the
side
of thought. The perfectly idiotic are absolutely
safe. As they
diverge from that point,—as they rise
in the intellectual
scale, as the brain develops, as the
faculties enlarge, the danger
increases. I know that
some biblical students now take the ground
that
Samson caught no foxes,—that he only took sheaves
of
wheat that had been already cut and bound, set
them on fire, and
threw them into the grain still
standing. If this is what he did, of
course there is
nothing miraculous about it, and the value of the
story is lost. So, others contend that Elijah was not
fed by the
ravens, but by the Arabs. They tell us
that the Hebrew word standing
for "Arab" also
stands for "bird," and that the word really means
"migratory—going from place to place—homeless."
But I
prefer the old version. It certainly will do no
harm to believe that
ravens brought bread and flesh
to a prophet of God. Where they got
their bread
and flesh is none of my business; how they knew
where the prophet was, and recognized him; or how
God talks to
ravens, or how he gave them directions,
I have no right to inquire. I
leave these questions
to the scientists, the blasphemers, and
thinkers.
There are many people in the church anxious to
391
get the miracles out of the Bible, and thousands,
I
have no doubt, would be greatly gratified to learn
that there is, in
fact, nothing miraculous in Scripture;
but when you take away the
miraculous, you take
away the supernatural; when you take away the
supernatural, you destroy the ministry; and when
you take away the
ministry, hundreds of thousands
of men will be left without
employment.
Question. Is it not wonderful that the
Egyptians
were not converted by the miracles wrought in their
country?
Answer. Yes, they all would have been, if God
had not purposely hardened their hearts to prevent
it. Jehovah always
took great delight in furnishing
the evidence, and then hardening the
man's heart so
that he would not believe it. After all the miracles
that had been performed in Egypt,—the most won-
derful that
were ever done in any country, the
Egyptians were as unbelieving as
at first; they pur-
sued the Israelites, knowing that they were
protected
by an infinite God, and failing to overwhelm them,
came back and worshiped their own false gods just as
firmly as
before. All of which shows the unreason-
ableness of a Pagan, and the
natural depravity of
human nature.
392
Question.
How did it happen that the Canaanites
were never convinced that the
Jews were assisted by
Jehovah?
Answer. They must
have been an exceedingly
brave people to contend so many years with
the
chosen people of God. Notwithstanding all their
cities were
burned time and time again; notwith-
standing all the men, women and
children were put
to the edge of the sword; notwithstanding the
taking
of all their cattle and sheep, they went right on
fighting just as valiantly and desperately as ever.
Each one lost his
life many times, and was just as
ready for the next conflict. My own
opinion is, that
God kept them alive by raising them from the dead
after each battle, for the purpose of punishing the
Jews. God used
his enemies as instruments for the
civilization of the Jewish people.
He did not wish
to convert them, because they would give him much
more trouble as Jews than they did as Canaanites.
He had all the Jews
he could conveniently take care
of. He found it much easier to kill a
hundred
Canaanites than to civilize one Jew.
Question.
How do you account for the fact that
the heathen were not surprised
at the stopping of the
sun and moon?
393
Answer.
They were so ignorant that they had
not the slightest conception of
the real cause of
the phenomenon. Had they known the size of
the
earth, and the relation it sustained to the other
heavenly bodies;
had they known the magnitude of
the sun, and the motion of the moon,
they would,
in all probability, have been as greatly astonished as
the Jews were; but being densely ignorant of as-
tronomy, it must
have produced upon them not the
slightest impression. But we must
remember that
the sun and moon were not stopped for the purpose
of converting these people, but to give Joshua more
time to kill
them. As soon as we see clearly the
purpose of Jehovah, we instantly
perceive how ad-
mirable were the means adopted.
Question.
Do you not consider the treatment
of the Canaanites to have been
cruel and ferocious?
Answer. To a totally depraved man,
it does look
cruel; to a being without any good in him,—to one
who has inherited the rascality of many generations,
the murder of
innocent women and little children
does seem horrible; to one who is
"contaminated in
"all his parts," by original sin,—who was
"conceived
"in sin, and brought forth in iniquity," the assassina-
tion of men, and the violation of captive maidens,
394
do not seem consistent with infinite goodness. But
when one has
been "born again," when "the love
"of God has been shed abroad in his
heart," when
he loves all mankind, when he "overcomes evil with
"good," when he "prays for those who despite-
"fully use him and
persecute him,"—to such a man,
the extermination of the
Canaanites, the violation
of women, the slaughter of babes, and the
destruc-
tion of countless thousands, is the highest evidence
of
the goodness, the mercy, and the long-suffering
of God. When a man
has been "born again," all
the passages of the Old Testament that
appear so
horrible and so unjust to one in his natural state,
become the dearest, the most consoling, and the
most beautiful of
truths. The real Christian reads
the accounts of these ancient
battles with the greatest
possible satisfaction. To one who really
loves his
enemies, the groans of men, the shrieks of women,
and
the cries of babes, make music sweeter than the
zephyr's breath.
Question. In your judgment, why did God destroy
the
Canaanites?
Answer. To prevent their contaminating his
chosen people. He knew that if the Jews were
allowed to live with
such neighbors, they would
395
finally become as bad
as the Canaanites themselves.
He wished to civilize his chosen
people, and it was
therefore necessary for him to destroy the
heathen.
Question. Did God succeed in civilizing the
Jews
after he had "removed" the Canaanites?
Answer.
Well, not entirely. He had to allow the
heathen he had not destroyed
to overrun the whole
land and make captives of the Jews. This was
done
for the good of his chosen people.
Question.
Did he then succeed in civilizing them?
Answer. Not quite.
Question. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizing
them?
Answer. Well, we must admit that the experi-
ment never
was a conspicuous success. The Jews
were chosen by the Almighty 430
years before he
appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. He was their
direct Governor. He attended personally to their
religion and
politics, and gave up a great part of his
valuable time for about two
thousand years, to the
management of their affairs; and yet, such was
the
condition of the Jewish people, after they had had all
these
advantages, that when there arose among them
a perfectly kind, just,
generous and honest man, these
people, with whom God had been
laboring for so
396
many centuries, deliberately put
to death that good
and loving man.
Question. Do you
think that God really endeav-
ored to civilize the Jews?
Answer. This is an exceedingly hard question.
If he had really
tried to do it, of course he could
have done it. We must not think of
limiting the
power of the infinite. But you must remember that
if he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, if he had
educated them
up to the plane of intellectual liberty,
and made them just and kind
and merciful, like him-
self, they would not have crucified Christ,
and you
can see at once the awful condition in which we
would
all be to-day. No atonement could have
been made; and if no atonement
had been made,
then, according to the Christian system, the whole
world would have been lost. We must admit that
there was no time in
the history of the Jews from
Sinai to Jerusalem, that they would not
have put a
man like Christ to death.
Question. So
you think that, after all, it was not
God's intention that the Jews
should become civilized?
Answer. We do not know. We can
only say
that "God's ways are not our ways." It may be
that God
took them in his special charge, for the
397
purpose
of keeping them bad enough to make the
necessary sacrifice. That may
have been the divine
plan. In any event, it is safer to believe the
explana-
tion that is the most unreasonable.
Question.
Do you think that Christ knew the
Jews would crucify him?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Do you think that
when he chose
Judas he knew that he would betray him?
Answer.
Certainly.
Question. Did he know when Judas went to the
chief priest and made the bargain for the delivery
of Christ?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Why did he
allow himself to be be-
trayed, if he knew the plot?
Answer.
Infidelity is a very good doctrine to live
by, but you should read
the last words of Paine and
Voltaire.
Question. If
Christ knew that Judas would betray
him, why did he choose him?
Answer. Nothing can exceed the atrocities of the
French
Revolution—when they carried a woman
through the streets and
worshiped her as the goddess
of Reason.
398
Question.
Would not the mission of Christ have
been a failure had no one
betrayed him?
Answer. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and
re-
canted on his death-bed, and died a blaspheming
infidel
besides.
Question. Is it not clear that an atonement was
necessary; and is it not equally clear that the atone-
ment could not
have been made unless somebody
had betrayed Christ; and unless the
Jews had been
wicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?
Answer. Of course the atonement had to be
made. It was a part
of the "divine plan" that Christ
should be betrayed, and that the
Jews should be
wicked enough to kill him. Otherwise, the world
would have been lost.
Question. Suppose Judas had
understood the
divine plan, what ought he to have done? Should
he have betrayed Christ, or let somebody else do it;
or should he
have allowed the world to perish, in-
cluding his own soul?
Answer. If you take the Bible away from the
world, "how
would it be possible to have witnesses
"sworn in courts;" how would
it be possible to ad-
minister justice?
Question.
If Christ had not been betrayed and
399
crucified,
is it true that his own mother would be in
perdition to-day?
Answer. Most assuredly. There was but one
way by which
she could be saved, and that was by
the death of her son—through
the blood of the
atonement. She was totally depraved through the
sin of Adam, and deserved eternal death. Even her
love for the infant
Christ was, in the sight of God,—
that is to say, of her babe,—wickedness.
It can not
be repeated too often that there is only one way to
be saved, and that is, to believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
Question. Could Christ have prevented the Jews
from
crucifying him?
Answer. He could.
Question.
If he could have saved his life and did
not, was he not guilty of
suicide?
Answer. No one can understand these questions
who has not read the prophecies of Daniel, and has
not a clear
conception of what is meant by "the full-
"ness of time."
Question. What became of all the Canaanites, the
Egyptians,
the Hindus, the Greeks and Romans and
Chinese? What became of the
billions who died
before the promise was made to Abraham; of the
400
billions and billions who never heard of the Bible,
who never heard the name, even, of Jesus Christ—
never knew of
"the scheme of salvation"? What
became of the millions and billions
who lived in this
hemisphere, and of whose existence Jehovah himself
seemed perfectly ignorant?
Answer. They were undoubtedly
lost. God
having made them, had a right to do with them as
he
pleased. They are probably all in hell to-day, and
the fact that they
are damned, only adds to the joy
of the redeemed. It is by contrast
that we are able
to perceive the infinite kindness with which God has
treated us.
Question. Is it not possible that something
can
be done for a human soul in another world as well as
in
this?
Answer. No; this is the only world in which
God even attempts to reform anybody. In the
other world, nothing is
done for the purpose of
making anybody better. Here in this world,
where
man lives but a few days, is the only opportunity
for
moral improvement. A minister can do a thou-
sand times more for a
soul than its creator; and this
country is much better adapted to
moral growth than
heaven itself. A person who lived on this earth a
401
few years, and died without having been converted,
has no hope in another world. The moment he arrives
at the judgment
seat, nothing remains but to damn
him. Neither God, nor the Holy
Ghost, nor Jesus
Christ, can have the least possible influence with
him there.
Question. When God created each human being,
did he know exactly what would be his eternal fate?
Answer.
Most assuredly he did.
Question. Did he know that
hundreds and millions
and billions would suffer eternal pain?
Answer. Certainly. But he gave them freedom
of choice
between good and evil.
Question. Did he know exactly how
they would
use that freedom?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did he know that billions would use
it wrong?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Was it optional with
him whether he
should make such people or not?
Answer.
Certainly.
Question. Had these people any option as to
whether they would be made or not?
Answer, No.
402
Question. Would it not have been far better to
leave them unconscious dust?
Answer. These questions
show how foolish it is
to judge God according to a human standard.
What
to us seems just and merciful, God may regard in an
exactly
opposite light; and we may hereafter be
developed to such a degree
that we will regard the
agonies of the damned as the highest possible
evi-
dence of the goodness and mercy of God.
Question.
How do you account for the fact that
God did not make himself known
except to Abra-
ham and his descendants? Why did he fail to
reveal himself to the other nations—nations that,
compared with
the Jews, were learned, cultivated
and powerful? Would you regard a
revelation now
made to the Esquimaux as intended for us; and
would it be a revelation of which we would be
obliged to take notice?
Answer. Of course, God could have revealed him-
self,
not only to all the great nations, but to each
individual. He could
have had the Ten Command-
ments engraved on every heart and brain; or
he
could have raised up prophets in every land; but
he chose,
rather, to allow countless millions of his
children to wander in the
darkness and blackness of
403
Nature; chose, rather,
that they should redden their
hands in each other's blood; chose,
rather, that they
should live without light, and die without hope;
chose, rather, that they should suffer, not only in this
world, but
forever in the next. Of course we have
no right to find fault with
the choice of God.
Question. Now you can tell a sinner
to "believe
"on the Lord Jesus Christ;" what could a sinner have
been told in Egypt, three thousand years ago; and
in what language
would you have addressed a Hindu
in the days of Buddha—the
"divine scheme" at that
time being a secret in the divine breast?
Answer. It is not for us to think upon these
questions.
The moment we examine the Christian
system, we begin to doubt. In a
little while, we shall
be infidels, and shall lose the respect of
those who
refuse to think. It is better to go with the majority.
These doctrines are too sacred to be touched. You
should be satisfied
with the religion of your father
and your mother. "You want some book
on the
"centre-table," in the parlor; it is extremely handy
to
have a Family Record; and what book, other than
the Bible, could a
mother give a son as he leaves the
old homestead?
Question.
Is it not wonderful that all the writers
404
of the
four gospels do not give an account of the
ascension of Jesus Christ?
Answer. This question has been answered long
ago, time
and time again.
Question. Perhaps it has, but would it
not be
well enough to answer it once more? Some may
not have
seen the answer?
Answer. Show me the hospitals that
infidels
have built; show me the asylums that infidels
have
founded.
Question. I know you have given the usual an-
swer; but after all, is it not singular that a miracle
so wonderful
as the bodily ascension of a man, should
not have been mentioned by
all the writers of that
man's life? Is it not wonderful that some of
them
said that he did ascend, and others that he agreed to
stay
with his disciples always?
Answer. People unacquainted
with the Hebrew,
can have no conception of these things. A story
in plain English, does not sound as it does in Hebrew.
Miracles seem
altogether more credible, when told in
a dead language.
Question.
What, in your judgment, became of
the dead who were raised by Christ?
Is it not
singular that they were never mentioned afterward?
405
Would not a man who had been raised from the
dead naturally be an object of considerable interest,
especially to
his friends and acquaintances? And
is it not also wonderful that
Christ, after having
wrought so many miracles, cured so many lame and
halt and blind, fed so many thousands miraculously,
and after having
entered Jerusalem in triumph as a
conqueror and king, had to be
pointed out by one
of his own disciples who was bribed for the
purpose?
Answer. Of course, all these things are exceed-
ingly wonderful, and if found in any other book,
would be absolutely
incredible; but we have no
right to apply the same kind of reasoning
to the
Bible that we apply to the Koran or to the sacred
books
of the Hindus. For the ordinary affairs of
this world, God has given
us reason; but in the
examination of religious questions, we should
de-
pend upon credulity and faith.
Question. If
Christ came to offer himself a sacri-
fice, for the purpose of making
atonement for the
sins of such as might believe on him, why did he
not make this fact known to all of his disciples?
Answer.
He did. This was, and is, the gospel.
Question. How is
it that Matthew says nothing
about "salvation by faith," but simply
says that God
406
will be merciful to the merciful,
that he will forgive
the forgiving, and says not one word about the
necessity of believing anything?
Answer. But you will
remember that Mark says,
in the last chapter of his gospel, that
"whoso be-
"lieveth not shall be damned."
Question.
Do you admit that Matthew says
nothing on the subject?
Answer.
Yes, I suppose I must.
Question. Is not that passage in
Mark generally
admitted to be an interpolation?
Answer.
Some biblical scholars say that it is.
Question. Is that
portion of the last chapter of
Mark found in the Syriac version of
the Bible?
Answer. It is not.
Question.
If it was necessary to believe on Jesus
Christ, in order to be saved,
how is it that Matthew
failed to say so?
Answer.
"There are more copies of the Bible
"printed to-day, than of any
other book in the world,
"and it is printed in more languages than
any other
"book."
Question. Do you consider it
necessary to be
"regenerated"—to be "born again"—in order
to be
saved?
407
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Did Matthew say anything on the sub-
ject of
"regeneration"?
Answer. No.
Question.
Did Mark?
Answer. No.
Question. Did
Luke?
Answer. No.
Question. Is Saint
John the only one who speaks
of the necessity of being "born again"?
Answer. He is.
Question. Do you think that
Matthew, Mark and
Luke knew anything about the necessity of "regen-
"eration"?
Answer. Of course they did.
Question.
