MASTER NEGATIVE 
 
 NO. 93-81529- 
 
MICROFILMED 1 993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction is not to be **used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research.** If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
 use,'* that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would Involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
 I 
 
A UTHOR: 
 
 HUMPHREY, GRIFFITH 
 HENRY 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND 
 INFIDELITY; OR THE 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 DATE: 
 
 1877 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BIBLIOGRAP HIC MTCRnFORM TARHFT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Rec»rd 
 
 f. 
 
 Sol 
 H885 
 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 Humphrey, G H 
 
 Cliristianity and infidelity; or the Humphrey- 
 Bennett discussion between Rev. G. H. Humphrey... 
 and D. M. Bennett... Conducted in the columns of 
 
 The Truth seeker, commencing April 7, 1877, clos- 
 ing Sept. 29, 1877... New York, Bennett, [18773 
 XV, 533 p. port. 19|^ cm. 
 
 
 154123 
 
 o 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE; 3£ t.^^yy\ 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA 
 
 DATE FILMED: A? 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH! 
 
 IB HB 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO: / A t 
 
 CT 
 
D 
 
 Associatioii for Information and Image Managamont 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100^ 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 12 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 iiiiIiinIiiiiIiiiiImiiIiimImiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiiIiiiJiiiiIiiiiI 
 
 m 
 
 wm 
 
 I I I I I 
 
 Inches 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 I I I I I 
 
 Urn 
 
 |U 
 ■ vo 
 
 IS. 
 BiUu 
 
 ■ 3.6 
 
 1^ 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 I I I T TT T 
 
 5 
 
 MRNUFOCTURED TO flllM STRNDRRDS 
 BY RPPLIED IMRGE. INC. 
 
PRIVATE LIBRARY OF 
 
 "And please return It . You may 
 think this a strange request, but I 
 find that although many of my 
 friends are poor arithmeticians 
 they are nearly all of them good 
 book-keepers."— Scott. 
 
 [ 
 
 '] 
 
 v^^m 
 
 a 
 
 Cidinntria <Btittiei«itp 
 
 tntlirCitpofJlnpllinlt 
 
 LIBxviViv Y 
 
 GIVEN BY 
 
 THOMAS WRIGHT 
 
 1932 
 
 \ 
 
 • Iki 
 
 i 
 
 lllr 
 
 •1)1 
 
 • ••« 
 
 \\\ 
 
 I'" 
 
 !"• 
 
 •I! 
 
tncf ' l< 
 
 * kt, r ' 
 
 :'»vlu 
 
B.Tirt*T!i:t« 
 
CHRISTIANITY i 1 
 
 OR THE 
 
 HUMPHREY-BENNETT mSCHSSION 
 
 BETWEBN 
 
 REV. G. H. HUMPHREY, 
 
 or a ir. T. Presbyterian Chureliy 
 
 
 • •• 
 
 • • • ••"••• *•• 
 
 « • • • • • • • • • \jan 
 
 • ••• ••••!^« 
 
 • ,♦ ••• ••• •• • ••• 
 
 . D,..M..5PNNETT, 
 
 
 ••• •*, 
 
 ••. • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 CXXNDUCt^ED iNif^BiCOLTMIISjOt T^E TRUTH BEEKER, COM- 
 MEHClHG'ittRiLT/lSTT.'CtOSfNa BBPT. 29,1877. 
 
 ** Hear Mk tidet, asud Vwn deoidtJ* 
 
 I>. M. BENNETT, 
 
 LIBERAL AND SOIENTIPIO PUBLISmNG HOUSE. 
 141 Eighth STwtBT, New York, 
 
• • • . • ••,•• I I 
 • - • ^••» • • • • • 
 
 • • • • 
 
 • • • • 
 
 * • * * •• ••%■••. 
 
 • • • 
 
 • -•• ••• •! 
 
 • • • 
 
 - • • ♦ • 
 
 • « • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • •• 
 
 • • a 
 
 • • « • 
 
 .• • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 • • % 
 
 
 CONTEN rS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 The Relativb Services of Infidelitt and C^ristiah- 
 
 iTY TO American Liberty. 
 
 Humphrey's First Letter, . 
 Bennett's First Reply, 
 Humphrey's Second Letter, . 
 Bennett's Second Reply, 
 Humphrey's Third Letter, . 
 Bennett's Third Reply, . • ^ 
 Humphrey's Fourth Letter, . . 
 Bennett's Fourth Reply, . • . 
 Humphrey's Fifth Letter, • -. 
 Bennett's Fifth Reply, 
 
 1 
 S 
 
 n 
 
 17 
 28 
 81 
 
 fiO 
 
 74 
 93 
 
 106 
 120 
 181 
 155 
 IM 
 
 Part II. 
 
 The Relative Services of Infidelity and CmuBTiAH 
 
 ITY to Learning and Sciekob. 
 
 Humphrey's Sixth Letter, . ^ - ^ • 
 Bennett's Sixth Reply, . , . . . 
 Humphrey's Seventh Letter. • ^ « • 
 Bennett's Seventh Reply, . . . • • 
 Humphrey's Eighth Letter, . . ^ < . 
 Bennett's Eighth Reply, , . • » # 
 
 Part III. ^ 
 is THERE A Stronger Probability that the Bible is 
 
 Divine than that Infidelity is True. 
 Humphrey's Ninth Letter, . . • . . 
 Bennett's Ninth Reply, , • • • • 
 Humphrey's Tenth Letter, . * • * . 
 Bennett's Tenth Reply, . . * • • 
 Humphrey's Eleventh Letter, • • • • 
 Bennett's Eleventh Reply, . • « • 
 Humphrey's Twelfth Letter, . • i . 
 Bennett's Twelfth Reply, . « • t 
 Humphrey's Thirteenth Letter, » • r 
 
 Bennett's Thirteenth Reply, . • • • 
 
 194 
 209 
 264 
 285 
 835 
 854 
 591 
 417 
 467 
 ^7 
 
 ■" ■'iftit 
 
J 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 
 About the first of March, 1877, the Rev. G. H. Humphrey 
 visited the ofllce of The Truth Seeker and requested that 
 a challenge to Ccl. R. G. IngersoU and B. P. Underwood 
 be inserted in its columns. The Editor cheerfully con- 
 sented to publish the same, at the same time remarking that, 
 as it was probable that both IngersoU and Underwood were 
 too much engaged to admit of their coming here to debate 
 with him, rather than have him disappointed, he himself 
 would hold a discussion with the gentleman in the columns 
 of The Truth Seeker. Mr. Humphrey remarked if 
 neither of those gentlemen accepted his challenge he would 
 perhaps gladly entertain the proposition. In the issue of 
 The Truth Seeker for March 3d, 1877, the following chal- 
 lenge appeared : 
 
 A PROPOSITION TO DEBATE— qUBSTIONS. 
 
 1. Ilid Unbelievers in the Bible do as much for American 
 Independence as the believers in it ? 
 
 8. Has Infidelity done as much as Christianity to pro- 
 mote Learning and Science f 
 
 8. Is there a stronger probability that Infidelity is- true 
 than that the Bible is divine ? 
 
 The undersigned has challenged Col. R. G. IngersoU to 
 a public discussion of the foregoing propositions. It is to 
 be hoped he will accept, but should he decline, Mr. B. F. 
 Underwood or any other exponent of Paineology will be 
 taken as a substitute. Very respectfully, 
 
 G. H. HUMPHRST. 
 
 SI Saat Tenth itreet. New York. 
 
11 
 
 I'f 
 
 ft XNTEODUOnOir* 
 
 In the same issue the Editor again offered his services t<r 
 the reverend gentleman in case the two persons named 
 did not respond to the challenge. After waiting two or 
 three weeks, and hearing nothing from either IngersoU or 
 Underwood, Mr. Humphrey accepted the Editor's proposi- 
 tion, and arrangements were readily made for the discus- 
 sion to appear in The Truth Seeker, Humphrey taking 
 the initiative, and an article from each to appear alternately 
 until the discussion should be completed. Accordingly 
 Humphrey's first letter appeared in the issue for April 7th. 
 On Sept. 29th appeared Bennett's reply to Humphrey's thir- 
 teenth letter, the discussion having continued just six 
 months. 
 
 It is but fair to Mr. Humphrey to state that he has no 
 pecuniary interest in the publication of the Discussion,, 
 though it is issued in this form with his entire consent 
 
 Presuming that some who may read the following pages 
 may be interested in knowing something of the contestants,, 
 brief sketches of each will be given. 
 
 Skstcb of G. H. Humphbbt. 
 
 My opponent, Mr. Bennett, has asked me to furnish t^ 
 sketch of my life to be inserted in the Introduction to our 
 Discussion. I dislike to do it. It exposes me to the sus^ 
 picion of vanity and conceit. But I am desirous of pleas- 
 ing a friend in that which is indifferent, if not good ; so i 
 will reluctantly yield to his request. There is not a char- 
 acter in the alphabet that I hate so much as the letter 1. In 
 order to avoid it, let me, like Csssar or Moses, speak of my- 
 self in the third person. 
 
 The subject of this sketch was born in Carnarvon Shire,^ 
 North Wales, in the year 1844. When he was less than a 
 year old, his parents emigrated to Izonia, Jefferson Co.,. 
 Wi!icoa8in, where he remained oa a larmr until his majop^ 
 
 INTRODUOnOH. 
 
 ▼11 
 
 ity. His situation there had no special advantages, except 
 the proximity of many Germans, which enabled him to learn 
 their language. When twenty-one he entered Washington 
 & Jefferson College, located in Washington, Pa., where he 
 graduated four years afterwards. From College he went 
 to the Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Allegheny 
 City, Pa. He studied there for three years. His firs* 
 charge was in Frostburg, Md., which he assumed, in part, 
 before leaving the Seminary. He was next called to the 
 Birmingham Presbyterian church, Pittsburgh, Pa., where 
 he remained about five years. In Dec. of 1876, he removed 
 to New York City, to take charge of the Welsh Presby- 
 terian church, Nos. 225, 227, 229, East 18th street. He is 
 now living at 343 East 15th street, where he will be glad to 
 see not only his Christian but his Infidel friends. 
 
 His mental history is not very peculiar. When between 
 seventeen and twenty-three he read many skeptical works 
 of various kinds. His object in doing so was not of the 
 noblest kind. It was done more in the spirit of dare-devil- 
 ishness than anything else. A boy has a similar motive in 
 entering the mysteries of tobacco-chewing. Doubts were 
 engendered in his mind. But he kept them mostly to him- 
 self. He only whispered them occasionally, with awful 
 significance to his friends. He was rather glad to be 
 suspected of holding peculiar views. He considered 
 his skepticism a positive proof that he was a mighty smart 
 young man. As he had read German, and "critical" 
 English books, he thought surely he must have something 
 to show for it more than the ordinary belief. He fancied 
 that everybody who saw him said within himself, *' What 
 a great reader ! There goes a thinker/ " 
 
 But a change, like the rising of the sun, came gradually 
 over his mind. He saw that some of his companions in 
 skepticism were sinking into vice and immorality. The 
 more they sinned the more they doubted. The more un- 
 like true Christians they became, the more did they wani 
 
"^IISISC!!!!!!^ 
 
 rfi 
 
 I 
 
 vUt 
 
 niTBOiyironov* 
 
 Christianity to be antrae. Although they got to reading 
 and thinking less and less, their Infidelity grew more and 
 more. He thought this very suspicious. In addition to 
 this, he discovered that he himself was becomiDg lop-sided. 
 He read little but anti-Christian works. He had a kind of 
 aversion to everything in fsvor of Religion. When he did 
 read something on that side, it was done with such preju- 
 dice and foregone conclusioos that it was all in vain. 
 When he reflected, and caught himself in this condition, he 
 became uneasy. He knew that he had not given the Bible 
 and the Christian religion a thorough and honest study. 
 There he was, priding himself in his "reading," ** think- 
 ing," and "liberalism f' and yet doubting a system whose 
 evidences he had never examined. He knew well that he 
 could never be admitted to the bar without giving the law 
 a far more extensive study than he had given to this most 
 momentous of questions. He resolved to reform. He pro- 
 ceeded to do so. He procured the standard works on Chris- 
 tian evidence. He found it extremely difficult at first to 
 exercise sufficient patience to read them through and digest 
 them. He was possessed by a strong temptation to dismiss 
 the whole subject after glancing superficially over a few vol- 
 umes. He thought he might then say he had read them* 
 Bat, thanks be to God I he was not permitted to stop thcr«. 
 He read on. He began to feel that the Scriptures might 
 be true. What he deemed posmMs at first soon became a 
 probabUUif, After some years of toil and meditation, the 
 probability became a certainty, as to the cardinal, essential . 
 teachings of Christianity. He had formerly thought of 
 practicing law. But the conviction of the everlasting truth 
 of the Christian Religion impelled him to preach the Gos- 
 pel, and to use every lawful means to defend and dissemi- 
 nate it. He is happy in the work. He can now say: 
 
 ' O hapDV dav that fixed my ohoioa 
 On thee, my 8a?ior and my Ood." 
 
 XNTROPUOTIOll. Iz 
 
 He has given this inner history of himself, not because it 
 is in itself important, but because he believes it is a fair 
 picture of eight-tenths of those who profess to be unbe- 
 lievers. Should these lines and this discussion furnish a 
 clue that will guide even one out of the zigzag labyrinth of 
 Infidelity, the writer will be more than rewarded. 
 
 G. H.H, 
 
 Sketch of D. H. Bennett. 
 
 He was born on the eastern shore of the beautiful sheet 
 of water known as Otsego Lake, in the township of Spring- 
 field, Otsego Co., N. Y., Dec. 23, 1818. His parents were 
 poor people— his father an uneducated farmer, his mother a 
 member of the Methodist Church. At an early age he moved 
 with his parents into the villsge of Cooperstown, N. Y. Here 
 he had fair opportunities for attending district school, Sun- 
 day-school, etc. At the latter he was a constant attendant, 
 and frequently, by voluntary efifort, learned twenty or 
 thirty verses in the New Testament during the week, and 
 recited them to his teacher on Sunday. He attended 
 church regularly, and very naturally grew up in the 
 belief taught by theologians. 
 
 When between fourteen and fifteen years of age, return- 
 ing from a visit to some relatives in Berkshire county, 
 Mass., he stopped to visit the Shaker Society in New Leb- 
 anon, N. Y. They lived peacefully and happily in their 
 beautiful home on the hill side, and he soon became so much 
 pleased with ttiem that he decided to join them and become 
 one of their number. He thought they lived better and 
 happier lives tiian any people he had ever met. They 
 are a peculiar people and have a somewhat peculiar relig- 
 ious belief. In the first place, they are strict celibates, and 
 regard the sexual intercourse as the forbidden fruit which 
 caused the fall of Adam and Eve, and through them of the 
 entire human race. They regard Jesus as the pattern celibate 
 
nRBODUOnON. 
 
 INTBODUCnOV. 
 
 .• 
 
 who practiced and taoght the strictest self-denial. Thej 
 do not regard Jesus as Ood, or as having a miraculous be- 
 getting. They conceire that Diyinity consists of two 
 divisions or elements, male and female, father and mother — 
 Power and Wisdom — ^and that Jesus Christ, nearly nineteen 
 huudred years ago, represented the Father element and Ann 
 Lee, an English woman, the wife of a dissipated black- 
 smith, over one hundred years ago, represented the Mother 
 clement of divinity. She was called Mother Ann Lee, and 
 in Jesus and herself they held that Christ made his firfet and 
 second appearing. They dress in a plain garb, lead indus- 
 trious lives; they hold their property in common, on the 
 community plan, and dance and march for worship. 
 
 That society then consisted of seven hundred members, 
 and was divided into some eight families, or lesser com- 
 munities. There were sixteen societies in the entire 
 country, with a total membership of six thousand. In 
 later years, however, their numbers have greatly decreased, 
 and they now have less than half their former members. 
 They are a very religious people, and they carry their 
 religion into their daily duties and avocations, making it 
 an eminently practical system of faith. They hold to the 
 possibility of living lives without fault or sin, and they 
 make it their object to attain to this point of perfection. 
 They are Spiritualists, and had among them what are called 
 ** spirit-manifestations '* long before the " Rochester knock- 
 iogs" were heard of. They believe in spirit protection and 
 guidance, and to the higher spirit? they direct their prayers 
 and supplications. They unite in silent prayer, including 
 those before and after each meal, at least eight times a day. 
 
 Beunett's occupation among them was three years at 
 growing garden-seeds and putting them up in packages to 
 send over the country, four years at shoemaking, three 
 years at growing and gathering medical herbs and roots, 
 preparing extracts, making syrups, ointments and other 
 preparations, powdering roots and herbs, etc., and three 
 
 years at practicing medicine. He did not attend any course 
 of medical lectures nor graduate at any college, but had the 
 benefit of a fair medical library and the advice of an old. 
 physician who had retired from practice. The system of 
 treatment adopted by the society was the Eclectic, and it 
 proved very successful. 
 
 Bennett never attended college, or any institution of 
 learning above a common district school, which he left at 
 the age of fifteen. Since that time he has been constantly 
 engaged at some active business — generally hard work — 
 affording him little time for study or close reading. 
 
 In 1846, having arrived at the age of twenty-seven years, 
 after residing thirteen years in the Shaker society, and los- 
 ing faith somewhat in their peculiar creed, and tiring to 
 some extent of their rather arbitrary system of government, 
 he left the society, in company with his sister and Mary 
 Wicks, who afterwards became his wife— and who since 
 the age of four years had lived with the Shakers— together 
 with one or two other members. In the fall of 1846 
 he was induced to "go West" as far as Brandenburg, 
 Kentucky, on the Ohio river, forty miles below Louis- 
 ville ; but, being disappointed in the nature of the 
 business in which he had expected to engage at that place, 
 in the ensuing December he removed to Louisville, and 
 there served nearly a year as clerk in a drug-store. In Jan- 
 uary, 1848, he opened a drug-store of his own in Louis- 
 ville, and conducted it over eight years, engaging also in 
 other kinds of business with varying success. In the 
 spring of 1855 he sold out his business and removed to 
 Kochester, N. Y., where he resided four years, engaging 
 in the sale of fruit-trees, shrubbery, etc., and, afterwards, 
 garden seeds. In 1859 he removed to Cincinnati and bought 
 a drug store, which he conducted till the autumn of 1865, 
 engaging also, somewhat extensively, in preparing proprie- 
 tary medicines. During these six years he was quite suc- 
 cessful, and upon selling out had made enough to answer 
 
lli 
 
 lUTUOOUOnOH* 
 
 during life for himself aod wife, had he not invosted it in 
 a series of ventures that proved unsuccessful. As it was, 
 however, repeated bad investments and ventures used up 
 the earnings of six years, and in 1866-7 he had managed to 
 lose the snug sum of $30,000. 
 
 His religious views gradually became more and more 
 radical from the time he left the Shakers. While in Louis- 
 ville he borrowed an Infidel book which strongly shook his 
 faith in theology. A few years later, in visiting New York, 
 he called upon Gilbert Yale, who kept radical books for 
 sale, and bought Paine's Age of Reason, Yolney*8 Huins 
 and a number of small books and pamphlets of a similar 
 character. The perusal of these aided materially in driv- 
 ing from his mind the relics of superstition and ecclesias- 
 ticism that still lingered there. He ventured to exercise 
 free thought, to take nothing upon the assertion of the 
 priesthood, to accept naught unsustained by proof, and, 
 in short, to do his own thinking and to arrive at his own 
 conclusions. 
 
 His belief gradually becamf very radical, and he divested 
 himself of nearly all the sirperstitions to which he had 
 once given his assent. He lost confidence in the Bible as 
 being a superhuman production, and while he saw in it 
 good morals and precepts, fine specimens of ancient poetry 
 and literature, he found in it also a great deal that is crude, 
 a great deal that is coarse and obscene, a great deal that is 
 untiTie, and but little that is adapted to the present needs 
 and conditions of mankind. He regarded it wholly as a 
 human production. 
 
 He threw off all allegiance to fables, myths and supersti- 
 tions. He held himself free to embrace truth wherever he 
 found it, and to discard errors and fallacies from whatever 
 source. He gradually came to believe in the eternality and 
 the infinity of the Universe ; that it contains all substances 
 and all forces ; that there is nothing above it, below it, or 
 outside of it : that every result that has ev^r taken placa 
 
 IHTBODUOnON. 
 
 xiU 
 
 has been produced by natural and sufficient causes, and that 
 there can be nothing supernatural. He regarded the multi- 
 tude of gods which men had imagined, devised and manu- 
 factured—or in a word, the god-idea— as the great central 
 superstition around which all other superstitions have clus- 
 tered for thousands of years. He accepted IngersolPs 
 axiom, that '* there can be no liberty on earth while men 
 worship a tyrant in heaven." He saw that all that has been 
 effected on this planet to improve it and make it a happy 
 dwelling-place for man has been done by the hands of 
 man, and that the gods have done nothing for the race, and 
 that the belief in them has been one of the greatest evils 
 that has befallen mankind. He came to understand that 
 man's whole duty is towards his fellow-man, towards him- 
 self, and nothing for the gods ; that he can do as little for 
 the gods as they do for him, but that to promote the hap- 
 piness of himself and his fellow-beings and to aid in ren- 
 dering this earth a paradise "he can do very much indeed. 
 
 In 1869 Bennett returned to Rochester, remained there 
 over a year, and then removed to Paris, III., where he 
 resided three years. For a year or more he was in the 
 drug business, and after that he engaged in growing garden 
 seeds, papering them and sending them over the Western 
 country. In 1873 he cultivated fifty acres in seeds, and in 
 1878 seventy-five acres. His means being limited, he was 
 under the necessity of taking partners, but, like many others, 
 he found partnership a bad ship to sail in, and in the Fall, 
 of 1873 he was glad to retire from the business with a loss 
 of two years' hard work and $2,500 in money. His Chris- 
 tian partners were too much for him, and rendered his con- 
 tinuance in the firm no longer desirable. 
 
 In the Summer of 1873 he engaged in a newspaper dis- 
 cussion with two Paris clergymen on the subject of prayer. 
 One of the local papers published what the clergymen had 
 to say but refused to publish his articles because of 
 their radical character. This dissatisfied Bennett, and 
 
zir 
 
 nrfBODoonoH. 
 
 XMTBODTJOTIOH. 
 
 XT 
 
 made blm resolTe to tUrt a paper of hia own In which he 
 could Bay Just what he believed to be trae. It was this 
 that caused him to start Thb Tbuth Skkkkb, and probably 
 if that bit of Christian intolerance had not been shown 
 him, he would never have started a Radical paper and 
 never oecome the publisher of Infidel works. 
 
 Tub Tbuth Sbekkb started as an eight-page monthly, in 
 September, 1873. It» early success was not remarkable, 
 but sufficient to induce him to continue it. Having 
 closed out his business in f aris, and perceiving it was not 
 Just the place whence to issue a Liberal paper, he looked 
 •round for a better locality. New York city, the commer- 
 cial centre of the country, presented advantages superior to 
 any other locality, and he resolved to move his little paper 
 there. It was, perhaps, a bold stop. To start the paper 
 was bold. For a man without capital, without editorial ex- 
 perience, without acquaintance with the Liberal element 
 of the country, and, worse than all, without the necessary 
 ability, to conduct a Radical Journal, to engage in 
 such an enterprise perhaps, evinced more boldness 
 than good Judgment. In the face of the financial 
 panic whict was well inaugurated in the closing months of 
 1873, and has continued nearly four years, it was. at best, 
 an unfavorable time to more a little unfledged monthly to 
 the metropolis of the country. No. 6 of Vol. L was issued 
 here in January. 1874, with sixteen pages instead of the 
 previous eight. In 1876 it became a semi-monthly, and in 
 1876 it was changed to a weekly. It has had a struggle for 
 existence while papers with far more ability and more than 
 lea times the capital were failing all around it. It is to be 
 hoped, however, that it has now become so well established 
 that no serious fears are to be entertained for its continued 
 existence. In addition to Thb Tbuth Sbbkbb, one hun- 
 dred and fifty books, pamphlets, and tracts have been 
 published in the same office. If it cannot be styled an 
 instance of «* divine aid," it is, perhaps, an instance where 
 
 divinity has preserved a neutral policy and kept "hands 
 off." It is hoped that a larger number of works will be 
 issued from the same establishment, and that the enquiring 
 and independent minds of the country will be patrons of the 
 same. The publisher knows not how he can better dis- 
 charge his duty towards his fellow-men than by placing 
 before them the sentiments of truth and appeals in behalf 
 of mental liberty. He has resolved to devote the remainder 
 
 of his life to the good work. ,x %* « 
 
 P, Ht jf. 
 
 Truth Sekeer OJUe, Oct. 1, 1877. 
 
V ^' 
 
 ' ,1 
 
 It ' 
 
 ■ 4 
 
 ii1 
 
 THB 
 
 HQMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 MR. HUMPHRBY. 
 
 New York, March 29. 1876. 
 Mr. D. M. Bknkett, Dear Sir : As we huve agreed to 
 discuss some matters rela'ivc to iDfidelity aad Cliristiauiiy, 
 and as wc are both alike i-i being q die iudi/feient to cere- 
 mony and red tape, 1 will at once proceed to prove the 
 affirmative of the following propo8iiion : 
 
 That belikveks in the Bible uave done more foii 
 Civil Libekty in the United States than unbelievers. 
 
 By " bt lievers in the Bible " is meant tho:ie who recog- 
 nized the infiiliibility and divine authoriiy of that book; 
 and by the "unbelievers" is meant those who denied that 
 infallibility and repudiated that authority. You will 
 scarcely object to this definition of the word "Infidel." 
 Webster defines Infidelity as '* disbelief of the inspiration 
 of the S Tiptures, or the divine origin of Christianity." No 
 standard lexicographer differs from this definition. 
 
 Having thus explained terms, I will proceed at once to 
 show that the services of Infidels to American liberty have 
 been intinitesimally small compared- with that of Christians. 
 I am well aware that this is exactly the reverse of the per- 
 sistent representations of Infidel speakers and writers; but 
 it can be demonstrated ueveithcless. 
 
a 
 
 TBB HUMPS RET-BENNBTT DI8CU88IOir. 
 
 !(• 
 
 n. 
 
 1. Thig is shown by the fact that the struggle for Inde- 
 pendence originated among the Puritans of New England^ 
 yes, among the bated Puritans. It is true they did not start 
 out with the conscious and avowed intention of securing 
 their independence. But it is noteworthy that they were 
 the first to resist British oppression. Samuel Adams, the 
 leading spirit in this resistance, was a member of the Con- 
 gregational Church. His was a house of prayer. He was a 
 strict observer of the Sabbath (Bancroft's History of the 
 United States, vol. iii., pp. 418-420, Centenary Edition). 
 As far back as the year 1768 John Hancock had named one 
 of his sloops "Liberty," indicative of the spirit of the 
 man, and, perhaps, of the unexpressed wish of his souL 
 
 The Boston Town Meeting, held in Faneuil Hall, Sept, 
 1768, was an assemblage of religious people. In that meet- 
 ing it was resolved that " the inhabitants of the town of 
 Boston will, at the utmost peril of their lives and fortunes, 
 maintain and defend their rights, privileges, and immuni- 
 lies;" and they rteommejided that a day be tet apart for fasting 
 and prayer. This shows that the first citizen's meeting to 
 remonstrate against tyranny was a meeting, not of Infidels 
 but of Puritans. 
 