Why did they fail to speak of it?
Answer. There is no
civilization without the Bible.
The moment you throw away the sacred
Scriptures,
you are all at sea—you are without an anchor and
without a compass.
Question. You will remember that,
according to
Mark, Christ said to his disciples: "Go ye into all
"the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
Did he refer to
the gospel set forth by Mark?
Answer. Of course he did.
408
Question. Well, in the gospel set forth by
Mark,
there is not a word about "regeneration," and no
word
about the necessity of believing anything—ex-
cept in an
interpolated passage. Would it not seem
from this, that
"regeneration" and a "belief in the
"Lord Jesus Christ," are no part
of the gospel?
Answer. Nothing can exceed in horror the
last
moments of the infidel; nothing can be more ter-
rible than
the death of the doubter. When the
glories of this world fade from
the vision; when am-
bition becomes an empty name; when wealth turns
to dust in the palsied hand of death, of what use is
philosophy then?
Who cares then for the pride of
intellect? In that dread moment, man
needs some-
thing to rely on, whether it is true or not.
Question. Would it not have been more con-
vincing if Christ,
after his resurrection, had shown
himself to his enemies as well as
to his friends?
Would it not have greatly strengthened the evidence
in the case, if he had visited Pilate; had presented
himself before
Caiaphas, the high priest; if he had
again entered the temple, and
again walked the
streets of Jerusalem?
Answer. If
the evidence had been complete and
overwhelming, there would have
been no praise-
409
worthiness in belief; even
publicans and sinners
would have believed, if the evidence had been
suffi-
cient. The amount of evidence required is the test
of the
true Christian spirit.
Question. Would it not also have
been better
had the ascension taken place in the presence of
unbelieving thousands; it seems such a pity to have
wasted such a
demonstration upon those already
convinced?
Answer.
These questions are the natural fruit of
the carnal mind, and can be
accounted for only by
the doctrine of total depravity. Nothing has
given
the church more trouble than just such questions.
Unholy
curiosity, a disposition to pry into the divine
mysteries, a desire
to know, to investigate, to explain
—in short, to understand,
are all evidences of a re-
probate mind.
Question.
How can we account for the fact that
Matthew alone speaks of the wise
men of the East
coming with gifts to the infant Christ; that he alone
speaks of the little babes being killed by Herod? Is
it possible that
the other writers never heard of these
things?
Answer.
Nobody can get any good out of the
Bible by reading it in a critical
spirit. The contra-
410
dictions and discrepancies
are only apparent, and melt
away before the light of faith. That
which in other
books would be absolute and palpable contradiction,
is, in the Bible, when spiritually discerned, a perfect
and beautiful
harmony. My own opinion is, that
seeming contradictions are in the
Bible for the pur-
pose of testing and strengthening the faith of
Chris-
tians, and for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels,
"that they might believe a lie and be damned."
Question. Is it
possible that a good God would
take pains to deceive his children?
Answer. The Bible is filled with instances of that
kind,
and all orthodox ministers now know that
fossil animals—that
is, representations of animals in
stone, were placed in the rocks on
purpose to mis-
lead men like Darwin and Humboldt, Huxley and
Tyndall. It is also now known that God, for the
purpose of misleading
the so-called men of science,
had hairy elephants preserved in ice,
made stomachs
for them, and allowed twigs of trees to be found in
these stomachs, when, as a matter of fact, no such
elephants ever
lived or ever died. These men who
are endeavoring to overturn the
Scriptures with the
lever of science will find that they have been
de-
ceived. Through all eternity they will regret their
411
philosophy. They will wish, in the next world, that
they had thrown away geology and physiology and
all other "ologies"
except theology. The time is
coming when Jehovah will "mock at their
fears and
"laugh at their calamity."
Question. If
Joseph was not the father of Christ,
why was his genealogy given to
show that Christ
was of the blood of David; why would not the
genealogy of any other Jew have done as well?
Answer.
That objection was raised and answered
hundreds of years ago.
Question. If they wanted to show that Christ was of
the
blood of David, why did they not give the gene-
alogy of his mother
if Joseph was not his father?
Answer. That objection was
answered hundreds
of years ago.
Question. How was
it answered?
Answer. When Voltaire was dying, he sent
for a
priest.
Question. How does it happen that the
two gene-
alogies given do not agree?
Answer.
Perhaps they were written by different
persons.
Question.
Were both these persons inspired by
the same God?
412
Answer. Of course.
Question. Why were the
miracles recorded in the
New Testament performed?
Answer.
The miracles were the evidence relied
on to prove the supernatural
origin and the divine
mission of Jesus Christ.
Question.
Aside from the miracles, is there any
evidence to show the
supernatural origin or character
of Jesus Christ?
Answer.
Some have considered that his moral
precepts are sufficient, of
themselves, to show that
he was divine.
Question.
Had all of his moral precepts been
taught before he lived?
Answer. The same things had been said, but they
did not have
the same meaning.
Question. Does the fact that Buddha
taught the
same tend to show that he was of divine origin?
Answer. Certainly not. The rules of evidence
applicable to the
Bible are not applicable to other
books. We examine other books in
the light of
reason; the Bible is the only exception. So, we
should not judge of Christ as we do of any other
man.
Question.
Do you think that Christ wrought
413
many of his
miracles because he was good, charitable,
and filled with pity?
Answer. Certainly
Question. Has he as much
power now as he had
when on earth?
Answer. Most
assuredly.
Question. Is he as charitable and pitiful
now, as
he was then?
Answer. Yes.
Question.
Why does he not now cure the lame
and the halt and the blind?
Answer. It is well known that, when Julian the
Apostate
was dying, catching some of his own blood
in his hand and throwing it
into the air he exclaimed:
"Galileean, thou hast conquered!"
Question. Do you consider it our duty to love our
neighbor?
Answer. Certainly.
Question.
Is virtue the same in all worlds?
Answer. Most
assuredly.
Question. Are we under obligation to render
good
for evil, and to "pray for those who despitefully use us"?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will Christians in
heaven love their
neighbors?
414
Answer.
Y es; if their neighbors are not in hell.
Question. Do
good Christians pity sinners in this
world?
Answer.
Yes.
Question. Why?
Answer. Because
they regard them as being in
great danger of the eternal wrath of
God.
Question. After these sinners have died, and
been sent to hell, will the Christians in heaven then
pity them?
Answer. No. Angels have no pity.
Question.
If we are under obligation to love our
enemies, is not God under
obligation to love his?
If we forgive our enemies, ought not God to
forgive
his? If we forgive those who injure us, ought not
God to
forgive those who have not injured him?
Answer. God made
us, and he has therefore the
right to do with us as he pleases.
Justice demands
that he should damn all of us, and the few that he
will save will be saved through mercy and without
the slightest
respect to anything they may have done
themselves. Such is the
justice of God, that those
in hell will have no right to complain,
and those in
heaven will have no right to be there. Hell is justice,
and salvation is charity.
415
Question. Do
you consider it possible for a law to
be jusdy satisfied by the
punishment of an innocent
person?
Answer. Such is
the scheme of the atonement.
As man is held responsible for the sin
of Adam, so
he will be credited with the virtues of Christ; and
you can readily see that one is exactly as reasonable
as the other.
Question. Suppose a man honestly reads the New
Testament, and honestly concludes that it is not an
inspired book;
suppose he honestly makes up his
mind that the miracles are not true;
that the devil
never really carried Christ to the pinnacle of the
temple; that devils were really never cast out of a
man and allowed
to take refuge in swine;—I say,
suppose that he is honestly
convinced that these
things are not true, what ought he to say?
Answer. He ought to say nothing.
Question.
Suppose that the same man should read
the Koran, and come to the
conclusion that it is not
an inspired book; what ought he to say?
Answer. He ought to say that it is not inspired;
his
fellow-men are entitled to his honest opinion, and
it is his duty to
do what he can do to destroy a per-
nicious superstition.
416
Question. Suppose then, that a reader of the Bible,
having become convinced that it is not inspired—
honestly
convinced—says nothing—keeps his con-
clusion absolutely
to himself, and suppose he dies in
that belief, can he be saved?
Answer. Certainly not.
Question. Has the
honesty of his belief anything
to do with his future condition?
Answer. Nothing whatever.,
Question.
Suppose that he tried to believe, that
he hated to disagree with his
friends, and with his
parents, but that in spite of himself he was
forced to
the conclusion that the Bible is not the inspired word
of God, would he then deserve eternal punishment?
Answer.
Certainly he would.
Question. Can a man control his
belief?
Answer. He cannot—except as to the Bible.
Question. Do you consider it just in God to
create a man
who cannot believe the Bible, and then
damn him because he does not?
Answer. Such is my belief.
Question. Is it
your candid opinion that a man
who does not believe the Bible should
keep his
belief a secret from his fellow-men?
Answer.
It is.
417
Question. How do I know that you
believe the
Bible? You have told me that if you did not be-
lieve it, you would not tell me?
Answer. There is no way
for you to ascertain,
except by taking my word for it.
Question.
What will be the fate of a man who
does not believe it, and yet
pretends to believe it?
Answer. He will be damned.
Question. Then hypocrisy will not save him?
Answer.
No.
Question. And if he does not believe it, and ad-
mits that he does not believe it, then his honesty will
not save him?
Answer. No. Honesty on the wrong side is no
better than
hypocrisy on the right side.
Question. Do we know who
wrote the gospels?
Answer. Yes; we do.
Question.
Are we absolutely sure who wrote
them?
Answer. Of
course; we have the evidence as it
has come to us through the
Catholic Church.
Question. Can we rely upon the Catholic
Church
now?
Answer. No; assuredly no! But we have
the
testimony of Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement,
418
and others of the early fathers, together with that of
the Christian historian, Eusebius.
Question. What do we
really know about Polycarp?
Answer. We know that he
suffered martyrdom un-
der Marcus Aurelius, and that for quite a time
the fire
refused to burn his body, the flames arching over him,
leaving him in a kind of fiery tent; and we also know
that from his
body came a fragrance like frankincense,
and that the Pagans were so
exasperated at seeing
the miracle, that one of them thrust a sword
through
the body of Polycarp; that the blood flowed out and
extinguished the flames and that out of the wound
flew the soul of
the martyr in the form of a dove.
Question. Is that all
we know about Polycarp?
Answer. Yes, with the exception
of a few more
like incidents.
Question. Do we know
that Polycarp ever met
St. John?
Answer. Yes;
Eusebius says so.
Question. Are we absolutely certain
that he ever
lived?
Answer. Yes, or Eusebius could
not have written
about him.
Question. Do we know
anything of the character
of Eusebius?
419
Answer.
Yes; we know that he was untruthful
only when he wished to do good.
But God can use
even the dishonest. Other books have to be sub-
stantiated by truthful men, but such is the power of
God, that he can
establish the inspiration of the Bible
by the most untruthful
witnesses. If God's witnesses
were honest, anybody could believe, and
what be-
comes of faith, one of the greatest virtues?
Question.
Is the New Testament now the same as
it was in the days of the early
fathers?
Answer. Certainly not. Many books now thrown
out, and not esteemed of divine origin, were esteemed
divine by
Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement and
many of the early
churches. These books are now
called "apocryphal."
Question.
Have you not the same witnesses in
favor of their authenticity, that
you have in favor of
the gospels?
Answer. Precisely
the same. Except that they
were thrown out.
Question.
Why were they thrown out?
Answer. Because the Catholic
Church did not es-
teem them inspired.
Question.
Did the Catholics decide for us which
are the true gospels and which
are the true epistles?
420
Answer. Yes. The
Catholic Church was then the
only church, and consequently must have
been the
true church.
Question. How did the
Catholic Church select the
true books?
Answer.
Councils were called, and votes were
taken, very much as we now pass
resolutions in
political meetings.
Question. Was
the Catholic Church infallible then?
Answer. It was
then, but it is not now.
Question. If the Catholic
Church at that time
had thrown out the book of Revelation, would it
now be our duty to believe that book to have been
inspired?
Answer. No, I suppose not.
Question. Is it
not true that some of these books
were adopted by exceedingly small
majorities?
Answer. It is.
Question.
If the Epistle to the Hebrews and to
the Romans, and the book of
Revelation had been
thrown out, could a man now be saved who honestly
believes the rest of the books?
Answer. This is
doubtful.
Question. Were the men who picked out the in-
spired books inspired?
421
Answer. We cannot
tell, but the probability is
that they were.
Question.
Do we know that they picked out the
right ones?
Answer.
Well, not exactly, but we believe that
they did.
Question.
Are we certain that some of the books
that were thrown out were not
inspired?
Answer. Well, the only way to tell is to read
them carefully.
Question. If upon reading these
apocryphal books
a man concludes that they are not inspired, will he
be
damned for that reason?
Answer. No. Certainly
not.
Question. If he concludes that some of them are
inspired, and believes them, will he then be damned
for that belief?
Answer. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned for
believing too
much.
Question. Does the fact that the books now com-
prising the New Testament were picked out by the
Catholic Church
prevent their being examined now
by an honest man, as they were
examined at the time
they were picked out?
422
Answer. No; not if the man comes to the con-
clusion that they
are inspired.
Question. Does the fact that the Catholic
Church
picked them out and declared them to be inspired,
render
it a crime to examine them precisely as you
would examine the books
that the Catholic Church
threw out and declared were not inspired?
Answer. I think it does.
Question. At the
time the council was held in which
it was determined which of the
books of the New
Testament are inspired, a respectable minority voted
against some that were finally decided to be inspired.
If they were
honest in the vote they gave, and died
without changing their
opinions, are they now in hell?
Answer. Well, they ought
to be.
Question. If those who voted to leave the book
of Revelation out of the canon, and the gospel of
Saint John out of
the canon, believed honestly that
these were not inspired books, how
should they have
voted?
Answer. Well, I suppose a
man ought to vote as
he honestly believes—except in matters of
religion.
Question. If the Catholic Church was not
infal-
lible, is the question still open as to what books are,
and what are not, inspired?
423
Answer. I
suppose the question is still open—
but it would be dangerous
to decide it.
Question. If, then, I examine all the
books again,
and come to the conclusion that some that were
thrown out were inspired, and some that were ac-
cepted were not
inspired, ought I to say so?
Answer. Not if it is
contrary to the faith of your
father, or calculated to interfere with
your own po-
litical prospects.
Question. Is it as
great a sin to admit into the
Bible books that are uninspired as to
reject those
that are inspired?
Answer. Well, it is
a crime to reject an inspired
book, no matter how unsatisfactory the
evidence is
for its inspiration, but it is not a crime to receive an
uninspired book. God damns nobody for believing
too much. An excess
of credulity is simply to err in
the direction of salvation.
Question. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspira-
tion
of the New Testament—believes it to be entirely
the work of
uninspired men; and suppose he also be-
lieves—but not from any
evidence obtained in the New
Testament—that Jesus Christ was
the son of God, and
that he made atonement for his soul, can he then
be
saved without a belief in the inspiration of the Bible?
424
Answer. This has not yet been decided by
our
church, and I do not wish to venture an
opinion.
Question.
Suppose a man denies the inspiration
of the Scriptures; suppose that
he also denies the
divinity of Jesus Christ; and suppose, further,
that
he acts precisely as Christ is said to have acted;
suppose
he loves his enemies, prays for those who
despitefully use him, and
does all the good he pos-
sibly can, is it your opinion that such a
man will be
saved?
Answer. No, sir. There is "none
other name
"given under heaven and among men," whereby a
sinner
can be saved but the name of Christ.
Question. Then it
is your opinion that God
would save a murderer who believed in
Christ, and
would damn another man, exactly like Christ, who
failed to believe in him?
Answer. Yes; because we have
the blessed
promise that, out of Christ, "our God is a consuming
"fire."
Question. Suppose a man read the Bible care-
fully and honestly, and was not quite convinced that
it was true, and
that while examining the subject, he
died; what then?
425
Answer. I do not believe that God would allow
him to
examine the matter in another world, or to
make up his mind in
heaven. Of course, he would
eternally perish.
Question.
Could Christ now furnish evidence
enough to convince every human
being of the truth
of the Bible?
Answer. Of course
he could, because he is in-
finite.
Question. Are
any miracles performed now?
Answer. Oh, no!
Question. Have we any testimony, except human
testimony, to
substantiate any miracle?
Answer. Only human testimony.
Question. Do all men give the same force to the
same
evidence?
Answer. By no means.
Question.
Have all honest men who have exam-
ined the Bible believed it to be
inspired?