 We read often of the clergy of that period inspiring 
 their congregations with patriotism, courage, and hope. 
 Bancroft says " the Calvinist ministers nursed the flame of 
 piety and of civil freedom" (Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 499, 
 687). Where is the account of a " Liberal Club " doing a 
 similar service ? 
 
 The Old Continental Congress, held in 1774, was com- 
 posed almost entirely of Christian men. Rev. Jacob Duchd, 
 an Episcopalian, was iuvited to act as chaplain. Franklin 
 testified afterwards tliat those early Conventions and Con- 
 gresses were opened every day with prayer (Parton's Life 
 ot Franklin, vol. ii., pp. 5734). 
 
 The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by 
 ware Puritans. The warniiifi of the a|»proaching foe wag 
 
 THB HUICPHBET-BBNNETT DISCT78BI0II. t 
 
 given from a church tower, Paul Revere revered Paul. He 
 was a believer of the Gospel. The march from Cam- 
 bridge to Charleiitown Neck under Col. Prescott was pre- 
 ceded by prayer by Mr. Langdon, then President of Harvard 
 College (Lossing's Field Book of the Revolution, vol. i., p. 
 539). 
 
 The »<rec<?yjir«< declaration of independence — the Meck- 
 lenburg Declaration — was made in May, 1776, in the high- 
 lands of North Carolina by a convention of " sturdy Pres- 
 byterians" (Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 575). 
 
 All this, and much more of the same import, had trans- 
 pired before Thomas Paine published his * 'Common Sense" 
 in Jan. of 1776. It is cheerfully admitted that that pam- 
 phlet had a wonderful effect on the Colonists. But it did 
 not create the thought of independence, as is sometimea 
 claimed. Along with a great many other essays and pam- 
 phlets of the same kind, prepared by "the ablest persona 
 in America " (Lossing's Lives of the Signers; p. 246), it 
 helped to precipitate an idea that was already in solution in 
 the public mind. It touched off the magazine. As John 
 Adams remarked, it "singularly fell in with the temper of 
 the moment "(Life and Works of John Adams; Boston, 
 1854; vol. i., p. 204). **The idea of independence was fa- 
 miliar among the common people much earlier than some 
 people pretend" (Ibid; vol. ix., p. 598). Patrick Henry— 
 who, though not a church member, was so far a Christian 
 that he relished Butler's "Analogy " and Doddridge's " Rise 
 and Progress," and published at his own expense Jenyns' 
 *' Internal Evidences of Christianity " (Sparks* Am. Biog- 
 rat)hy, vol. xi., p. 384)— as early as 1763 and 1765 had 
 given utterance to sentiments that caused the royalists to 
 cry out " Treason t Treason 1" Samuel Adams, Richard 
 Henry Lee, Benjamin Franklin, Rev. Timothy D wight 
 (Lives of the Signers, p. 244), Gen. Greene, Gen. Washing- 
 ton (Bancroft, vol. v., p. 63), and many others, had talked 
 -yf Absolute separation from the mother country before 
 
m 
 
 THE HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION 
 
 101 
 
 Paine^s pamphlet ever saw the light. In the words of Ban- 
 croft, " The Declaration of Independence was silently but 
 steadily prepared in the con^ctions of all the people, just 
 as every spire of grass is impearled by the dew, and reflect9 
 the morning sun" (Bancroft, vol. v., p. 165). 
 
 2. The affirmative of this proposition is confirmed by the 
 fact that the foreigners who came to our assistance were 
 nearly all believers in the Holy Scriptures. De Ealb was 
 m Protestant (Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 40). It is well known that 
 Lafayette, Pulaski, and Kosciusko were Catholics. Steuben 
 was a Lutheran (Sparks' American Biography, vol. ix., p. 
 84). Bat where was the Infidel that crossed the sea to lead ■ 
 the provincial patriots against the British troops ? 
 
 The Englishmen who advocated the cause of the Amer 
 icans in the presence of the Crown were all believers in the 
 Christian religion. I refer especially to Col. Barre, Chat- 
 ham, Camden, and Burke. No Freethinker in the House 
 of Lords or in the House of Commons raised his voice in 
 our behalf. 
 
 8. In further proof of my position I wiH remind you of 
 the fact that the masses of the Colonists were believers in 
 Christianity. An avowed Infidel in the American army 
 was regarded as an exception and a monstrosity. The bat- 
 tles of the Revolution were waged by soldiers who read 
 their Bibles in the camp, and exercised faith in God. 
 
 The best generals of the Revolution accepted the Bible as 
 the word of the Lord. This is notably true of Prescott, 
 Warren, Putnam, Greene, Knox. Morgan, Wayne, Lincoln, 
 and their commander-in-chief, George Washington. W© 
 have already named Lafayette, Steuben, Pulaski, Koscius 
 ko, and De Kalb. Who was the Infidel general that ren- 
 dered any service to the Colonies ? Benedict Arnold, who 
 was irreligious, was a traitor. Charles Lee, the Freethinker, 
 proved unfaithfuL 
 
 Robert Morris, the great financier of that period, had an 
 
 THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. Q 
 
 unswerving faith in the principles inculcated in Holy Writ. 
 Bo had his eminent friend, Gouverneur Morris. 
 
 The signers of the Declaration of Independence were re- 
 ligious men. Benson J. Lossing, Esq., the well-known au- 
 thor, who has been for many years a careful student of 
 American history and biography, said recently in a private 
 letter: *' I believe, from internal evidence, that every signer 
 of the Declaration of Independence was a practical Chris- 
 tian, such as Christ accepts as his worthy children. They, 
 of course, differed in their theological notions, but not in 
 their religious convictions. Some of them were church 
 members, and some were not." That this is true, without 
 excepting Franklin and Jefferson, I will show in my next. 
 
 Soon after the close of the war, Congress appointed Dec. 
 13, 1781, as a day of "Thanksgiving to Almighty God for 
 the signal success of the American arms. " Previous to that 
 ** when the letters of Washington announcing the capitula- 
 tion reached Congress, that body, with the people streaming 
 in their train, went in procession to the Dutch Lutheran 
 church to return thanks to Almighty God " (Bancroft, vol. 
 vi , p. 429,). Most assuredly, then, the American people 
 were in the main religious. 
 
 These remarks are suggestive rather than exhaustive. The 
 service of Christians to the cause of independence, as com- 
 pared with that of Infidels, was as a thousand to one. 
 
 I have given many references, as I intend to continue do- 
 ing, in order that you and our readers may verify eve^-y 
 statement. I shall endeavor to give, as I shall demand, au- 
 thority and proof. Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 G. H. Humphrey. 
 
 MR. BBIVNBTT. 
 
 Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear JSir: 1 have never thought 
 for a moment, nor do I think any intelligent Liberal has 
 
rn i 
 
 I 
 
 ,, Ui r 
 
 lift 
 
 I 
 
 *!'lf 
 
 :i!Ji 
 
 'HI 
 I 
 
 < 
 
 »■ 
 
 
 THE HUMPERBT-BENNETT DISCC83IOH. 
 
 €ver clftimed. that a majority of the officers, or of the rank 
 and file engaged in the Revolutionary struggle were Infidels 
 or unbelieTOFS in the divine origin of the Bible. If a census 
 had then been taken on that question, or a vote given, the 
 Bible worshipers on the one side and the unbelievers on the 
 other. I admit that the believers would have had a very 
 large majority— perhaps ninety or ninety-five per cent of the 
 whole number. Unfortunately, since the earliest history of 
 mankind, the believers in fetishes, myths, superstitious 
 mysticisms, fables, and errors of all kinds, have far out- 
 numbered the opposite class. Truth has ever been in a 
 minority. It was so one hundred years ago. It is so to- 
 day. Bat, thanks to the light of science and the inherent 
 love of the Right which exists in'man's nature, the truth is 
 gaining ground. The myths and superstitions of former 
 centuries, with their tyrannous rule, are retiring to the rear, 
 and truth, reason, and mental liberty arc coming to the 
 front and assuming control. They are unmistakably gaining 
 grruod, and in another hundred years it is confidently 
 hoped that theological delusions and errors will have far 
 less sway, not only in this country but in the civilized 
 world, than ihey had one hundred yeais ago. The powers 
 of light and truth are x>otent, and we have much to hope 
 for from ihem. 
 
 I freely accord patriotism, love of liberty, and hatred of 
 tyranny to thousands of zealous Christians who were en- 
 gaged in that struggle. They fought bravely for American 
 independence, and I would not take one laurel from their 
 brows. I honor them for what they did in the cause of hu- 
 man liberty. Tliey were impelled by the noblest impulses 
 that move the human heart. If the same credit was gen. 
 erously awarded to the nn bell vers that were engaged in the 
 same struggle, this discussion would hardly be necessary. 
 We would hear much fewer aspersions and slanderous as- 
 sertions about •* Tom Paine " and the ** Infidel crew," and 
 Ihey would be cheerfully credited on all hands with the 
 
 THE HUMPflRET-BBNNETT DISCnSSION. 7 
 
 great deeds they performed, and a nation's gratitude and 
 honor, to which they are so justly entitled, would be extended 
 to them, instead of being grudgingly and meanly withheld as 
 now. 
 
 While I yield that Bible-believcrs greatly predominated 
 in point of numbers in the American struggle, I claim that 
 the leading spirits, the men who did the most to arouse the 
 people of ihe Colonies, to stimulate their courage and res- 
 olutioo after the conflict was inaugurated, and when dark 
 despair settled over the land; who directed the armies; 
 whu made personal sacrifices to keep up the struggle, and 
 who gave form and direction to the Constitution and policy 
 of the new government when the war was over, were Infi- 
 dels, or men who did not believe that the Bible was written 
 by the finger of God, or by his immediate dictation. I al 
 lude to suck men as Benjamin Franklin, George Washing- 
 ton, Eihan Allen, Anthony Wayne, Thomas Paine, John 
 Adams. Thomas Jefferson, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin 
 Rush, Arron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, 
 etc., etc. These men did not accept the Christian dogma 
 that Jesus Christ is God and the Supreme Power of the Uni- 
 verse; hence they were Infidels. 
 
 While I admit that Christians acquitted themselves nobly 
 in that glorious struggle, I claim that Infidels did the same, 
 and did more in •proportion to their numbers than did the 
 believers, and this is all that ought to be demanded of them. 
 I claim, too, that the war for American independence was 
 not a Christian struggle, and that the impulses and senti- 
 ments which actuated the infant nation— hatred of tyranny 
 and oppression, the spirit of freedom and independence- 
 are not peculiar to Christians. Tiiey are the natural, spon- 
 taneous impulses of humanity. Man, in all ages of the 
 world, in all countries, and under all systems of religion 
 has fought and bled and died for liberty and the right of 
 self government. 
 While men of all castes and colors have aspired to free- 
 
*l 
 
 .' 
 
 !l 
 
 mil 
 
 • I 
 
 ml 
 
 iij! 
 
 ^4. 
 
 
 4|-t.. 
 
 § THB HUMFBBBT-BBNNSTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 dom, while they have fought for liberty; while men of all 
 creeds have detested tyranny in their very souls, the dis- 
 tinctive inculcation of Christianity has been ^* submit " and 
 "obey." Its principal teachers have enjoined rules like 
 these: "Servants obey your masters," "Obey the magis- 
 trates." **Obey them that have rule over you," "Let your 
 soul be subject to the higher powers," " Render unto Caesar 
 the things that are Caesar's/' "The powers that be are or- 
 dained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the powers 
 resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist re- 
 ceive unto themselves damnation. Wherefore, ye must 
 be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience' sake. 
 For this cause, pay ye tribute also, for they are God's min- 
 isters, attending continually upon this very thing" (Rom., 
 xiii., 1-6). " Submit yourself to every ordinance of man 
 for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme, 
 or unto governors" (1 Peter, il., 13). 
 
 According to these imperative icjunctions, the American 
 colonists were not only in a state of rebellion against the 
 parent government, but also against heaven. They had 
 practically ceased to be Christians. They had become In- 
 fidels, for to question or doubt what the priesthood declares 
 to be the will of heaven is infidelity of the rankest kind. 
 When they dared to raise their hands and strike for their 
 liberties, they were opposing the will of God. Every king, 
 every tyi^int that ever reigned over an oppressed people, 
 cither under the Hebrew or the Christian regime^ claimed to 
 rule by the express command of God. They were the 
 anointed of heaven, and to rebel against them was to rebel 
 against God. The American colonies, when they resisted 
 the power of Great Britain, opposed such a power. They 
 opposed the first Christian power in the world— a nation 
 whose kings and queens reigned by the "grace of God." 
 I repeat, it was an un-Ohrutian war to oppose the first 
 Christian nation on earth, whose monarchs niled by a di- 
 vine commission from on high, and whose coronations were 
 
 presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest 
 Christian dignitary in the realm. I tell you it was the t&- 
 ■beUion of In^idelitf/ that made the American people raise their 
 arms against such a dlvhiely-commissioned power. True, 
 Catholics and Protestants came over to help us, but they 
 came to fight the battle of In^delity against Christian tyran. 
 ny, and this truth cannot be successfully denied. Most truly 
 <did IngersoU exclaim, "Infidelity is liberty; all religion is 
 slavery. In every creed, man is the slave of God; woman 
 is the slave of man, and the sweet children are the slaves of 
 «UI" 
 
 While the Christian government of G^reat Britain was 
 sending over its thousands of creed-bound serfs to crush 
 into the chains of bondage a youthful and struggling peo> 
 pie who dared aspire to be free, the first Infidds of England 
 «nd France sympathiced with the colonists and did all l^ey 
 could for their cause by pen, money, and valor. While this 
 was true, how was it with the great light of Christian Prot- 
 estantism, in England, John Wesley f He opposed the 
 American struggle with all his power. He wrote against it, 
 he preached against it, and be labored against it publicly 
 and privately. England had no deadlier foe to American 
 freedom than was John Wesley, the pious apostle of the 
 Church, and the founder of Methodism. 
 
 You mention instances of marches and other opera- 
 iiovB during the war being preceded by prayer. Doubtless 
 it was so, but that does not prove very much. A devout 
 Mohammedan prays regularly six times a day, and always 
 with his face turned towards his holy city, Mecca. 
 Many of the acts of his life-time are preceded by prayer. 
 Does that make him a Christian t The pious Hindoo 
 mother who throws her infant to her crocodile-god in the 
 Ganges always precedes the act by prayer. Does that 
 make her a Christian ? When two opposing Christian 
 armies are about to engage in a bloody conflict, and both 
 {«eoede the sanguiaaiy work by prayer asking for vlctoiy« 
 

 THM HUMPgB»T'Baa n mT DISCUBMOW, 
 
 THE SXTMPHBBT-BBKNSTT DIBCUBSIOV. 
 
 11 
 
 t 
 
 ft 
 
 w 
 
 and both beg for God to help them, U it not calculated to em- 
 barrass their God to decide how to answer the prayerff 
 of both, and to determine which side to help the most? 
 Bonaparte used to insist that God was on the side ol 
 the strongest battalions, and oiher observing persons have- 
 come to the same conclusion, If Col. Prescott had pre- 
 ceded his march from Cambridge to Gharlestown Neck by 
 a lively game of ''old sledge," or had he induced hi» 
 men to join lustily in singing •• Yankee Doodle," is it not 
 barely possible that it would have answered just as good 
 a purpose as Mr. Langdon's prayer t Would not the sol. 
 diers have made the march lust as cheerfully and as ex- 
 peditiously f 
 
 Among the generals, patriots, and statesmen who wer» 
 in the Revolutionary struggle, it is not claimed that aU 
 had arrived at the same degree of unbelief or Infidelity, 
 It is conceded that Jeflferson and Paine were more pro- 
 nounced and outspoken in their radicalism and unbelief 
 than were Franklin and Washington, but all disbelieved 
 and denied the dogmas upon which the Christian Churclk 
 is founded— that Jesus Christ is God, the Supreme Powep 
 of the Universe— and that he penned or dictated the Jew- 
 ish and Christian Scriptures. They denied that one person 
 could be three, and that three persons could be one, and 
 that three and one are the same. Rejecting these cardinal 
 tenets in the Christian Church, they, of course, could not 
 be Christians, and must, of necessity, be ranked amonie 
 the Infidels. 
 
 You may attempt to prove that these were all Christian! 
 because in some respects they acted with the Christians, 
 not even excepting Jefferson. We hope, at all events, that 
 you will leave us Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine. I aslK 
 you not to make ChrisUana of them. It seems, too, that 
 after Thomas Jefferson has been a thousand times denounced 
 as an Infidel, from almost every pulpit ia this land— 
 both before and aftes his eleeUoA a» Fresident-yott 
 
 will find it a little laborious to make it clear to the com- 
 mon perception that he was a Christian in full command 
 ion. If you can make a clear case of it, I shall watch 
 your efforts with interest. He was quite as decided an In- 
 fidel as Paine, and was never afraid of having his views 
 upon theology known. There will be no trouble in show- 
 ing this from his own writings. I have not room in this 
 article to go into these quotations, but will in my next, 
 when I think I can also show that Washington entertained 
 the same theological views that Jefferson did, and that the 
 Bev. Br. Abercrombie, rector of the church in Philadel- 
 phia which Washington frequently attended during the 
 time that that city was the seat of government, and who 
 was acquainted with Washington's views, admitted that the 
 General was a Deist. Deists, of course, are Infidels. 
 Thomas Paine was only a Deist. I think I can show that 
 Franklin was also a Deist. 
 
 I am well aware that Christian biographers and pious ad- 
 ulators have made great efforts to show that Washington 
 was a Christian; that he was a sanctimonious man, and that 
 he preceded his engagements on the battle-field by prayer; 
 that it was discovered that upon a certain occasion he retired 
 into a thicket to pray; but the stories lack confirmation, and 
 is too much like the Sunday-school story about the cherry 
 tree and his little hatchet, in which it was impossible for 
 him to tell a lie— a story, by the way, first told by a 
 clergyman. 
 
 The truth is, Washington has been so far deified by an 
 admiring American people, and we have grown up from our 
 infancy with the impressions implanted upon our minds 
 that he was a model man, a great and good personage, far 
 superior to any other who lived at the same time, that he 
 is cxalled into a demi-god who could not tell a lie, who could 
 not use a profane word, and who was almost perfection it- 
 self. This is all an error. It is true rather that he had his faults 
 and failings like other men. He oould not only use duplic 
 
18 
 
 *"H» HUMFHrnST-BKBTHBTT DISOlTSBIOff 
 
 THE HXJMPHKET-BENIJETT DIflCUSSION. 
 
 13 
 
 111' 
 
 ity and strategy wlian neceastrjr, but he could swear 
 "like a trooper.'* Those who were well acquainted with 
 him pronounced him a profane man who often gave way to 
 passion, who was aristocratic and almost unapproachable to 
 his inferiors, and who often showed a species of tyran- 
 ny and cruelty. Still, the eminent services which he ren- 
 dered his country should be duly acknowledged and re- 
 membered, but not on the false ground that he was a 
 ChrisUan. d. m. Bbhhktt. 
 
 Mb. D. M. BwfKvn, Dmr Sir: I am pleased with the 
 courteousness of your reply, and with your candor in ad 
 mitting the substance of my last letter. Your concession 
 amounts to this: that, in the proportion that "ninety oi 
 ninety.flve per cent " is greater than ten or five per cent, 
 the Christians who resisted British tyranny were more 
 numerous than the Infidels who did the same. 
 
 You assert that resistance to constituted government, 
 even when it is oppressive and inhuman, is contrary to the 
 principles of Scripture. This Is an error. Bach passages 
 as "Be subject to principalities and powers," "Subject 
 yourselves unto kings or governors." " Render unto Casar 
 the things that are Casar's," mean simply that the Christian 
 should not be anarchical; he should be a law-abiding citi- 
 zen. There is no intimation in the Old Testament that the 
 Israelites violated the Divine law when they threw oflP the 
 Egyptian yoke. Nor is there a hint In the New that Jesua 
 did wrong in ignoring the Jewish Sanhedrim. 
 
 I was rather surprised to see you making such hit-or-misi 
 assertions respecting the religious opinions of certain per- 
 sons prominent in the Revolution. Of course. Thomaa 
 Paine is yielded to you. So is Ethan Allen. But I insist 
 that Mitffidof the others whom you oeme was an Infidel ii 
 
 the true sense of that word. Benjamin Rush was univer- 
 sally known as an eminently pious Christian. His "Essays** 
 put this beyond the reach of a doubt. The New American 
 Cyclopedia says of him that in 1791 "he wrote an able de- 
 fense of the Bible as a school-book. He was Vice Presi- 
 dent, until his death, of the Philadelphia Bible Society, of 
 which he was one of the earliest originators, and the con- 
 stitution of which he drafted." Parton says of Aaron Burr 
 that " he was no scoffer. He was desirous, while condemn- 
 ing the severe theology of his fathers, not to be thought an 
 unbeliever" (Life of Aaron Burr. vol. ii, pp. 274-329). 
 Alexander Hamilton was a believer in Christianity. In a 
 paper prepared in view of his duel with Burr he said: •*My 
 religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the 
 practice of duelling " (Morse's Life of Hamilton, Boston, 
 1876, vol. ii, p. 364). He sent for a clergyman to adminis- 
 ter the sacrament to him before his death (A Collection of 
 Facts and Documents relative to the Death of Alexander 
 Hamilton, 1804, pp. 47-56). Morse says: "He was a sin- 
 cere and earnest Christian. He had lately said of Chris- 
 tianity in his firm, positive way: *I have studied it, and 1 
 can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever 
 submitted to the mind of man* " (Life of Hamilton, voL ii, p. 
 870). If you want to find proof that Qouverneur Morris was 
 not an Infidel, I will refer you to his * 'Life," by Jared Sparks, 
 vol. i. pp. 508-9, vol. iii, p. 44. A careful examination of 
 such works as Rives* Life and Times of James Madison 
 will compel any one to see that our fourth President was 
 very far from being a rejecter of Christianity. 
 
 The four persons who played the most active part in the 
 Revolutionary struggle, and in the formation of the govern- 
 ment afterwards, are often claimed by Infidels, and too fre- 
 quently conceded to them by Christians. I refer to Wash- 
 ington, Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams. Let us now 
 throw aside as so much rubbish the "Sabbath-school 
 stories*' and religious magazine paragraphs, and also the 
 
14 
 
 THE HUMPHRBT-BENNEIT DISCUSSION. 
 
 "Liberal Club" traditioofl, with all the Infidel newspaper 
 tales respectiug these persons, and let us try to determine 
 from their own writings and from standard biographers what 
 their religious opinions really were. Let us consider them 
 in the order of their birth. 
 
 As Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, we will examine 
 his religious belief first There are several trustworthy 
 Liyes of Franklin before the public. The most recent is 
 that of Bigelow. But aa Parton's is in all essential matters 
 in agreement witu the rest, and as Mr. Parton is a '* liberal*' 
 man, we will refer chiefly to him. AU biographers get 
 their materials mainly from Franklin's Works, of which 
 there is an admirable collection edited by Sparks, Boston, 
 1840. 
 
 Franklin was raised under reHgious iDfluences. When a 
 mere boy he left home to make his own living. Before 
 leaving his teens he had read Shaftesbury, Collins, and other 
 Deistical writers. They shook his mind. When about 
 nineteen he wrote and published a ** Dissertation on Lib- 
 erty and Necessity." Its conclusions were that there is no 
 inherent distinction between virtue and vice, and that man 
 is really under the reign of Fate. But, as Lossing says, 
 *' Franklin always looked back to those early efforts of his 
 pen, in opposition to Christian ethics, with great regret " 
 (Lives of Celebrated Americans, p. 40). He afterwards did 
 all he could to gather every copy of his " Dissertation," and 
 annihilate it forever (Parton'e Life of Franklin, vol. i, p. 
 182). But it is on the strength of this treatise that Franklin 
 is claimed as an Infidel 1 We might as justly sum up Col. 
 Ingersoirs life, and say he was a drunkard and a Democrat, 
 because there has been a period when he was both. 
 
 When twenty-two he reconsidered his position and 
 retraced his steps. He passed through what Parton calls a 
 •'regeneration"! He drew up a creed and a liturgy for 
 himself (Parton's Life of Franklin, vol. i, pp. 167-178). 
 When twenty-three he called "Atheism " " nonsense,*' and 
 
 THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCX3SBI0N. 
 
 15 
 
 pronounced "the Christian religion the best of all relig- 
 Ions" (Ibid, vol. i, pp. 192-3). When fifty-eight he advised 
 and urged his daughter to " go constantly to Church,' to 
 •be devout, and "never miss the prayer days" i}h\A, vol. i, 
 456). When sixty-seven he styled himself a "Protestant of 
 the Church of England, holding in the highest venera- 
 tion the doctrines of Jesus Christ^' (Ibid. vol. i. p. 657). 
 When eighty he asked: " If men are so wicked twY/l religion, 
 what would they be wiChmt it ?" He advised a Freethinker 
 not to publish an Infidel work (Ibid, vol. ii, p. 654). In the 
 Convention of 1787, when he wps eighty-one, he made this 
 motion, ".That henceforth prayers, imploring the assistance 
 of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in 
 this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business; 
 and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested 
 to officiate in that service." 
 
 In tne course of his remarks in support of this motion he 
 «aid: "In this situation of this Assembly, gropmg, as it 
 were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to 
 distinguish It when presented to us, how has it happened. 
 Sir that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly ap- 
 plying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understend- 
 ings? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when 
 we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this 
 room for the Divine protection. Our prayers. Sir, were 
 heard ; and they were graciously answered. All of us who 
 were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent 
 instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To 
 ihat kind Providence we owe this opportunity of consulting 
 In peace, and the means of establishing our future national 
 felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? 
 or do we imagine we no longer need Its assistance? I have 
 lived Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more con- 
 vincing proofs I see of this truth: Thai God governs in ihs 
 <iffairs of men*' (Ibid, vol. ii, p. 573). 
 
 When eighty-four he gave a summary of his creed in these 
 
THH H UMFlUtBT-BBRM ETI' DrSCUSSTOIT. 
 
 i 
 
 words: •* I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universei. 
 Thai h6 govwns it by hi« Providence. That he ought to be 
 worshiped. That the mosl acceptable service to him ia do- 
 ing good to Ms other children. That the soul of man i» 
 immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another life 
 rcspectiag its conduct in lias." He was undecided in 
 fcgard to the divinity of Christ, but thought there was no 
 larm in believing that doctrine (vol. ii. p. G15-616). When 
 eighty-five, and near his death, " he had a picture of Christ 
 on the Cross placed so that he could conveniently look al 
 it as he lay in bed. • That,' he woitld say, ' is the picture 
 •f one who came into the world to teach men ta love one^ 
 mother' *• (Ibid, p. 6ia>. And "his last look, it is recorded^ 
 was cast upon the picture of Christ ** (Ibid, p. 619). 
 
 Can jGOy my dear Sir, have the hardihood to assert that ft 
 ■mn who lived such a life, and died such a death, was aa 
 Infidel ? Can you impugn the authorities to which I have 
 leferred you ? Would it not be better to reject the floating 
 gossip that Franklin was a Deist,, and accredit the facts of 
 hiatary—thAi he was a skeptic only in his niinorityj 
 Ihat when he became a man, he renounced his skepticism; 
 and that he drifted farther and farther from it wntil the end 
 •f his lifer 
 
 In regard to Washington I will say but a word. You say 
 lie was a Deist The only evidence you furnish is the testi- 
 mony of Dr. Abercrombie; and that testimony does not 
 come direct, but in a roundabout way which makes it very 
 unreliable. Robert Dale Owen said that •* Dr. Wikon" said 
 that Dr. Abercrombie said that Washington was a Deist t 
 Thomas Piune "did not choose to rest his belief on such evi- 
 dence" as "hearsay upon hearsay.*' How is it that you, 
 the disciple, are more credulous than your master I The 
 explanation is easy: This story about Abercrombie— more 
 ▼ague than the legend of the little hatchet— is the only scrap 
 ef proof that you can produce from all the libraries el thft 
 wcdd that Waahington was a Deist i 
 
 THE humphhey-bknnett discussion. 
 
 17 
 
 The truth is, Washington was a strictly moral and highly 
 leligious man. He prohibited card-playing, gaming, drink- 
 ing, and profanity among his troops. If divine services 
 were missed necessarily on Sunday, he would introduce 
 them at the earliest opportunity on a week day. He recom- 
 mended a special meeting for prayer and thanksgiving after 
 the capitulation at Yorktown. He was in the habit of fast- 
 ing. He made it a rule to attend church on the Sabbath. 
 In a letter dated Aug. 20, 1778, he said: "The hand of 
 Providence has been so conspicuous in all, that he must be 
 worse than ^n Infidel, that lacks faith, and more than wicked, 
 that has not gratitude to acknowledge his obligations." He 
 regarded " Religion and Morality as the essential pillars of 
 civil society." These statements are not old wives* fables. 
 You will find undeniable authority for all of them if you 
 will look over Washington's Writings, edited by Sparks, 
 Boston, 1835. See, in particular, vol. ii, pp. 141, 167, 406; voL 
 iv, p. 28; vol. v, p. 88; vol viii, p. J 89; vol. xii, pp. 245, 
 400, 402. Irving testifies that, in early life, he led prayer- 
 meetings, and that under special difficulties (Life of Wash- 
 ington, Leipzig, 1869, vol. i, p. 109). Weems, who was in- 
 timately acquainted with Washington, bears witness that he 
 was a devout and godly man (Life of Washington, 1837, pp. 
 174-189). You must rebut these authorities with stronger 
 authorities, or else admit that the Father of his Country 
 was far from being an Infidel. 
 
 Space compels me to defer my discussion of Adams and 
 Jefferson until my next Very respectfully, 
 
 G. H. HUMPHBBT. 
 
 HK. BBirVBSTT. 
 
 Rev. Q. H. Humphrey, Dear Br: 1 fear you arc inclined 
 to give me more credit than I am entitled to, as yon say I 
 admitted the substance of your first letter. You mistake; I 
 did not admit to much. I limply f teted that I did not claim 
 
18 
 
 THE HtJMPHBBT-BBNNSTT DIBCUSSIOK. 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCtTSSIOK. 
 
 Id 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 thiU unbelieyere, in the American strnggle, equaled, numeri 
 cally, the believera On all the other points I took issue 
 with you. 
 
 Ton are mistaken again in saying I asserted that, resist- 
 ance to constituted goyernment *•*• is contrary to the princi- 
 ples of Scripture.'* I said nothing of the kind. If you 
 will refer to my reply you will see that I said it was con- 
 trary to the spirit of (JhrUtianity^A very wide difference. 
 I readily grant that in the Old Testament there are numer- 
 ous instances where war and bloodshed were brought 
 into use to OTcrthrow existing governments. The Qod of 
 the Old Testament seems to have been more fond of war 
 and slaughter than anything else. He styled himself *' the 
 Lord of Hosts" and ** the Qod of Battles/' and gloried in 
 subduing enemies. But that was not Christianity, and I 
 defy you to cite one instance where the reputed founder of 
 Christianity, or its early promulgators, ever incited a war 
 for freedom, or even admitted the advisability of such a 
 struggle. The burden of Christ's teachings touching this 
 point, as I said, was, "submit" and "obey," "never 
 rebel," ** assert not your own independence." 
 
 I am very sure you cannot cite an instance where Christ, 
 or any of his disciples, ever encouraged a people to rise 
 against their oppressors, or to lift their hands to strike off 
 the chains that bound them. That would not have been the 
 spirit of Christianity. Its office, in its incipiency, was to 
 make people contented with their lot, and to enjoin them to 
 submit to the powers that were. Christ said explicitly ** My 
 kingdom is not of this world ; if my kingdom were of this 
 word, then would my servants fight." He found his own 
 nation groaning under the heel of foreign oppression, but 
 he said not a word to incite resistance to that oppression. 
 When the hand of tyranny was laid upon himself, and his 
 liberty and life were in peril, he moved not a finger towards 
 freedom. The tenor of all his teachings was to yield sub- 
 mission to the powm of this world, for ths glories thai 
 
 await in the next. No, Christ did not teach people to rise 
 nnd fight for liberty, nor even to aspire to political free- 
 dom. To fight for political rights was contrary to the 
 injunctions of him who said, ** My servants do not fight." 
 To do that was opposition to his entire teachings. It wm 
 Infidelity. Hence the American people were doing the work 
 of Infidelity when they took up arms to resist a Christian 
 power. 
 
 Tou seem disposed to claim persons as Christians who evi- 
 dently were not such. And before we go further, it will be 
 well to understand what is required in order to be a Chris- 
 tian. It does not make a man a Christian to be bom of Chris- 
 tian parents, to have a Christian wife, or to sometimes, or fre- 
 quently, attend a Christian church, nor to pay for a pew in a 
 Christian church. He is not a Christian though he admits 
 that Jesus had a real existence, that he was a good man and 
 taught good morals. It does not make a man a Christian to 
 believe that the Christian religion, in most respects, is an im- 
 provement on the systems that previously existed in the 
 world. It does not make a man a Christian to be a lover of 
 virtue and morality. This class of men have been foimd in 
 all systems of religion. But to be a Christian, a man must 
 accept and believe the dogmas constituting the Christian re- 
 ligion, the principal among which are that Jesus was divinely 
 begotten; that he is God; that he died to reconcile God to 
 man; to atone for a lost world; and that, without a belief in 
 him and in the efilcacy of bis blood, there can be no salva- 
 tion. This I have heard proclaimed from Christian pulpits 
 again and again, and I hardly think you will deny it. I will 
 call your attention to an ecclesiatical trial that is now pending 
 against the Rev. John Miller, Princeton, N. J., of your own 
 denomination (Presbyterian), for holding that the Bible does 
 not teach that Jesus is God; that he was simply a chosen man, 
 and for denying the Trinity. For this the Rev. Miller is 
 charged with being a heretic, or an Infidel, and there is but 
 little doubt that he will be expelled from the position in the 
 
m 
 
 TBE MUMFUUXT-IIINN BTT KSCVtoHOir. 
 
 TMM MUKPBRXT-BElf NBTT DIMOUSSZON. 
 
 SI 
 
 Christian pulpit which he has oceupied. So be careful, my 
 Friend, that yon do not claim as Christians those whom 
 your own ehurch does not accept. Let not Brother Miller''s 
 perils escape your obserration. 
 
 Before giving quotations from recognized authorities, I 
 wish to call your attention to the fact, that most of the biog- 
 raphies and histories published are written, directly or 
 indirectly, in the interest of Christianity. A large pro- 
 portion of them are written by Christian clergymen aw 
 Christian professors, or, at all eyents, they are written for 
 a Christian market, and cTerything is shaped and colored 
 accordingly. A shrewd caterer, of course, always prepares 
 IkisTiands to snit the tastt of his patrons, and to please those 
 who pay their money. When a great or distinguished man 
 has passed away, the fondness for making it appear that he 
 was a Christian, or that he accepted the Christian system, i» 
 most conspicuous, and it is often anmsing to notice the 
 Ingenuity employed in that direction. It is not to be 
 thought strange, then, if the Infidel views of our great men 
 are kept in the background, and that eveiy circumstance 
 which eren squints toward their feeling friendly to the 
 {Christian religion is most favorably presented. Sveiything 
 and everybody is expected to bow in submission to the great 
 Diana of the age--the Christian religion. 
 
 I cannot agree with you, that you have proved Franklin 
 to have been a Christian. His being raised under religioua 
 influences does not establish it. Paine was so reared, and so 
 were the larger share of Infidels. You admit that, during a 
 portion of his life, he was an Atheist. I did not claim so 
 much, but that he was a moderate Deist, or Moralist. You 
 speak of his having drawn up a creed and liturgy of his 
 own. He did so, but that hardly proves him a Christian, 
 but rather the reverse. Had he been a Christian, he would 
 liave needed no creed of hit own. The creed of the Chris- 
 tian Church would have been all he needed. Besides, hie 
 d^ was i^ura (teism. Qe ipol^ of ^d with great re?ei^ 
 
 enoe, but s^d nothing about his divine Son, nor of the cfll- 
 cacy of his blood, nor of his death. 
 
 Parton says (vol. i, p. 175): "As Franklin grew older he 
 abandoned the fantastical part of his creed and settled down 
 into the belief of these six articles: * There is one God, the 
 Creator of all things. God governs the world by his provi- 
 denc\ God ought to be worshiped. Doing good to man it 
 the service most acceptable to God. Man is ImmortaL In 
 the future world the disembodied souls of men will be dealt 
 with justly.' " This U Deism— nothing more, and nothing 
 less— and agrees as nearly with the religion of Thomas 
 Paine as the creeds of two men can agree. It contains 
 nothing of the dogmas of Christianity, nothing of the author 
 of it On page 71, vol. i, in speaking of the change which 
 had occurred in Franklin's views, Parton says: ** He escaped 
 the theology of terror and became forever incapable of wor- 
 shiping a jealous, revengeful, and vindictive God." If 
 Parton was correct, Franklin was forever incapacitated for 
 becoming a Christian. 
 
 On page 319, vol. i, Parton settles the question of Franl»- 
 lin's belief most conclusively. He says: "In conversation 
 with familiar friends he (Franklin) called himself a Deist or 
 Theist, and he resented a sentence in Mr. Whitefield's Jour, 
 nal which seemed to imply that between a Deist and an 
 Atheist there was little or no difference. Whitefield wrote: 
 • M. B. is a Deist ; I had almost said an Atheist ' * That is,» 
 said Franklin, * eJuUk, I had almost said charcoal.' " It 
 will be seen by this that, while Franklin did not like to be 
 called an Atheist, he notably called himself a Deist, and 
 did not object to others doing so ; and there is not the first 
 particle of proof that he ever changed from this position. 
 
 On page 546, vol. i, Parton, in speaking of the intimacy 
 oetween Priestley and Franklin, quotes from Priestley's 
 Autobiography these words: "It is much to be lamented 
 that a man of Franklin's general good character and great in- 
 fluence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and 
 
I 
 
 1 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 in 
 
 THE HUMPHRXT-BENKBrr DUOUflSlON. 
 
 ileo have done so much as be did to make others unbeliev. 
 ere.*' Priestley furnished some works upon the evidences of 
 Christianity for Franklin to read, but the American war 
 breaking out soon after, he presumed Franklin never read 
 them. I regard these as positive proofs of Franklin's 
 Deism. Priestley knew him well and had frequent conver- 
 iatlons with him upon the subject, and. though he was him- 
 self considered very radical, and was often denounced as an 
 Infidel, he still regretted that Franklin was still more unbe- 
 lieving. If Priestley, who knew him so intimately, knew 
 him to be a Deist, is it not a work of supererogation in us, 
 who knew him much less intimately, to undertake to call 
 him a Christian? In his comments Parton says: •* Perhaps 
 If the two men were now alive, we might express the theo- 
 logical difference between them by saying Priestley was a 
 Unitarian of the Channing school, and Franklin of that of 
 Theodore Parker "—a total unbeliever la the dogmas of 
 Christianity. Everybody knows that Parker was a thou- 
 sand times denounced as an Infidel. 
 
 To show how great a reverence Franklin entertained for 
 the sacredness of the Bible, I wUl allude to a fact which 
 Parton mentions (vol. i, p. 830). It was a custom with 
 Franklin to amuse himself and his friends by taking up the 
 Bible and pretending to read from it, instead of which he 
 extemporized as he went along. Had he believed the 
 Bible to be the word of God, he would hardly have subject- 
 ed it to caricature and ridicule in that manner. 
 
 In vol. ii, p. 412, is mentioned the list of Franklin's 
 friends in Paris, with whom he was on familiar terms, as 
 follows. Turgot, Raynal, Morcellet, Rochefoucault, Buf- 
 foD, D'Alembert, Condorcet, Oabanis, LeRoy, Mabley, Mi- 
 rabeau, D'Holbach, Marmontel. Necker, Malesherbes, Wat- 
 elet, Madame de Genlis, Madame Denis, Madame Helve- 
 tius, Madame Brillon, Madame de St«el, La Viellard, etc. 
 These were mostly Infidels and were, to say the least, 
 rather questionable company for a Christian. Jonathan Ed- 
 
 THB HTJMPHRET - BENNETT DI9CUS8I0K. 
 
 38 
 
 wards would hardly have selected them for companione. 
 Voltaire and Franklin entertained a high regard for each 
 other. They met at a theatre on a certain occasion in Paris. 
 when they embraced each other like brothers. Voltaire 
 would hardly have been so affectionate towards a Christian, 
 nor a Christians toward Voltaire. 
 
 You speak of Franklin advising a Freethinker not to pub- 
 lish a certain skeptical work which he had written. This 
 has often been said to refer to Paine and his "Age of Rea- 
 son." To show how far this is from being the truth, it is 
 only necessary to state that Franklin died not less than three 
 years before a word of the "Age of Reason " was written. 
 Parton says: ** Paine was a resident of Philadelphia, a fre- 
 quenter of Franklin's house, and was as well aware as we 
 are of Dr. Frnklin's religious opinions. Nor is there much 
 in the "Age of Reason" to which Franklin would have 
 refused his assent " (vol. ii. p. 553). He classes Franklin 
 with such Ghritiiant (?) as Goethe, Schiller, Voltaire, Hume, 
 and Jefferson, and says they all would have belonged to the 
 same church (vol. ii, p. 646). Does that look much as 
 though Parton considered Franklin a Christian? If Frank- 
 Un could have accepted the "Age of Reason," it is a marvel 
 how you can claim him as a Christian! 
 
 Allow me to make a few quotations from Franklin's pri- 
 vate letters. To B. Vaughan (1778) he said: ** Remember 
 me affectionately to good Dr. Price and to the honest here- 
 tic, Dr. Priestley. I do not call him honest by way of dis- 
 tinction, for I think all the heretics I have known have been 
 virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude, or they 
 would never venture to own their heresy." That does not 
 sound much Uke a Christian. How he felt toward the 
 Bible may be inferred from an extract from a letter which 
 he wrote to a friend, in 1784. He observes: "There are 
 several things in the Old Testament impossible to be given 
 bjdivtne inspiration; auch as the approbation ascribed to 
 the angel of the Lord, of that abominably wicked and de- 
 
u 
 
 TMM WUMFBXKT-Waumm DIBCUBSIOir. 
 
 testable action of Jael. the wife of Heber the Kenite^ 
 (Opinions of Celebrated Men, p. 9). This is sufflcient to 
 show that certaia parts of the Bible, at least, he did not 
 believe were given by divine inspiration, and there is noth- 
 ing to prove that he hai any special veneration for the book 
 as a whole. There is also nothing to show ihat he believed 
 Jesus to be a god or to have been diTfucl^ h^jrutten by God. 
 When he had reached the great age of eighty-five years] 
 and President Ezra Stiles, of Yale, addressed him *, letter] 
 asking positively as to his views regarding Jesus Christ, ho 
 showed in his reply that they had undergone no material 
 change. He wrote: •* As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion 
 of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of 
 morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the 
 world ever saw. oris like to see; but I appreiend it has 
 received various corrupting changes, and 1 have, with the 
 present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divin- 
 ity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having 
 never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with 
 it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the 
 truth with less trouble." This was probably his last utter- 
 ance upon the subject; and while he did not wish to express 
 himself harshly to his respected Christian friend, De con- 
 f essed that though he r^arded the teachings of Jesus as su- 
 perior to the human teachers who had preceded him, and his 
 system of religion an improvement upon the old pagan sys- 
 tems, he did not accept his divinity; that he had not Uken 
 Interest enough in it to study the question, and that is view 
 of an early visitation of death, he did not deem it necessary 
 to do so. He did not fear to die in his belief that Jesus was 
 simply a good man— a position that nearly all Deists occupy. 
 I repeat, then, Franklin was emphatically a Deist, and he 
 died without experiencing any change of views upon the 
 subject The painting you spoke of proves little. It might 
 liave been a fine work of art, or the gift of a dear friend, but 
 bectnie it wis in Us room, or because his eyes rested nptm 
 
 •m HinCPHBET-BBHKSTT DISOUBSION. 
 
 n 
 
 it, does not show that he at anytime accepted Jesus as God, 
 or that his life-long deistical views had changed. He did noi 
 deem it necessary to wash in Jesus* blood, nor to have any 
 special part in him. before or after he closed his eyes ia 
 
 death. 
 
 As to Washington, you anticipated somewhat the evidence 
 I intended to present, and you seem not satisfied with its 
 directness. It certainly is not very " roundabout," nor very 
 apocryphal in character. Robert Dale Owen, a gentleman 
 of unblemished character and great intelligence, is still liv- 
 ing. He had seen an article in the Albany Daily Advertiser 
 of October 29, 1831, from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Wilson of 
 the Episcopal church in that city, in which he had given as 
 authority Dr. Abercrombie. rector of the Episcopal church 
 in Philadelphia which Washington attended while Presi- 
 dent, that on occasions of the administration of the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper, Washington invariably absented 
 himself ; and when in a discourse the Doctor reprovingly 
 alluded to it Washington took some offense at it and was 
 never known to stay through the ceremony and participate 
 in the rite. Mr. Owen called upon Dr. Wilson. He read to 
 him the Advertiser article, and said he had called to converse 
 with him upon the subject of what his friend. Dr. Aber- 
 crombie, had said in reference to Washington. Dr. Wil- 
 son's response was as follows, "I endorse every word of 
 that," and further added, "As I conceive that truth ia 
 truth, whether it make for us or against us, I will not con- 
 ceal from you any information I have on this subject, even 
 such as I have not given to the public.*' He then narrated 
 the conversations he had with Dr. Abercrombie upon the 
 subject of Washington's religious views, and gave that emi- 
 nent clergyman's word's, thus. **Sm. Washington was a 
 Dkibt I " •* Now," continued Dr. Wilson, ** I have perused 
 every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I 
 do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a 
 professor of Christianity. I think any man who will can- 
 
M 
 
 THE HUHPHBST • BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THB HUMPUREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 S7 
 
 I 
 
 didiy do as I have done will come to the conclusion that he 
 was a Deist and nothing more^ (Bachelor and Owen Debate, 
 p. 889). 
 
 I repeat, this does not strike me as bein^^ *' round- 
 about or unreliable." Between Dr. Abercrombie and Mr. 
 Owen was only Dr. Wilson, and all three of the gentlemen 
 were men of character and reliability, and Dr. Abercrombie 
 had excellent opportunities for knowing Washiogton's views. 
 Tour allusion to what Paine said about '* hearsay upon 
 hearsay '' in his remarks about r§9aaiion appear to be hardly 
 to the point. And permit me to add, if the system of relig- 
 ion which you so greatly revere were based upon testimony 
 half as direct and reliable as this of Dr. Abercrombie, Dr. 
 Wilson and Robert Dale Owen, ite credibility would be 
 greatly improved. In this case there is nothing of the nature 
 of a dream related by a second party, from fifty to one hun- 
 dred and fifty years after it was said to have been dreamed. 
 
 Touching Washington's religious views, Thomas Jefferson 
 wrote as follows in his journal of 1800 (Jefferson's Works, 
 vol. iv, p. 672): *'Dr. Rush told me, he had it from Asa 
 Green, that when the clergy addressed Geo. Washington on 
 his departure from the government, it was observed in their 
 consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a 
 word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian 
 religion, and they thought they should so pen their addresses 
 as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was 
 a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was 
 too cnnning for them. He answered every article of their 
 address, particularly, except that, which he passed over 
 without notice. Rush observes, he (Washington) never did 
 say a word on the subject in any of his public papers, ex- 
 cept in his valedictory letters to the governors of the States, 
 when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he 
 speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. I 
 know that Gouvemenr Morris, who claimed to be In his 
 •(crets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me thai 
 
 Oeneral Washington believed no more in that system Chns- 
 Snity)thanhedid.'' ^o mnc^ f^or. JeEerson J^^^^ 
 ttot speak very strong for Washington's belief in Chris- 
 
 tianity, or Morris* either. 
 
 Washington's reticence on doctrinal points was marked. 
 He was discreet and non-commital; he did not obtrude his 
 Deistic views upon others, but that he firmly maintained 
 them cannot be doubted. I agree with you that he was a 
 moral man,but you hardly have the guarantee for saying 
 that he was " highly religious." He was no more so than is 
 compatible with a belief in Deism. I think you cannot quote 
 a paragraph, that he wrote or a word that he uttered, which 
 shows that he accepted the dogmas of Christianity, that he 
 believed that Jesus is God and that his blood is essential to the 
 salvation of the world. While he was President he signed 
 a treaty made between our government and Tripoli, where- 
 m it was solemnly declared that '*the government of the 
 United States is not in any sente founded on the Christian 
 
 religion." ^ . j * 
 
 As to Benjamin Rush, perhaps I was hardly authorized U> 
 class him among the Deists, though he was a liberal and 
 progressive man. Possibly the friendship he showed to 
 Paine and the manner in which Jefferson uses his name and 
 remarks justified my doing so. There may be no accessible 
 proof that Hamilton was a Deist, though probably as much 
 as there is that he was a Christian, or that he believed m 
 the Christian dogmas. I. however, waive special claim to 
 Hamilton. As to Aaron Burr, I did not say nor intimate that 
 he was a "'scoffer," nor did I suppose he was so more than 
 Franklin, Washington or Jefferson. If, however, you had 
 been a little fuller in your quotation from Parton. you would 
 have shown that Burr was all I claimed him to be-one who 
 did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. At the time of 
 Burr's death, Dr. Van Pelt, Reformed Dutch clergyman, was 
 called in. and he questioned Burr closely upon his Delief in 
 the merits of Jesus, who suffered and died on the cross for 
 
 I 
 / 
 
• 
 
 II 
 
 J' 
 
 nn HITMPHBET-BEKKBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 the salration of the world. Burr's laconic and coDclnsive 
 reply was, ** On that subject I am coy ** (Life and Times of 
 Barr, p. 681). If he entertained any belief In Jesus being 
 the son of God, and that he must be saved by faith in him, 
 that was the time for him to confess it. He should then 
 have ceased to be eo^ or silent But he did not ; and 
 you have no just grounds upon which to claim him as a 
 Christian. The same with GouTeraeur Morris. Of him 
 and Madison I will probably have more to say as we pro- 
 gress. D. M. B. 
 
 THB HUMPflBET-BBNNETT DI8CUSSI0H. 
 
 29 
 
 MB. HUMPHRBT. 
 
 Kbw Yobx, April 28, 1877. 
 Mb. B. M. "Bmswam—Jhar Sir: Examine my last letter 
 closer and you will find I did not say that Franklin wai 
 erer an Atheist. Tou say his creed contains no recognition 
 of the divinity of Christ. That is true; hut the doctrine cf 
 the divinity of Chriat is not the dividing line between Infidelity 
 and Christianity^ but the doctrine of the divine origin of the 
 Bible, See Webster's and Worcester's definitions of the 
 words "Infidelity" and "Christianity." When Part on says 
 Franklin "escaped the theology of terror, and became 
 forever incapable of worshiping a jealous, revengeful 
 and vindictive God/' he meant no more than that 
 he was emancipated from the hyper-Calvinism of "the 
 Lord Brethren of Boston '* (Life of Franklin, vol i, p. 71). 
 He had still the wide domain of Arminianisih to traverse 
 before reaching the borders of Deism. If his friendship 
 with French Atheists proves that he was an Infidel, then, 
 on the same principle, his friendship with such men as Cot- 
 ton Mather, Samuel Adams, Ezra Stiles, Benj. Rush, Ed- 
 mund Burke, Adam Smith, John Jay, Bishop Shipley, 
 George Whitfield, etc., etc., proves that he was a flrst-rato 
 Cbriatian. It is true Franklin and Yoltaire were friends; 
 
 but that embracing in the theatre proves nothing, as it was 
 not spontaneous, but an act forced by the popular clamor 
 for a salutation "French fashion" (Parton's Life of Franklin, 
 vol. ii, p. 316). As you say, Parton classifies Franklin, 
 Jefferson, and Adams with Paine. But how does he do it? 
 Is it by asserting that the former three were Freethinkers T 
 No; unaccountable as that may be, he does it by saying 
 that the "Age of Reason contains nothing against religion" 
 (Life of Franklin, vol. ii, p. 562) 1' It is said again that 
 Franklin " called himself a Deist or Theist." A man that 
 can use words in that helter-skelter kind of a way could 
 prove anything from any document. "Deist or Theist"! 
 Mr. Parton ought to know that these words, as they are 
 currently used and popularly understood, are as different 
 as "chalk" and "charcoal." The former means an Infidel, 
 and the latter signifies a believer in a personal God and in a 
 divine revelation. That Franklin was a Theist is all I con. 
 tend for. I will let you and Parton reconcile the foregoing 
 with what the latter says of Franklin in his remarks on the 
 motion for prayers in the Convention of 1787: " It was the 
 more remarkable to see the aged Franklin, who was a Deist 
 at fifteen "—mark it, " wmm a Deist at fifteen "—"and had 
 just returned from France/'— from the midst of those Athe- 
 istic friends—" coming back to the sentiments of his ances- 
 tors" (Parton's Life of Franklin, vol. ii, p. 675). You 
 refer to Priestley's lamentation that Franklin was " an un- 
 believer in Christianity." I will say, in the words of Par- 
 ton, " I do not understand what Priestley meant." What 
 did he disbelieve? He was only undecided as to the divinity 
 of Christ. He believed in the most incredible doctrines of 
 Christianity, such as the resurrection of the body and 
 future rewards and punishments, and in its leading duties, 
 sudh as thanksgiving and prayer. In the preface to his 
 abridged book of Common Prayer, he styled himself a 
 "Protestant of the Church of England," and a "sincere 
 lover of social worship." In iplte of Parton*» leaning to 
 
THB HUMPH RKT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 L 
 
 m 
 III 
 
 "Liberalism/' he liad to describe. his death by saying 
 '* To use the ancient language, he htid fallen asleep in Jesus, 
 and rested in hope of a blessed immortality" (70I. ii, p. 619), 
 
 Tou repeat the ** hearsay upon hearsay " in rebuttal of my 
 proofs that Washington was not a Deist. I cannot receiYe 
 R D. Owen's testimony, but with suspicion. A man that 
 could be imposed upon by a silly girl like Katie King, is 
 rather incompetent to sift and furnish evidence. The 
 treaty with Tripoli, ratified in 17»6, was "in no sense" of 
 a personal character. The statement that '* the Government 
 of the United States is In no sense founded on the Christian 
 religion," was only an assurance that the American Repub- 
 lic was not so allied to Christianity that the peace with 
 Tripoli, or with any other power, would be interrupted on 
 account of religion. It gives no hint that Washington perMm- 
 aUy ignored Christianity. His writings contain abundant 
 proof that he did not. The only thing "observed " was his 
 ■ilence on sectarian doctrines. He was bold and frequent 
 in his commendation and recommendation of the general 
 principles of Christianity. 
 