Answer. Of course they have. Infidels are not
honest.
Question. Could any additional evidence have
been furnished?
Answer. With perfect ease.
Question.
Would God allow a soul to suffer
426
eternal agony
rather than furnish evidence of the
truth of his Bible?
Answer.
God has furnished plenty of evidence,
and altogether more than was
really necessary. We
should read the Bible in a believing spirit.
Question. Are all parts of the inspired books
equally
true?
Answer. Necessarily.
Question.
According to Saint Matthew, God
promises to forgive all who will
forgive others; not
one word is said about believing in Christ, or
believ-
ing in the miracles, or in any Bible; did Matthew tell
the truth?
Answer. The Bible must be taken as a whole;
and if other conditions are added somewhere else,
then you must
comply with those other conditions.
Matthew may not have stated all
the conditions.
Question. I find in another part of the
New
Testament, that a young man came to Christ and
asked him
what was necessary for him to do in order
that he might inherit
eternal life. Christ did not tell
him that he must believe the Bible,
or that he must
believe in him, or that he must keep the Sabbath-
day; was Christ honest with that young man?
Answer.
Well, I suppose he was.
427
Question. You
will also recollect that Zaccheus
said to Christ, that where he had
wronged any man
he had made restitution, and further, that half his
goods he had given to the poor; and you will re-
member that Christ
said to Zaccheus: "This day
"hath salvation come to thy house." Why
did not
Christ tell Zaccheus that he "must be born again;"
that
he must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Answer. Of
course there are mysteries in our
holy religion that only those who
have been "born
"again" can understand. You must remember that
"the carnal mind is enmity with God."
Question. Is it
not strange that Christ, in his Ser-
mon on the Mount, did not speak
of "regeneration,"
or of the "scheme of salvation"?
Answer.
Well, it may be.
Question. Can a man be saved now by
living
exactly in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?
Answer. He can not.
Question. Would then a man,
by following the
course of conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermon
on the Mount, lose his soul?
Answer. He most certainly
would, because there
is not one word in the Sermon on the Mount about
believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; not one word
428
about believing in the Bible; not one word about the
"atonement;" not
one word about "regeneration."
So that, if the Presbyterian Church is
right, it is abso-
lutely certain that a man might follow the
teachings
of the Sermon on the Mount, and live in accordance
with its every word, and yet deserve and receive the
eternal
condemnation of God. But we must remem-
ber that the Sermon on the
Mount was preached be-
fore Christianity existed. Christ was talking
to Jews.
Question. Did Christ write anything himself, in
the New Testament?
Answer. Not a word.
Question.
Did he tell any of his disciples to write
any of his words?
Answer. There is no account of it, if he did.
Question.
Do we know whether any of the dis-
ciples wrote anything?
Answer. Of course they did.
Question. How do you
know?
Answer. Because the gospels bear their names.
Question. Are you satisfied that Christ was abso-
lutely
God?
Answer. Of course he was. We believe that
Christ and God and the Holy Ghost are all the same,
that the three
form one, and that each one is three.
429
Question.
Was Christ the God of the universe at
the time of his birth?
Answer. He certainly was.
Question. Was he
the infinite God, creator
and controller of the entire universe,
before he was
born?
Answer. Of course he was. This
is the mystery
of "God manifest in the flesh." The infidels have
pretended that he was like any other child, and was
in fact supported
by Nature instead of being the
supporter of Nature. They have
insisted that like
other children, he had to be cared for by his
mother.
Of course he appeared to be cared for by his mother.
It
was a part of the plan that in all respects he should
appear to be
like other children.
Question. Did he know just as much
before he
was born as after?
Answer. If he was God
of course he did.
Question. How do you account for the
fact that
Saint Luke tells us, in the last verse of the second
chapter of his gospel, that "Jesus increased in wis-
"dom and
stature"?
Answer. That I presume is a figure of speech;
because, if he was God, he certainly could not have
increased in
wisdom. The physical part of him could
430
increase
in stature, but the intellectual part must have
been infinite all the
time.
Question. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?
Answer. No; I believe what Luke said. If it
appears
untrue, or impossible, then I know that it is
figurative or
symbolical.
Question. Did I understand you to say that
Christ
was actually God?
Answer. Of course he was.
Question. Then why did Luke say in the same
verse of the
same chapter that "Jesus increased in
"favor with God"?
Answer.
I dare you to go into a room by your-
self and read the fourteenth
chapter of Saint John!
Question. Is it necessary to
understand the Bible
in order to be saved?
Answer.
Certainly not; it is only necessary that
you believe it.
Question. Is it necessary to believe all the
miracles?
Answer. It may not be necessary, but as it is im-
possible to tell which ones can safely be left out, you
had better
believe them all.
Question. Then you regard belief as
the safe
way?
431
Answer. Of course it
is better to be fooled in this
world than to be damned in the next.
Question. Do you think that there are any cruel-
ties on
God's part recorded in the Bible?
Answer. At first
flush, many things done by God
himself, as well as by his prophets,
appear to be
cruel; but if we examine them closely, we will find
them to be exactly the opposite.
Question. How do you
explain the story of Elisha
and the children,—where the two
she-bears destroyed
forty-two children on account of their impudence?
Answer. This miracle, in my judgment, estab-
lishes two
things: 1. That children should be polite
to ministers, and 2. That
God is kind to animals—
"giving them their meat in due season."
These
bears have been great educators—they are the
foundation of the respect entertained by the young
for theologians.
No child ever sees a minister now
without thinking of a bear.
Question. What do you think of the story of
Daniel—you
no doubt remember it? Some men
told the king that Daniel was praying
contrary to
law, and thereupon Daniel was cast into a den of
lions; but the lions could not touch him, their
mouths having been
shut by angels. The next
432
morning, the king,
finding that Daniel was still
intact, had him taken out; and then,
for the purpose
of gratifying Daniels God, the king had all the men
who had made the complaint against Daniel, and
their wives and their
little children, brought and cast
into the lions' den. According to
the account, the
lions were so hungry that they caught these wives
and children as they dropped, and broke all their
bones in pieces
before they had even touched the
ground. Is it not wonderful that God
failed to pro-
tect these innocent wives and children?
Answer.
These wives and children were heathen;
they were totally depraved.
And besides, they were
used as witnesses. The fact that they were
devoured
with such quickness shows that the lions were
hungry.
Had it not been for this, infidels would
have accounted for the
safety of Daniel by saying
that the lions had been fed.
Question.
Do you believe that Shadrach, Meshach
and Abednego were cast "into a
burning fiery furnace
"heated one seven times hotter than it was wont
to
"be heated," and that they had on "their coats, their
"hosen
and their hats," and that when they came
out "not a hair of their
heads was singed, nor was
"the smell of fire upon their garments"?
433
Answer. The evidence of this miracle is
exceed-
ingly satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion of
Nebuchadnezzar.
Question. How do you know he was
converted?
Answer. Because immediately after the miracle
the king issued a decree that "every people, nation
"and language
that spoke anything amiss against
"the God of Shadrach and Company,
should be cut
"in pieces." This decree shows that he had become
a true disciple and worshiper of Jehovah.
Question. If
God in those days preserved from
the fury of the fire men who were
true to him and
would not deny his name, why is it that he has failed
to protect thousands of martyrs since that time?
Answer.
This is one of the divine mysteries.
God has in many instances
allowed his enemies to
kill his friends. I suppose this was allowed
for the
good of his enemies, that the heroism of the mar-
tyrs
might convert them.
Question. Do you believe all the
miracles?
Answer. I believe them all, because I believe
the
Bible to be inspired.
Question. What makes you
think it is inspired?
Answer. I have never seen anybody
who knew
it was not; besides, my father and mother believed it.
434
Question. Have you any other reasons for be-
lieving it to be inspired?
Answer. Yes; there are more
copies of the Bible
printed than of any other book; and it is printed
in
more languages. And besides, it would be impossible
to get
along without it.
Question. Why could we not get along
without it?
Answer. We would have nothing to swear wit-
nesses by; no book in which to keep the family
record; nothing for
the centre-table, and nothing for
a mother to give her son. No nation
can be civilized
without the Bible.
Question. Did
God always know that a Bible was
necessary to civilize a country?
Answer. Certainly he did.
Question. Why did
he not give a Bible to
the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and the
Romans?
Answer. It is astonishing what perfect fools in-
fidels are.
Question. Why do you call infidels "fools"?
Answer. Because I find in the fifth chapter of the
gospel according to Matthew the following: "Who-
"soever shall say
'Thou fool!' shall be in danger of
"hell fire."
435
Question. Have I the right to read the Bible?
Answer.
Yes. You not only have the right, but
it is your duty.
Question.
In reading the Bible the words make
certain impressions on my mind.
These impressions
depend upon my brain,—upon my intelligence.
Is
not this true?
Answer. Of course, when you read
the Bible, im-
pressions are made upon your mind.
Question.
Can I control these impressions?
Answer. I do not think
you can, as long as you
remain in a sinful state.
Question.
How am I to get out of this sinful state?
Answer. You
must believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and you must read the Bible in
a prayerful
spirit and with a believing heart.
Question.
Suppose that doubts force themselves
upon my mind?
Answer.
Then you will know that you are a sin-
ner, and that you are
depraved.
Question. If I have the right to read the
Bible,
have I the right to try to understand it?
Answer.
Most assuredly.
Question. Do you admit that I have the
right to
reason about it and to investigate it?
436
Answer. Yes; I admit that. Of course you can-
not help
reasoning about what you read.
Question. Does the right
to read a book include
the right to give your opinion as to the truth
of what
the book contains?
Answer. Of course,—if
the book is not inspired.
Infidels hate the Bible because it is
inspired, and
Christians know that it is inspired because infidels
say that it is not.
Question. Have I the right to decide
for myself
whether or not the book is inspired?
Answer.
You have no right to deny the truth of
God's Holy Word.
Question.
Is God the author of all books?
Answer. Certainly not.
Question. Have I the right to say that God did
not write
the Koran?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why?
Answer. Because the Koran was written by an
impostor.
Question. How do you know?
Answer. My
reason tells me so.
Question. Have you the right to be
guided by
your reason?
437
Answer. I
must be.
Question. Have you the same right to follow
your
reason after reading the Bible?
Answer. No.
The Bible is the standard of reason.
The Bible is not to be judged or
corrected by your
reason. Your reason is to be weighed and measured
by the Bible. The Bible is different from other
books and must not be
read in the same critical spirit,
nor judged by the same standard.
Question. What did God give us reason for?
Answer.
So that we might investigate other
religions, and examine other
so-called sacred books.
Question. If a man honestly
thinks that the Bible
is not inspired, what should he say?
Answer. He should admit that he is mistaken.
Question.
When he thinks he is right?
Answer. Yes. The Bible is
different from other
books. It is the master of reason. You read the
Bible, not to see if that is wrong, but to see
whether your reason is
right. It is the only book
about which a man has no right to reason.
He must
believe. The Bible is addressed, not to the reason,
but
to the ears: "He that hath ears to hear, let
"him hear."
Question. Do you think we have the right to tell
438
what the Bible means—what ideas God intended to
convey,
or has conveyed to us, through the medium
of the Bible?
Answer.
Well, I suppose you have that right.
Yes, that must be your duty. You
certainly ought
to tell others what God has said to you.
Question. Do all men get the same ideas from
the Bible?
Answer. No.
Question. How do you account
for that?
Answer. Because all men are not alike; they
differ in intellect, in education, and in experience.
Question.
Who has the right to decide as to the
real ideas that God intended to
convey?
Answer. I am a Protestant, and believe in the
right of private judgment. Whoever does not is a
Catholic. Each man
must be his own judge, but God
will hold him responsible.
Question. Does God believe in the right of private
judgment?
Answer. Of course he does.
Question. Is he
willing that I should exercise my
judgment in deciding whether the
Bible is inspired or
not?
Answer. No. He believes
in the exercise of
439
private judgment only in the
examination and rejec-
tion of other books than the Bible.
Question. Is he a Catholic?
Answer. I cannot
answer blasphemy! Let me
tell you that God will "laugh at your
calamity, and
"will mock when your fear cometh." You will be
accursed.
Question. Why do you curse infidels?
Answer. Because I am a Christian.
Question.
Did not Christ say that we ought to
"bless those who curse us," and
that we should
"love our enemies"?
Answer. Yes, but
he cursed the Pharisees and
called them "hypocrites" and "vipers."
Question. How do you account for that?
Answer.
It simply shows the difference between
theory and practice.
Question. What do you consider the best way to
answer
infidels.
Answer. The old way is the best. You should
say that their arguments are ancient, and have been
answered over and
over again. If this does not
satisfy your hearers, then you should
attack the
character of the infidel—then that of his parents—
then that of his children.
440
Question.
Suppose that the infidel is a good man,
how will you answer him then?
Answer. But an infidel cannot be a good man.
Even if he
is, it is better that he should lose his
reputation, than that
thousands should lose their
souls. We know that all infidels are vile
and infa-
mous. We may not have the evidence, but we know
that
it exists.
Question. How should infidels be treated?
Should
Christians try to convert them?
Answer.
Christians should have nothing to do
with infidels. It is not safe
even to converse with
them. They are always talking about reason, and
facts, and experience. They are filled with sophistry
and should be
avoided.
Question. Should Christians pray for the con-
version of infidels?
Answer. Yes; but such prayers
should be made
in public and the name of the infidel should be given
and his vile and hideous heart portrayed so that the
young may be
warned.
Question. Whom do you regard as infidels?
Answer. The scientists—the geologists, the as-
tronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No one
can overestimate
the evil that has been wrought
441
by Laplace,
Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel,
Renan, Emerson, Strauss, Bikhner,
Tyndall, and
their wretched followers. These men pretended to
know more than Moses and the prophets. They
were "dogs baying at the
moon." They were
"wolves" and "fools." They tried to "assassinate
"God," and worse than all, they actually laughed
at the clergy,
Question. Do you think they did, and are doing
great
harm?
Answer. Certainly. Of what use are all the
sciences, if you lose your own soul? People in hell
will care nothing
about education. The rich man
said nothing about science, he wanted
water.
Neither will they care about books and theories
in
heaven. If a man is perfectly happy, it makes
no difference how
ignorant he is.
Question. But how can he answer these
scientists?
Answer. Well, my advice is to let their
argu-
ments alone. Of course, you will deny all their
facts; but
the most effective way is to attack their
character.
Question.
But suppose they are good men,—
what then?
Answer.
The better they are, the worse they are.
442
We
cannot admit that the infidel is really good. He
may appear to be
good, and it is our duty to strip
the mask of appearance from the
face of unbelief. If
a man is not a Christian, he is totally
depraved, and
why should we hesitate to make a misstatement
about a man whom God is going to make miserable
forever?
Question. Are we not commanded to love our
enemies?
Answer. Yes, but not the enemies of God.
Question.
Do you fear the final triumph of infi-
delity?
Answer.
No. We have no fear. We believe
that the Bible can be revised often
enough to agree
with anything that may really be necessary to the
preservation of the church. We can always rely
upon revision. Let me
tell you that the Bible is the
most peculiar of books. At the time
God inspired his
holy prophets to write it, he knew exactly what the
discoveries and demonstrations of the future would
be, and he wrote
his Bible in such a way that the
words could always be interpreted in
accordance with
the intelligence of each age, and so that the words
used are capable of several meanings, so that, no
matter what may
hereafter be discovered, the Bible
443
will be found
to agree with it,—for the reason that
the knowledge of Hebrew
will grow in the exact
proportion that discoveries are made in other
depart-
ments of knowledge. You will therefore see, that all
efforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible will simply
result in
giving a better translation.
Question. What do you
consider is the strongest
argument in favor of the inspiration of the
Scrip-
tures?
Answer. The dying words of
Christians.
Question. What do you consider the strongest
argument against the truth of infidelity?
Answer. The
dying words of infidels. You know
how terrible were the death-bed
scenes of Hume,
Voltaire, Paine and Hobbes, as described by hundreds
of persons who were not present; while all Christians
have died with
the utmost serenity, and with their
last words have testified to the
sustaining power of
faith in the goodness of God.
Question.
What were the last words of Jesus
Christ?
Answer.
"My God, my God, why hast thou for-
"saken me?"
A
VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.
"To argue with
a man who has renounced the use and
authority of reason, is like
administering
medicine to the dead."—Thomas Paine.
Peoria, October 8, 1877.
To the Editor of the N Y.