 Even Vale admits that the "publication of Paine's Do- 
 istical opinions might have been one of the causes of Gen. 
 Washington's indifference to Paine durhig his imprisonment 
 in France " (Life of Paine, p. 129). Most assuredly, then, 
 Washington was no sympathizer with Deism. 
 
 But it is claimed that John Adams, too, was an Infidel. 
 Let us see about that. He was reared in an orthodox fam- 
 ily. He was educated at Harvard, an institution that was 
 then pervaded by a religious spirit At twenty he thought 
 of entering the ministry. But his taste led him to study 
 law. He read many skeptical works, which modified the 
 rigidity of his theological views. He disliked Calvinism, 
 80 did Adam Clarke and John Wesley. He despised 
 wrangling sectarianism. So did St. Paul. As evidence 
 that this representation is correct, see Bancroft, vol iii, p 
 142; voL ▼, p. 207, 
 
 TBS nUMPHRBT - BBNKSTT DIBCUBSIO^. 
 
 3S 
 
 A patient and impartial examination of John Adams* Lifr 
 and Works, Boston, 1856, cannot but show you that he was 
 not a Deist. In his diary, Jan. 22, 1756, he wrote: "Sup- 
 pose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible 
 for their only law-book, and every member should regulate 
 his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every mem- 
 ber would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and 
 frugality and industry; to justice and kindness and charity 
 towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence 
 towards Almighty God. In this commonwealth no man 
 would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust; 
 no man would sacrifice his most precious time at cards, or 
 any other trifling and mean amusement; no man woiid 
 steal or lie, or in any way defraud his neighbor, but would 
 live in peace and good will with all men; no man would 
 blaspheme his Maker or profane his worship (Works, vol. 
 ii, pp. 6, 7). He says of Bolingbroke, whom he admired 
 as ApoUiieal writer: "His religion is a pompous folly, and 
 his abuse of the Christian religion is as superficial as it it 
 impious;" *'a haughty, arrogant, sux>ercilious dogmatist'* 
 (voL i, p. 44; vol. x, p. 82). At the age of sixty he saidt 
 '* The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever 
 prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion 
 of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity " (vol. iii, p. 421). 
 In a letter to Benj. Rush, in 1810, he said: " The Christian 
 r( ligion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory 
 and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, 
 self-existent, independent, benevolent, all-powerful, and 
 ull-merciful creator, preserver, and father of the Universe, 
 the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as 
 long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, with' 
 eut a revelation^ could ever have discovered or invented it " 
 (vol ix, p. 627). In a letter to Jefferson, dated Dec. 25, 
 1813, he wrote: " I have examined all, as well as my narrow 
 sphere, my straitened means, and my busy life would allow 
 me; and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the 
 
Tim BUHPHRST-BEKKSTT BlfiCUSSIOR. 
 
 lii' 
 
 
 [i 
 
 ii 
 
 It 
 
 
 world, it contains more of my litlle philosophy than all 
 tho libraries I have seen ; and such parts of it as I cannot 
 reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future in- 
 ▼estigaticn" (vol. x, p. 86). Bancroft says he "invoked 
 Ihe blessins; of heaven to make the new-born republic more 
 glorious than any which had gone before " (vol. v, p. 812). 
 The most that can be said of him is that he was a Uaitarian 
 of the most conservative kind (Works, vol. i., p. 621; vol, 
 iii, p. 423; vol x, pp. 66, 84). But he did not "deny 
 Christianity and the truth of the Scriptures,*' therefore he 
 was not an InOdeL 
 
 The thoroughly religious character of his &on, John 
 Quincy Adams, shows that he did not impart Deistical in- 
 struction. His writings abound with severe criticisms on 
 Paiiie*8 views. This we shall show more fully hereafter. 
 
 But you have put in a tpedal claim to Thomas Jefferson. 
 The inquiry will naturally arise, How did Jefferson come to 
 have the name of being an Infidel t Tlie answer substan- 
 tittlly is, That this story was circulated by political oppo* 
 uents in the campaign of 1800, and it has been kept alivo 
 ever since, mostly by those who desired it to be true. This 
 stoiy is about as creditable and about as credible as its co> 
 temporaneous calumny that he had a bistard by one of h^s 
 slaves (Barton's Life of Jefferson, p. 509). 
 
 I will argue that Jefferson was not a Deist, in the full 
 sense of that term, in four ways; 1. From his early training. 
 His parents were, theoretically and practically, believers in 
 the Christian religion. Their illustrious son was thoroughly 
 indoctrinated in that religion. Of course, this does not 
 prow that he continued to cherish those principles ; but 
 In the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, the 
 presumption would be that he did. 
 
 2. An argument of some weight may be based on the 
 man whom he admired most, and in whose learning and 
 judgment he had the greatest confidence. 1 refer to Dr. 
 Priestley. I have ejumined PriesUcy's works carefully. 
 
 M 
 
 ^HB HtJSIPHRBT BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 n 
 
 imd especially those to wbich Jefferson refers with bis 
 endorsement. In those works there is not a word of denial 
 that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God. The 
 author argues invariably //'om the Bible, but never against 
 ft He contended for what he conceived to be purely 
 Scriptural doctrines. On reading the life of Priestley I 
 find, moreover, that he wrote a book in defence of the Bible 
 against the attacks of Volney and Paine. If this was the 
 character of Priestley, the master, may we not ffUrly infer 
 that that of Jefferson, the disciple, was sinailar to it ? 
 
 8. We may certainly reason from Jefferson's own writ- 
 ings. He admits that he was sometimes more angry witk 
 sectaries than is authorised by the blessed charities whick 
 Jesus preached (Works, vol. vii, p. 128). This occasional 
 '•• anger " may account for his occasionally rash expressions. 
 The general tenor of his correspondence is on the side of the 
 Christian religion. In several of his letters he complained 
 that *' libels" had been published against him (vol. iv, 
 p. 477— Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. iii., p. 45). 
 He wrote to Dr. Rush in the year 1803 that his real 
 sentiments were vqry different from that anti-Christian 
 system attributed to him by those who knew nothing of 
 liis opinions (Works, vol. iv, p. 479). In his bill for estab- 
 lishing religious freedom, he referred to " the holy Author 
 of our Religion." In referring to a collection of New Tes. 
 tament passages which he called " Philosophy of Jesus," 
 be said: ** A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I 
 have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real 
 Vhristian " (Works, vol. vi, p. 518). He believed in future 
 rewards and punishments (Works, vol. vii, p. 252). He 
 spoke of the Bible sls & revelation (Works, vol. iv., p. 423; 
 vol. vii., p. 281). In a letter to Rush in 1803 he said: "Tt> 
 the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but 
 not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. lama Vfirii- 
 dan in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; 
 «inoere1y aUached to bis doctrines, in preference to all 
 
m 
 
 THE nUJIPUBKY-BBNNETT DISCUBSIOlf. 
 
 THB nUMPHRET-BENKBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 S5 
 
 '^ ' 
 
 II 
 
 others; ascribing to Mm every human excellence, and 
 believing he never claimed any other" (Works, vol. iv, p, 
 479). Shortly before his dissolution he said; '* I resign my- 
 self to my God, and my child to my conntry " (Encyclope- 
 dia Britannica). 
 
 In reply to all this you will probably remind ns that 
 Jefferson disliked the Presbyterians; that he had to over- 
 ride some of the clergy to establish religious toleration; that 
 he said some pretty hard things of those who seemed ta 
 have more zeal than knowledge; that he advised Peter Carr 
 to •* fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal 
 every fact, every opinion"; that he made no Thanksgiving 
 proclamations; and that he entertained Paine, and spoke 
 well of his writings— all of which is no proof that Thomas 
 Jefferson was an Infidel. The Presbyterians were disliked 
 in that age by almost every other denomination. Religious 
 toleration was advocated and established by the Revolution- 
 ary statesmen, not because they were opposed to religion, 
 but because they wanted to give to every form of religion 
 equal protection and equal privileges. The advice to Peter 
 Carr was only an application of the Protestant doctrine of 
 the **right of private judgment." No one denounced Phar- 
 isees as did the Founder of Christianity. Jefferson's refusal 
 to proclaim Thanksgiving days was based, not on any an- 
 tagonism to religion, but on his peculiar construction of the 
 Constitution. They were not all Deists that entertained 
 Thomas Paine occasionally. James Monroe kept him in 
 his house in Paris for eighteen months; but it is well 
 JEBOwn that President Monroe lived and died a Christian, 
 And almost everybody, regardless of religious belief, spoke 
 well of Paine's polUicai writings. Jefferson never endorsed 
 any other. 
 
 4. There is another consideration worth mentioning. II 
 does not sppear that Jefferson and Thomas Paine ever ex- 
 changed ideas on religion. Randall says this topic did not 
 enter into the conversation when the latter visited Monti 
 
 cello in 1802 (Life of Jefferrson, vol. ii, p. 644). Some nine 
 or ten of Jefferson's letters to Paine are still extant. Relig- 
 ion is scarcely mentioned in any of them. It cannot be said 
 that Jefferson's silence arose from any distaste for the sub- 
 ject, for his letters to other friends are full of tlioughts on 
 that very theme. Is not this an incidental proof that there 
 was no congeniality between Paine's and Jefferson's relig- 
 ious views? 
 
 6. But my conclusion from Jefferson's writings is by no 
 means siogular. It is substantially that of nearly all his 
 standard biographers. Even Parton calls Adams and Jeffer- 
 son -Christians" (Life of Jefferson, p. 570). The Cyclopedia 
 Americana and the Encyclopedia Britannica do not intimate 
 that he was an unbeliever. The New American Cyclope- 
 dia in 1864 said: "Discarding faith as unphilosophical, he 
 became an Infidel." But the edition of 1874 says simply: 
 " He carried the rule of subjecting everything to the test of 
 abstract reason into matters of religion, venerating the moral 
 character of Christ, but -refusing belief in his divine mis- 
 sion," i. e. , disbelieving in his divinity. Quite a modification, 
 or rather recantation, in ten years. Tucker says: **Hi8 relig- 
 ious creed, as disclosed in his correspondence, cannot per- 
 haps be classed with that of any particular sect; but he was 
 nearer the Socinian than any other. In the last years of his 
 life, when questioned by any of his friends on this subject, 
 he used to say he was an Unitarian " (Life of Jefferson, 
 London, 1837, vol. ii, p. 563). Bancroft says: *' He was 
 not only a hater of priestcraft and superstition and bigotry 
 and intolerance, he was thought to be indifferent to relig- 
 ion; yet his instincts all inclined him to trace every fact to 
 a general law, and to put faith in ideal truth; the world 
 of the senses did not bound his aspirations, and he believed 
 more than he was himself aware of " (vol. v, p. 323). Linn 
 says: "However opposed Mr. Jefferson may have been to 
 what he considered the corruptions or abuses of Christianity, 
 yet to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel he was strongly 
 
CTB HUMFHBST'BXHNBTT DISCUBSIOH. 
 
 i 
 
 attached; and of our Savior he was a warm and professed 
 admirer (Life of Jefferson, Ithaca, 1889, p. 364.) 
 
 Perhaps the best Life of Jefferson is that by Henry S. 
 Kaudall, LL.D. In the preparation of it the author had the 
 approbation and assistance of Mr. Jefferson's family. He 
 devotes the fourteenth chapter of the third volume to a dis- 
 cussion of Jefferson's religious belief. He denies emphat- 
 ically that he was an Infidel. He shows that he wished to 
 put a representation of the Israelites in the wilderness, led 
 by the pOlar of fire, as a device on the United States seal; 
 that he once advocated the obeervance of a national fast; 
 that he contributed largely to religious enterprises; that he 
 attended the Episcopal church regularly, and took part in 
 the services; that his wife was a member of that church; 
 that his children were baptiaed In it; and that he himself 
 was buried according to its rites. He was neither anti- 
 Christian in sentiment nor unchristian in deportment HSi 
 himadf denied that Ae imm an Infid^ «^ daimed to be a 
 Chrisiian. Before it can be proven that he teas an Infidel it 
 must be shown that he was an unmitigated hypocrite. 
 
 I submit that I have proved the following points: 
 
 1. That Washington was not only a moral but a religious 
 
 man. 
 
 2. That Franklin was a theoretical and practical believer 
 
 !n Christianity, growing in faith as he advanced in years. 
 He was undecided respecting the divinity of Christ, but 
 leaned to the orthodox side. 
 
 8. That Adams was an Unitarian of the Priestley and 
 Channmg type. He believed in the Bible as a divine reve- 
 lation. Hence, he was not a Deist _ 
 
 4 That Jefferson too was an Unitarian, but of somewhat 
 looser views than Adams. If it is difficult to reconcile 
 some things he said with a belief in the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, it is equally difficult, if not much more so, to 
 make the preponderance of his utterances to tally with 
 luadttlity. Take the amrofie of what he said about fellg- 
 
 THE HUMPanEY-BENXETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 87 
 
 Ion, and you cannot but feel that it is in striJci^g eontrast 
 with what Paine published on the same subject. If Chris- 
 tianity is not entitled to him without some qualifications, 
 Infidelity cannot claim him without discrediting what he 
 said of himself. 
 
 To Christianity, then, and not to Infidelity, belongs the 
 credit for what Franklin, Washington, Adams, and Jeffer- 
 son did for American liberty. 
 
 In my next I will endeavor to give the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth, about Thomas Paine. 
 
 Very respectfully yours. G.H. Humphbbt. 
 
 silt. BBNNBTT. 
 
 Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: Should you, at any 
 time, decide to bring out a work entitled, ** How to Make 
 Christians with Facility, in Six Easy Lessons,'* I think I 
 can cheerfully give you a recommendation for special 
 ability in that line. By your system almost any distin- 
 guished man who has passed away may be shown to have 
 been a good Christian. Let us try it on a few acknowl- 
 edged Infidels. To begin with Thomas Paine: 1. He was 
 born of religious parents who were ** theoretically and prac- 
 tically believers in the Christian religion"; 2. Among his 
 friends were persons who were regarded as excellent Chris- 
 tians; 8. In his writings he never denied the existence of 
 God, nor a life beyond the grave; 4. He said nothing disre- 
 spectful of the author of Christianity; 5. He advocated the 
 best of morals, and was actuated by a deep love for the hu- 
 man race. Among the many good things he said were these 
 utterances: '* I believe in one €k)d and no more, and I hope 
 for happiness beyond this life**; ** I believe the equality of 
 man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing ius- 
 tice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow 
 
ff 
 
 TOm HTJMPQBBT-BBKNSTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 creatures happy"; "It is impossible to be a hypocrite and to 
 he brave at the same time"; " I believe that any system of 
 religion that shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true 
 system"; *'Ohl ye that love mankind; ye that dare oppose 
 not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth I Every 
 spot of the Old World is overrun with oppression; Freedom 
 has been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have 
 long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and 
 England hath given her warning to depart. O, receive the 
 fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind"; 
 "The world is my country; to do good my religion." A 
 man who could pronounce such sentiments as these must 
 necessarily be a good and religious man, hence a Christian. 
 Had Paine been President, it is not at all unlikely that an 
 effort would be made to prove him to have been an excel- 
 lent Christian. 
 
 By a similar process R G. IngersoU can be shown to be 
 ft Christian. He was bom of religious parents; his father 
 was a clergyman; he regularly received religions instruc- 
 tion in his youth; his incentives are moral and humane; he 
 has many friends who are Christians. He dined with our 
 Christian President, and on Sunday, too; he is a friend to tbo 
 human race, and has done naught to injure it. He has 
 spoken many excellent truths; many matchless utterances 
 have escaped his lips. Such a ono is a good man, and hence 
 must be a Christian. 
 
 6. F. Underwood, by a similar course of reasoning, can be 
 shown to be a Christian. Moral; religious parents; rect;ived 
 early pious instruction; is a friend to mankind; has been 
 guilty of no immoral conduct; faithfully served his country 
 in the late wai^he cannot be other than a Christian. 
 
 Even your humble servant, by your proceps, could be made 
 to count as a Christian were it desirable. Was born in a Chris- 
 tian land, of parents who accepted the Christian religion. His 
 mother was a member of the Church; he had the benefit of 
 early religious instruction ; attended church and Sunday- 
 
 THE HUM.PaUEY-BENXETT ©I3CUSSI0N. 
 
 39 
 
 iMhool regularly in childhood; learned parts of the Bible by 
 heart; tried to get religion at the age of twelve, but was not 
 fully successful j was more so three years later; joined a 
 . church ; believed in Jesus, and several times a day for a ba- 
 ker's dozen of years called regularly upon his name and that 
 of his illustrious father; afterwards parted with some of his 
 religious ardor, though not from any bad conduct; gradu- 
 ally lost confidence in prayer, and faith in what he had pre- 
 viously believed. Since then he has perhaps said some 
 things that might be construed to be not exactly Christian- 
 like, but having killed nobody; not having taken anything 
 he could not carry away — if he had been President, had lain 
 quietly in his grave while a generation or more had passed 
 over his tomb, and it became desirable that he should be 
 leckoned among the friends of Christianity, the unfavoral>le 
 lemarks he has made could, by your system, be charitably 
 overlooked and forgotten. He, even, might be a Christirn. 
 
 Even that distinguished but much-abused individual, the 
 Devil, by your easy process can be made a very fair Chris- 
 tian. He was of excellent origin or parentage; his early 
 -opportunities for moral instruction were ot the highest char- 
 4u:ter; but he had, according to Milton, a little unpleasant- 
 ness in early life with his parent and was driven from 
 home. He is said, on a certain occasion, to have obtruded 
 his advice upon an inexperienced young man and woman rel- 
 ative to eating some fruit, and which is believed to have . 
 caused considerable trouble, but it cannot be shown that he 
 was immoral iu the transaction. It has repeatedly been in- 
 timated that he did not tell the truth, but if the record is 
 •closely examined, no instance can be found where he ever 
 told a falsehood, ever killed anybody, ever wronged 
 anybody, or even did anything that was contrary to the 
 laws of morality or the rules of good society. I am 
 •sorry to say that the same cannot be truthfully said of 
 his opponent. The Devil may be claimed as a Christian 
 Xrom his intimacy and friendship with^e author of the sys- 
 
ii 
 
 
 41^ THE HTJMPHRET-BSITXETT mSCUSSrcm; 
 
 lem. They passed some time in each other's society, ancl 
 made a remarkable exploring expedition together. His Sa» 
 tonic Majesty took his companion^ first to the pinnacle of 
 the temple, theit to the top of a mountain so high that he 
 showed his protege not only the kingdoms on that side ol 
 the globe but on the opposite side as well. He evinced a 
 disposition to enter into an extensive real estate operation 
 with his friend, and proposed to transfer a very large 
 amount of good land, town lots, mill sites, water privilegeiy 
 etc., for a very moderate consideration; but it seems the 
 trade was not perfeeted> owing,, perhaps, to a supposed de- 
 lect in the title. His willingness to negotiate, however, ia 
 not denied. It must be admitted, too, that he has exhibited 
 very excellent qualities; that he haa not shown hiniself im^ 
 moral; has been patient under obloquy and aspersion; when 
 le has been reviled he has reviled not again. When slander,, 
 abuse and all sorts of defamation have been continually 
 vsed against him, he has presented mi equable frame of mind 
 and retorted not; is not vindictive, ianot retaliative, but en- 
 dures his aggravated wrongs with remarkable meekness 
 and patience, never returning evil fcNr evil but rather good 
 lor evil. £Ee has shown himself a friend to the human race 
 by befriending inventors. Innovators, and reformers, and 
 •specially as a patron ef science and learning. His grealt 
 Importance to the Christian system cannot for a moment be 
 lost sight of, for he is the most important factor in the busi- 
 ness. The principal character borrowed from Jewish the- 
 ology could be spared from the system quite as well as the 
 personage under consideration. Without a Devil there 
 would be little use ol creeds, churches, or preachers. So 
 then, his immense importance to the system, joined with his 
 meeknesss, amiability, and his many other excellent qual- 
 kies of character, prove him, according to your easy proc- 
 ess, to be worthy to be considered a Christian, should it be 
 deemed desirable. 
 PkuMlon me if I have occupied too much space in Uhistrat- 
 
 THE HUMFHRBT BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 41 
 
 rag your system. It works so easily and pleasantly that it 
 is a perfect pleasure to put it in operation. As, however, a 
 man's writings may be justly used to show what his opinions 
 were, I will refer to some of Thomas Jefferson's in this reply, 
 he being the individual at present most under consideration. 
 You allude to Jefferson's letter to his nephew and ward, 
 Peter Carr— allow me to make a few extracts from that 
 letter by way of showing the quality of Jefferson's Chris- 
 tianity: "Fix Reason firmly in her seat and call to her 
 tribunal every fact, every opmion. Question with boldness 
 even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he 
 must more approve the homage of reason than that of blind- 
 folded fear. . . Read the Bible as you would read Livy 
 or Tacitus. The facts which arc within the ordinary course 
 of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer aa 
 you do those of the same kind in Livy or Tacitus. . . 
 Those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature 
 must be examined with more care and under a variety of 
 faces. . . For example, in the Book of Joshua we are 
 told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that 
 fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers 
 ef blood, of speaking statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that 
 the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, 
 candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. 
 The pretensioa is entitled to your enquiry, because millions 
 believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough 
 to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body 
 moving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, 
 should not by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, 
 trees, buildings, and should, after a certain time, have re- 
 sumed its revolutions, and that without a second general 
 prostration. U this arrest of the earth's motion or the ev- 
 idence which afBrms it most within the laws of probabil- 
 ities ? You will next read the New Testament It is the 
 history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the 
 opposite pretensions, 1, of those who say Ue was begotten bv 
 
lUii 
 • 
 
 42 
 
 THE HUMPHBST • BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 l-IIB HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 43 
 
 iiitf 
 
 11 
 
 .(if 
 
 :i 
 
 i 
 
 0od, bora of a yirgin, suspended and rerersed the lawi of 
 nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of 
 those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a be* 
 nevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pre- 
 tensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was pun- 
 ished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted, according to 
 the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that 
 ofteuse by whipping, and the second by exile or death in 
 furea. See this law in the Digest, Lib. €8, tit. 19, § 28, 8, and 
 Lipsius, Lib. 2, de cruce, cap. 2. These questions are ez« 
 amined in the books I have mentioned, under the head of 
 **religion," and several others. They will assist you in your 
 enqairies, but keep your reason firmly on the watch in read- 
 ing them all. Do not be frightened from this enquiry by 
 any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there 
 is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort 
 aod pleasantness you feel in its exercise and the love of 
 others which it will procure you. . . 
 
 **In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both 
 sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any 
 other person or description of persons have rejected or be- 
 lieved it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by 
 heaven, and yon are answerable not for the rightness, but 
 uprightness of the decision. 
 
 " I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testa- 
 ment, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as 
 well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided 
 for us to be pseudo-evangelists, as well as those they named 
 evangelists. Because these pseudo- evangelists pretended 
 to inspiration as much as the others, and you are to judge 
 their pretensions by your own reason and not by the reason 
 of those ecclesiastics. Host of these are lost There are 
 some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricus, which I 
 will endeavor to get and send you." 
 
 I would be pleased to extend these extracts did space al- 
 low, but from these does it strike you that he talked just like 
 
 a Christian ? Is it not different from the advice thai most ' 
 Christian uncles would give their nephews and wards? 
 Does it not, rather, sound like Infldeliiy? Did he not give 
 too much importance to Reason and not enough to Faiih t 
 Would Talmage or Dr. Crosby give such advice ? 
 
 In 1829 the Memoir and Correspondence of Jefferson, 
 edited by his grandson, was published in four volumes, and 
 in the same year appeared in the New York Obs&rv&r (Presby- 
 terian—Sidney E. Morse, editor and founder), the following 
 notice of the work, which does not strike me as being as 
 appreciative as one Christian ought to be of the writings of 
 
 another: — 
 
 ** The Memoir and Correspondence of Mr. Jefferson, pre- 
 pared by his grandson in four vols., 8vo, has just been pub- 
 lished in Charlottesville, Va., and we observe that a brief 
 notice of this work, expressed in terms of unreserved com- 
 mendation, is going the rounds of the papers, and has been 
 copied in some instances by the editors of the religious jour- 
 nals. Before religious men, and especially Presbyterians, 
 lend their aid to the circulation of this work, they would do 
 well to examine its contents. Mr. Jefferson, it is well 
 known, was never suspected of being very friendly to ortho- 
 dox religion, but these volumes prove not only that he was 
 
 A DISBELIEVER IN A DIVINE REVELATION, BUT A SCOFFER 
 OF THE VERT LOWEST CLASS l" 
 
 What! by Presbyterian authority, a scoffer of the very 
 lowest class, aud still a Christian? Can that be Christianityt 
 This Presbyterian brother, in quotinor from the volumes, 
 among other quotations gave the following: 
 
 *• In a letter to James Smith, written a few weeks after- 
 wards, he says of the * doctrine of the Trinity*: 
 
 '* * The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cer- 
 berus, with one body and three heads, had Its birth and 
 growth in the blood of thousands and thou'-ands of mar- 
 tyrs.* 
 
 "In a letter to John Adams, written in 1823, he says: 
 
a9 
 
 the: humphrkt-hkjcnett DiscudsioiC 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BEITNETT DISCUBSIOK. 
 
 40 
 
 ■•i. 
 
 n ' '' 
 
 «« 4 rp^ ^^y^ ^>|j come wben tbe mystical gcneratioa of 
 Jesus, by the Supreme Being as liis father, in the womb 
 of a TirgiB, will be classed witk the generation oi Minervft 
 In the brain of Jupiter.' " Is that pretty good Christianity? 
 
 "In a letter to William Short, written in 1823, he thua 
 speaks of Christian Mimstern and the CkritUan SabbcUh : 
 
 '* * We have most unwisely committed to the hierophanta 
 of our particular superstition, the direction of public opin- 
 ion, that lord of the Universe. We hare given them stated 
 and privileged days to collect and catecliise us, opportuni- 
 ties of delivering tlieir waeles to tbe people in mass, and of 
 mouldiug their minds as wax in the hollow of their 
 handa' " 
 
 Friend Humphrey, do these utterances — ^tbose quoted from 
 Jefferson particularly—please you as Christian iojunctions f 
 Did Thomas Paine Eay anything more pointed and explicit ? 
 Are these the kind of Christian sentiments that you delight 
 to recommend to your hearers? 
 
 The l*^esbyteriait editor of the Presbyterian Observer, in 
 the follow ing» gave this opinion of Jefferson— not very com^ 
 plimentary, trvly, for one Christian to speak of another :— 
 
 ** That he was a Humanitofrian €f the laweet elois and a Ma- 
 terialist, appears from the following passage to President 
 Adams, written in 19212: 
 
 ** *But while this Syllabus (he says) is meant to place the 
 character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor 
 himself, but a great reformer of the Hebrew code of relig- 
 ion, it is not to be understood that I am with Mm in all hia 
 doctrines. I am a Matebialist;^ he takes the side of Spir^ 
 itualism} he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards the 
 forgiveness of gin; I require a cotinterpoise of good works 
 to redeem it,' etc. 
 