Observer:
Sir: Last June in San Francisco, I offered a
thousand dollars in gold—not as a wager, but as a
gift—to
any one who would substantiate the absurd
story that Thomas Paine
died in agony and fear,
frightened by the clanking chains of devils.
I also
offered the same amount to any minister who would
prove
that Voltaire did not pass away as serenely as
the coming of the
dawn. Afterward I was informed
that you had accepted the offer, and
had called upon
me to deposit the money. Acting upon this inform-
ation, I sent you the following letter:
Peoria, Ill., August
31st, 1877.
To the Editor of the New York Observer:
I have been informed that you accepted, in your
paper, an offer made
by me to any clergyman in
San Francisco. That offer was, that I would
pay
448
one thousand dollars in gold to any minister
in that
city who would prove that Thomas Paine died in
terror
because of religious opinions he had ex-
pressed, or that Voltaire
did not pass away serenely
as the coming of the dawn.
For
many years religious journals and ministers
have been circulating
certain pretended accounts of
the frightful agonies endured by Paine
and Voltaire
when dying; that these great men at the moment of
death were terrified because they had given their
honest opinions
upon the subject of religion to their
fellow-men. The imagination of
the religious world
has been taxed to the utmost in inventing absurd
and infamous accounts of the last moments of these
intellectual
giants. Every Sunday school paper,
thousands of idiotic tracts, and
countless stupidities
called sermons, have been filled with these
calumnies.
Paine and Voltaire both believed in God—both
hoped for immortality—both believed in special
providence. But
both denied the inspiration of the
Scriptures—both denied the
divinity of Jesus Christ.
While theologians most cheerfully admit
that most
murderers die without fear, they deny the possibility
of any man who has expressed his disbelief in the
inspiration of the
Bible dying except in an agony of
terror. These stories are used in
revivals and in
449
Sunday schools, and have long
been considered of
great value.
I am anxious that these
slanders shall cease. I
am desirous of seeing justice done, even at
this late
day, to the dead.
For the purpose of
ascertaining the evidence upon
which these death-bed accounts really
rest, I make
to you the following proposition:—
First.—As to Thomas Paine: I will deposit with
the First
National Bank of Peoria, Illinois, one thou-
sand dollars in gold,
upon the following conditions:
This money shall be subject to your
order when
you shall, in the manner hereinafter provided, sub-
stantiate that Thomas Paine admitted the Bible to be
an inspired
book, or that he recanted his Infidel
opinions—or that he died
regretting that he had dis-
believed the Bible—or that he died
calling upon
Jesus Christ in any religious sense whatever.
In order that a tribunal may be created to try this
question, you may
select one man, I will select
another, and the two thus chosen shall
select a third,
and any two of the three may decide the matter.
As there will be certain costs and expenditures on
both sides,
such costs and expenditures shall be paid
by the defeated party.
In addition to the one thousand dollars in gold, I
450
will deposit a bond with good and sufficient security
in the
sum of two thousand dollars, conditioned for
the payment of all costs
in case I am defeated. I
shall require of you a like bond.
From the date of accepting this offer you may
have ninety days to
collect and present your testi-
mony, giving me notice of time and
place of taking
depositions. I shall have a like time to take evi-
dence upon my side, giving you like notice, and you
shall then have
thirty days to take further testimony
in reply to what I may offer.
The case shall then
be argued before the persons chosen; and their
decisions shall be final as to us.
If the arbitrator chosen by
me shall die, I shall
have the right to choose another. You shall
have
the same right. If the third one, chosen by our two,
shall
die, the two shall choose another; and all va-
cancies, from whatever
cause, shall be filled upon the
same principle.
The
arbitrators shall sit when and where a major-
ity shall determine,
and shall have full power to pass
upon all questions arising as to
competency of
evidence, and upon all subjects.
Second.—As
to Voltaire: I make the same prop-
osition, if you will substantiate
that Voltaire died
expressing remorse or showing in any way that he
451
was in mental agony because he had attacked Catholi-
cism—or because he had denied the inspiration of the
Bible—or
because he had denied the divinity of Christ.
I make these
propositions because I want you
to stop slandering the dead.
If the propositions do not suit you in any particu-
lar, please
state your objections, and I will modify
them in any way consistent
with the object in view.
If Paine and Voltaire died filled with
childish and
silly fear, I want to know it, and I want the world to
know it. On the other hand, if the believers in
superstition have
made and circulated these cruel
slanders concerning the mighty dead,
I want the
world to know that.
As soon as you notify me of
the acceptance of
these propositions I will send you the certificate
of
the bank that the money has been deposited upon
the foregoing
conditions, together with copies of
bonds for costs. Yours truly,
R. G. Ingersoll.
In your paper of September 27, 1877, you
acknowl-
edge the receipt of the foregoing letter, and after
giving an outline of its contents, say: "As not one
of the
affirmations, in the form stated in this letter,
was contained in the
offer we made, we have no
occasion to substantiate them. But we are
prepared
452
to produce the evidence of the truth of
our own
statement, and even to go further; to show not only
that
Tom Paine 'died a drunken, cowardly, and
beastly death,' but that for
many years previous, and
up to that event he lived a drunken and
beastly life."
In order to refresh your memory as to what you
had published, I call your attention to the following,
which appeared
in the N. Y. Observer, July 19, 1877:
"Put Down the Money.
"Col. Bob Ingersoll, in a speech full of ribaldry
and blasphemy, made
in San Francisco recently, said:
"I will give $1,000 in gold coin to
any clergyman
who can substantiate that the death of Voltaire was
not as peaceful as the dawn; and of Tom Paine whom
they assert died
in fear and agony, frightened by the
clanking chains of devils—in
fact frightened to death
by God. I will give $1,000 likewise to any
one who
can substantiate this 'absurd story'—a story without
a word of truth in it."
"We have published the testimony, and
the wit-
nesses are on hand to prove that Tom Paine died a
drunken, cowardly and beastly death. Let the Colo-
nel deposit the
money with any honest man, and the
absurd story, as he terms it,
shall be shown to be an
ower true tale. But he wont do it. His talk
is Infi-
del 'buncombe' and nothing more."
453
On the 31st of August I sent you my letter, and
on the 27th of
September you say in your paper:
"As not one of the affirmations in
the form stated
in this letter was contained in the offer we made, we
have no occasion to substantiate them."
What were the
affirmations contained in the offer
you made? I had offered a
thousand dollars in gold
to any one who would substantiate "the
absurd story"
that Thomas Paine died in fear and agony,frightened
by the clanking chains of devils—in fact, frightened to
death
by God.
In response to this offer you said: "Let the Colo-
nel deposit the money with an honest man and the
'absurd story' as he
terms it, shall be shown to be
an 'ower true tale.' But he won't do
it. His talk
is infidel 'buncombe' and nothing more."
Did
you not offer to prove that Paine died in fear
and agony, frightened
by the clanking chains of
devils? Did you not ask me to deposit the
money
that you might prove the "absurd story" to be an
"ower
true tale" and obtain the money? Did you
not in your paper of the
twenty-seventh of September
in effect deny that you had offered to
prove this
"absurd story"? As soon as I offered to deposit
the
gold and give bonds besides to cover costs, did
you not publish a
falsehood?
454
You have eaten your own words, and,
for my
part, I would rather have dined with Ezekiel than
with
you.
You have not met the issue. You have know-
ingly
avoided it. The question was not as to the
personal habits of Paine.
The real question was
and is, whether Paine was filled with fear and
horror
at the time of his death on account of his religious
opinions. That is the question. You avoid this.
In effect, you
abandon that charge and make others.
To you belongs the honor
of having made the
most cruel and infamous charges against Thomas
Paine that have ever been made. Of what you
have said you cannot
prove the truth of one word.
You say that Thomas Paine died a
drunken,
cowardly and beastly death.
I pronounce this
charge to be a cowardly and
beastly falsehood.
Have you
any evidence that he was in a drunken
condition when he died?
What did he say or do of a cowardly character
just before, or
at about the time of his death?
In what way was his death
cowardly? You must
answer these questions, and give your proof, or
all
honest men will hold you in abhorrence. You have
made these
charges. The man against whom you
Vindication of thomas paine.
455
make them is dead. He cannot answer you. I
can.
He cannot compel you to produce your testi-
mony, or admit by your
silence that you have
cruelly slandered the defenceless dead. I can
and I
will. You say that his death was cowardly. In
what
respect? Was it cowardly in him to hold the
Thirty-Nine Articles in
contempt? Was it cowardly
not to call on your Lord? Was it cowardly
not to
be afraid? You say that his death was beastly.
Again I
ask, in what respect? Was it beastly to
submit to the inevitable with
tranquillity? Was it
beastly to look with composure upon the approach
of death? Was it beastly to die without a com-
plaint, without a
murmur—to pass from life without
a fear?
Did Thomas
Paine Recant?
Mr. Paine had prophesied that fanatics would
crawl and cringe around him during his last mo-
ments. He believed
that they would put a lie in
the mouth of Death.
When the
shadow of the coming dissolution was
upon him, two clergymen, Messrs.
Milledollar and
Cunningham, called to annoy the dying man. Mr.
Cunningham had the politeness to say, "You have
now a full view of
death you cannot live long, and
whosoever does not believe in the
Lord Jesus Christ
456
will asuredly be damned." Mr.
Paine replied, "Let
me have none of your popish stuff. Get away with
you. Good morning."
On another occasion a Methodist minister
ob-
truded himself when Willet Hicks was present.
This minister
declared to Mr. Paine "that unless he
repented of his unbelief he
would be damned."
Paine, although at the door of death, rose in his
bed
and indignantly requested the clergyman to leave
his room.
On another occasion, two brothers by
the name of Pigott, sought to
convert him. He was
displeased and requested their departure. After-
ward Thomas Nixon and Captain Daniel Pelton
visited him for the
express purpose of ascertaining
whether he had, in any manner,
changed his relig-
ious opinions. They were assured by the dying
man that he still held the principles he had expressed
in his
writings.
Afterward, these gentlemen hearing that William
Cobbett was about to write a life of Paine, sent him
the following
note:
New York, April 24, 1818.
"Sir: We have been
informed that you have a de-
sign to write a history of the life and
writings of
Thomas Paine. If you have been furnished with
materials in respect to his religious opinions, or
457
rather of his recantation of his former opinions before
his
death, all you have heard of his recanting is false.
Being aware that
such reports would be raised after
his death by fanatics who infested
his house at the
time it was expected he would die, we, the subscrib-
ers, intimate acquaintances of Thomas Paine since
the year 1776, went
to his house. He was sitting
up in a chair, and apparently in full
vigor and use of
all his mental faculties. We interrogated him upon
his religious opinions, and if he had changed his
mind, or repented
of anything he had said or wrote
on that subject. He answered, "Not
at all," and
appeared rather offended at our supposition that any
change should take place in his mind. We took
down in writing the
questions put to him and his
answers thereto before a number of
persons then in
his room, among whom were his doctor, Mrs.
Bonneville, etc. paper is mislaid and cannot
be found at present, but
the above is the substance
which can be attested by many living
witnesses."
Thomas Nixon.
Daniel Pelton.
Mr. Jarvis, the artist, saw Mr. Paine one or two
days before his
death. To Mr. Jarvis he expressed
his belief in his written opinions
upon the subject of
religion. B. F. Haskin, an attorney of the city
of
458
New York, also visited him and inquired as to
his
religious opinions. Paine was then upon the thresh-
old of
death, but he did not tremble. He was not a
coward. He expressed his
firm and unshaken belief
in the religious ideas he had given to the
world.
Dr. Manley was with him when he spoke his last
words. Dr. Manley asked the dying man if he did
not wish to believe
that Jesus was the Son of God,
and the dying philosopher answered: "I
have no
wish to believe on that subject." Amasa Woodsworth
sat up with Thomas Paine the night before his
death. In 1839 Gilbert
Vale hearing that Mr.
Woodsworth was living in or near Boston,
visited
him for the purpose of getting his statement. The
statement was published in the Beacon of June 5,
1839, while
thousands who had been acquainted with
Mr. Paine were living.
The following is the article referred to.
"We have just
returned from Boston. One ob-
ject of our visit to that city, was to
see a Mr. Amasa
Woodsworth, an engineer, now retired in a hand-
some cottage and garden at East Cambridge, Boston.
This gentleman
owned the house occupied by Paine
at his death—while he lived
next door. As an act
of kindness Mr. Woodsworth visited Mr. Paine
every
day for six weeks before his death. He frequently
459
sat up with him, and did so on the last two nights of
his life. He was always there with Dr. Manley, the
physician, and
assisted in removing Mr. Paine while
his bed was prepared. He was
present when Dr.
Manley asked Mr. Paine "if he wished to believe
that Jesus Christ was the Son of God," and he de-
scribes Mr. Paine's
answer as animated. He says
that lying on his back he used some
action and with
much emphasis, replied, "I have no wish to believe
on that subject." He lived some time after this, but
was not known to
speak, for he died tranquilly. He
accounts for the insinuating style
of Dr. Manley's
letter, by stating that that gentleman just after its
publication joined a church. He informs us that he
has openly
reproved the doctor for the falsity con-
tained in the spirit of that
letter, boldly declaring be-
fore Dr. Manley, who is yet living, that
nothing
which he saw justified the insinuations. Mr. Woods-
worth assures us that he neither heard nor saw any-
thing to justify
the belief of any mental change in
the opinions of Mr. Paine previous
to his death; but
that being very ill and in pain chiefly arising
from
the skin being removed in some parts by long lying,
he was
generally too uneasy to enjoy conversation
on abstract subjects.
This, then, is the best evidence
that can be procured on this
subject, and we publish
460
it while the
contravening parties are yet alive, and
with the authority of Mr.
Woodsworth.
Gilbert Vale.
A few weeks ago I received
the following letter
which confirms the statement of Mr. Vale:
Near Stockton, Cal., Green-
wood Cottage, July 9, 1877.
Col. Ingersoll: In 1842 I talked with a gentle-
man in Boston.
I have forgotten his name; but he was
then an engineer of the
Charleston navy yard. I am
thus particular so that you can find his
name on the
books. He told me that he nursed Thomas Paine
in his
last illness, and closed his eyes when dead. I
asked him if he
recanted and called upon God to
save him. He replied, "No. He died as
he had
taught. He had a sore upon his side and when we
turned
him it was very painful and he would cry out
'O God!' or something
like that." "But," said
the narrator, "that was nothing, for he
believed in a
God." I told him that I had often heard it asserted
from the pulpit that Mr. Paine had recanted in his
last moments. The
gentleman said that it was not
true, and he appeared to be an
intelligent, truthful
man. With respect, I remain, etc.
Philip Graves, M. D.
461
The next witness is Willet
Hicks, a Quaker
preacher. He says that during the last illness of
Mr. Paine he visited him almost daily, and that
Paine died firmly
convinced of the truth of the relig-
ious opinions he had given to
his fellow-men. It
was to this same Willet Hicks that Paine applied
for
permission to be buried in the cemetery of the
Quakers.
Permission was refused. This refusal
settles the question of
recantation. If he had re-
canted, of course there could have been no
objection
to his body being buried by the side of the best
hypocrites on the earth.
If Paine recanted why should he be
denied "a
little earth for charity"? Had he recanted, it
would
have been regarded as a vast and splendid
triumph for the gospel. It
would with much noise
and pomp and ostentation have been heralded
about the world.
I received the following letter to-day. The
writer is well know in this city, and is a man of
high character:
Peoria, Oct. 8th, 1877.
Robert G. Ingersoll, Esteemed
Friend: My
parents were Friends (Quakers). My father died
when I
was very young. The elderly and middle-
aged Friends visited at my
mother's house. We
462
lived in the city of New
York. Among the number
I distinctly remember Elias Hicks, Willet
Hicks,
and a Mr.-Day, who was a bookseller in Pearl
street. There were many others, whose names I
do not now remember.
The subject of the recanta-
tion by Thomas Paine of his views about
the Bible
in his last illness, or at any other time, was dis-
cussed by them in my presence at different times.
I learned from them
that some of them had attended
upon Thomas Paine in his last sickness
and minis-
tered to his wants up to the time of his death.
And
upon the question of whether he did recant
there was but one
expression. They all said that
he did not recant in any manner. I
often heard
them say they wished he had recanted. In fact,
according to them, the nearer he approached death
the more positive
he appeared to be in his con-
victions.
These
conversations were from 1820 to 1822. I
was at that time from ten to
twelve years old, but
these conversations impressed themselves upon
me
because many thoughtless people then blamed the
Society of
Friends for their kindness to that "arch
Infidel," Thomas Paine..
Truly yours,
A. C. Hankinson.
463
A
few days ago I received the following letter:
Albany, New York, Sept.
27, 1877.
Dear Sir: It is over twenty years ago that pro-
fessionally I made the acquaintance of John Hogeboom,
a Justice
of the Peace of the county of
Rensselaer, New York. He was then over
seventy
years of age and had the reputation of being a man
of
candor and integrity. He was a great admirer of
Paine. He told me
that he was personally ac-
quainted with him, and used to see him
frequently
during the last years of his life in the city of New
York, where Hogeboom then resided. I asked him
if there was any truth
in the charge that Paine was
in the habit of getting drunk. He said
that it was
utterly false; that he never heard of such a thing
during the life-time of Mr. Paine, and did not believe
any one else
did. I asked him about the recantation
of his religious opinions on
his death-bed, and the
revolting death-bed scenes that the world had
heard
so much about. He said there was no truth in
them, that he
had received his information from
persons who attended Paine in his
last illness, "and
that he passed peacefully away, as we may say, in
the sunshine of a great soul."...
Yours truly,
W. J.
Hilton,
464
The witnesses by whom I substantiate the
fact
that Thomas Paine did not recant, and that he died
holding
the religious opinions he had published, are:
First—Thomas
Nixon, Captain Daniel Pelton,
B. F. Haskin. These gentlemen visited
him during
his last illness for the purpose of ascertaining whether
he had in any respect changed his views upon relig-
ion. He told them
that he had not.
Second—James Cheetham. This man was the
most malicious enemy Mr. Paine had, and yet he
admits that "Thomas
Paine died placidly, and al-
most without a struggle." (See Life of
Thomas
Paine, by James Cheetham).
Third—The
ministers, Milledollar and Cunning-
ham. These gentlemen told Mr.
Paine that if he
died without believing in the Lord Jesus Christ he
would be damned, and Paine replied, "Let me have
none of your popish
stuff. Good morning." (See
Sherwin's Life of Paine, p. 220).
Fourth—Mrs. Hedden. She told these same
preachers when
they attempted to obtrude them-
selves upon Mr. Paine again, that the
attempt to
convert Mr. Paine was useless—"that if God did not
change his mind no human power could."
Fifth—Andrew A.
Dean. This man lived upon
Paine's farm at New Rochelle, and
corresponded
465
with him upon religious subjects.
(See Paine's
Theological Works, p. 308.)
Sixth—Mr.
Jarvis, the artist with whom Paine
lived. He gives an account of an
old lady coming
to Paine and telling him that God Almighty had
sent her to tell him that unless he repented and be-
lieved in the
blessed Savior, he would be damned.
Paine replied that God would not
send such a foolish
old woman with such an impertinent message. (See
Clio Rickman's Life of Paine.)
Seventh—Wm. Carver, with
whom Paine boarded.
Mr. Carver said again and again that Paine did
not
recant. He knew him well, and had every opportun-
ity of
knowing. (See Life of Paine by Gilbert Vale.)
Eighth—Dr.
Manley, who attended him in his last
sickness, and to whom Paine
spoke his last words.
Dr. Manley asked him if he did not wish to
believe in
Jesus Christ, and he replied, "I have no wish to
believe on that subject."
Ninth—Willet Hicks and Elias
Hicks, who were
with him frequently during his last sickness, and
both of whom tried to persuade him to recant. Ac-
cording to their
testimony, Mr. Paine died as he had
lived—a believer in God,
and a friend of man.
Willet Hicks was offered money to say something
false against Thomas Paine. He was even offered
466
money to remain silent and allow others to slander
the dead. Mr.
Hicks, speaking of Thomas Paine,
said: "He was a good man—an
honest man."
(Vale's Life of Paine.)
Tenth—Amasa
Woodsworth, who was with him
every day for some six weeks immediately
preceding
his death, and sat up with him the last two nights of
his life. This man declares that Paine did not recant
and that he
died tranquilly. The evidence of Mr.
Woodsworth is conclusive.
Eleventh—Thomas Paine himself. The will of
Thomas Paine,
written by himself, commences as
follows:
"The last will
and testament of me, the subscriber,
Thomas Paine, reposing
confidence in my creator
God, and in no other being, for I know of no
other,
nor believe in any other;" and closes in these words;
"I
have lived an honest and useful life to mankind;
my time has been
spent in doing good, and I die in
perfect composure and resignation
to the will of my
creator God."
Twelfth—If Thomas
Paine recanted, why do you
pursue him? If he recanted, he died
substantially
in your belief, for what reason then do you denounce
his death as cowardly? If upon his death-bed he
renounced the
opinions he had published, the busi-
467
ness of
defaming him should be done by Infidels, not
by Christians.
I ask you if it is honest to throw away the testi-
mony of his
friends—the evidence of fair and honor-
able men—and take
the putrid words of avowed and
malignant enemies?
When
Thomas Paine was dying, he was infested
by fanatics—by the
snaky spies of bigotry. In the
shadows of death were the unclean
birds of prey
waiting to tear with beak and claw the corpse of him
who wrote the "Rights of Man." And there lurk-
ing and crouching in
the darkness were the jackals
and hyenas of superstition ready to
violate his grave.
These birds of prey—these unclean
beasts are the
witnesses produced and relied upon by you.
One by one the instruments of torture have been
wrenched from the
cruel clutch of the church, until
within the armory of orthodoxy
there remains but
one weapon—Slander.
Against the
witnesses that I have produced you
can bring just two—Mary
Roscoe and Mary Hins-
dale. The first is referred to in the memoir of
Stephen Grellet. She had once been a servant in his
house. Grellet
tells what happened between this
girl and Paine. According to this
account Paine
asked her if she had ever read any of his writings,
468
and on being told that she had read very little of
them, he inquired what she thought of them, adding
that from such an
one as she he expected a correct
answer.
Let us examine
this falsehood. Why would Paine
expect a correct answer about his
writings from one
who had read very little of them? Does not such a
statement devour itself? This young lady further
said that the "Age
of Reason" was put in her hands
and that the more she read in it the
more dark and
distressed she felt, and that she threw the book into
the fire. Whereupon Mr. Paine remarked, "I wish
all had done as you
did, for if the devil ever had any
agency in any work, he had it in
my writing that book."
The next is Mary Hinsdale. She was a
servant
in the family of Willet Hicks. She, like Mary Ros-
coe,
was sent to carry some delicacy to Mr. Paine.
To this young lady
Paine, according to her account,
said precisely the same that he did
to Mary Roscoe,
and she said the same thing to Mr. Paine.
My own opinion is that Mary Roscoe and Mary
Hinsdale are one and the
same person, or the same
story has been by mistake put in the mouth
of both.
It is not possible that the same conversation should
have taken place between Paine and Mary Roscoe,
and between him and
Mary Hinsdale.
469
Mary Hinsdale lived with Willet
Hicks and he
pronounced her story a pious fraud and fabrication.
He said that Thomas Paine never said any such
thing to Mary Hinsdale.
(See Vale's Life of
Paine.)
Another thing about this
witness. A woman by
the name of Mary Lockwood, a Hicksite Quaker,
died. Mary Hinsdale met her brother about that
time and told him that
his sister had recanted, and
wanted her to say so at her funeral.
This turned
out to be false.
It has been claimed that Mary
Hinsdale made her
statement to Charles Collins. Long after the
alleged
occurrence Gilbert Vale, one of the biographers of
Paine, had a conversation with Collins concerning
Mary Hinsdale. Vale
asked him what he thought
of her. He replied that some of the Friends
be-
lieved that she used opiates, and that they did not
give
credit to her statements. He also said that he
believed what the
Friends said, but thought that
when a young woman, she might have
told the
truth.
In 1818 William Cobbett came to New York.
He began collecting materials for a life of Thomas
Paine. In this he
became acquainted with Mary
Hinsdale and Charles Collins. Mr. Cobbett
gave a
470
full account of what happened in a letter
addressed
to the Norwich Mercury in 1819. From this ac-
count it
seems that Charles Collins told Cobbett that
Paine had recanted.
Cobbett called for the testi-
mony, and told Mr. Collins that he must
give time,
place, and the circumstances. He finally brought a
statement that he stated had been made by Mary
Hinsdale. Armed with
this document Cobbett, in
October of that year, called upon the said
Mary
Hinsdale, at No. 10 Anthony street, New York, and
showed
her the statement. Upon being questioned
by Mr. Cobbett she said,
"That it was so long ago
that she could not speak positively to any
part of the
matter—that she would not say that any part of the
paper was true—that she had never seen the paper
—and
that she had never given Charles Collins
authority to say anything
about the matter in her
name." And so in the month of October, in the
year of grace 1818, in the mist and fog of forgetful-
ness
disappeared forever one Mary Hinsdale—the
last and only witness
against the intellectual honesty
of Thomas Paine.
Did
Thomas Paine live the life of a drunken beast,
and did he die a
drunken, cowardly and beastly death?
Upon you rests the
burden of substantiating these
infamous charges.
471
You have, I suppose, produced the best evidence
in your
possession, and that evidence I will now pro-
ceed to examine. Your
first witness is Grant Thor-
burn. He makes three charges against
Thomas
Paine, 1st. That his wife obtained a divorce from
him in
England for cruelty and neglect. 2d. That
he was a defaulter and fled
from England to Amer-
ica. 3d. That he was a drunkard.
These three charges stand upon the same evidence
—the word of
Grant Thorburn. If they are not all
true Mr. Thorburn stands
impeached.
The charge that Mrs. Paine obtained a divorce on
account of the cruelty and neglect of her husband is
utterly false.
There is no such record in the world,
and never was. Paine and his
wife separated by
mutual consent. Each respected the other. They
remained friends. This charge is without any foun-
dation in fact. I
challenge the Christian world to
produce the record of this decree of
divorce. Accord-
ing to Mr. Thorburn it was granted in England. In
that country public records are kept of all such de-
crees. Have the
kindness to produce this decree
showing that it was given on account
of cruelty or
admit that Mr. Thorburn was mistaken.
Thomas
Paine was a just man. Although sepa-
rated from his wife, he always
spoke of her with
472
tenderness and respect, and
frequently sent her
money without letting her know the source from
whence it came. Was this the conduct of a drunken
beast?
The second charge, that Paine was a defaulter in
England and fled to
America, is equally false. He
did not flee from England. He came to
America,
not as a fugitive, but as a free man. He came with
a
letter of introduction signed by another Infidel,
Benjamin Franklin.
He came as a soldier of Free-
dom—an apostle of Liberty.
In this second charge there is not one word of truth.
He
held a small office in England. If he was a
defaulter the records of
that country will show that
fact.
Mr. Thorburn, unless the
record can be produced
to substantiate him, stands convicted of at
least two
mistakes.
Now, as to the third: He says that in
1802 Paine
was an "old remnant of mortality, drunk, bloated
and
half asleep."
Can any one believe this to be a true account of
the personal appearance of Mr. Paine in 1802? He
had just returned
from France. He had been wel-
comed home by Thomas Jefferson, who had
said that
he was entitled to the hospitality of every American.
473
In 1802 Mr. Paine was honored with a public din-
ner in the city of New York. He was called upon
and treated with
kindness and respect by such men
as DeWitt Clinton.
In
1806 Mr. Paine wrote a letter to Andrew A.
Dean upon the subject of
religion. Read that letter
and then say that the writer of it was an
"old rem-
nant of mortality, drunk, bloated and half asleep."
Search the files of the New York Observer from the
first issue to the
last, and you will find nothing supe-
rior to this letter.
In 1803 Mr. Paine wrote a letter of considerable
length, and of great
force, to his friend Samuel
Adams. Such letters are not written by
drunken
beasts, nor by remnants of old mortality, nor by
drunkards. It was about the same time that he
wrote his "Remarks on
Robert Hall's Sermons."
These "Remarks" were not written by a
drunken
beast, but by a clear-headed and thoughtful man.
In 1804 he published an essay on the invasion of
England, and a
treatise on gunboats, full of valuable
maritime information:—in
1805, a treatise on yellow
fever, suggesting modes of prevention. In
short, he
was an industrious and thoughtful man. He sympa-
thized with the poor and oppressed of all lands. He
looked upon
monarchy as a species of physical
474
slavery. He
had the goodness to attack that form
of government. He regarded the
religion of his day
as a kind of mental slavery. He had the courage
to
give his reasons for his opinion. His reasons filled
the
churches with hatred. Instead of answering his
arguments they
attacked him. Men who were not
fit to blacken his shoes, blackened
his character.
There is too much religious cant in the
statement
of Mr. Thorburn. He exhibited too much anxiety
to tell
what Grant Thorburn said to Thomas Paine.
He names Thomas Jefferson
as one of the disreputa-
ble men who welcomed Paine with open arms.
The
testimony of a man who regarded Thomas Jefferson
as a
disreputable person, as to the character of any-
body, is utterly
without value. In my judgment, the
testimony of Mr. Thorburn should
be thrown aside
as wholly unworthy of belief.
Your next
witness is the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.
D., who tells what an elder in
his church said. This
elder said that Paine passed his last days on
his farm
at New Rochelle with a solitary female attendant.
This
is not true. He did not pass his last days at
New Rochelle.
Consequently this pious elder did
not see him during his last days at
that place. Upon
this elder we prove an alibi. Mr. Paine passed his
last days in the city of New York, in a house upon
475
Columbia street. The story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-
ham, D.D.,
is simply false.
The next competent false witness is the Rev.
Charles Hawley, D.D., who proceeds to state that
the story of the
Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.D., is cor-
roborated by older citizens of New
Rochelle. The
names of these ancient residents are withheld. Ac-
cording to these unknown witnesses, the account
given by the deceased
elder was entirely correct.
But as the particulars of Mr. Paine's
conduct "were
too loathsome to be described in print," we are left
entirely in the dark as to what he really did.
While at New
Rochelle Mr. Paine lived with Mr.
Purdy—with Mr. Dean—with
Captain Pelton, and
with Mr. Staple. It is worthy of note that all of
these gentlemen give the lie direct to the statements
of "older
residents" and ancient citizens spoken of
by the Rev. Charles Hawley,
D.D., and leave him
with his "loathsome particulars" existing only in
his
own mind.
The next gentleman you bring upon the stand
is
W. H. Ladd, who quotes from the memoirs of
Stephen Grellet.
This gentleman also has the mis-
fortune to be dead. According to his
account, Mr.
Paine made his recantation to a servant girl of his
by the name of Mary Roscoe. To this girl, accord-
476
ing to the account, Mr. Paine uttered the wish that
all who
read his book had burned it. I believe there
is a mistake in the name
of this girl. Her name was
probably Mary Hinsdale, as it was once
claimed that
Paine made the same remark to her, but this point
I
shall notice hereafter. These are your witnesses,
and the only ones
you bring forward, to support
your charge that Thomas Paine lived a
drunken and
beastly life and died a drunken, cowardly and beastly
death. All these calumnies are found in a life of
Paine by a Mr.
Cheetham, the convicted libeler
already referred to. Mr. Cheetham was
an enemy
of the man whose life he pretended to write.
In
order to show you the estimation in which Mr.
Cheetham was held by
Mr. Paine, I will give you a
copy of a letter that throws light upon
this point:
October 28, 1807.
"Mr. Cheetham: Unless
you make a public apol-
ogy for the abuse and falsehood in your paper
of
Tuesday, October 27th, respecting me, I will prose-
cute you
for lying."
Thomas Paine.
In another letter,
speaking of this same man, Mr.
Paine says: "If an unprincipled bully
cannot be re-
formed, he can be punished." "Cheetham has been
so
long in the habit of giving false information, that
truth is to him
like a foreign language."
477
Mr. Cheetham wrote the
life of Paine to gratify
his malice and to support religion. He was
prose-
cuted for libel—was convicted and fined.
Yet
the life of Paine written by this man is referred
to by the Christian
world as the highest authority.
As to the personal habits of
Mr. Paine, we have
the testimony of William Carver, with whom he
lived; of Mr. Jarvis, the artist, with whom he lived;
of Mr. Staple,
with whom he lived; of Mr. Purdy,
who was a tenant of Paine's; of Mr.