 *'In the same letter, after speaking of the 'stupidity of 
 some of the evangelists* and early disciples of Christ, and 
 the * roguery ' of others, Jefferson says of Paul :— 
 
 ** *Qf tbii band of dapea and impostors, Paul was tlit 
 
 great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of 
 Jesus.* *' Rather hard on Paull 
 
 If Jefferson thus pronounced himself a ** Matebialist,*' 
 will you not find it rather hard work to make him a Chris- 
 tian in spite of himself? And is there not danger that you 
 may be considered heterodox for claiming as a brother 
 Christian one whom the pious editor of the New York Ob* 
 server denounced as a ** Materialist,** and "a scoffer of the 
 lowest class'*? 
 
 In 1776, when Jefferson was in Paris, in a letter to his 
 friend, Mr. Whyte, he used this language, which gives a 
 clear view of his opinion of the clergy: 
 
 '* If anybody thinks that kings, nobles and priests are good 
 conservators of the public happincsss, send them here. It is 
 the best school in the Universe to cure him of that folly. He 
 will see here with his own eyes that these descriptions of 
 men are an abandoned confederacy against the happiness of 
 the mass of the people. The omnipotence of their effect 
 cannot be better proved than in this country, where, not- 
 withstanding the finest soil upon the earth, the finest climate 
 under heaven, and a people of the most benevolent, the 
 most gay and amiable character of which the human form ia 
 susceptible; where such a people, I say, surrounded by so 
 many blessings from Nature, are loaded with misery by 
 kings, nobles, and priests, and by them alone.*' And more in 
 the same vein. 
 
 As a proof that Jefferson did not regard Atheistical works, 
 even, with disfavor, it may be stated that he had them in 
 his library, and th%t he read them carefully and with appro- 
 bation is proved by the notes he made. In D*Holbach*8 
 ''System of Nature,** the chief est among the Atheistical 
 works of that day, Jefferson made copious notes, most of 
 which showed that he did not disapprove of a majority of 
 the positions of the author. Want of space will not allow 
 them to be quoted now. 
 
 He took no pains to conceal his aversion to the Christian 
 
 i 
 
4) 
 
 THE nUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 dogma of the Trinity. In a letter to Col. Pickering lit 
 scouted "the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian 
 arithmetic, that three are one and one is three.*' Even 
 after he had arrived at the age of eighty years he declared 
 that in his opinion ** it would be more pardonable to be- 
 Heve in no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atro> 
 cious attributes of Calvin." 
 
 What he thought of religious revivals, etc., may be gath- 
 ered from what he said upon the subject in a letter to Dr. 
 Cooper. "In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but 
 chiefly among the women. They have their night-meetings 
 and praying-parties, where, attended by their priests, and 
 sometimes by a henpecked husband, they pour forth the ef- 
 fusion of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal 
 as their modesty would permit to a mere earthly lover." 
 He said, too, •*The final and complete remedy for tlie fever 
 of fanaticism is the diffusion of knowledge.** 
 
 Does this language strike you as being peculiarly like a 
 Christian's 7 
 
 I could quote much more from Jefferson in a similar vein, 
 but I have already occupied too much room and will de- 
 fer further quotations for the present. If, however, your 
 confidence is still unshaken in the genuineness of his Chris- 
 tianity I will have to recur to his writings again. A man ought 
 to know better what he believes himself than those who live 
 fifty years later, whether it be Mr. Randall or any other 
 biographer. 
 
 You admit that the New American Cyclopedia of 1864 
 classed him as an "Infidel." That is high authority, and I 
 do not wish to question it. The effort ten years later to 
 modify the opinion, or to explain it away, is unsuccessful. 
 It must stand that Jefferion toas regarded as an Infidel, 
 
 It strikes me that you attempt to make too much differ- 
 ence between a Deist and a Theist. Deism is a belief in one 
 Ood, and Theism is nothing more. A Theist may or may 
 not believe in revelation and in the divine origin of the 
 
 THE HimPHREY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 47 
 
 Scriptures, while a Deist Is generally supposed to not so be- 
 lieve. That is the only difference. Both equally discard 
 the divinity of Jesus and the dogma of the Trinity. 
 
 I am surprised that, with the fate of the Rev. Mr. Miller 
 before your eyes, you still insist that '*the doctrine of the 
 divinity of Christ is not the dividing line between Infidelity 
 and Christianity, but the divine origin of the Bible.** You 
 seem a little contradictory, too, when, afterwards, you al- 
 lude to Christ as the "Founder of Christianity.** If a belief in 
 the Scriptures is all that is necessary to make a Christian, 
 the Scriptures must be the "Founder of Christianity,* 
 and the Jews ought to be excellent Christians, for they ac- 
 cept the divinity of more than three-fourths of the Bible. 
 It is a noticeable fact that the reputed "Founder of Christian- 
 ity** did not specially enjoin a belief in the divinity of the 
 Scriptures, but positively enjoined a belief in himself. He 
 said expressly he was the way, the truth, and the life ; and that 
 those who did not believe in him could not be saved nor be 
 his disciples. He said in the most positive manner, " He 
 that believelh and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned.*' Did Franklin, Washington, 
 Adams, and Jcffer&on believe, and were they baptized ? No. 
 Then they could not be Christians. They were neither 
 believers nor can you sustain a claim that they allied them- 
 selves to any Christian Church. Peter, the leading disciple, 
 and the one who did the heavy business of the concern, in 
 speaking of the author of Christianity, said: " There is no 
 other name under heaven given among men whereby we 
 must be saved.** And when Paul — who, you will hardly deny, 
 had something to do towards establishing Christianity — 
 was with Silas, and was asked, "What must I do to be 
 saved t" he laconically replied, " Believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and thou shalt be saved;** and this injunction he 
 virtually repeated in his epistles over and over again. Did 
 be not pointedly say, " The letter killeth, but the spirit 
 (iveth life"? He said very little about the importance of 
 
48 
 
 THE HUMP MB BT -BimWE 'T i ' DISCUSSION. 
 
 THB EUMPHRET-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 49 
 
 acknowledging the diyinitjrof the Scriptures, which assured- 
 ly he should have done if it is, as you assert, of more conse- 
 quence tlian a belief in Christ. None of the disciples or 
 apostles laid much stress upon the importance of a belief in 
 the Scriptures, but faith in the Lord Jesus they repre- 
 sented as being the sine qua nan of Christianity. I 
 think you will hardly contend that you know better what 
 constitutes a Christian than did Christ, Peter, Paul, and 
 the rest of the apostles. 
 
 By making a belief in Christ of little or no consequence, 
 you practically occupy the same ground which the Rct. 3ir. 
 Miller does who denies the Trinity, and for which he has 
 just had a trial and been expelled from the ministry for her- 
 esy. With equal appropriateness could the Bev. Mr. Mott 
 point his finger at you, as he did at the Bey. Mr. Miller, 
 your brother clergyman, and say, "Brother Humphrey, I 
 charge you with taking away my Lord and Savior, and I 
 don't know where you have put him. You have robbed 
 the character of Christ of its most precious attributes." I 
 tremble for you, my friend, and almoBt fear your tarn will 
 come next. 
 
 I cannot at this time pay much attention to the views of 
 Adams; and it is hardly necessary, for yon have only shown 
 him to be a Deist or a Theist. He surely did not accept 
 Jesus as the Divine Being; and the letters which passed be- 
 tween Jefferson and himself establish the fact that they 
 were of the same opinion as to Jesus being Qod. It Is unnec- 
 essary to add more. 
 
 I will make one more quotation in reference to Franklin 
 before we leave him too far in the rear. In his Autobiogra- 
 phy, p. 166, he says: '* Some books against Deism fell into 
 my hands; they were Said to be the substance of the ser- 
 mons which had been preached at Baylis' Lectures. It hap- 
 pened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to 
 what was intended by them. For the arguments of the De- 
 ists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me to h% 
 
 much stronger than the refutation. In short, I soon became 
 a thorough DeUV^ However distasteful the term Deist is to 
 you, you here have Franklin's positive avowal that he be- 
 came a thorough Deist, and if he gives no intimation that 
 he changed from that belief, we must conclude that it re- 
 mained unchanged. It matters little what pious biogra- 
 phers, whether D.D's or LL.D's, may say about his being a 
 Christian. His own clear statement is of more worth than a 
 thousand unfounded claims. 
 
 I am sorry that you deemed it necessary to make that un- 
 kind fling at Bobert Dale Owen in connection with the 
 Katie King business. For more than half a century 
 he has been a pi eminent man in this country, and as a 
 statesman, as a writer, and as a citizen, he has had but 
 few superiors. His honor and truthfulness have never 
 been called in question. If, in advanced life, he was de- 
 ceived by a shrewd trickster, it is hardly necessary or kind 
 to call attention to it It certainly does not argue that 
 he did not truthfully relate a statement made to him by the 
 Bev. Dr. Wilson over forty years ago. He believed only 
 what he sato, while there are millions of people like yourself 
 who claim to be intelligent, who believe not only what they 
 themselves never saw, but that which nobody else ever saw. 
 
 I wholly dissent from your summing-up. You claim 
 to have shown that Franklin, Washington, Adams, and 
 Jefferson were Christians. I utterly fail to see that you 
 have done anything of the kind. True, they were moral, 
 upright men, but Ihey did not accept the leading dogmas of 
 the Christian faith; they did not believe that Jesus was 
 God, nor that he was miraculously begotten by a god, I 
 claim to have shown that, being unbelievers in the Trinity 
 and the divinity of Cnrist, they were not Christians, but 
 Deists or, in other words, InfdeU, 
 
 Pardon the length of my remarks. I will try in future 
 to be briefer. I wished to answer your several positions^ 
 that I may be ready to defend the great moral and patriotio 
 
 iti< 
 
m 
 
 Vam HITMPHRET-BBNNETT DltCUSSIOlf. 
 
 hero, Thomas Paine, to whom you propose, in your next, to 
 give a general over-hauling. I doubt not you will aim Co 
 «peak truly of him, but allow me to say, if you do him full 
 Justice you will be about the first Christian who has ever 
 done so. Very truly yours, D. M. B. 
 
 I 
 
 I" «r 
 
 # 
 
 . -3 
 
 V 
 
 ft i 
 
 fl 
 * 
 
 MR. HUMPHRKT. 
 
 Mr. D. M. Bbunett, Dear Sir: I will review your last 
 letter in my next, and then try to close the discussion of 
 this proposition. Let us now endeavor to ascertain what 
 were the most prominent /oete in connection with the life 
 And labors of Thomas Paine. 
 
 Apart from articles in Cyclopedias and sketches in Hia- 
 tories, there are five Lives of Paine still extant, though, un- 
 fortunately, they are not all in print. They are ** Oldyt', ** 
 Cheetham's, Bickman's, Sherwin*s, and Valets. These are 
 «11 alike marred by considerable passion either for or 
 against their subject. The first two were given to coloring 
 too darkly, and the last three were no less desperate as 
 whitewashera. 
 
 Paine's life divides itself naturally into three parts. The 
 first is the Penod of his Obscurity^ extending from his birth 
 to his departure for America. This part of his life may be 
 outlined in a few words: Bom in Thetford, England, Jan. 
 29th 1737— goes to grammar-school until thirteen— hates the 
 dead languages — staymaker — goes to London and Dover- 
 seaman — settles at Sandwich — marries— his wife dies — 
 moves to Margate — back to Thetford — London again— 
 school teacher — ^goes to Lewes — remarries — ^tobacconist and 
 grocer- he and his wife separate— writes the " Case of the 
 Excise officer" — ^returns to London — a business failure- 
 meets Franklin, who encourages him to embark for 
 America. 
 
 THE HUMrnREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 51 
 
 It has been asserted that Paine was the writer of the cel- 
 ebrated Junius Letters, which appeared between 1767 and 
 1772. This is not even probable. Those Letters exhibit a 
 certain peculiarity of style, a knowledge of the classics, and 
 a familiarity with Court life and State secrets, which Paine 
 did not possess. The best critics ascribe those letters to 
 Philip Francis (See Macaulay's Essay on Warren Hastings, 
 and Junius by Woodfall, London, 1850, Vol. ii. pp. 11-90). 
 
 This is only equaled in absurdity by the claim that Paine 
 was afterwards the author of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence. Historians uniformly give that credit, undivided, to 
 Jefferson. Besides, if Paine was the writer of that docu- 
 ment, a lie has been engraved ou Jefferson's monument, and 
 that at Jefferson's own request 1 
 
 The Period of Paine' 8 Fame began with his landing in 
 America in 1774, and ended with his return to Europe in 
 1787. On his arrival in Philadelphia, his introduction by 
 Franklin secured him at once a favorable consideration. 
 He soon obtained a position as editor of the Pennsylvania 
 Magazine. Some of his editorials were well written. The 
 breach with England kept widening. Paine took a lively 
 interest in public affairs. In Jan. of 1776 he published his 
 •'Common Sense." It had an enormous circulation. As 
 was shown in my first letter, that pamphlet did not create 
 the idea of independence; but it probably did more than 
 any other publication to accelerate, solidify, and energize 
 that idea. The Declaration was made in the following 
 July. As the struggle continued, and the Colonists became 
 occasionally disheartened, Paine reinspired them with suc- 
 cessive numbers of the *' Crisis," until Independence was 
 established and recognized in 1 783. 
 
 Now, I do most heartily acquiesce in all that such histori- 
 ans as Botta, Allen, Cassell, Randall, Morse, Ramsay, 
 Grimshaw, Gordon, Bancroft, and such statesmen as Mad- 
 ison, Rush, Monroe, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington 
 have said in praise of these productions. It was no more 
 
 i 
 
 
 •4 
 
 1 
 
BA 
 
 THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISOUSSION. 
 
 THB aUMPHRBT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 63 
 
 
 than Just for Pennsylvania and New York to reward the 
 writer in a tangible way. Mr. Paine deserved it all. 
 
 But was Paine an Infidel at this time ? I am inclined to 
 think he was; for he implies as much in his "Age of Kea- 
 son." Furthermore, John Adams, speaking of an interview 
 with him soon after the appearance of " Common Sense/' 
 says: "I told him that his reasoning from the Old Testa- 
 ment was ridiculous, and I could hardly think him sincere. 
 At this he laughed, and said he had taken his ideas on that 
 point from. Milton; and then he expressed a contempt for 
 the Old Testament, and indeed for the Bible at large, which 
 surprised me. He saw that I did not relish this, and soon 
 checked himself with these words: 'However, I have some 
 thoughts of publishing my thoughts on religion; but I be- 
 lieve it will be best to postpone it to the latter part of life' " 
 (John Adams* Life and Works, vol. 11, p. 608). 
 
 But if Paine entertained Deistical views at that time, he 
 did not avow them publicly. He " checked himself '* in 
 that respect. There is not a word in anything he wrote be- 
 fore 1787 that would create a suspicion that he did not be- 
 lieve the Bible. On the contrary, his allusions to it and 
 quotations from it invariably convey the impression that he 
 regarded it as the Word of God. Witness a few specimens : 
 " * Not to be led into temptation * m the prayer of divinity it- 
 eel/** (Case of the Excise Officer, 1772). "As the exalting 
 one man above tjie rest cannot be justified on the equal 
 rights of nature, 8o neither can it be defended on the authority 
 of Scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon 
 and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of govern- 
 ment by kings " (Common Sense, 1776). " We claim broth- 
 erhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the 
 generosity of the sentiment " (Ibid). " Let a day be sol- 
 emnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be 
 brought forth, placed on the divine law, the word of God' 
 (Ibid). " The writer of this is one of those few who never 
 dishonon religion, either by ridiculing or caviling at aoj 
 
 denomination whatsoever" (Epistle to the Quakers 1776). 
 **Iwish, with aU the devotion of a Christian, the names of 
 whig and tory may never be mentioned" (Crisis No. 1, 1776). 
 ** As individuals we profess ourselves Christians" {Ctisva, No. 
 7, 1778). It is clear from such language as this that Paine 
 did not speak like a Deist during the " times that tried 
 men's souls." 
 
 There are, moreover, several circumstances which unitci 
 to prove that Paine had not aroused as much as a suspicion 
 that he was a Deist. 1. Even the most illiberal of Chris- 
 tians praised him without reserve — a thing they would 
 not have done had they surmised that he was an Infidel. 
 2. When he did publish his Deistical notions, the Chris- 
 tian world was surprised, shocked, and repelled from him. 
 Samuel Adams said in a letter to Paine in 1803: " When I 
 heard that you had turned your mind to a defense of infidel- 
 ity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved." 
 Dr. John W. Francis said: "The 'Age of Reason* on 
 its first appearance in New York was printed as an ortho- 
 dox book, by orthodox publishers, doubtless deceived by the 
 vast renown which the author of ' Common Sense * had ob- 
 tained." Dr. Rush, who was intimate with him during the 
 Revolution, did not renew his acquaintance after his return 
 to America. 3. When Rev. John Witherspoon opposed his 
 appointment as Secretary to the Committee for Foreign Af- 
 fairs, he did not mention Infidelity among his objections to 
 him (Life and Works of John Adams, vol. ii, p. 509). 
 4. ♦* Oidys," who wrote in 1791, and said every evil thing 
 of him that had even a shadow of foundation, did not stig- 
 matize him as an Infidel. This shows that up to that time 
 his anti-Christian sentiments were not publicly known. 
 Had he died before 1787, or even previous to 1791, history 
 would not have recorded him a Freethinker, 
 
 From this it follows that Thomas Paine rendered his ser- 
 vices to the came of Independence by pretending to be a Chris- 
 tian, <md by using Scriptural arguments/ "The sword cf the 
 

 SI 
 
 THK HTTMPiniETBBWNETT DlttCUflSION. 
 
 l! 
 
 i< 
 
 I 
 
 l 
 
 
 .1 
 
 ifi^VJC, fo^tc* i> (he Word of God" wati one of the weapone tohich 
 even he had to employ to secure the grand resuU / 
 
 Paine waa not much of a statesman. In the words of 
 Madame Roland, he was *' better fitted to sow the seeds 
 of popular commotion, than to lay the foundation or 
 prepare the form of goTernment. He enkindled a rev- 
 olution, better than he concurred in the framing of a 
 constitution. He took up and established those grand 
 principles, the exposition of which struck every eye, gained 
 the applause of a club, or excited the enthusiasm of a tav- 
 ern*' (Memoires Bclatifs a la Revolution Fran9aise, Paris, 
 1850, Tome Sec. p. 12). This, with his breach of trusi 
 when Secretary to the Committee for Foreign Affairs, 
 may account for the singular fact that, although he 
 remained in the country over four years after the close of 
 the war, he was never elected by the people to any posi- 
 tion of honor I He left America in the very year that the 
 Constitution of the United States was framed ! 
 
 The Period of his Infamy opened with his departure for 
 France in 1787, and closed with his life in 1809. He was 
 received with edat by the French, on account of his Ameri- 
 can fame. He soon returned to England, where he wrote 
 his " Rights of Man." This, though not the most influen- 
 tial, was by far the most able and elaborate of his works. 
 Like his former writings, it implies an indorsement of 
 Christianity. Jefferson, and other republican statesmen, 
 entertained a very high opinion of it In 1792 Paine was 
 elected to the French National Convention, where he at 
 first exerted considerable influence. 
 
 lo 1794 he wrote his "Age of Reason." He had no Bible 
 when he composed the first part of it. It does not contain 
 one original thought. All its cavils had been familiar to 
 the world ever since the days of Celsus and Porphyry. It 
 owes its notoriety not to its matter but to its manner. 
 Many Infidels of the higher type are ashamed of it. Such 
 men as Strauss, Renan, Colenso, Comte, Huxley, Mill, Tjw 
 
 TSB HUMPHBET-BttNNBTT DlSCmsIOK. 
 
 55 
 
 dall, etc., take no account of it. Many Christians that are 
 styled *' liberal " have not hid their disrespect for it. De 
 Quincy alludes to its author contemptuously as "Tom 
 Paine" (Essay on "Protestantism"). Referring to it Parton 
 says: "I think his Judgment must have been impaired be- 
 fere he could have consented to publish so inadequate a 
 performance " (Life of Jefferson, p. 592). Theodore Parker 
 said: "Paine's theological works are not always in good 
 taste, nor does he always understand the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments he comments upon " (Life and 
 Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 425). John Adams* Works 
 abound with such expressions as the following: "The 
 worthless and unprincipled writings of the profligate and 
 impious Thomas Paine " (vol. ii, p. 153). " Let the black- 
 guard Paine say what he will " (vol. iii, p. 421). " That in- 
 solent blasphemer of all things sacred, and transcendent 
 libeller of all that is good, Tom Paine " (vol. iii, p. 93). 
 •* His billingsgate, stolen from Blount's Oracles of Reason, 
 from Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Berenger, &c., will never dis- 
 credit Christianity " (vol. ix, p. 627). 
 
 In 1796 he published his Letter to Washington, wherein 
 he abuses the leading statesmen of America, and most of all 
 Gen. Washington himself. It concludes with the following 
 sentence: "And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friend- 
 ship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of 
 danger), and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be 
 puzzled to decide, whether you are an APOSTATE or an 
 IMPOSTOR? Whether you have abandoned good princi- 
 ples, or whether you ever had any?" No wonder Oliver Wol- 
 cott wrote to Alex. Hamilton: " Tom Paine has published a 
 book against the President, containing the most infamous 
 calumnies" (Works of Hamilton, vol. vi, p. 185). 
 
 Paine became very unpopular in France. In a letter to 
 Robert Morris, dated Sainport, June 25th, 1793, Gouverneur 
 Morris wrote: '*He (Paine) is so completely down that he 
 would be punished if he were not despised " (Life of Qouv 
 
 t 
 
^ 
 
 I 
 
 THE BmnPHRBT - BIUK 'IT DI8CI788ION. 
 
 Morris toI. iii, p. 46). There were but few regrets wheB 
 he came away. 
 
 In 1803 he returned to the United States. In recoirnition 
 of hia RevolutioDary services, Jefferson proTidcd him with 
 a safe passage in a man-of-war, and entertained liim on his 
 arrival. He was either accompanied or soon followed by 
 a Mrs. Bonneyille with her three children, but without her 
 husband. M-r. Booneyille neither came after her, nor, as far 
 as is known, corresponded with her afterwards (Sherwin's 
 Life of Paine, p. 209). Paine supported her until his death, 
 and bequeathed a large share of his property to her and 
 her family. Vale says he was "godfather** to her youngest 
 child, '* who had been named after him " (Life of Paine, p. 
 145). Cheetham intimates that Paine was that boy's man' 
 father (Life of Paine, p. 237). For my part, I suspend 
 judgment in regard to this whole affair. I will only say 
 that, were a clergyman to do precisely the same thing, every 
 Infidel paper in Christendom would pronounce him a vile 
 hypocrite. 
 
 Paine was a drunkard in his latter years. Only Vale, 
 who wrote his biography about twenty-eight years after his 
 death, twenty-eight years later than Cheetham, and eigh. 
 teen years later than Sherwin and Hickman, has had the des- 
 perate hardihood to deny this allegation. Sherwin admits 
 the charge, and Rickman does not dispute it. Joel Barlow 
 said explicitly that '*hegave Jiimaeifwry much to drink" (Vale*s 
 Life of Paine, p. 136.) We have already seen that John 
 Adams pronounced him** profligate.** Gouverneur Morris 
 testified that he was * 'besotted from morning till night** in 
 France (Sparks* Life of Qouverneur Morris, vol. ii, p. 409; 
 vol. iii, p. 46). Cheetham makes this so clear that no one 
 can reasonably question it. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 
 the English Cyclopedia, and the Cyclopedia Americana all 
 assert the same thing. Parton says " poor Paine '* could 
 not "represent a clean, sober, orderly people in a foreign 
 land" (Life of Jefferson, p. 606). Lossing says: "Paio^ 
 
 TXB KUMPHBBT- BENNETT DISCUSSION, 
 
 fit 
 
 Vecame very iniempefate^ and fell low in the social scale, not 
 only on account of his beastly liabiU, but because of his blas- 
 phemous tirade against Christianity " (Lives of Celebrated 
 Americans, p. 229). 
 
 He did not always tell the truth. In Crtm No. 2 he de- 
 clared that he " never published a syllable in England in 
 his life." Rush and John Adams testify that he told them 
 the same thing. But it is now known and acknowledged 
 that he did write at least the *' Case of the Excise Officer" 
 in 1772. And Ihe claim that he wrote Junius Letters is an 
 admission by even his admirers that his word is not always 
 to be believed. Cheetham says "he was not always vera- 
 cious*' (p. 29). John Adams remarks in his Autobiography; 
 '* At this day it would be ridiculous to ask any questions 
 about Tom Paine's veracity, integrity, or any other virtue" 
 (Works, vol. ii, p. 610). 
 
 He was self-righteous and self-conceited. He said in his 
 Will, written by himself: ** I, Thomas Paine, of the State 
 of New York, author of the work entitled Common Sense, 
 written in Philadelphia, in 1775, and published in that city 
 the beginning of January, 1776, which awaked America to 
 a Declaration of Independence, on the fourth of July follow- 
 ing, which was as fast as the work could spread through 
 such an extensive country"! **! have lived an honest and use- 
 ful life to mankind; my time has been spent in doing good." 
 No wonder Paine disliked a Book which says: ** Let another 
 man praise thee, and not thine own mouth'* (Prov. xxvii, 2). 
 With such self-puffing before us, we cannot but believe Du- 
 mont: " His egregious conceit and presumptuous self-suf- 
 ficiency quite disgusted me. He was drunk with vanity. 
 If yo'i believed him, it was he who had done everything in 
 .irnerlca. He was an absolute caricature of the vainest 
 t;f Frenchmen" etc., etc. (Recollections of Mirabeau, Lon- 
 <:oa, 1832, p. 271). 
 
 I do not relish this recounting of a dead man's faults. I 
 U4I it iu order that the whole truth may be known about 
 
THB MUHrUKBI-BENRnT DncmoiDiR 
 
 t 
 
 'I 
 
 n 
 
 Thomaa Paine. So maay attempts hare been made of lattf* 
 to canoniie and apotheosize this man that an exposure i» 
 absolutely necessary. The *' testimonials " to bis *^ merits '" 
 that axe so often paraded are frequently garbled and mis- 
 leading. And they are seldom taken from the original 
 sources. There is so mucb second-hand material— so much- 
 of quoting quoters of ^oted quotatiOM in tbis matter, that 
 it is become quite a trial to one's patience. 
 
 Bf way <rf recapitulating and summing upi I will refer 
 you to the following points: 
 
 1. The *' Testimonials to the Merits of Thomas Paine, •*" 
 which are so triumphantly cited, are mostly from Christian 
 men, and refer mdimvdf to hlapolitieal services imd writings. 
 8. Rune was a man of talent His style is very readable. 
 He might have excelled as a poet or engineer, naless thai» 
 as a political pamphleteer. 
 
 3. His assistance to the cause of Independence was very 
 great. Bt did not, however, render it m mn Infidd, but met 
 Christian, using Scriptural argumenU, and appeeding to the 
 prevalent religioua belief. Menee, InJideUty dstervee m eredi$ 
 whaiewrfoT hie Rnolutionarjf eermeee, 
 
 4 He had his good traita He was honest Nor was h» 
 uncharitable. He abstained from profanity, and rebuked 
 it in others. He opposed slavery. Many will endorse hi» 
 condemnation of Masomy. He was not the worst kind of 
 Infldel. He believed in a personal God. He considered 
 "Atheism a scandal to human nature." In the language of 
 Col. IngeisoU, an Atheist, •*he was orthodox compared with 
 the Infidels of to-day." He held his opinions sincerely. 
 He died as he had lived, a Deist 
 
 5. His latter years were neither hAppy nor irreproachable. 
 His former friends had mostly deserted him. He waa 
 peevish, penurious, quarrelsome, egotistic, and intemper- 
 ate. And he maintained to the last a very queer relation to 
 anoUMs man's wifa. Youis very truly 
 
 O. H. HuMraB£Y. 
 
 .1 
 
 •■i 
 
 TBB HtJMPBRST-BfiNKETT blBCCSSloK. 
 