Burger, with
whom he was intimate; of Thomas Nixon and
Captain
Daniel Pelton, both of whom knew him
well; of Amasa Woodsworth, who
was with him
when he died; of John Fellows, who boarded at the
same house; of James Wilburn, with whom he
boarded; of B. F. Haskin,
a lawyer, who was well
acquainted with him and called upon him during
his
last illness; of Walter Morton, a friend; of Clio
Rickman,
who had known him for many years; of
Willet and Elias Hicks, Quakers,
who knew him in-
timately and well; of Judge Herttell, H. Margary,
Elihu Palmer, and many others. All these testified
to the fact that
Mr. Paine was a temperate man. In
those days nearly everybody used
spirituous liquors.
Paine was not an exception; but he did not drink
to
excess. Mr. Lovett, who kept the City Hotel where
478
Paine stopped, in a note to Caleb Bingham, declared
that Paine
drank less than any boarder he had.
Against all this evidence
you produce the story of
Grant Thorburn—the story of the Rev.
J. D. Wick-
ham that an elder in his church told him that Paine
was a drunkard, corroborated by the Rev. Charles
Hawley, and an
extract from Lossing's history to
the same effect. The evidence is
overwhelmingly
against you. Will you have the fairness to admit it?
Your witnesses are merely the repeaters of the false-
hoods of James
Cheetham, the convicted libeler.
After all, drinking is not as
bad as lying. An
honest drunkard is better than a calumniator of the
dead. "A remnant of old mortality, drunk, bloated
and half asleep" is
better than a perfectly sober
defender of human slavery.
To become drunk is a virtue compared with steal-
ing a babe from the
breast of its mother.
Drunkenness is one of the beatitudes,
compared
with editing a religious paper devoted to the defence
of slavery upon the ground that it is a divine insti-
tution.
Do you really think that Paine was a drunken
beast when he
wrote "Common Sense"—a pamphlet
that aroused three millions of
people, as people were
never aroused by a pamphlet before? Was he a
479
drunken beast when he wrote the "Crisis"? Was
it
to a drunken beast that the following letter was
addressed:
Rocky Hill, September 10, 1783.
"I have learned since I
have been at this place,
that you are at Bordentown.—Whether
for the sake
of retirement or economy I know not. Be it for
either or both, or whatever it may, if you will come
to this place
and partake with me I shall be exceed-
ingly happy to see you at it.
Your presence may
remind Congress of your past services to this
country;
and if it is in my power to impress them, command
my
best exertions with freedom, as they will be
rendered cheerfully by
one who entertains a lively
sense of the importance of your works,
and who with
much pleasure subscribes himself,
"Your
Sincere Friend,
"George Washington."
Did any of your
ancestors ever receive a letter
like that?
Do you think
that Paine was a drunken beast
when the following letter was received
by him?
"You express a wish in your letter to return to
America in a national ship; Mr. Dawson, who brings
over the treaty,
and who will present you with this
letter, is charged with orders to
the captain of the
480
Maryland to receive and
accommodate you back, if you
can be ready to depart at such a short
warning. You
will in general find us returned to sentiments worthy
of former times; in these it will be your glory to have
steadily
labored and with as much effect as any man
living. That you may
live long to continue your
useful labors, and reap the reward in the
thankfulness
of nations, is my sincere prayer. Accept the
assur-
ances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment."
Thomas Jefferson.
Did any of your ancestors ever receive
a letter
like that?
"It has been very generally propagated
through
the continent that I wrote the pamphlet 'Common
Sense.'
I could not have written anything in so
manly and striking a style."—John
Adams.
"A few more such flaming arguments as were
exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to the
sound doctrine and
unanswerable reasoning con-
tained in the pamphlet 'Common Sense,'
will not
leave numbers at a loss to decide on the propriety of
a
separation."—George Washington.
"It is not necessary for
me to tell you how
much all your countrymen—I speak of the
great
mass of the people—are interested in your welfare.
481
They have not forgotten the history of their own
Revolution and the difficult scenes through which
they passed; nor do
they review its several stages
without reviving in their bosoms a due
sensibility of
the merits of those who served them in that great
and arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude has
not yet stained,
and I trust never will stain, our
national character. You are
considered by them as
not only having rendered important services in
our
own Revolution, but as being on a more extensive
scale the
friend of human rights, and a distinguished
and able defender of
public liberty. To the welfare
of Thomas Paine the Americans are not,
nor can
they be indifferent.".. James Monroe.
Did any of
your ancestors ever receive a letter
like that?
"No writer
has exceeded Paine in ease and famil-
iarity of style, in perspicuity
of expression, happiness
of elucidation, and in simple and unassuming
lan-
guage."'—Thomas Jefferson.
Was ever a letter
like that written about an editor
of the New York Observer?
Was it in consideration of the services of a
drunken beast that
the Legislature of Pennsylvania
presented Thomas Paine with five
hundred pounds
sterling?
482
Did the State of
New York feel indebted to a
drunken beast, and confer upon Thomas
Paine an
estate of several hundred acres?
"I believe in
the equality of man, and I believe
that religious duties consist in
doing justice, loving
mercy, and endeavoring to make our
fellow-creat-
ures happy."
"My own mind is my own church."
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he
be mentally
faithful to himself."
"Any system of religion that shocks the
mind of
a child cannot be a true system."
"The Word of God
is the creation which we
behold."
"The age of ignorance
commenced with the
Christian system."
"It is with a pious
fraud as with a bad action—it
begets a calamitous necessity of
going on."
"To read the Bible without horror, we must undo
everything that is tender, sympathizing and benev-
olent in the heart
of man."
"The man does not exist who can say I have per-
secuted him, or that I have in any case returned evil
for evil."
"Of all tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in
religion is
the worst."
483
"My own opinion is, that those whose
lives have
been spent in doing good and endeavoring to make
their fellow-mortals happy, will be happy hereafter."
"The belief in
a cruel god makes a cruel man."
"The intellectual part of religion is
a private affair
between every man and his Maker, and in which no
third party has any right to interfere. The practical
part consists
in our doing good to each other."
"No man ought to make a
living by religion. One
person cannot act religion for another—every
person
must perform it for himself."
"One good
schoolmaster is of more use than a
hundred priests."
"Let
us propagate morality unfettered by super-
stition."
"God
is the power, or first cause, Nature is the
law, and matter is the
subject acted upon."
"I believe in one God and no more, and I
hope
for happiness beyond this life."
"The key of heaven
is not in the keeping of any
sect nor ought the road to it to be
obstructed
by any."
"My religion, and the whole of it, is
the fear and
love of the Deity and universal philanthropy."
"I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I
have a good
state of health and a happy mind. I
484
take care of
both, by nourishing the first with tem-
perance and the latter with
abundance."
"He lives immured within the Bastile of a
word."
How perfectly that sentence describes you! The
Bastile in which you are immured is the word
"Calvinism."
"Man has no property in man."
What a splendid motto that would
have made for
the New York Observer in the olden time!
"The world is my country; to do good, my
religion."
I ask you again whether these splendid utterances
came from the lips
of a drunken beast?
Did Thomas Paine die in
destitution and want?
The charge has been made, over and
over again,
that Thomas Paine died in want and destitution—
that he was an abandoned pauper—an outcast with-
out friends
and without money. This charge is just
as false as the rest.
Upon his return to this country in 1802, he was
worth $30,000,
according to his own statement made
at that time in the following
letter addressed to Clio
Rickman:
"My Dear Friend: Mr.
Monroe, who is appointed
minister extraordinary to France, takes
charge of
485
this, to be delivered to Mr. Este,
banker in Paris, to
be forwarded to you.
"I arrived at
Baltimore the 30th of October, and
you can have no idea of the
agitation which my
arrival occasioned. From New Hampshire to
Georgia (an extent of 1,500 miles) every newspaper
was filled with
applause or abuse.
"My property in this country has been taken
care
of by my friends, and is now worth six thousand
pounds
sterling; which put in the funds will bring
me £400 sterling a
year.
"Remember me in affection and friendship to your
wife and family, and in the circle of your friends."
Thomas
Paine.
A man in those days worth thirty thousand dol-
lars
was not a pauper. That amount would bring an
income of at least two
thousand dollars per annum.
Two thousand dollars then would be fully
equal to
five thousand dollars now.
On the 12th of July,
1809, the year in which he
died, Mr. Paine made his will. From this
instru-
ment we learn that he was the owner of a valuable
farm
within twenty miles of New York. He also
was the owner of thirty
shares in the New York
Phoenix Insurance Company, worth upwards of
fif-
teen hundred dollars. Besides this, some personal
486
property and ready money. By his will he gave to
Walter Morton,
and Thomas Addis Emmett, brother
of Robert Emmett, two hundred
dollars each, and
one hundred to the widow of Elihu Palmer.
Is it possible that this will was made by a pauper
—by a
destitute outcast—by a man who suffered for
the ordinary
necessaries of life?
But suppose, for the sake of the argument,
that he
was poor and that he died a beggar, does that tend
to
show that the Bible is an inspired book and that
Calvin did not burn
Servetus? Do you really regard
poverty as a crime? If Paine had died
a millionaire,
would you have accepted his religious opinions? If
Paine had drank nothing but cold water would you
have repudiated the
five cardinal points of Calvin-
ism? Does an argument depend for its
force upon
the pecuniary condition of the person making it?
As a
matter of fact, most reformers—most men and
women of genius,
have been acquainted with poverty.
Beneath a covering of rags have
been found some of
the tenderest and bravest hearts.
Owing
to the attitude of the churches for the last
fifteen hundred years,
truth-telling has not been a
very lucrative business. As a rule,
hypocrisy has
worn the robes, and honesty the rags. That day is
passing away. You cannot now answer the argu-
487
ments of a man by pointing at holes in his coat.
Thomas Paine
attacked the church when it was
powerful—when it had what was
called honors to
bestow—when it was the keeper of the public
con-
science—when it was strong and cruel. The church
waited till he was dead then attacked his reputation
and his clothes.
Once upon a time a donkey kicked a lion. The
lion was dead.
Conclusion.
From the persistence with which the orthodox
have charged for the last sixty-eight years that
Thomas Paine
recanted, and that when dying he
was filled with remorse and fear;
from the malignity
of the attacks upon his personal character, I had
con-
cluded that there must be some evidence of some
kind to
support these charges. Even with my ideas
of the average honor of
believers in superstition—
the disciples of fear—I did
not quite believe that all
these infamies rested solely upon poorly
attested
lies. I had charity enough to suppose that some-
thing
had been said or done by Thomas Paine capa-
ble of being tortured
into a foundation for these
calumnies. And I was foolish enough to
think that
even you would be willing to fairly examine the pre-
tended evidence said to sustain these charges, and
488
give your honest conclusion to the world. I sup-
posed that
you, being acquainted with the history of
your country, felt under a
certain obligation to
Thomas Paine for the splendid services rendered
by
him in the darkest days of the Revolution. It was
only
reasonable to suppose that you were aware that
in the midnight of
Valley Forge the "Crisis," by
Thomas Paine, was the first star that
glittered in the
wide horizon of despair. I took it for granted that
you knew of the bold stand taken and the brave
words spoken by Thomas
Paine, in the French Con-
vention, against the death of the king. I
thought it
probable that you, being an editor, had read the
"Rights of Man;" that you knew that Thomas
Paine was a champion of
human liberty; that he was
one of the founders and fathers of this
Republic; that
he was one of the foremost men of his age; that he
had never written a word in favor of injustice; that
he was a
despiser of slavery; that he abhorred tyr-
anny in all its forms;
that he was in the widest and
highest sense a friend of his race;
that his head was
as clear as his heart was good, and that he had the
courage to speak his honest thought. Under these
circumstances I had
hoped that you would for the
moment forget your religious prejudices
and submit
to the enlightened judgment of the world the evi-
489
dence you had, or could obtain, affecting in any way
the character of so great and so generous a man. This
you have
refused to do. In my judgment, you have
mistaken the temper of even
your own readers. A
large majority of the religious people of this
country
have, to a considerable extent, outgrown the preju-
dices of their fathers. They are willing to know the
truth and the
whole truth, about the life and death of
Thomas Paine. They will not
thank you for having
presented them the moss-covered, the maimed and
dis-
torted traditions of ignorance, prejudice, and credulity.
By this course you will convince them not of the
wickedness of Paine,
but of your own unfairness.
What crime had Thomas Paine
committed that he
should have feared to die? The only answer you
can give is, that he denied the inspiration of the
Scriptures. If
this is a crime, the civilized world is
filled with criminals. The
pioneers of human thought
—the intellectual leaders of the
world—the foremost
men in every science—the kings of
literature and
art—those who stand in the front rank of
investiga-
tion—the men who are civilizing, elevating,
instruct-
ing, and refining mankind, are to-day unbelievers in
the dogma of inspiration. Upon this question, the
intellect of
Christendom agrees with the conclusions
reached by the genius of
Thomas Paine. Centuries
490
ago a noise was made for
the purpose of frightening
mankind. Orthodoxy is the echo of that
noise.
The man who now regards the Old Testament as
in any
sense a sacred or inspired book is, in my judg-
ment, an intellectual
and moral deformity. There is
in it so much that is cruel, ignorant,
and ferocious
that it is to me a matter of amazement that it was
ever thought to be the work of a most merciful deity.
Upon the
question of inspiration Thomas Paine
gave his honest opinion. Can it
be that to give an
honest opinion causes one to die in terror and de-
spair? Have you in your writings been actuated by
the fear of such a
consequence? Why should it be
taken for granted that Thomas Paine,
who devoted
his life to the sacred cause of freedom, should have
been hissed at in the hour of death by the snakes of
conscience,
while editors of Presbyterian papers who
defended slavery as a divine
institution, and cheer-
fully justified the stealing of babes from
the breasts of
mothers, are supposed to have passed smilingly from
earth to the embraces of angels? Why should you
think that the heroic
author of the "Rights of Man"
should shudderingly dread to leave this
"bank and
shoal of time," while Calvin, dripping with the blood
of Servetus, was anxious to be judged of God? Is
it possible that the
persecutors—the instigators of
491
the
massacre of St. Bartholomew—the inventors and
users of
thumb-screws, and iron boots, and racks—
the burners and
tearers of human flesh—the stealers,
whippers and enslavers of
men—the buyers and
beaters of babes and mothers—the
founders of
inquisitions—the makers of chains, the builders of
dungeons, the slanderers of the living and the calum-
niators of the
dead, all died in the odor of sanctity,
with white, forgiven hands
folded upon the breasts
of peace, while the destroyers of prejudice—the
apostles of humanity—the soldiers of liberty—the
breakers
of fetters—the creators of light—died sur-
rounded with
the fierce fiends of fear?
In your attempt to destroy the
character of Thomas
Paine you have failed, and have succeeded only in
leaving a stain upon your own. You have written
words as cruel,
bitter and heartless as the creed of
Calvin. Hereafter you will stand
in the pillory of
history as a defamer—a calumniator of the
dead.
You will be known as the man who said that Thomas
Paine,
the "Author Hero," lived a drunken, coward-
ly and beastly life, and
died a drunken and beastly
death. These infamous words will be
branded upon
the forehead of your reputation. They will be re-
membered against you when all else you may have
uttered shall have
passed from the memory of men.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
THE
OBSERVER'S SECOND ATTACK
* From the NY. Observer
of Nov. 1, 1877.
TOM PAINE AGAIN.
In the
Observer of September 27th, in response
to numerous calls from
different parts of the country
for information, and in fulfillment of
a promise, we
presented a mass of testimony, chiefly from persons
with whom we had been personally acquainted,
establishing the truth
of our assertions in regard to
the dissolute life and miserable end
of Paine. It was
not a pleasing subject for discussion, and an
apology,
or at least an explanation, is due to our readers for
resuming it, and for occupying so much space, or
any space, in
exhibiting the truth and the proofs in
regard to the character of a
man who had become so
debased by his intemperance, and so vile in his
habits, as to be excluded, for many years before and
up to the time
of his death, from all decent society.
Our reasons for taking
up the subject at all, and
for presenting at this time so much
additional testi-
mony in regard to the facts of the case, are these:
At different periods for the last fifty years, efforts
493
have been made by Infidels to revive and honor the
memory of
one whose friends would honor him most
by suffering his name to sink
into oblivion, if that
were possible. About two years since, Rev. O.
B.
Frothingham, of this city, came to their aid, and
undertook a
sort of championship of Paine, making
in a public discourse this
statement: "No private
character has been more foully calumniated in
the
name of God than that of Thomas Paine." (Mr.