 60 
 
 MR. BBNHBTT. 
 
 Rby, G. H. Hxjmphrby, I>ear Sir: I can see but little 
 connection between the character and habits of Tliomas 
 Paine and the subject we have under discussion, but I nev- 
 ertheless have no objection to considering either in this 
 reply. 
 
 In the main, I think you fair and candid in your treat- 
 ment of Paine and in the credit you accord him for the ser- 
 vices he performed, but you repeat some of the slanders 
 that have been so industriously circulated against him by 
 his enemies. In the early days of the Republic bis labors 
 were duly appreciated, and he was accredited with patriot- 
 ism, devotion, and great moral courage, and had he never 
 written anything to offend bigoted sectarians, his praises 
 would have been loudly sung to this day, and the entire 
 country would be proud to honor his memory; but because 
 he had the candor to express his honest convictions upon 
 theological subjects, and to differ materially from the pop- 
 ular current of thought, he has been most vilely traduced 
 therefor; and, besides, a persistent effort has been made to 
 belittle his services in the Revolutionary struggle, and to 
 blacken his name and reputation in every possible manner. 
 You show more fairness in this respect than many others, 
 and you are entitled to much credit for it. 
 
 IngersoU states the case, with much clearness and truth, 
 thus: "At the close of the American Revolution no one 
 stood higher in America than Thomas Paine. The best, 
 the wisest, the most patriotic were his friends and admir- 
 ers, and had he been thinking only of his own good he 
 might have rested from his trials and spent the remainder 
 of his life in comfort and in ease. He could have been 
 what the world is pleased to call respectable. He could have 
 died surrounded by clergymen, warriors, and statesmen. 
 At his death there would have been an imposing funeral, 
 allies of carriages, civic societies, salvos of artillery, a na- 
 
 
-BUmBTT AlSCVrSBION. 
 
 ♦1/ 
 
 lion in moiimlDg, and, sbore all, a aplendid monumeot coV* 
 ered with lies. He chose rather to benefit mankind. At 
 that time the seeds sown by the great Infidels were begin- 
 ning to bear fruit in Prance. The people were beginning 
 to think. The Eighteenth Century was crowning its gray- 
 hairs with the wreath of Progress; on every hand Science 
 was bearing testimony against the Church. Voltaire had 
 filled Europe with light. D'Holbach was giving the ilite of 
 Paris the principles contained in his •* System of Nature." 
 The Encyclopedists had attacked superstition with in- 
 formation for the masses. The foundation of things 
 began to be examined. A few had the courage to keep 
 their shoes on and let the bush burn. Miracles began 
 to get scarce. Everywhere the people began to enquire. 
 America had set an example to the world. The word of 
 Liberty was in the mouths of men, and they began to wipe 
 the dust from their knees. The dawn of a new day »p. 
 peared. Thomas Paine went to France. Into the new 
 movement he threw all his energies. His fame had gone 
 before him, and he was welcomed as a friend to the human 
 race, and as a champion of free government." 
 
 It is pleasant, in recalling the early services of Paine in 
 this country, to read what distinguished persons said of 
 his efforts before the religious element of the country be- 
 came embittered against him. I will not take the space 
 here to quote but few of th« commendations of Paine for 
 his heroic labors in the cause of American Independence. 
 None excelled him in earnestness and courage, and he was 
 in advance of the masses of tho Colonists in daring to de- 
 clare independence of Great Britain. It was Paine who 
 first openly suggested that the Colonies disconnect them- 
 selves from the parent government. He was the first to pro- 
 pose an independent nationality, and to give a name to the 
 incipient nation. It was bis pen that first wrote the grand 
 words—" TU Free and IndependerU 8taUs of Amenea." 
 Tho gieat results produced by his pamphlet, "Commoa 
 
 THB HUMPHRBT-BSNNBTT DISCUSSION, 
 
 Gl 
 
 Sense," can hardly be over-estimated. It did just what 
 was necessary to be done to arouse the young country to 
 the point of resistance. The effect it produced was unpar- 
 alleled. It awakened the most active enthusiasm in the 
 breasts of the Colonists. It performed an important part 
 in the great drama, which if it had been omitted, success 
 would never have been gained. I claim that, if with that 
 pamphlet enthusiasm was aroused and victory ultimately 
 achieved, it was a most important factor in the great 
 caiise, and equal at least to any other portion of the means 
 employed. Without it independence would not have been 
 declared nor gained, and with it both were accomplished. 
 Hence, to the author of *' Common Sense" America owes 
 her liberty to-day. 
 
 Edition after edition of the brave little work was issued. 
 It circulated in every direction. It was read at every fire- 
 side, whether in the farmhouse or in the tented camp, and 
 many times from the pulpit where the people gathered for 
 worship. Its arguments were unanswerable; its reasoning 
 was irresistible; and its logic most convincing. Well did 
 Major-General Charles Lee express the truth In a letter to 
 Gen. Washington two or three weeks after the pamphlet 
 had appeared, when he said: "Have you seen the Pam- 
 phlet "Common Sense"? I never saw such a masterly, 
 irresistible performance. I own myself convinced by its 
 arguments of the necessity of separation." Subsequently, 
 in referring to this work of Paine, he said: " He burst forth 
 on the world like Jove in thunder." 
 
 Samuel Bryan, in speaking of "Common Sense," said: 
 "This may be called the book of Genesis, for it was the be- 
 ginning. From this book spread the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, and not only laid the foundation of liberty in 
 our own country, but the good of mankind throughout the 
 
 world." 
 
 Lossing, in his "Field Book of the Revolution," said: 
 •* * Common Sense* was the earliest and most powerful ap- 
 
m 
 
 THB HtTMPHIlKT-BBNKETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THB HUMPHKBT-BENNETT l>ISCIT8SION. 
 
 83 
 
 pMl in belialf of independence, and probably did more to 
 fix that idea firmly in the public mind than any other in- 
 strumentality." 
 
 Morse, in his "Annals of the BeTolution/' said: "The 
 change in the public mind in consequence of * Common 
 Sease * is without a parallel.'* 
 
 Wm. Howitt, in "Casseli's Illustrated History of Eng- 
 land," says: " There waa no man in the Colonies, neverthe- 
 less, who contributed so much to bring the open Declaration 
 of Independence to a crisis as Thomas Paine. This pam- 
 phlet ('Common Sense*) was the spark which was all that 
 was needed to Are the train of Independence. It at once 
 seized on the imagination of the public; cast all other 
 writers in the shade, and flew in thousands and tens of 
 thousands all orer the Colonies. . . . During the winter 
 and spring this lucid and admirably reasoned pamphlet was 
 read and discussed everywhere and by all classes, bringing 
 the conviction that immediate independence was necessary. 
 The common fire blazed up in Congress, and the thing was 
 done." 
 
 Henry G. Watson, in his " History of the United States," 
 says: " 'Common Sense,' written by Thomas Paine, giving 
 in plain language the advantages and necessity of inde- 
 pendence, effected a complete revolution in the feelings and 
 sentiments of the great mass of the people." 
 
 Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and 
 many other distinguished personages, bore honorable testi- 
 mony to the great services performed by Paine but want of 
 room must prevent further quotations now. 
 
 Possibly the great good which was accomplished by 
 '* Common Sense *' was only equaled by the grand results 
 produced by "The Crisis.*' These were issued at irregular 
 periods during the great struggle and when the exigencies 
 of the times most demanded their aid. The contest was a 
 long and unequal one on the part of the feeble Colonists. 
 The people were poor, and the army was badly supplied 
 
 »with arms, provisions, and clothing, and they were 
 contending with the most powerfid nation in the world, 
 ft is not strange that desertions were very nume^ouf^ 
 that the half-starved army became decimated, and that 
 ithe greatest gloom spread over the entire land. Tbe 
 €lrst number of *'The Crisis" was issued at the time 
 when General Washington was compelled, bef ofc superior 
 forces, to retreat from this <^ty across N«w Jersey, when, 
 *y numerous desertions, tbe army had become largely re- 
 *duced, and when the greatest despondency had settled over 
 the entire country. Then it was that Paine^s burning words 
 ^ngovCT the land: "These are the times that try men's 
 souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in 
 this crisis shrink from the service of his country, but he 
 that sUnds it now deserves the thanks of man and woman. 
 Tyranny, like heH, is not easily oonquered, yet we have 
 this consolation with us: the harder the conflict, the more 
 ;glorious the victory; what we obtain too cheaply, we es- 
 teem too lightly." *' Every generous person should say, *If 
 there must be war, let it be in my^ay, that my ^hild may 
 liave peaoe.» " " Hd that rebels against reason is a*eal rebel; 
 t)ut he that in defense of reason rebels against tyranny has 
 abetter right to the title of 'The Defender of the Faith' 
 than (Jeorge the Third." 
 
 The trst number of "TheOrisls" was read in ewry oamp, 
 by every corporal's guard, and by every fireside over the 
 land, and the stirring appeals of Paine had a wonderful ef- 
 feet; desertions were greatly lessened, enthusiasm was re- 
 ^lindled, enlistments were revived, and new <sourage was 
 Imparted to the whole <JOunta^. 
 
 The success of the struggle was most unpromising. The 
 fate of the country was like a balance, with the side of the 
 <k)lonist3 about to "kick the beam." It was the«ritical mo- 
 «ient of the young nation's existence. Something had to be 
 done promptly or the cause was lost. Paine afforded th^ 
 jdd; lie Javed the nation he had45alled into bein^ and had 
 
$4 
 
 TH» BtrMPHRET • BSNNXTT DfeCUfiOEOK 
 
 > 
 
 I 
 
 •hristened. May the people of thi« country never forget tJb^ 
 great debt they owe this man. Without his services na 
 lioaal iadependence would not have been secured. 
 
 I was nearly prepared by your third letter for your at- 
 tempt to count Paine a Christian ^ at a)^ events when h» 
 wrote *• Common Sense " and ** The Crisis," as he quoted a 
 passage of Scripture or two and did not take the occasion 
 to present his theological views; but the quotations 
 you give from Adams, and Paine's own words at the com- 
 mencement of the '*Age of Beason," effectually refute the 
 allegation that his religious opinions were of recent date. 
 It was obviously improper to introduce theology into 
 "Common Sense, " "The Crisis," or "The Eights of Man;'' 
 and he showed his good sense by not obtruding religious 
 beliefs into political essays or discussions. Had he done so,, 
 you, doubtless, would have blamed him for it far more than 
 you now do for the omission. 
 
 Tou quote a woman to show that Paine was not a states- 
 man. Unless you can find a man or two among the thou- 
 sands who knew him who expressed a similar opinion, it 
 will be hardly Just to condemn him on that authority alone 
 as not being a statesman. Without doing yourself or Paine 
 any injustice you might have quoted the lady a little more 
 fully, where she says, "The boldness of his conception, 
 the originality of his style, the striking truths which he 
 boldly throws out in the midst of those whom they cJffend» 
 must necessarily have produced great effects." 
 
 The portion of Paine's life after 1787, when he went 
 to France, you are pleased to term The Period cf his 
 Infamy. There you assuredly wrong Paine and yourself. 
 It was far from being a '* period of infamy." There was ne 
 such period in Paine's life. His career in Europe may well 
 be called glorious. After visiting France, besides attending 
 to the introduction and manufacture of an iron bridge he 
 had invented in this country, he visited his aged mother, 
 where he passed some limt. and ministered to her neces^ 
 
 THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT WflCUSSION. 
 
 C5 
 
 ties It was during what you characterize as the period of 
 Paine's infamy that he wrote the •* Rights of Man," one of 
 the grandest pleas for Humanity ever made; a production 
 that has won encomiums from men of the very highest 
 ability and distinction. Richard Henry Lee, in acknowl- 
 edging to Gen. Washington the receipt of a copy, said: "It 
 is a performance of which any man might be proud; and I 
 most sincerely regret that our country could not have of- 
 fered sufficient inducement to have retained as a permanent 
 citizen a man so thoroughly republican in sentiment and 
 practice in the expression of his opinions. " In reference to 
 that production. Lord Erskine remarked: "Mr. Paine spoke 
 to the people, reasoned with them, told them they were bound 
 by no subjugation to any sovereignty further than their own 
 benefit connected them," Andrew Jackson said; "Thomas 
 Paine needs no monument made by hands; he has erected 
 himself a monument in the hearts of all lovers of liberty. 
 The * Rights of Man' will be more enduring than all the pUes 
 of marble and granite man can erect." 
 
 Napoleon Bonaparte, even, by way of high compliment 
 to Mr Paine, said: " A statue of gold ought to be erected 
 to him in every city in the Universe." He added, that he 
 slept with " The Rights of Man " under his prllow, and he 
 pressed Mr Paine to honor him with his correspondence 
 and his advice. 
 
 It certainly was not infamous to be promptly declared a 
 citizen of France, and to be elected to the National Assem- 
 bly from four different Departments. His career m that 
 body was eminently honorable. He was early appointed 
 one of the Committee to draft a Constitution for that coun. 
 trv He first made himself unpopular by his humane de- 
 f en'se of the unfortunate king, Louis XVI, whom he wished 
 to save from death and recommended that he be sent to 
 America. For this noble act, IngersoU pays this mented 
 tribute: " Search the records of the world and you will find 
 Sw sublimer acts than that of Thomas Paine voting 
 
 ^•^ 
 
 "'1 
 
TBI HUlCPHBVr-BBNKBTT 11IBCU88IOV. 
 
 against the king's death. He the hater of despotlBm, the 
 abboner of monarchy, the champion of the rights of man, 
 the republican, accepting death to save the life of a deposed 
 tyrant— of a throneless king. This was the last grand act 
 ot his political life—the sublime conclusion of his political 
 career." But, for this humane action, an insane people 
 threw him into prison, and by the merest chance he escaped 
 the guillotine. In my humble opinion it is well for the 
 world that he escaped death at that time. Otherwise his 
 "Age of Reason " would never have appeared. 
 
 This, his last great work, was written under the immedi- 
 ate apprehension of death, in a spirit of honesty, boldness, 
 and fairness rarely equaled. He certainly did not write 
 for popuhirity, for he took the unpopular side, but im 
 penned what he believed to be the truth. For this act 
 of self-sacrifice you and the Christian world are ready to 
 consign him to the lowest degree of degradation and in- 
 famy. Why is this so ? Because he was an honest man, 
 and uttered just what he believed, though he shocked the 
 prejudices of Christendom. He found contradictions, 
 absurdities, and obscenity in the Bible, and had the candor 
 and honesty to say so. Can you say he did not find them 
 there? If you do, I think I can easily point out your error. 
 Was it so wrong for FUne to give his real convictions that 
 he should be doomed to the realms of infamy forever? 
 No! Ko! Kol Rather let p»ons be sung to his memory, so 
 long as truth is superior to superstition and error. 
 
 Of the *• Age of Reason " you say: •* It does not contain 
 one original thought. All its cavils had been familiar to 
 the world ever since the days of Celsus and Porphyry. It 
 owes its notoriety not to its matter, but to its manner. . 
 Many Infidels of the higher type are ashamed of it." Allow 
 me to say that 1 think in this language you do violence to 
 truth. A more original work of the kind than Paine'a 
 '*Age of Reason " has not been produced for two hundred 
 years. Why did you not ffiv« icune proofs of your assert 
 
 THB HUHPHBEY-BENNSTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 C7 
 
 tlon that leading Infidels aie ashamed of it? Where are 
 the proofs to be found? If he merely played the parrot 
 «nd r^eated the ideas of otiiers. ^y have the anathemas 
 of the Church been heaped upoa his head a thousand times 
 more than upon those who you say were the originators of his 
 •entimentst If it is true that his writmgs cannot do any dis- 
 credit to Christianity, please tell me why defamation, slan- 
 der, and abuse have been so persistently thrown upon him 
 toy the Christian sects for three quarters of a century. 
 
 Is it not singular, too, that the writings of a mere plagiar- 
 ist should have been so popular while the originals sank 
 into comparative obscurity ? Probably there have been 
 more copies sold of Paine's "Age of Reason" than of all the 
 books of the other Infidel writers you named. One hundred 
 editions of the "Age of Reason " have doubtless been print- 
 ed and sold in England and America; and hundreds more 
 wiU yet be printed and sold. His Theological Works are 
 selling to-day far more rapidly than the works of any other 
 Infidel writer; and I believe this wiU be the case for the 
 next hundred years. Few works on the ChrisUaa sid« have 
 been equally as popular, and probably there has not been 
 one copy sold of Watson's Reply to the "Age of Reason" to 
 len or twenty sold of the latter. 
 
 Allow me to say in this connection that I have now in 
 press a fine editioa of Paine's Complete Works, which will 
 very soon be Issued in one large volume, including his 
 Life, also his Theological Works and his Political 
 Writings by themselves, as well as each part separately, 
 lam proud to be the publisher of the writings of Thomas 
 Paine, and deem it one of the most commendable acts of 
 my life. I shall be only too glad to furnish a copy of his 
 works, or any part of them, to any person who wants them. 
 Paine spoke directly to the people and addressed himself 
 to their plain common sense. This is the secret of his sue 
 cess as a writer. Jefferson expressed himself thus, regard- 
 ing Paine as an author: " No writer has excelled Paine in 
 
Int 
 
 
 I 
 
 9B 
 
 TBE mUMPHBST-BBirNBTT DISCUS8»ir. 
 
 •Me and ftmUiarity of style, in pewpicuity of expressioa, 
 Imppinew of elucidation, and in simple, nnassuming lan- 
 foage. In this respeet he may be compared with Dr 
 FrankUn." 
 
 Stephen Simpson said of Paine: ••Lucid in his style for- 
 cible in his diction, and happy in his illustrations', he 
 threw the charms of poetry over the statue of reason, and 
 made converts to liberty as if a power of fascination pre- 
 sided over his pen." 
 
 You have quoted a few words from Theodore Parker; let 
 me add a few more. In a letter to a near friend he said : '^I 
 ■ee some one has written a paper on Thomas Paine, in the 
 AOanHe Manihlp, which excites the wrath of men who are 
 not worthy to stoop down and untie the latchet of his shoes 
 nor even to bring them home from the shoe-black. It 
 
 must not be denied that he had less than the average Lmount 
 of personal selfishness or vanity; his instincts were humane 
 •nd elevated, and his life devoted mainly to the great pur 
 poses of humanity. His poliUcal writings fell into mf 
 hands in early boyhood, and I still think they were of im- 
 mense service to the country. . . I think he did more to 
 promote piety and morality among men than a hundred 
 ministers of that age in America. He did it by showing 
 that religion is not responsible for the absurd doctrines 
 taught in its name." 
 
 Quotations in this connection from a few other clergy, 
 men may not be out of place. Rev. Solomon Southwick 
 among other complimentary remarks, said: "Had Thomaii 
 Paine been a Grecian or a Roman patriot in olden times, 
 and performed the same public services as he did for this 
 countj, he would have had the honor of an apotheosis. 
 The Pantheon would have been opened to him, and we 
 should at this day regard his memory with the same vene. 
 ration that we do that of Socrates and Cicero. But posterity 
 wiU do him justice. Time, that destroys envy and estab- 
 Ifshes truth, WiU clothe ^ig character in the habilimenu 
 
 THB nnMFHREY-BENK£Tr DISCUSSION. 
 
 69 
 
 ;hat Justly belong to it." Rev. M. D. Conway, in a dis- 
 sourse in Cincinnati on Paine^s birthday, Jan. 29, 1860 
 twhich I had the good fortune to hear), said: '*A11 efforts to 
 itain the good name of Thomas Paine huve recoiled on 
 those who made them, like poisoned arrows shot against a 
 strong wind. In his life, in his justice, in Lis truth, in his 
 MUiercDce to high principles, in his disinterestt dness, I look 
 ID vain for a parallel in these times." The Rev. David 
 Swing of Chicago, and, I believe, of your own denomina- 
 tion, said: *'I have read Paine's theological works with 
 preat pleasure and profit. Indeed, judging by his writings, 
 be was one of the grandest and best men that ever trod the 
 planet." 
 
 In marked contradistinction to the tributes thus honor- 
 ably bestowed stands such dishonorable tirades as you 
 quoted from the envious and maligning pen of Adams. It 
 seemed to wound his vanity to have praise accorded to 
 Paine. He could hardly bear to have it go down in history 
 that anybody but himself struggled to fire the American 
 heart to deeds of daring and valor in the cause of national 
 independence. I must confess that the strongest proof you 
 have adduced in favor of Adams being a Christian are the 
 quotations against Paine which you make from him. 
 They sound exceedingly like Christian sentiments, and were 
 it not true that he never accppled the fundamental dogma of 
 Christianity, I would freely relinquish him to you and your 
 cause. That bis remarks about Paine were malicious, un- 
 generous and uncalled for, cannot for a moment be doubted. 
 
 You say, "Paine did not always tell the truth," and as 
 proof adduce his assertion that he never published a syllable 
 in England. It is quite possible that he did not. Writing 
 and ptihliahing arc very different operations. Many persons 
 write for my paper, but I am the pubUsher^ and equally so if 
 I write not a word myself. Do you suppose for a moment 
 that Mr. Paine meant that he nover torote a syllable in Eng- 
 andt It strikes me that I can substantiate a much stronger 
 
 i; 
 
 m 
 
 ;i'H 
 1 1 I 
 
 I 
 
70 
 
 THE eUUFUKBT-BIKNBTT DISOUSSIOIT. 
 
 
 I 
 
 chafge of falsehood against yoar God, your Savior, th« 
 patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the popes, bbh- 
 ops and priests, from the earliest times down to the present. 
 Should you desire it, it will be a cheerful task to me to ac- 
 commodate you. 
 
 Paine did not claim to be the author of the Declaration of 
 Independence, bat only that his pamphlet, *' Common 
 Sense," fed to «. This opinion is doubtless correct, and is 
 corroborated by the judgment of thousands. Your charge 
 ©f " self-righteousness and self-conceit" is indifferently bum- 
 tained. It was no more reprehensible for him to name him- 
 self as author of *' Common Sense" than for Jefferson to 
 name himself as the author of the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence. Both were quite excusable. His statement that he 
 had lived an honest and useful life was strictly true, and 
 hardly justifies your fling at his want of faith in the Jewish 
 Bible in connection therewith. Such as Paine was, he at- 
 tained by his own efforts. He claimed neither grace nor 
 virtue on the merits of another. 
 
 Few of his friends have claimed for him the authorship 
 of the "Junius Letters," though William H. Burr, in 
 his volume, *' Junius Unmasked," gives in parallel col- 
 umns a large number of extracts from Junius' and Paine*s 
 writings, and it must be confessed the similarity is striking. 
 You say "Paine became unpopular in Prance." This was 
 due more to the peculiar fitful, mercurial character of the 
 French people than to any other cause; though his praise- 
 worthy defense of Louis XVI, as has been shown, made him 
 temporarily unpopular. You say, also, that "he was penuri- 
 ous." Your estimate of him differs from that of others. 
 Joel Barlow, a man of the highest veracity, and who knew 
 Paine intimately, said: "He was one of the most benevolent 
 and disinterested of mankind, endowed with the clearest 
 perception, an uncommon show of original genius, and the 
 greatest depth of thought. . . He ought to be ranked 
 among the brightest and undeviating luminaries of the age 
 
 THE HUMPHRET-BKNNETT DIBCtJSSION. 
 
 n 
 
 In wWch he lived. . . He was always charitable to the 
 poor, beyond his means, a sure protector and friend to all 
 Americans in distress that he found in foreign countries; 
 and he had frequent occasions to exert his influence in pro- 
 tecting them during the Revolution in Prance." His sub- 
 scription of 1500, all the money he had in the world, for the 
 benefit of the soldiers, in the darkest days of the Revolution- 
 ary War, did not look much like penuriou$ne»8. He headed 
 the list by which £30,000, or $150,000, was raised, which 
 was another means by which the cause was saved. His 
 gift of the copyright of his works, never charging a cent for 
 the same, did not savor of penuriousness. Had he seen fit, 
 as many have done, to avail himself of the copyright, a 
 large income could have been secured to himself. Had he 
 been penurious, he would doubtless have done so. He was 
 frugal but not penurious. 
 
 Another charge you make is that " Paine was a drunkard 
 in his latter years." This is unkind, to say the least, and is 
 sustained only by slander and misrepresentation. He lived 
 at a time when almost everybody drank more or less; he did 
 make use of spirits, but he did not drink to excess, as many 
 of his intimate acquaintances testified. The allowance that 
 he restricted himself to was one quart per week, and 
 this included what he placed before his friends when 
 they called upon him. That quantity would not suffice for a 
 hard drinker. The amount used Is proved by the statement 
 of Mr. Burger, the grocer who supplied Mr. Paine, and I ob- 
 tained additional confirmation from surviving members of 
 the family with whom he boarded when at New Rochelle. 
 Their statement was that he never exceeded one quart per 
 week, and that they never knew him to be intoxicated. I 
 have conversed also with Major A. Coutant and Mr. Bar- 
 ker of New Rochelle, now very far advanced in life, but who 
 distinctly remember Mr. Paine. They remember him as a 
 pleasant, genial man, who lived on good terms with his 
 neighbors and Waa not known to ever have been intoxicated. 
 
 
 \ 
 
 : 
 
 I . 
 
71 
 
 THl BUMPHRET'BBNNBTT DIBCUSSION. 
 
 \r 
 
 If he even d^ get intoxicated oocasionally, It would hardly 
 disproTe hig arguments, either upon political or theological 
 suhjects, and would not render him materially different 
 from many of the brilliant minds who have graced our na- 
 tion's history, among whom may be named Daniel Webster, 
 Henry Clay, Thomas P. Marshall, Silas Wright, Stephen A. 
 Douglas, Richard Yates, and many others, not to name 
 Chandler and Grant of our own times. These men all made 
 pretty free use of ardent spirits, but the Church has not 
 tried to damn their memories on account of it The facto 
 are, Paine made an habitual use of the article, but he waa 
 not a drunkard. Had Paine become so intoxicated as to lie 
 in a drunken sleep, exposing his person, as did the patriarch 
 Noah, or like the patriarch Lot, to commit incest with his 
 own daughters, or even like the Rev. Mr. Pearson of Pitts- 
 burgh, or that other respected clergyman in Baltimore who 
 recently was so intoxicated in the pulpit as to be unable to 
 continue his sermen, you could have made out a much 
 stronger case of intemperance against him than with all 
 the facts we have in his case. 
 
 Your charge about his being *' unhappy and quarrelsome** 
 is hardly worthy of attention. In advanced life, when he felt 
 that he had been denied the credit which a grateful people 
 should have bestowed upon him, he might at times have been 
 peevish and uncommunicative, as many aged people are; 
 but amiability, geniality, and sociability were his general 
 characteristics. 
 
 I am most sorry of all, dear friend, to see you willing to 
 repeat or use the vile insinuations retailed by that ungentle- 
 manly slanderer, Cheetham, in regard to an intimacy be- 
 tween Paine and Madame Bonneville, throwing out the 
 imputation that he was the father of one of her children, 
 when there was not a particle of proof that there was the 
 slightest truth in the insinuation, and when you must have 
 known that Mrs. Bonneville prosecuted Cheetham for libel, 
 and sustained the actton without the slightest difficolty, and 
 
 ; 
 
 THB HUMFHRBT-BBimBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 73 
 
 that Cheetham's gentlemanly lawyer, acknowledged in 
 court that the charge was groundless— an unmitigated libel. 
 I can hardly think your cause can be benefited by repeat- 
 ing those calumnies and low insinuations. In view of the 
 notorious adulterous operations of Bishop Onderdonk, Rev. 
 Mr. Wesley, of Illinois, Rev. J. S. Bartlett, Rev. Miriam D. 
 Wood, Rev. J. M. Mitchells Rev. L. D. Huston, Rev. A. T. 
 Thompson, Rev. B. F. Berkley, Rev. Dr. Griswold, Rev. E. 
 G. Ribble, Rev. B. Phinney, Rev. I. S. Kalloch, Rev. Dr. 
 Pomeroy, Rev. Tunis Titus Kendrick, Rev. R. H. William- 
 son, Rev. John Newland Maffit, Rev. Mr. Wilcox, Rev. B. 
 W. Sehon, Rev. John A. Huckins, Rev. Mr. Deardorf , with 
 hundreds of other libidinous reverends, from Henry W. 
 Beecher. down to the Rev. Thomas B. Bott and the Rev. 
 J. H. Foster, against all of whom most damaging proofs of 
 adulterous criminalities were brought to light, it seems 
 hardly worth your while to revive the false and exploded 
 insinuation about Paine, whose record in that direction is 
 singularly clear and untarnished. Occupants of glass houses 
 or people whose friends are, should not amuse themselves 
 
 by throwing stones. 
 
 Mr. Paine never set himself up for a saint, nor have his 
 greatest admirers ever claimed that he was a man without 
 fault. He was human, and of course had his failings as well 
 as other men; but take him "all in all," through the 
 entire course of his life, and he will compare favorably 
 with distinguished statesmen, theologians, and authors of 
 the last two centuries. When, however, sectarians have 
 been unable to refute his arguments (and it is safe to say 
 that his theological arguments have never been refuted), 
 their only recourse nas oeeu to slander, abuse, and call him 
 hard names. Tney have seemed to think if they charged 
 Paine with intemperance, uncleanliness, sadness, and with 
 having recanted on his death-bed, that they had set his 
 arguments aside. It is not strange, then, finding this course 
 so much easier than refuting his argumento, that they, 
 
 I I 
 
 M 
 
 I 
 
94 
 
 THE HUMPHBSY-BBNNBTT DI»CUfl8I0N. 
 
 * 
 
 fihould readily resort to it As you are candid cnougli t« 
 adfult thaA "he died as he lived, a Deist," it is uimeces- 
 eary for me to disprove tlie oft-repeated and silly assertions 
 tiiat he recanted on his death-bed and £ave the lie to tho 
 honest convictioas of his life. 
 
 In conclusion, allow me to make one more brief quotatioa 
 from the matchless Ingersoll: **I challenge the world to 
 •how that Thomas Paine «ver wrote one line, one word, in 
 favor of tyranny— in favor of Immorality; one line, one 
 word, against what he believed to be for the highest aad 
 best interest of mankind; one line, one word, against jus- 
 tice, charity, or liberty, and yet he has been pursued at 
 though he had been a fiend from hell. His memory has been 
 execrated as though he had murdered some Uriah for hii 
 wife, driven some Hagar into the desert to starve with hia 
 4shUd upon her bosom; defiled his own daughters; ripped 
 open with the sword the sweet bodies of loving and inno- 
 cent women; advised one brother to assassinate another: 
 kept a harem with seven hundred wives and three hundred 
 concubines, or had persecuted Christians even unto strange 
 cities.** 
 
 The fact that it re<|tdffes nore space to refute false 
 charges than to make them must be my apology for the 
 length of my reply. 
 
 I am truly yours, D. M. BsNinETT. 
 
 MR. HUMPHRBT* 
 
 Mb. D. M. Bbnnett, Jkar Sir: Tou said in your first 
 letter that ** England had no deadlier foe to American free- 
 dom than was John Wesley." That, I think, is an incor- 
 rect statement. Like a great many other Englishmen, of 
 every species of belief and unbelief, Wesley thought the 
 British the best form of government in the world; and he 
 regretted to see a disruption between the Colonies and the 
 
 I 
 
 HUMTHREY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. *0 
 
 Kother country. But he was not a "deadly foe to American 
 freedom.'* He pronounced the slave trade " that execrable 
 sum of all villainies" (Works: London, 1810; vol. v, p. 47). 
 He wrote, and spoke in defense of religious toleration and 
 freedom of conscience (vol. vi, p. 237, 401). He and his 
 friend Gen. Oglethorpe endeavored to make Georgia a free 
 State (Greeley's American Conflict, vol. i, p. 82). In a let- 
 ter to Lord North, dated June 15, 1775, after receiving ful- 
 ler information than he at first possessed about the true state 
 of affairs, he said respecting the Colonists: " In spite of all 
 my long-rooted prejudices, I cannot help thinking, If I think 
 at all, these, an oppressed people, asked for nothing more 
 than their legal rights, and that in the most modest 
 and inoflfensive manner that the nature of the thing 
 would aUow. But waiving this, waiving all considerations 
 of right and wrong, I ask, is it common sense to use force 
 toward the Americans ? . . They are as strong men as 
 you; they are as valiant as you. if not abundantly more val. 
 lant,* for they are one, and all enthusiasts—enthusiasts for 
 liberty** (Parton*s Life or Franklin, vol. i, p. 548). Does 
 this look like deadly enmity to American freedom? 
 
 Ton promised to show that James Madison was an Infidel l 
 I wonder more at the promise than at the non-fulfillment. 
 Madison was a thorough believer in the Christian religion. 
 When he died, '*he had fulfilled, nobly fulfilled, the desti- 
 nies of a man and a Christian ** (J. Q. Adams* Eulogy, 
 
 p. 4) 
 So of Gouverneur Morris. You will hardly attempt to 
 
 prove that he was a Deist after seeing his uncomplimentary 
 
 estimate of Paine. 
 
 In your third letter you quote from Franklin's Autobiogra- 
 phy to prove that he was a Deist. Franklin was referring 
 to himself when fifteen, where he said, "I became a thor- 
 ough Deist.*' We have already shown that he passed 
 through a " regeneration," and " returned to the sentimenU 
 of his ancestors " after that Your quotation Is Uke citing 
 
 n\ 
 
 
 
Ttt 
 
 THB nUMPHRBT-BBNNETT DlSCUStlON. 
 
 what a man has said when tipsy, in order to show how 
 much sense he has when sober. 
 
 Ton make a special effort to convince the reader that Jef- 
 ferson was an Infidel. Many of your quotations only 8how 
 Jefferson's views concerning the ** corruptions and abuses 
 of Christianiiy." Tou can find similar things in sermons, 
 and, for that matter, in the New Testament. He advised 
 Peter Carr to take nothing for granted— to doubt everything. 
 Perhaps you are not aware that a course in a modern theo- 
 logical seminary is based on a similar principle. The stu- 
 dent is not taught to assume but to prove the existence of a 
 God. Descartes began with universal doubt. He *' ques- 
 tioned with boldness even the existence of a (^od.** But 
 was Descartes therefore an Infidel? No; he *' lived and 
 died a good Catholic" (Huxley*s Lay Sermons, p. 842). 
 In the inculcation of this principle, then, Jefferson did not 
 differ from Christian philosophers and theologians. 
 
 But Jefferson called himself a " Materialist." Yes ; and he 
 called himself a ** Christian" also. Now, these two state- 
 ments cannot be reconciled in your favor; but they can in 
 mine. Jefferson could not be a ** Christian** in any sense 
 and be a ** Materialist'' in the Atheistic sense. But he 
 emld be a Christian consistently with Webster's second defi- 
 nition of the word MaieriaUim : '* The tendency to give un- 
 due importance to material interests; devotion to the ma- 
 terial nature and its wanta" His writings prove abun- 
 dantly that he was not a *' Materialist" in the sense of "one 
 who denies the existence of spiritual substances.'* It follows 
 that Jefferson flatly contradicted himself, or else he used the 
 word *' Materialist" in a sense consistent with a belief in 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 And he called Paul a " Cor3rphaens." That ua» rather a 
 hard name to give the great Apostle. But you must know * 
 that avowed Christians sometimes give vent to unguarded 
 expressions of this kind. Borne women that want to preach, 
 when reminded of certaiii Uyunctioni to *'iUence in tlift 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BBNNKTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 77 
 
 churches," speak of Paul rather lightly as an "old bachelor.** 
 Martin Luther called James* Epistle " an Epistle of straw,*' 
 and he did it with considerable earnestness, too. But you 
 will hardly claim that Luther was an Infidel. Then why be 
 so mre that Jefferson was, since he did not speak more dis- 
 respectfully of Paul than Luther did of James f 
 
 If Jefferson was an Infidel why did he call the imputation 
 of Infidelity a "libel,** a "malignant distortion and perverted 
 construction'*? If he was an Infidel of the Paine type, how 
 was it that he did not allude, disciple-like, to Paine in one 
 of the twenty-five private letters that he wrote between the 
 time of Paine's death in June and the close of the year? If 
 he was an Infidel, how could Samuel Adams write to 
 Thomas Paine, in 1802, such words as these: " Our friend, 
 the President of the United States, has been calumniated 
 for his liberal sentiments, by men who have attributed that 
 liberality to a latent design to promote the cause of Infidel- 
 ity. This and all other danders have been made without a shad- 
 O'O of proof ;*^ and why did Paine not claim him in his reply f 
 If he was an Infidel, why did he always deny it, and claim 
 that he was a Christian t When will poor Jefferson cease 
 to be the subject of "libels," "slanders," "calumnies," 
 " malignant distortion and perverted construction **? 
 
 You devote a considerable part of your letter in defense 
 of Paine to showing whst I had already acknowledged. I 
 must give you credit for candor in not denying that 
 Paine labored for American Independence by assuming to 
 be a believer in the Bible, and by appealing to Christian sen- 
 timents with Christian arguments. What I meant by the 
 "period of Paine*s infamy," was the period in which he be- 
 came infamous. You refer rather contemptuously to Mad- 
 ame Roland as " a woman.'* I gave her opinion simply be- 
 cause she was a skeptic, esteemed very highly among In- 
 fidels. The whole American people expressed the same 
 opinion that she did by not electing Paine to any position 
 II here statesmanship would be required. You try in vain 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 M' 
 
 i, 
 
 I 
 
78 
 
 THS HUMPHBETBSNNSTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HUlfPHBET - BSHKBTT mSCITSSiaN. 
 
 19 
 
 to defend him against the charge of falsifying. Your dis- 
 tinction between writing and publishing seems to me Yerj 
 much like a quibble. John Adams said in regard to this 
 matter: "He was extremely earnest to conyince me that 
 'Common Sense* was his first-born; declared again and 
 again that he had never tmttm a line nor a word that had 
 been printed before * Ck)mmon Sense' " (Works, vol. ii, 
 p. 510). In regard to Paine and that French woman, Mrs. 
 Bonneville, I only gKvefaett which no one denies. Let every 
 one draw his own inference. Tou say truly that when 
 Cheetham was prosecuted for libel he failed to prove his in- 
 sinuations. Very well; but do Infidels drop their insinua- 
 tions against professing Christians when similar charges 
 are made against ihmn^ and fail of proof in a criminal coortf 
 The first instance is yet to be produced. 
 
 Permit me to say a word about the incorporation of relig* 
 ious freedom in the Constitution. That was not the work 
 of Infidels, but the achievement of believers in the Holy 
 Scriptures. On this subject Judge Story lays: " Wo ar« 
 not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious estab* 
 lishment to any indifference to religion xxi gonerol, and 
 especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more rev* 
 erenee than (heframers of the Constitution), but to a dread by 
 the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in mat- 
 ters of government." "Probably, at the time of the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now 
 under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentk 
 ment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive 
 encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement 
 was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, 
 and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to 
 level all religions, and to make it a matter of State policy 
 to hold all in utter indifference, would have created univer- 
 sal disapprobation, if not universal indignation** (Exposition 
 of the Constitution, New York, 1868, pp. 25»-261). 
 - li would be i«levant to oiur subject to show that belie veit 
 
 in the Bible have done much more than unbelievers to bring 
 about the abolition of American Slavery. But time and 
 space compel me to confine what I have to say on that mat- 
 ter to a mere outline: — 
 
 1. Slavery is older than the Bible; therefore the Scrip- 
 tures did not create nor establish that institution. 
 
 2. Slavery among the ancient Hebrews was much milder 
 than among the surrounding nations. The Mosaic law pro- 
 vided a periodical emancipation of all bondmen. The 
 whole regime was virtually a scheme for the gradual aboli- 
 tion of slavery, similar to that which the French Infidel 
 Condorcet recommended. 
 
 8. The cardinal principles of the Scripturef involve a 
 condemnation of Slavery. Christ so expounded them: "All 
 things whatsover ye would that men should do to you, do 
 ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets " (Mat 
 vii, 12). As far back as the age of Isaiah, we find among 
 the Jews such sentiments as the following: " Is not this the 
 fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, 
 to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, 
 and that ye break every yoke?" (Isa. Iviii, 6). 
 
 4 It is true, however, that many professing Christians 
 have sanctioned slavery; and the Bible has been pressed 
 into the service of the slave-holder. But the remedy for 
 these evils in the Church has always arisen from within 
 herself. The voice that has taught and corrected her mem- 
 bers has emanated from her own altars. The Christian has 
 always been the best friend of the oppressed. I need not 
 remind you of Wilberforce, the leading Abolitionist of Eng- 
 land. In our own country, the movement which culminated 
 in the Emancipation Proclamation was in the main a move- 
 ment of religious people. Henry Wilson says on this sub- 
 ject: **It has been fashionable to couple the charge of Infi- 
 delity with the mention of the Abolition effort. Nothing 
 could be more unjust or untrue. Anti-slavery was the child 
 of Christian faith. Its early and persistent defenders and 
 
 
If - 
 
 5-" 
 
 
 it..« 
 
 rt 
 
 ''■v.. 
 
 THB nUMPHRET - BEKHKTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 mppvrTcrs were men who feared God and called upon hit 
 ntimc '* (Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, vol. 
 lii, p. 718). In this magnificent work he shows that John 
 Eliot, Judge Sewall, Burliog, Sanlford, Lay, Woolman,Ben- 
 tzet, Wesley, Whitfield, Rush, &c.. Ac, opposed slavery 
 (vol. i, ch. 1.); that the earliest Abolition Societies were 
 ** loyal to the precepts of Christianity"; that Rev. Dan'l 
 Worth suffered imprisonment for circulating anti-slavery 
 literature (vol. ii, p. 668); that ** the great body of the Prot- 
 estant clergy condemned the Fugitive Slave Law" (vol. il, p. 
 8ia); that the ** Underground Railroad '* was the coopera- 
 tion. "gencraUy, though not exclusively, of members of 
 Christian churches" (vol. ii, p. 66). But. perhaps you do 
 not like Henry Wilson, because he was such a thorough- 
 going Christian. Take a more " liberal " man, then— a man 
 that could too frequently ** swear like a trooper." I mean 
 Horace Greeley. In the first volume of his "American 
 Conflict"— dedicated to the "Christian Statesman," John 
 Bright— he shows that Jonathan Edwards, Jr., preached 
 against Slavery in 1791 (p. 60); that John Wesley, Ogle- 
 thorpe, Washington and Jefferson opposed slavery (pp. 82, 
 84t 51); that the devout John Jay was the first President of 
 the New York Manumission Society (p. 107); that Franklin 
 was President and Rush Secretary of a similar Society in 
 Pennsylvania (p. 107); that the "pioneers of modern Abo- 
 litionism were almost uniformly devout, pious, church-nur- 
 tured men" (p. 121); and that the fint manyrt of Abolition- 
 ism—Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy and John Brown— were fer- 
 vent Christians (pp. 141, 206-7). 
 
 It is clear from all this that the earliest, most earnest, per- 
 sistent, and numeroui friends of the slave were found In the 
 Church, and not among Infidels. In the campaign of 1860 
 when Slavery and Liberty were fighting their last desperate 
 battle at the polls, where was "the matchless Ingersoll" 
 that has been prating so much of late about the " liberty 
 of man, woman, and child"? Ot coiirse* he was among Um 
 
 ISB muffnniEY-BBNSETT DISCT8SION. 
 
 IM 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 ™lere all burned off. and thea came forward .Uha 
 big brass pan to claim the honey. 
 
 1 hag been claimed that Lincoln was an Infidel. Having 
 
 J; the^rHon that Colfax said so in his lecture. I wrote 
 
 !, rtrr Colfax to ask whether that was true or not. 
 
 rSed- 1 d i "« »y in »y Wncom l^ur. that Mr 
 
 ^1^H\. not a belierer in the Christian religion but 
 
 Wered iul«60 Mr. Lincoln said: "'^^o^^*'^^^'^'''^, 
 'Ze 1 Unbw that Liberty is right, for CJn^^-^-t. "n. 
 CAm. * Qoa'> (Arnold's Life of Liwsoln. p. «88^ ^Ixen^eaT 
 ing SpriDgaeld to assume the Presidency he said: He (Wash 
 inLn) never would have succeeded except for the «d of 
 »S.„e Providence, upon which »» »' '^"-- f "^ J 
 "1' that I cannot succeed without the *««»« 0''"f ^ 
 :; which sustained him; and on t^^^/-* ^^^^^^f"" 
 I Place my reliance for wpport. And I hope you. my 
 Lenl Ta «fl 1^ that I may receive that dmne assist- 
 IL witllth^I cannot succeed, but wiOj which .uc- 
 Z I certaiu-dbid. p. «»). ^ Ms first Inaug^ra^ h. 
 Ld. .' Intelligence, patriotism. €hi»liantts, «.dafcm re- 
 tL on Him who has never yet foisaken !>» ^o-^ "^^ 
 »re still competent to adjust in the best way all our present 
 
 ::;::;." 'm. --- -^i'^- jr^rrt 
 
 rthc'yrr^iir^^^^^^^^^^^ ---: 
 
 ever to L and act in the consciousness of his responsibility 
 to God and with the trusting faith of a child be leaned 
 ionfldi^gly upon his Almighty Arm." "The -ppo* 
 which lb. i-incoto received during hia admu.istr.aon f «« 
 
81 
 
 THE HUMPnRET-BENNETT DtSCtHSSIOm 
 
 THE nUHPnilEY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 88 
 
 ^P'" 
 
 ■J 
 
 § 
 
 the relrgioHs orgraniaationg, and the sjmpathy and cod©- 
 dcnce between the great body of Christians and the Presj- 
 dent, was a source of immense strength and power to him** 
 (Ibid, p. 688>. "This great family. wUh a continent for » 
 homestead, universal liberty, restrained and guided by in- 
 telligence and Chn$timitff, was his sublime ideal of the 
 future. For this he liYed, and for this he died" (Ibid, p, 
 690). Raymond endorses a similar testimony concerning 
 Ws "religions ejiperience" ^ife and Public Services of 
 Abraham Lincoln, X. Y., 1865. pp. 730-6X 
 
 In apposition to such authorities as^ these what is the value 
 of a "they say so,« or an "it is said"? Simply nothing, 
 limcoln was indisputably a profound believer in the Chris- 
 tian Religion. 
 
 I now close my dacussion of the first proposition, i 
 have endeavored to show that "believers in 'the Bible 
 have done more for civil liberty in the United Sutes than 
 nnbeHevers in it "-moie for Independence ^ more for 
 Religious Pieedom in the Conetitutiott; and more for the 
 Abolition of Slavery from Americaa teiL 
 
 Yours with respect, G. a Humphbkt* 
 
 KR. BKVITBTT. 
 
 Ret. G. H. Humphrey, Btmr Sir: Upon the principle 
 that. " scatteriDg shot kiH the most game." your last letter 
 should have brought down a beg-liill, for your gwi scattered 
 widely. 
 
 You think me incorrect in the assertion thet England had 
 no deadlier fee to American freedom than John Wesley. 
 If you will cOBfolt the Life end Times of John Wesley, A. 
 H., by Rev. L. Tyerman. vol. iii. pp. 185-195, London 'edi- 
 tion, you wm find that I had sufficient grounds for making 
 the assertion. You will see that while the Colonists were 
 •tthiaisfiive to the rale of Greet Bciteie, end weie wUliag to 
 
 w 
 
 abide bylaws the enaction of which they had no hand in, 
 and were willing to be taxed to sustain them, Wesley was a 
 friend to the Colonists. But when they presumed to resist 
 the principle of taxation without representation, none were 
 more zealous in opposing their movement than the great 
 apostle of Methodism. He early took ground against their 
 efforts in opposition to being taxed without their consent. 
 He preached, in 1776, powerful sermons against the resist- 
 ance the Colonists were making. The Rev. Tyerman thus 
 writes: " Both England and America were terribly excited; 
 but space prevents our entering into details. Suffice it to 
 say that the alleged grievance of the American Colonists 
 was their being taxed without their consent by the Eng- 
 lish Parliament. Dr. Johnson was known to be a great 
 hater as well as a great genius. * Sir,* said he, concerning 
 the miscellaneous and mongrel Colonists across the Atlantic, 
 ' Sir, they are a race of convicts and ought to be thankful 
 for anything ve allow them short of hangingl* No wonder 
 that the English government, already at their wits* end. ap- 
 plied to Johnson to assist them with his powerful pen. He 
 did so by the publication, in 1775, of his famous pamphlet, 
 •Taxation no Tyranny, an answer to the Resolutions of 
 the American Congress.* No sooner was it issued than, with 
 or without leave, Wesley abridged it, and, without the least 
 reference to its origin, published it as his own, in a quarto 
 sheet of four pages, with the title, *A calm Address to Our 
 American Colonists, by the Rev. John Wesley, A. M. 
 Price one penny.' ** 
 
 Thus we have the best of evidence that Wesley endorsed 
 and fathered the bitter arguments and invectives against 
 the Colonists of the man who said : "They are a race of 
 convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow 
 them short of hangingl'* His little abridgment of Johnson, 
 at one penny, of course had a wide circulation. Wesh»,y had 
 then arrived at the age of seventy-two, and, through his con- 
 tinuous preaching and writing, wielded e great influence. 
 
 - \ 
 
(',. 
 
 fs 
 
 THE humphhey-bennett discussion. 
 
 85 
 
 TUB BtTMFHRET-BBKNSTr DISCUSSlOlf. 
 
 I< 
 
 Tbero were few men in England who were more coospica- 
 ous or had more influence, so that what he published against 
 the American cause was quite as effective as the labors of 
 any man in England. 
 
 There was a warm friendship between Johnson and Wes- 
 ley, and the former was evidently pleased that the latter had 
 BO emphatically endorsed what he had written against the 
 Colonists. In a letter to Wesley, Feb. 6, 1776, Johnson 
 wrote: '^Ihave thanks to return for the addition of your 
 important suffrage to my argument on the American ques- 
 tion. To have gained such a mind as yours may justly 
 confirm me in my opinion. " Wesley's course was regretted by 
 the warm friends of the Colonists, and many opposed the 
 position be occupied, and several pamphlets were published 
 mercilessly combatting him. For further confirmation 
 on this point I will refer you to the British and American 
 Cyclopedias. I will not take room for further quotations, 
 having, I think, produced sufficient proof to show you that 
 at the very time that Thomas Paine, the Infidel, was using 
 his entire efforts to rouse the Colonists to the importance of 
 resisting the oppressions of the British Government, John 
 Wesley, the Christian par exeeUenee, was using his great 
 ability and influence to aid their oppressors. 
 
 Tou seem not altogether pleased with my showing of 
 Jefferson's Christianity or his Infidelity, whichever it may 
 be regarded. I am sorry for this, as I wish to have his 
 case clearly understood. I showed that he advised his 
 nephew and ward to ** fix reason firmly on her throne," to 
 "question boldly the existence of Ood," to read the Bible as he 
 would Livy or Tacitus, to believe nothing in it without au« 
 thority more than other books. He cast discredit upon such 
 atalements in the Bible as disagree with the laws of nature, 
 like Joshua's causing the sun and moon to stand still, Jesus 
 being bom of a virgin, etc. I showed that the leading Pres- 
 byterian paper of the country, Sidney E. Morse, editor, de- 
 clared Jefferson unfriendly to c^thodox religion, a disbe* 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 Meverin Divine Kevelation. and a "scoffer of the very lowest 
 class," a "Materialist and a Humanitarian of the lowest kind." 
 I quoted Jefferson's own letters in which he characterized 
 the Trinity as a hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like anoth- 
 er Cerberus, with one body and three heads; that he wrote 
 to Adams, **The day will come when the mystical genera- 
 tion of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, will be 
 classed with the generation of Minerva in the brain of Ju- 
 piter." I showed that he spoke freely of the stupidity of 
 some of the Evangelists and early disciples, and of the 
 roguery of others; that he said, "Of this band of dupes and 
 impostors Paul was the great Coryphaeus and first corrupt- 
 er of the doctrines of Jesus;" that he pronounced himself a 
 "MtUerialist.** I showed that he denounced the clergy of 
 Europe and America, and pronounced them an injury to the 
 people; that he spoke very disparagingly of revivals, prayer- 
 meetings, etc. ; that he approved of much of D'Holbach's 
 Atheistical writings; that he wrote to Col. Pickering about 
 "the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, 
 that three are one and one is three." 
 
 I gave you much more that he said and wrote, and still 
 you are not satisfied — still you insist that he was a 
 Christian, and that on one occasion he called himself one. 
 If he did so I think it must have been in a very Pickwickian 
 sense, for few men have more strongly expressed themselves 
 as unbelievers in the divinity of the Bible and the Christian 
 
 religion. 
 
 You allude to my mention of the fact of Franklin statmg 
 in his autobiography that he "became a thorough Deist," 
 and wish to counteract the effect of it because the time he 
 alluded to was when he was young, but you f aUed to show 
 where he stated that he had ceased to be a Deist. He was 
 somewhat offended when Whitefleld spoke as though there 
 was little difference between an Atheist and a Deist; Frank- 
 lin had a distinct idea of a difference. He denied being an 
 Atheist but never denied being a Deist. You will remem- 
 
 . i 
 
88 
 
 TB£ HnMPORST-BSNirXTT DUCUBSKHV. 
 
 ber that Dr. Priestley, who knew Franklin intimately, re- 
 gretted that he was a Deist When Franklin had arrived at 
 the great age of eighty-five he acknowledged that he still en- 
 tertained doubts of the diylnity of Jesus. I wish you would 
 show where he ever gave any acknowledgment that he be- 
 lieved that Jesus was the son of God or was God himself. 
 
 As to Washington. I showed by Jefferson and Gouver- 
 neur Morris that he was an unbeliever in the Christian re- 
 ligion, that he never wrote or spoke a word in a public or 
 private capacity that committed himself to it, and I showed 
 by the Rev. Mr. Abercrombie that the General was a Deist. 
 I showed Aaron Burr to be of the same belief, that even at 
 the hour of death he could not be induced to admit that ho 
 believed in the divinity of Jesus. 
 