Frothingham, it
will be remembered, is the one who
recently, in a public discourse,
announced the down-
fall of Christianity, although he very kindly
made
the allowance that, "it may be a thousand years
before its
decay will be visible to all eyes." It is
our private opinion that it
will be at least a thousand
and one.) Rev. John W. Chadwick, a
minister of
the same order of unbelief, who signs himself, "Min-
ister of the Second Unitarian Society in Brooklyn,"
has devoted two
discourses to the same end, eulogiz-
ing Paine. In one of these,
which we have before
us in a handsomely printed pamphlet, entitled,
"Method and Value of his (Paine's) Religious
Teachings," he says:
"Christian usage has determ-
ined that an Infidel means one who does
not believe
in Christianity as a supernatural religion; in the
Bible as a Supernatural book; in Jesus as a super-
494
natural person. And in this sense Paine was an
Infidel, and so,
thank God, am I." It is proper to
add that Unitarians generally
decline all responsibil-
ity for the utterances of both of these men,
and that
they compose a denomination, or rather two denom-
inations, of their own.
There is also a certain class of
Infidels who are
not quite prepared to meet the odium that attaches
to the name; they call themselves Christians, but
their sympathies
are all with the enemies of Chris-
tianity, and they are not always
able to conceal it.
They have not the courage of their opinions, like
Mr. Frothingham and Mr. Chadwick, and they work
only sideways toward
the same end. We have been
no little amused since our last article on
this subject
appeared, to read some of the articles that have been
written on the other side, though professedly on no
side, and to
observe how sincerely these men depre-
cate the discussion of the
character of Paine, as an
unprofitable topic. It never appeared to
them un-
profitable when the discussion was on the other side.
Then, too, we have for months past been receiving
letters from
different parts of the country, asking
authentic information on the
subject and stating that
the followers of Paine are making
extraordinary
efforts to circulate his writings against the Christian
495
religion, and in order to give currency to these
writ-
ings they are endeavoring to rescue his name from
the
disgrace into which it sank during the latter
years of his life.
Paine spent several of his last
years in furnishing a commentary upon
his Infidel
principles. This commentary was contained in his
besotted, degraded life and miserable end, but his
friends do not
wish the commentary to go out in
connection with his writings. They
prefer to have
them read without the comments by their author.
Hence this anxiety to free the great apostle of
Infidelity from the
obloquy which his life brought
upon his name; to represent him as a
pure, noble,
virtuous man, and to make it appear that he died a
peaceful, happy death, just like a philosopher.
But what makes
the publication of the facts in the
case still more imperative at
this time is the whole-
sale accusation brought against the Christian
public
by the friends and admirers of Paine. Christian
ministers
as a class, and Christian journals are
expressly accused of
falsifying history, of defaming
"the mighty dead!" (meaning Paine,)
etc. In
the face of all these accusations it cannot be out of
place to state the facts and to fortify the statement
by satisfactory
evidence, as we are abundantly able
to do.
496
The two points on which we proposed to produce
the testimony are, the
character of Paine's life (refer-
ring of course to his last
residence in this country,
for no one has intimated that he had sunk
into such
besotted drunkenness until about the time of his
return to the United States in 1802), and the real
character of his
death as consistent with such a life,
and as marked further by the
cowardliness, which
has been often exhibited by Infidels in the same
circumstances.
It is nothing at all to the purpose to show, as
his
friends are fond of doing, that Paine rendered
important
service to the cause of American Inde-
pendence. This is not the
point under discussion
and is not denied. No one ever called in
question
the valuable service that Benedict Arnold rendered
to
the country in the early part of the Revolutionary
war; but this,
with true Americans, does not suffice
to cast a shade of loveliness
or even to spread a man-
tle of charity over his subsequent career.
Whatever
share Paine had in the personal friendship of the
fathers of the Revolution he forfeited by his subse-
quent life of
beastly drunkenness and degradation,
and on this account as well as
on account of his
blasphemy he was shunned by all decent people.
We wish to make one or two corrections of mis-
497
statements by Paine's advocates, on which a vast
amount of
argument has been simply wasted. We
have never stated in any form,
nor have we ever
supposed, that Paine actually renounced his Infidel-
ity. The accounts agree in stating that he died a
blaspheming
Infidel, and his horrible death we regard
as one of the fruits, the
fitting complement of his
Infidelity. We have never seen anything
that
encouraged the hope that he was not abandoned of
God in his
last hours. But we have no doubt, on
the other hand, that having
become a wreck in body
and mind through his intemperance, abandoned
of
God, deserted by his Infidel companions, and de-
pendent upon
Christian charity for the attentions he
received, miserable beyond
description in his condi-
tion, and seeing nothing to hope for in the
future, he
was afraid to die, and was ready to call upon God
and
upon Christ for mercy, and ready perhaps in the
next minute to
blaspheme. This is what we referred
to in speaking of Paine's death
as cowardly. It is
shown in the testimony we have produced, and still
more fully in that which we now present. The most
wicked men are
ready to call upon God in seasons
of great peril, and sometimes ask
for Christian min-
istrations when in extreme illness; but they are
often ready on any alleviation of distress to turn to
498
their wickedness again, in the expressive language
of
Scripture, "as the sow that was washed to her
wallowing in the mire."
We have never stated or intimated, nor, so far as
we are aware,
has any one of our correspondents
stated, that Paine died in poverty.
It has been
frequently and truthfully stated that Paine was de-
pendent on Christian charity for the attentions he
received in his
last days, and so he was. His Infidel
companions forsook him and
Christian hearts and
hands ministered to his wants, notwithstanding
the
blasphemies of his death-bed.
Nor has one of our
correspondents stated, as
alleged, that Paine died at New Rochelle.
The
Rev. Dr. Wickham, who was a resident of that place
nearly
fifty years ago, and who was perfectly familiar
with the facts of his
life, wrote that Paine spent "his
latter days" on the farm presented
to him by
the State of New York, which was strictly true,
but
made no reference to it as the place of his
death.
Such
misrepresentations serve to show how much
the advocates of Paine
admire "truth."
With these explanations we produce further evi-
dence in regard to the manner of Paine's life and the
character of
his death, both of which we have already
499
characterized in appropriate terms, as the following
testimony will
show.
In regard to Paine's "personal habits," even before
his return to this country, and particularly his aver-
sion to soap
and water, Elkana Watson, a gentleman
of the highest social position,
who resided in France
during a part of the Revolutionary war, and who
was the personal friend of Washington, Franklin,
and other patriots
of the period, makes some inci-
dental statements in his "Men and
Times of the
Revolution." Though eulogizing Paine's efforts in
behalf of American Independence, he describes him
as "coarse and
uncouth in his manners, loathsome
in his appearance, and a disgusting
egotist." On
Paine's arrival at Nantes, the Mayor and other dis-
tinguished citizens called upon him to pay their
respects to the
American patriot. Mr. Watson says:
"He was soon rid of his
respectable visitors, who
left the room with marks of astonishment
and dis-
gust." Mr. W., after much entreaty, and only by
promising him a bundle of newspapers to read while
undergoing the
operation, succeeded in prevailing
on Paine to "stew, for an hour, in
a hot bath." Mr.
W. accompanied Paine to the bath, and "instructed
the keeper, in French, (which Paine did not under-
stand,) gradually
to increase the heat of the water
500
until 'le
Monsieur serait bien bouille (until the gentle-
man shall be well
boiled;) and adds that "he became
so much absorbed in his reading
that he was nearly-
parboiled before leaving the bath, much to his
im-
provement and my satisfaction."
William Carver has
been cited as a witness in be-
half of Paine, and particularly as to
his "personal
habits." In a letter to Paine, dated December 2,
1776, he bears the following testimony:
"A respectable
gentlemen from New Rochelle
called to see me a few days back, and
said that
everybody was tired of you there, and no one would
undertake to board and lodge you. I thought this
was the case, as I
found you at a tavern in a most
miserable situation. You appeared as
if you had
not been shaved for a fortnight, and as to a shirt, it
could not be said that you had one on. It was only
the remains of
one, and this, likewise, appeared not
to have been off your back for
a fortnight, and was
nearly the color of tanned leather; and you had
the
most disagreeable smell possible; just like that of
our poor
beggars in England. Do you remember the
pains I took to clean you?
that I got a tub of warm
water and soap and washed you from head to
foot, and
this I had to do three times before I could get you
clean." (And then follow more disgusting details.)
501
"You say, also, that you found your own liquors
during the time
you boarded with me; but you
should have said, 'I found only a small
part of the
liquor I drank during my stay with you; this part I
purchased of John Fellows, which was a demijohn of
brandy containing
four gallons, and this did not serve
me three weeks.' This can be
proved, and I mean
not to say anything that I cannot prove; for I
hold
truth as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact,
that
you drank one quart of brandy per day, at my
expense, during the
different times that you have
boarded with me, the demijohn above
mentioned
excepted, and the last fourteen weeks you were sick.
Is not this a supply of liquor for dinner and supper?"
This chosen
witness in behalf of Paine, closes his
letter, which is full of
loathsome descriptions of
Paine's manner of life, as follows:
"Now, sir, I think I have drawn a complete por-
trait of your
character; yet to enter upon every
minutiae would be to give a
history of your life, and
to develop the fallacious mask of hypocrisy
and de-
ception under which you have acted in your political
as
well as moral capacity of life."
(Signed) "William Carver."
Carver had the same opinion of Paine to his dying
day. When an
old man, and an Infidel of the Paine
502
type and
habits, he was visited by the Rev. E. F.
Hatfield, D.D., of this
city, who writes to us of his
interview with Carver, under date of
Sept. 27, 1877:
"I conversed with him nearly an hour. I took
special pains to learn from him all that I could about
Paine, whose
landlord he had been for eighteen
months. He spoke of him as a base
and shameless
drunkard, utterly destitute of moral principle. His
denunciations of the man were perfectly fearful, and
fully confirmed,
in my apprehension, all that had been
written of Paine's immorality
and repulsiveness."
Cheetham's Life of Paine, which was published
the year that he died, and which has passed through
several editions
(we have three of them now before
us) describes a man lost to all
moral sensibility and
to all sense of decency, a habitual drunkard,
and it is
simply incredible that a book should have appeared
so
soon after the death of its subject and should have
been so
frequently republished without being at once
refuted, if the
testimony were not substantially true.
Many years later, when it was
found necessary to
bolster up the reputation of Paine, Cheetham's
Memoirs were called a pack of lies. If only one-
tenth part of what
he publishes circumstantially in
his volume, as facts in regard to
Paine, were true, all
that has been written against him in later
years does
503
not begin to set forth the degraded
character of the
man's life. And with all that has been written on
the subject we see no good reason to doubt the sub-
stantial accuracy
of Cheetham's portrait of the man
whom he knew so well.
Dr. J. W. Francis, well-known as an eminent phy-
sician, of this
city, in his Reminiscences of New York,
says of Paine:
"He
who, in his early days, had been associated
with, and had received
counsel from Franklin, was,
in his old age, deserted by the humblest
menial; he,
whose pen has proved a very sword among nations,
had
shaken empires, and made kings tremble, now
yielded up the mastery to
the most treacherous of
tyrants, King Alcohol."
The
physician who attended Paine during his last
illness was Dr. James R.
Manley, a gentleman of the
highest character. A letter of his,
written in Octo-
ber of the year that Paine died, fully corroborates
the account of his state as recorded by Stephen
Grellet in his
Memoirs, which we have already
printed. He writes:
"New
York, October 2, 1809: I was called upon
by accident to visit Mr.
Paine, on the 25th of Feb-
ruary last, and found him indisposed with
fever, and
very apprehensive of an attack of apoplexy, as he
504
stated that he had that disease before, and at this
time felt a great degree of vertigo, and was unable
to help himself
as he had hitherto done, on account
of an intense pain above the
eyes. On inquiry of
the attendants I was told that three or four days
previously he had concluded to dispense with his
usual quantity of
accustomed stimulus and that he
had on that day resumed it. To the
want of his
usual drink they attributed his illness, and it is highly
probable that the usual quantity operating upon a
state of system
more excited from the above priva-
tions, was the cause of the
symptoms of which he
then complained.... And here let me be per-
mitted to observe (lest blame might attach to those
whose business it
was to pay any particular attention
to his cleanliness of person)
that it was absolutely
impossible to effect that purpose. Cleanliness
ap-
peared to make no part of his comfort; he seemed
to have a
singular aversion to soap and water; he
would never ask to be washed,
and when he was he
would always make objections; and it was not un-
usual to wash and to dress him clean very much
against his
inclinations. In this deplorable state,
with confirmed dropsy,
attended with frequent cough,
vomiting and hiccough, he continued
growing from
bad to worse till the morning of the 8th of June,
505
when he died. Though I may remark that during
the last three weeks of his life his situation was such
that his
decease was confidently expected every day,
his ulcers having assumed
a gangrenous appearance,
being excessively fetid, and discolored
blisters hav-
ing taken place on the soles of his feet without any
ostensible cause, which baffled the usual attempts to
arrest their
progress; and when we consider his
former habits, his advanced age,
the feebleness of his
constitution, his constant habit of using
ardent spirits
ad libitum till the commencement of his last illness,
so far from wondering that he died so soon, we are
constrained to
ask, How did he live so long? Con-
cerning his conduct during his
disease I have not
much to remark, though the little I have may be
somewhat interesting. Mr. Paine professed to be
above the fear of
death, and a great part of his con-
versation was principally
directed to give the impres-
sion that he was perfectly willing to
leave this world,
and yet some parts of his conduct were with
difficulty
reconcilable with his belief. In the first stages of his
illness he was satisfied to be left alone during the
day, but he
required some person to be with him at
night, urging as his reason
that he was afraid that
he should die when unattended, and at this
period
his deportment and his principle seemed to be con-
506
sistent; so much so that a stranger would judge from
some of the remarks he would make that he was an
Infidel. I recollect
being with him at night, watch-
ing; he was very apprehensive of a
speedy dissolu-
tion, and suffered great distress of body, and
perhaps
of mind (for he was waiting the event of an applica-
tion to the Society of Friends for permission that his
corpse might
be deposited in their grave-ground, and
had reason to believe that
the request might be
refused), when he remarked in these words, 'I
think
I can say what they made Jesus Christ to say—"My
God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" He
went on to observe on the
want of that respect which
he conceived he merited, when I observed
to him
that I thought his corpse should be matter of least
concern to him; that those whom he would leave
behind him would see
that he was properly interred,
and, further, that it would be of
little consequence to
me where I was deposited provided I was buried;
upon which he answered that he had nothing else to
talk about, and
that he would as lief talk of his death
as of anything, but that he
was not so indifferent
about his corpse as I appeared to be.
"During the latter part of his life, though his con-
versation
was equivocal, his conduct was singular;
he could not be left alone
night or day; he not only
507
required to have some
person with him, but he must
see that he or she was there, and would
not allow
his curtain to be closed at any time; and if, as it
would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was left
alone, he would
scream and halloo until some person
came to him. When relief from
pain would admit,
he seemed thoughtful and contemplative, his eyes
being generally closed, and his hands folded upon
his breast,
although he never slept without the assist-
ance of an anodyne. There
was something remark-
able in his conduct about this period (which
comprises
about two weeks immediately preceding his death),
particularly when we reflect that Thomas Paine was
the author of the
'Age of Reason.' He would call
out during his paroxysms of distress,
without inter-
mission, 'O Lord help me! God help me! Jesus
Christ help me! Lord help me!' etc., repeating the
same expressions
without the least variation, in a
tone of voice that would alarm the
house. It was
this conduct which induced me to think that he had
abandoned his former opinions, and I was more
inclined to that belief
when I understood from his
nurse (who is a very serious and, I
believe, pious
woman), that he would occasionally inquire, when he
saw her engaged with a book, what she was reading,
and, being
answered, and at the same time asked
508
whether she
should read aloud, he assented, and
would appear to give particular
attention.
"I took occasion during the nights of the fifth
and sixth of June to test the strength of his opinions
respecting
revelation. I purposely made him a very
late visit; it was a time
which seemed to suit exactly
with my errand; it was midnight, he was
in great
distress, constantly exclaiming in the words above
mentioned, when, after a considerable preface, I
addressed him in the
following manner, the nurse
being present: 'Mr. Paine, your opinions,
by a large
portion of the community, have been treated with
deference, you have never been in the habit of mix-
ing in your
conversation words of coarse meaning;
you have never indulged in the
practice of profane
swearing; you must be sensible that we are ac-
quainted with your religious opinions as they are
given to the world.
What must we think of your
present conduct? Why do you call upon
Jesus
Christ to help you? Do you believe that he can
help you?
Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus
Christ? Come, now, answer me
honestly. I want
an answer from the lips of a dying man, for I verily
believe that you will not live twenty-four hours.' I
waited some time
at the end of every question; he
did not answer, but ceased to
exclaim in the above
509
manner. Again I addressed
him; 'Mr. Paine, you
have not answered my questions; will you answer
them? Allow me to ask again, do you believe? or
let me qualify the
question, do you wish to believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God?' After a pause
of some minutes, he answered, 'I have no wish to
believe on that subject.' I then left him, and knew
not whether he
afterward spoke to any person on
any subject, though he lived, as I
before observed,
till the morning of the 8th. Such conduct, under
usual circumstances, I conceive absolutely unaccount-
able, though,
with diffidence, I would remark, not so
much so in the present
instance; for though the first
necessary and general result of
conviction be a sin-
cere wish to atone for evil committed, yet it
may be
a question worthy of able consideration whether
excessive
pride of opinion, consummate vanity, and
inordinate self-love might
not prevent or retard that
otherwise natural consequence. For my own
part,
I believe that had not Thomas Paine been such a
distinguished Infidel he would have left less equivo-
cal evidences
of a change of opinion. Concerning
the persons who visited Mr. Paine
in his distress as
his personal friends, I heard very little, though
I may
observe that their number was small, and of that
number
there were not wanting those who endeavor-
510
ed to
support him in his deistical opinions, and to
encourage him to 'die
like a man,' to 'hold fast his
integrity,' lest Christians, or, as
they were pleased to
term them, hypocrites, might take advantage of
his
weakness, and furnish themselves with a weapon by
which they
might hope to destroy their glorious sys-
tem of morals. Numbers
visited him from motives
of benevolence and Christian charity,
endeavoring to
effect a change of mind in respect to his religious
sentiments. The labor of such was apparently lost,
and they pretty
generally received such treatment
from him as none but good men would
risk a second
time, though some of those persons called frequently."
The following testimony will be new to most of
our readers. It is
from a letter written by Bishop
Fenwick (Roman Catholic Bishop of
Boston), con-
taining a full account of a visit which he paid to
Paine in his last illness. It was printed in the United
States
Catholic Magazine for 1846; in the Catholic
Herald of
Philadelphia, October 15, 1846; in a sup-
plement to the Hartford
Courant, October 23, 1847;
and in Littell's Living Age for
January 22, 1848,
from which we copy. Bishop Fenwick writes:
"A short time before Paine died I was sent for by
him. He was
prompted to this by a poor Catholic
woman who went to see him in his
sickness, and
511
who told him, among other things,
that in his
wretched condition if anybody could do him any
good
it would be a Roman Catholic priest. This
woman was an American
convert (formerly a Shak-
ing Quakeress) whom I had received into the
church
but a few weeks before. She was the bearer of this
message to me from Paine. I stated this circum-
stance to F.
Kohlmann, at breakfast, and requested
him to accompany me. After some
solicitation on
my part he agreed to do so? at which I was greatly
rejoiced, because I was at the time quite young and
inexperienced in
the ministry, and was glad to have
his assistance, as I knew, from
the great reputation
of Paine, that I should have to do with one of
the
most impious as well as infamous of men. We
shortly after
set out for the house at Greenwich
where Paine lodged, and on the way
agreed on a
mode of proceeding with him.
"We arrived at
the house; a decent-looking elderly
woman (probably his housekeeper,)
came to the
door and inquired whether we were the Catholic
priests, for said she, 'Mr. Paine has been so much
annoyed of late by
other denominations calling upon
him that he has left express orders
with me to admit
no one to-day but the clergymen of the Catholic
Church. Upon assuring her that we were Catholic
512
clergymen she opened the door and showed us into
the parlor. She then
left the room and shortly after
returned to inform us that Paine was
asleep, and, at
the same time, expressed a wish that we would not
disturb him, 'for,' said she, 'he is always in a bad
humor when
roused out of his sleep. It is better we
wait a little till he be
awake.' We accordingly sat
down and resolved to await a more
favorable moment.
'Gentlemen,' said the lady, after having taken her
seat also, 'I really wish you may succeed with Mr.
Paine, for he is
laboring under great distress of mind
ever since he was informed by
his physicians that he
cannot possibly live and must die shortly. He
sent
for you to-day because he was told that if any one
could do
him good you might. Possibly he may
think you know of some remedy
which his physicians
are ignorant of. He is truly to be pitied. His
cries
when he is left alone are heart-rending. 'O Lord
help me!'
he will exclaim during his paroxysms of
distress—'God help me—Jesus
Christ help me!'
repeating the same expressions without the least
variation, in a tone of voice that would alarm the
house. Sometimes
he will say, 'O God, what have
I done to suffer so much!' then,
shortly after, 'But
there is no God,' and again a little after, 'Yet
if
there should be, what would become of me hereafter.'
513
Thus he will continue for some time, when on a sud-
den he will scream, as if in terror and agony, and
call out for me by
name. On one of these occasions,
which are very frequent, I went to
him and inquired
what he wanted. 'Stay with me,' he replied, 'for
God's sake, for I cannot bear to be left alone.' I
then observed that
I could not always be with him,
as I had much to attend to in the
house. 'Then,' said
he, 'send even a child to stay with me, for it is
a
hell to be alone.' 'I never saw,' she concluded, 'a
more
unhappy, a more forsaken man. It seems he
cannot reconcile himself to
die.'
"Such was the conversation of the woman who
had
received us, and who probably had been employ-
ed to nurse and take
care of him during his illness.
She was a Protestant, yet seemed very
desirous that
we should afford him some relief in his state of
abandonment, bordering on complete despair. Hav-
ing remained thus
some time in the parlor, we at
length heard a noise in the adjoining
passage-way,
which induced us to believe that Mr. Paine, who was
sick in that room, had awoke. We accordingly pro-
posed to proceed
thither, which was assented to by
the woman, and she opened the door
for us. On
entering, we found him just getting out of his
slumber. A more wretched being in appearance I
514
never beheld. He was lying in a bed sufficiently
decent of itself,
but at present besmeared with filth;
his look was that of a man
greatly tortured in mind;
his eyes haggard, his countenance
forbidding, and
his whole appearance that of one whose better days
had been one continued scene of debauch. His only
nourishment at this
time, as we were informed, was
nothing more than milk punch, in which
he indulged
to the full extent of his weak state. He had par-
taken, undoubtedly, but very recently of it, as the
sides and corners
of his mouth exhibited very un-
equivocal traces of it, as well as of
blood, which had
also followed in the track and left its mark on the
pillow. His face, to a certain extent, had also been
besmeared with
it."
Immediately upon their making known the object
of
their visit, Paine interrupted the speaker by say-
ing: "That's
enough, sir; that's enough," and again
interrupting him, "I see what
you would be about.
I wish to hear no more from you, sir. My mind is
made up on that subject. I look upon the whole of
the Christian
scheme to be a tissue of absurdities
and lies, and Jesus Christ to be
nothing more than a
cunning knave and impostor." He drove them out
of the room, exclaiming: Away with you and your
God, too; leave the
room instantly; all that you
515
have uttered are
lies—filthy lies; and if I had a
little more time I would prove
it, as I did about
your impostor, Jesus Christ."
This, we
think, will suffice. We have a mass of
letters containing statements
confirmatory of what
we have published in regard to the life and
death of
Paine, but nothing more can be required.
INGERSOLL'S
SECOND REPLY.
Peoria, Nov. 2d, 1877.
To
the Editor of the New York Observer:
You ought to have honesty
enough to admit that
you did, in your paper of July 19th, offer to
prove
that the absurd story that Thomas Paine died in
terror and
agony on account of the religious opinions
he had expressed, was
true. You ought to have
fairness enough to admit that you called upon
me
to deposit one thousand dollars with an honest man,
that you
might, by proving that Thomas Paine did
die in terror, obtain the
money.
You ought to have honor enough to admit that
you
challenged me and that you commenced the
controversy concerning
Thomas Paine.
You ought to have goodness enough to admit
that you were mistaken in the charges you made.
You ought to
have manhood enough to do what
you falsely asserted that Thomas Paine
did:—you
ought to recant. You ought to admit publicly that
you slandered the dead; that you falsified history;
that you defamed
the defenceless; that you deliber-
517
ately denied
what you had published in your own
paper. There is an old saying to
the effect that
open confession is good for the soul. To you is
presented a splendid opportunity of testing the truth
of this saying.
Nothing has astonished me more than your lack
of common honesty
exhibited in this controversy. In
your last, you quote from Dr. J. W.
Francis. Why
did you leave out that portion in which Dr. Francis
says that Cheetham with settled malignity wrote the
life of Paine?
Why did you leave out that part in
which Dr. Francis says that
Cheetham in the same
way slandered Alexander Hamilton and De Witt
Clinton? Is it your business to suppress the truth?
Why did you
not publish the entire letter of Bishop
Fenwick? Was it because it
proved beyond all
cavil that Thomas Paine did not recant? Was it
because in the light of that letter Mary Roscoe,
Mary Hinsdale and
Grant Thorburn appeared un-
worthy of belief? Dr. J. W. Francis says
in the
same article from which you quoted, "Paine clung to
his Infidelity until the last moment of his life!' Why
did you
not publish that? It was the first line im-
mediately above what you
did quote. You must
have seen it. Why did you suppress it? A lawyer,
doing a thing of this character, is denominated a
518
shyster. I do not know the appropriate word to
designate a
theologian guilty of such an act.
You brought forward three
witnesses, pretending
to have personal knowledge about the life and
death
of Thomas Paine: Grant Thorburn, Mary Roscoe
and Mary
Hinsdale. In my reply I took the ground
that Mary Roscoe and Mary
Hinsdale must have
been the same person. I thought it impossible that
Paine should have had a conversation with Mary
Roscoe, and then one
precisely like it with Mary
Hinsdale. Acting upon this conviction, I
proceeded
to show that the conversation never could have hap-
pened, that it was absurdly false to say that Paine
asked the opinion
of a girl as to his works who had
never read but little of them. I
then showed by the
testimony of William Cobbett, that he visited Mary
Hinsdale in 1819, taking with him a statement con-
cerning the
recantation of Paine, given him by Mr.
Collins, and that upon being
shown this statement
she said that "it was so long ago that she could
not
speak positively to any part of the matter—that she
would not say any part of the paper was true." At
that time she knew
nothing, and remembered noth-
ing. I also showed that she was a kind
of standing
witness to prove that others recanted. Willett Hicks
denounced her as unworthy of belief.
519
To-day the
following from the New York World
was received, showing that I
was right in my
conjecture:
Tom Paine's Death-Bed.
To the Editor of the World:
Sir: I see by your
paper that Bob Ingersoll dis-
credits Mary Hinsdale's story of the
scenes which
occurred at the death-bed of Thomas Paine. No
one
who knew that good lady would for one moment
doubt her veracity or
question her testimony. Both
she and her husband were Quaker
preachers, and
well known and respected inhabitants of New York
City, Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that Mary
Roscoe and
Mary Hinsdale was the same person. Her
maiden name was Roscoe,
and she married Henry
Hinsdale. My mother was a Roscoe, a niece of
Mary Roscoe, and lived with her for some time. I
have heard her
relate the story of Tom Paine's dying
remorse, as told her by her
aunt, who was a witness
to it. She says (in a letter I have just
received from
her), "he (Tom Paine) suffered fearfully from remorse,
and renounced his Infidel principles, calling on God
to forgive him,
and wishing his pamphlets and books
to be burned, saying he could not
die in peace until
it was done." (Rev.) A. W. Cornell.
Harpersville, New York.
520
You will notice that the
testimony of Mary Hins-
dale has been drawing interest since 1809,
and has
materially increased. If Paine "suffered fearfully
from
remorse, renounced his Infidel opinions and
called on God to forgive
him," it is hardly generous
for the Christian world to fasten the
fangs of malice
in the flesh of his reputation.
So Mary
Roscoe was Mary Hinsdale, and as
Mary Hinsdale has been shown by her
own admis-
sion to Mr. Cobbett to have known nothing of the
matter; and as Mary Hinsdale was not, according to
Willet Hicks,
worthy of belief—as she told a false-
hood of the same kind
about Mary Lockwood, and
was, according to Mr. Collins, addicted to
the use of
opium—this disposes of her and her testimony.
There remains upon the stand Grant Thorburn.
Concerning this
witness, I received, yesterday, from
the eminent biographer and
essayist, James Parton,
the following epistle:
Newburyport, Mass.
Col. R. G. Ingersoll:
Touching
Grant Thorburn, I personally know him
to have been a dishonest man.
At the age of ninety-
two he copied, with trembling hand, a piece
from a
newspaper and brought it to the office of the Home
Journal, as his own. It was I who received it and
521
detected the deliberate forgery. If you are ever go-
ing to
continue this subject, I will give you the exact
facts.
Fervently yours,
James Parton.
After this, you are
welcome to what remains of
Grant Thorburn.
There is one
thing that I have noticed during this
controversy regarding Thomas
Paine. In no instance
that I now call to mind has any Christian
writer
spoken respectfully of Mr. Paine. All have taken
particular pains to call him "Tom" Paine. Is it not
a little strange
that religion should make men so
coarse and ill-mannered?
I have often wondered what these same gentle-
men would say if I
should speak of the men eminent
in the annals of Christianity in the
same way. What
would they say if I should write about "Tim"
Dwight, old "Ad" Clark, "Tom" Scott, "Jim"
McKnight, "Bill" Hamilton,
"Dick" Whately, "Bill"
Paley, and "Jack" Calvin?
They
would say of me then, just what I think of
them now.
Even if we have religion, do not let us try to get
along
without good manners. Rudeness is exceed-
ingly unbecoming, even in a
saint. Persons who
522
forgive their enemies ought,
to say the least, to
treat with politeness those who have never
injured
them.
It is exceedingly gratifying to me that I
have com-
pelled you to say that "Paine died a blaspheming
Infidel." Hereafter it is to be hoped nothing will be
heard about his
having recanted. As an answer to
such slander his friends can
confidently quote the
following from the New York Observer of
November
ist, 1877:
"WE HAVE NEVER STATED IN ANY FORM, NOR
HAVE WE EVER SUPPOSED THAT PAINE ACTUALLY RE-
NOUNCED HIS INFIDELITY.
THE ACCOUNTS AGREE IN
STATING THAT HE DIED A BLASPHEMING INFIDEL."
This for all coming time will refute the slanders of
the
churches yet to be.
Right here allow me to ask: If you never
supposed
that Paine renounced his Infidelity, why did you try
to
prove by Mary Hinsdale that which you believed
to be untrue?
From the bottom of my heart I thank myself for
having compelled
you to admit that Thomas Paine
did not recant.
For the
purpose of verifying your own admission
concerning the death of Mr.
Paine, permit me to call
your attention to the following affidavit:
523
Wabash, Indiana, October 27, 1877.
Col. R.
G. Ingersoll:
Dear Sir: The following statement of facts is at
your disposal. In the year 1833 Willet Hicks made
a visit to Indiana
and stayed over night at my father's
house, four miles east of
Richmond. In the morn-
ing at breakfast my mother asked Willet Hicks
the
following questions:
"Was thee with Thomas Paine
during his last
sickness?"
Mr. Hicks said: "I was with him
every day dur-
ing the latter part of his last sickness."
"Did he express any regret in regard to writing
the 'Age of Reason,'
as the published accounts say
he did—those accounts that have
the credit of ema-
nating from his Catholic housekeeper?"
Mr. Hicks replied: "He did not in any way by
word or action."
"Did he call on God or Jesus Christ, asking either
of them to
forgive his sins, or did he curse them or
either of them?"
Mr. Hicks answered: "He did not. He died as
easy as any one I ever
saw die, and I have seen
many die in my time." William B Barnes.
Subscribed and sworn to before me Oct. 27, 1877.
Warren
Bigler, Notary Public.
524
You say in your last that
"Thomas Paine was
abandoned of God." So far as this controversy is
concerned, it seems to me that in that sentence you
have most
graphically described your own condi-
tion.
Wishing you
success in all honest undertakings, I
remain,
Yours truly,
Robert G. Ingersoll.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET |
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol.
5 (of 12), by Robert G. Ingersoll
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF INGERSOLL ***
***** This file should be named 38805-h.htm or 38805-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/8/0/38805/
Produced by David Widger
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.