 The same may be said of John Adams. Although he was 
 envious of Paine, and said unkind and untrue things of 
 him, he did not accept the leading Christian dogma, and 
 in this respect sympathized closely with Jefferson. 
 
 You do not quote me correctly when you say I promised 
 to show ** James Madison was an Infidel." I only said X 
 would probably have more to say of him. He is not a cen- 
 tral figure, and I have i^ven but little attention to him. I 
 think information is rather meagre touching his religious 
 views. His biographers have been rather non-committal 
 upon the subject. In the "American Cyclopedia" the 
 statement is made that in early life '* his attention was par- 
 ticularly directed to the evidences of the Christian religion, 
 but no account is given of his having embraced it at any 
 time of his life. Jefferson thus wrote respecting Madison: 
 '*From three and thirty years* trial I can say conscien- 
 tiously that I do not know In the world a man of purer in- 
 tegrity, more dispassionate, disinterested and devoted to 
 pure republicanism, nor could I in the whole scope of 
 America and Europe point out an abler head." But in this 
 not a word about his " standing up for Jesus." Jefferson 
 and Madison were particular friends, and entertained many 
 
 iraiB HUMTHREY-BBNNETT BISCUSSION. 
 
 «7 
 
 ^lews and opinions in common. If Madison was a Ckris- 
 ZZbewJin all probabiUty a ChrisUan of the Jefferson 
 school. The phrase you quote from the eulogy of J. Q. 
 Adams about his being a man and a Christian am.un^ ^ 
 ^ery litUe. In one sense every man in the U^ted States 
 27y be called a " Christian." as this is a boasted ChnsUaa 
 
 ^*?f Gouverneur Morris, the data respecting his reUgious 
 views are meagre. We know this much that he and^^^^ 
 «on were intimate and cordial friends. Jefferson thus 
 wrote of Morris in connection with Washin^on: I 
 know that Gouverneur Morris ^»«> ^^l'^^^;^^;;^^^^ 
 <Washington*s) secrets, and believed himself to be so haa 
 often told me that Washington believed no more m that 
 :ystem (Christianity) than he himself did.; This one 
 quotation is sufficient to setUe the <l^«»^;^^ "J^^ ^ 
 Morris' views are concerned. Had he been a Chr« he 
 would hardly have repeatedly told Jefferson that Wash- 
 ington did not believe in the Christian religion. If » ^.^« 
 thought Washington an unbeliever, and l^^wishe^ to show 
 the fact, he would hardly have compared WaBhington with 
 l^imself unless he was perfectly wiUing to have it under, 
 atood that he was also an unbeliever. If 1^ was a Chxia- 
 tian at all, he was of the same type with Jefferson. Aiter 
 he is dead and buried it is very easy to set up the claim that 
 he was a Christian, but in this case the claim greatly needs 
 
 "^^orstm adhere to the idea of Paine's -Infamy^ and say 
 you meant that the -period of his infamy began when hebe- 
 cameinfamous." As he never became infamous, tiietmietr^d^ 
 is very indefinite. When he wrote the "Age of Reason ' 
 he was far from infamous. That effort was glorious; it la 
 so regarded now, and will be for centuries to come. It is a 
 
 little singular after admitting that ''^^^'J'^^'^^nt 
 talent," That -hU assistance in the cause of mdependeno. 
 w.!v;iy great; that he had good traits, that he was honest. 
 
 .1 
 ■i 
 
•Si 
 
 m 
 
 
 gs- 
 
 THB irCMPHUKT • BENNETT J>TSCI7S8I0H; 
 
 BOt uncbaritabTe^ that he abstained from profanity, that he^ 
 •pposed slavery, etc, that you should still iasist that he wa» 
 infamou9i Is that a Ghfistiim spirit! Is it infamous to* 
 doubt? 
 
 » 
 
 You are mistaken about my speaking contcmptiwiisly of 
 Madame Roland. Nothing could be farther from me. It 
 is not contemptuous to regard her or to speak of her as a 
 woman. To show Paine to not have been a statesman, yoa 
 quoted this lady. Thinking, as a general thing, women are 
 not so weU informed as to what pertains to statesmanship a& 
 men, I thought your case would have have been stronger 
 had you quoted some masculine authority on that head. 
 
 You allude to the formation of tiie Constitution of our 
 country, and make the singular assertion that *' it was not 
 the work of Infklels, but was the achievement of believer» 
 In the Holy Scriptures." Here you. are wrong, at least par- 
 tially so. It was a mixed convention of believers and un» 
 believers that framed our Constitution. If a large share of 
 them were Christians, they were Jefferscmian Christians, 
 who believed very little, and had but little reverence fop 
 antique superstitions. In proof of this,, it is only necessary 
 to adduce the fact that neither God, Jesus Christ, nor the- 
 Bible are recognized nor mentioned in that remarkable in- 
 strument If they were strong believers in the trio, and 
 deemed their recognition of any special importance, they 
 were certainly very remiss in their duty in not inserting 
 them and founding the government upon them. I think 
 were a convention of leading Christians held to-day to frame 
 another Constitution for our country, and it were composed 
 of the highest Reverends in the land, including Bro. 
 Talmage, Bro. Fulton, Bro. Tyng, Bro. Deems, Bro. 
 Crosby, Bro. Moody and yourself, that *'€k)d,"his "Soa 
 Jesus Christ," and the " Holy Scriptures" would most un- 
 mistakably appear in the instrument, and every man who pre- 
 sumed to doubt them would have but few rights and pre-^ 
 lOg^ves. What a world of untasinsM would have been 
 
 I 
 
 THE HUMPUTIEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 paved to millions of the pious Christians of to-day had the 
 f ramers of the Constitution recognized Jehovah, Jesus and 
 the Bible. It would have spared them the great labor of get- 
 ting up mammoth petitions, bearing hundreds of thousands 
 of names, asking that the instrument be amended, and that 
 the great trio be recognized. 
 
 It is hard to estimate with any accuracy how many times 
 the f ramers of our glorious Constitution have been devoutly 
 but secretly cursed for this unpardonable omission. They 
 were not near equal to the f ramers of the Constitution of 
 the Confederate States, for they recognized God, Jesus, and 
 the Bible, in the true Christian spirit. But, nevertheless, 
 it did not avail them. With all their veneration, all their 
 reliance, all their prayers for success, their Constitution and 
 their cause had to go by the board, while our Constitution, 
 without a God, or a son of a God, or a Bible of any kind in 
 it, the Constitution upon which is based the government 
 which Washington solemnly declared "not in any senm 
 founded on the Christian religion," was triumphant and is 
 
 so still. 
 
 I think it is quite fair to conclude that the Christian ele- 
 ment was not strong in the convention that framed our Con- 
 stitution or there would have been some Christianity in it. 
 Its God, its Savior, or its revealed law, would assured- 
 ly have been mentioned. I think that, under the circum 
 stances, much boasting of their ultra Christianity is decided- 
 ly superfluous. Our Constitution, essenlially Infidel as it is, 
 ignoring alike God, Christ, and the Bible, is a fair illustra- 
 tion of how much Christianity and faith had to do with this 
 country's achieving its independence or in framing its laws. 
 Infidelity was certainly as conspicuous all the way through 
 as was Christianity. 
 
 You say: "It would be relevant to our subject to show 
 that believers in the Bible have done much more than un- 
 believers to bring about the aboUtion of American slav- 
 ery." Yes. it would be quite relevant, if it can bo done 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
90 
 
 THK HUMPaRBT-BBXNETT DXSCUBaiOlT. 
 
 TEE HUH^IlttEy - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 m 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 trut^fuU^, In view of the fact that neither Jehovah not 
 Abraham, Jacob, Moaes, Joshua, Davici, Solomon, Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah^ Ezekiel, Daniel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, the popes, 
 bishops, and leading saints of the Christian Church, down to 
 fifty years ago, ever took it upon themselves to say a word 
 against the principle of slavery, it is quite cool and refresh- 
 ing, this hot weather, to hear you declare that the credit 
 of the anti-slavery movement belon;js exclusively to believ- 
 ers in the Bible. 
 
 You say, '* Slavery is older than the Bible, therefore the 
 Scriptures did not create nor establish that institution." 
 But is slavery older than God ? If he was opposed to its 
 origin and continuance and yet it existed for thousands of 
 years, does it not prove either want of wiU or want of power 
 on his part ? If slavery was regarded as wrong by the 
 founders and sustainers of Christianity, why were they not 
 brave enough to denounce it boldly and clearly f "All things 
 whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you," etc., 
 scarcely meets the case. It is general and vague; besides it 
 was a sentiment abundantly taught by the Pagan sages, 
 hundreds of years before he of Nazareth uttered it. 
 
 If the authors of the Bible were earnest and honest oppo- 
 nents of slavery, why did they let such injunctions as these 
 form so conspicuous a part of the book: *'A servant of ser- 
 vants shall he be unto his brethren," " Servants, obey your 
 masters," *' Obey them that have role over you," '< The 
 powers that be are ordained of God,*' and much more in the 
 same line T If they believed slavery was wrong, why did 
 they not say so with force and directness ? Ah, my friend, 
 they were not anti-slavery men, and it is useless to under- 
 Uke to show that they were. Who were the leaderg 
 and workers in the anti-slavery movement in this coun- 
 try— earnest workers while the cause was still unpopular— 
 who fearlessly risked their lives in defense of the down- 
 trodden f They were Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Stephen 8. 
 Foster. Abby Kelly, Theodore Parker, Henry C. Wright, 
 
 f 
 
 Parker PilUbury, Gerrit Smith, Wendell Phillips— liafidels, 
 every one I They were persistent opposers of slavery when, 
 their lives were endangered by that course, and it was not 
 until the cause had become partially popular and safe that 
 the Christian Church embraced it. It was with this as with 
 most other reforms, the Church foUotoed, but did not lead. 
 On the contrary, the Church for many decades was a zeal- 
 ous defender of slavery. Many a person was denied ad- 
 admittance intoA church to make an anti-slavery speech. 
 Leading Abolitionists were mobbed and grossly insulted by 
 church-members. The white-cravated clergy would not be 
 seen upon anti-slavery platforms nor in Abolitionist con- 
 ventions. Half the Christians of the North were in fa- 
 vor of the institution, and nearly all in the South, so that 
 about three fourths of the Christians of the United States 
 were defending slavery while a great majority of the Infi- 
 dels were opposing it. 
 
 The Churches North and South, or a portion of them, 
 divided upon this subject. Your Church— the Presbyterian 
 —if I remember rightly, did not divide, but tacitly support- 
 ed slavery until the war of the rebellion broke out, and 
 since by force of circumstances and the advance of Liberal 
 ideas it has ceased to exist, they not only shout over its de- 
 feat but claim great credit for having killed it. How un- 
 just it is after the Churches of the United States upheld 
 slavery for two or three generations, while Infidels and un- 
 believers were earnestly fighting it, to now turn around and 
 claim all the honor of its suppression and give the opposite 
 aide none. Thus it has been with the cause of temperance. 
 For decades the Church opposed the cause of temperance 
 and threw cold water and wet blankets on the struggling 
 child as long as they could, and now they fain would make 
 the world believe they are the parents of the grown child 
 and have done in its favor all that has been done. This is 
 not true. While many Christians have been and are now 
 earnest friends of temperance, thousands and thousands for 
 
 I 
 
93 
 
 TUX HXnCPHKKT-BTOO'ETT DISCTTSSTOW. 
 
 M 
 
 ■1 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 ■I 
 1 
 
 a long time retarded its progress so far as lay in their 
 lK)wer. 
 
 The didtingrtished clergyman and author, Albert Barnes^ 
 uttered the simple troth when he solemnly declared that th» 
 greatest obstruction which the cause of temperance had ta 
 contend with was the apathy and unfriendliness of the 
 American clergy. 
 
 The brilliant Rev. Joseph Cook, in a recent discourse in 
 Boston, made very truthful statements touting the subject 
 of anti'Slavery in this country. EL© said: " If the Northern 
 Church had done its duty the South would hare had no* 
 hope of a divided North, and the war would not have been» 
 Let not the Church grow proud over the fall of slavery; it 
 was not her work. The Church could have refused to up- 
 hold secession in the South; it could have made slave-hold- 
 ing a bar to church-membership, as the Quakers did; it 
 could have given direction to the reform movement by put- 
 ting itself stalwartly on the right side. United action 
 would have prevented apathy in the North and united action 
 in the South, and would have made war impossible.'* 
 
 He complimented Theodore Parker highly for the faithful 
 services he performed in the anti-slavery cause. He said: 
 ** Theodore Parker stood upon a high pulpit in Music Hall. 
 But it was anti-slavery, and not anti-Christianity that made 
 that pulpit as high as Strasburg steeple. It was high be- 
 cause other pulpits were low. PEkrker was with God in the 
 anti-slavery struggle, but the Church was not where it ought 
 to have been.'* 
 
 The reverend gentleman is quite correct. Parker was right 
 and the Church was wrong — "not where it ought to have 
 been." Had the Church in this country acted right and in 
 concert, slavery would have been ended fifty years ago and 
 the terrible war of slavery-rebellion, with its cost of one 
 million lives of the promising young men of the North and 
 the South, and five hundred millions of treasure might have 
 tieeA laved. The Church acted the dt^tardly part iu the 
 
 THE IIUMPDREY- BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 m 
 
 foul businoss of slavery. It worked for genefations to sus- 
 tain and uphold it, and sadly failed to come up to the high 
 instincts of human nature. It was not the Church that 
 overthrew slavery; it was the spirit of humanity which per- 
 vaded the minds and hearts of the people. 
 
 You gratuitously make uncomplimentary allusions to 
 Robert G. iDgersoll, and refer to the time when he cooper- 
 ated with the pro-slavery party. I cannot give the precise 
 date when he left that party, but perhaps it was about the 
 time he turned his back upon Christianity and the Church. 
 You are pleased to speak of his ''prating about the lib- 
 erty of man, woman and child.** Yes, he jwa^, and to some 
 purpose, too. There is hardly another man in the United 
 States doing so much to-day toward forming public opinion, 
 and in the interests of humanity and truth, as is Col. Inger- 
 BolL O. that there were hundreds more that could prate like 
 him I If the sixty thousand clergymen of this country could 
 prate as he does, it would amount to vastly more than the 
 idle and childish gating about gods and devils and hells 
 which they now give us. 
 
 I was not aware that the religious views of Abraham Lin- 
 coln were to form a part of this discussion, but I will en- 
 deavor to follow where you lead. Let us see whether he 
 was a Christian or an Infidel. The position he occupied, 
 and the necessity which forced him to strike the fetters 
 from the limbs of the slaves have made him a very distin- 
 guished character in our country*s history, and the Church 
 must needs claim him as her own, so she can monopolize 
 the entire credit of overthrowing slavery. Lincoln had 
 clear and settled views upon theological subjects, which he 
 maintained through life, but it must be admitted that, after 
 he became exclusively a politician and realized now much 
 his success depended upon the support of the masses, a 
 large share of wkom were at least professed Christians, he 
 did not at all limes make his secret views known; that in 
 his public speeches he used some of the cant phrases which 
 
 . VJ 
 
94 
 
 TSB nUMPHRETB MNNE TT DItlGUBSION. 
 
 
 i- 
 
 t<»* 
 
 I . 
 
 he well knew would fall pleasaQtly upon the ears of the su- 
 perstitious masses. It must be conceded also, that he did 
 occasionally drop a remark that might be construed to mean 
 that he had some faith in the Christian religion, and that 
 from a spirit of playfulness, or of enquiry, he appeared at 
 times to be. investigating the subject of Christianity, but 
 that Lincoln was all his life an out-and-out Infidel is one of 
 the clearest propositions that can be made; and had I the 
 space I could give you many pages, of the size of this, of 
 certificates, letters, and statements of the men who knew 
 him intimately, and all confirming the fact of his un- 
 belief. 
 
 Lincoln was eminently a kind-hearted, humane person, 
 but he became an Infidel to Christian theology when a 
 mere youth. He never believed in the divinity of the 
 Bible, nor that Jesus Christ was Qod or the begotten Son of 
 God. By referring to pages 486 and 487 of Lamon*s Life of 
 Lincohi you will read as follows: ** Mr. Lincoln was never a 
 member of any church, nor did he believe in the divinity of 
 Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures in the sense un- 
 derstood by evangelical Christians. His theological opin- 
 ions were substantially those expounded by Theodore 
 Parker. Overwhelming testimony out of many mouths, 
 and none stronger than that out of his own, places these 
 facts beyond controversy. When a boy he showed no sign 
 of that piety which his many biographers ascribe to hi« 
 manhood. . . . When he went to church at all, he went 
 to mock, and came away to mimic. Indeed, it is more 
 than probable that the sort of * religion ' which prevailed 
 among the associates of his boyhood impressed him with a 
 very poor opinion of the value of the article. On the whole, 
 he thought, perhaps, a person had better be without it. 
 When he removed to New Salem he consorted with Free- 
 thinkers; joined with them in deriding the gospel history of 
 Jesus; read Yolney and Paine, and then wrote a deliberate 
 and labored essay wherein he reached conclusions similar to 
 
 I 
 
 TUB HUMPHREY-BB3JNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 0!^ 
 
 theirs. The essay was bii^nt (by his friend, Mr, Hill) but 
 he never denied or regretted its composition. On the con- 
 trary, he made it the subject of free and frequent conversa- 
 tion with his friends at Springfield, and stated with much 
 particularity and precision the origin, arguments, and 
 object of the work." 
 
 James H. Matheny, of Springfield, 111., who intimately 
 knew Mr. Lincoln for over twenty-five years, in a letter to 
 Wm. H. Herndon, uses this language; "I knew Mr. Lin- 
 coln as early as 1834-7; know he was an Infidel. He and W. 
 B. Herndon used to talk infidelity in the Clerk's Office in 
 this city, about the years 1837-40. Lincoln attacked the 
 Bible and the New Testament on two grounds; first, from 
 the inherent or apparent contradictions under its lids; sec- 
 ond, from the grounds of reason. Sometimes he ridiculed 
 the Bible and the New Testament; sometimes he seemed to 
 scoff at it, though I shall not use that word in its full and 
 literal sense. I never heard that Mr. Lincoln changed his 
 views, though his personal and political friend from 1834 
 to 1860. Sometimes Lincoln bordered on Atheism. He 
 went far that way and often shocked me. . . . Lincoln 
 would come into the Clerk's Office, and would bring the 
 Bible with him; would read a chapter; argue agaihst it. . 
 Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an Atheist; at least, bor- 
 dered on it. He was enthusiastic in his infidelity. As he 
 grew older he grew more discreet; didn't talk so much be- 
 fore strangers about his religion ; but to friends, close 
 and bosom ones, he was always open and avowed, fair 
 and honest; but to strangers he held them off from pol- 
 icy. . . Mr. Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little 
 book on infidelity. This statement I have avoided hereto- 
 fore; but as you strongly insist upon it, I give it to you as 
 I got it from Lincoln's mouth " (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, 
 
 pp. 487 and 488). 
 
 Mr. Lamon gives numerous other letters of the same 
 tenor from the old friends and acquaintances of Lincoln, 
 
 
94 
 
 TEB nUMFHBBTBENNETT DlfetCCSaiOK. 
 
 ■ii- 
 
 ,..,. 
 
 r. 
 
 he well kBCW would fall pleasaDlly upon the ears of the su- 
 perstitious masses. It must be conceded also, that he did 
 occasionally drop a remark that might be construed to mean 
 that he had some faith in the Christian religion, and that 
 from a spirit of playfulness, or of enquiry, he appeared at 
 times to be. investigating the subject of Christianity, but 
 that Lincoln was all his life an out-and-out Infidel is one of 
 the clearest propositions that can be made; and had I the 
 space I could give you many pages, of the size of this, of 
 certificates, letters, and statements of the men who knew 
 him intimately, and all confirming the fact of his un- 
 belief. 
 
 Lincoln was eminently a kind-hearted, humane person, 
 but he became an Infidel to Christian theology when a 
 mere youth. He never believed in the divinity of the 
 Bible, nor that Jesus Christ was God or the begotten Son of 
 God. By referring to pages 486 and 487 of Lamon's Life of 
 Lincohi you will read as follows: ** Mr. Lincoln was never a 
 member of any church, nor did he believe in the divinity of 
 Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures in the sense un- 
 derstood by evangelical Christians. His theological opin- 
 ions were substantially those expounded by Theodore 
 Parker. Overwhelming testimony out of many mouths, 
 and none stronger than that out of his own, places these 
 facts beyond controversy. When a boy he showed no sign 
 of that piety which his many biographers ascribe to his 
 manhood. . . . When he went to church at all, he went 
 to mock, and came away to mimic. Indeed, it is more 
 than probable that the sort of 'religion* which prevailed 
 among the associates of his boyhood impressed him with a 
 very poor opinion of the value of the article. On the whole, 
 he thought, perhaps, a person had better be without it. 
 When he removed to New Salem he consorted with Free- 
 thinkers; joined with them in deriding the gospel history of 
 Jesus; read Volney and Paine, and then wrote a deliberate 
 and labored essay wherein he reached conclusions similar to 
 
 i\' 
 
 THB HUMPHUEY-BRNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 05 
 
 theirs. The essay was biltnt (by his friend, Mr. Hill) but 
 he never denied or regretted its composition. On the con- 
 trary, he made it the subject of free and frequent conversa- 
 tion with his friends at Springfield, and stated with much 
 particularity and precision the origin, arguments, and 
 
 object of the work." 
 
 James H. Matheny, of Springfield, 111., who intimately 
 knew Mr. Lincoln for over twenty-five years, in a letter to 
 Wm. H. Herndon, uses this language: **I knew Mr. Lin- 
 coln as early as 1834-7; know he was an Infidel. He and W. 
 I). Herndon used to talk infidelity in the Clerk's Office in 
 this city, about the years 1837-40. Lincoln attacked the 
 Bible and the New Testament on two grounds; first, from 
 the inherent or apparent contradictions under its lids; sec- 
 ond, from the grounds of reason. Sometimes he ridiculed 
 the Bible and the New Testament; sometimes he seemed to 
 scoff at it, though I shall not use that word in its full and 
 literal sense. I never heard that Mr. Lincoln changed his 
 views, though his personal and political friend from 1834 
 to 1860. Sometimes Lincoln bordered on Atheism. He 
 went far that way and often shocked me. . . . Lincoln 
 would come into the Clerk's Office, and would bring the 
 Bible with him; would read a chapter; argue agaihst it. . 
 Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an Atheist; at least, bor- 
 dered on it. He was enthusiastic in his infidelity. As he 
 grew older he grew more discreet; didn't talk so much be- 
 fore strangers about his religion ; but to friends, close 
 and bosom ones, he was always open and avowed, fair 
 and honest; but to strangers he held them off from pol- 
 icy. . . Mr. Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little 
 book on infidelity. This statement I have avoided hereto- 
 fore; but as you strongly insist upon it, I give it to you as 
 I got it from Lincoln's mouth " (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, 
 
 pp. 487 and 488). 
 
 Mr. Lamon gives numerous other letters of the same 
 tenor from the old friends and acquaintances of Lincoln, 
 
 li 
 
 % 
 
r 
 
 tI© 
 
 TBM HUmPHIIET-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION, 
 
 'i I 
 
 i 
 
 bearing testimony of his infidelity. I would be glad to laf 
 them before you and my readers, but space will not permit 
 their introduction here. I will give in addition a few pas- 
 sages from a letter of the Hon. John T. Stuart, of Spring- 
 field, III: "I knew Mr. Lincoln when he first came here, 
 and for years afterwards. He was an avowed and open 
 Infidel ; sometimes bordered on Atheism. Lincoln went 
 further against Christian beliefs, doctrines and principlei 
 than any man I ever heard. ... He always denied that 
 Jesus was the Christ of God; denied that Jesus was the Son 
 of God, as understood and maintained by the Christian 
 Church. The Rev. Dr. Smith, who wrote a letter, tried to 
 convert Lincoln from infidelity so late as 1858, and couldn't 
 do it!" Also the following from Wm. H. Herndon Esq., 
 who probably knew Mr. Lincoln as intimately as did any 
 man in America: "As to Mr. Lincoln's religious views, he 
 was, in short, an Infidel. . . A Theist. He did not 
 believe that Jesus Christ was God; was a fatalist, denied 
 the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand 
 times that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of 
 God, as the Christian world contends. The points that Mr, 
 Lincoln tried to demonstrate (in his book) were: ** First, 
 that the Bible was not God's revelation; second, that Jeeus 
 was not the Son of God. I assert this on my own knowledge, 
 and on my veracity." Mr. Lamon gives more than twenty 
 pages of similar matter, but I must quote no more. Now, 
 in the face of all this, it is rather up-hill work to make ft 
 pious ChristMu of Lincoln. 
 
 If you can make a good Christian of a man who totally 
 denies the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, 
 and who borders upon Atheism, why Ingersoll, Underwood 
 and myself might as well be counted in at once. We have 
 not been more pronounced in our infidelity, either by speak- 
 ing or writing, than was Abraham Lincoln. There is no use 
 in trying to evade the testimony of honorable men who 
 knew him for a life-time, and quote against their evide&co 
 
 THB HUMPHRBT-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 97 
 
 what some priest or interested sectarian biographer might 
 imagine or wish as to Lincoln's views. 
 
 As to Mr. Colfax, he did say in his lecture delivered in 
 Brooklyn, March 25th, 1876, that Lincoln was not a believer 
 in Christianity. I got it from a party who heard the lec- 
 ture. It was so reported also in some of the daily papers, 
 and to make the thing doubly sure, a friend of mine writing 
 to a party in South Bend, Ind., the home of Colfax, asked 
 him to call upon Colfax and enquire of him in regard 
 to Lincoln's belief. He did so, and Colfax confirmed what 
 he had said in his lecture. But as Colfax knows no more 
 about Lincoln's religious opinions than hundreds of others, 
 and inasmuch as the veracity of this •* Christian statesman " 
 on some other important matters has been seriously ques- 
 tioned, pertaining to questionable operations in which ho 
 was implicated, I will not insist upon his testimony being 
 taken in this case. 
 
 Now, as we are about taking leave of this branch of our 
 discussion let us take a brief review of the ground gone 
 over and the results achieved. I claim, in the first place, to 
 have shown that the original pure article of Christianity as 
 taught by its founders does not recognize nor admit the 
 right of its devotees to fight for national or personal liberty, 
 and that those who do so violate the injunctions imperative- 
 ly given against fighting under any circumstances, and to 
 that extent, are Infidels; hence the Americans, in addition 
 to being rebels, were Infidels also. 
 
 I claim to have shown that the perpons who did most to- 
 wards arousing the Colonists to the fighting-point, in con- 
 ducting and fighting the battles of the lievolution, and in 
 organizing the form of government we have since lived 
 under, were Infidels. Those men were Franklin, Washing- 
 ton, Paine, Jefferson, Allen, etc., etc. 
 
 I claim to have shown that our Constitution is an Infidel 
 instrument, entirely ignoring God, Christ, and the Bible. 
 I daim also to have shown that the warfare against 
 
 II 
 
 I 
 
" { -■ 
 
 «- TBS HtJMPHRET-BKNNETT DTSCUaSIOlff. 
 
 American slayery was originated and continued for decades 
 by leading Infidels, while the Church lent its power and in- 
 fluence in favor of the slaveholders; and finally. 
 
 I have shown that the man who. at one blow, struck off 
 the fetters of four millions of slaves, was a sUunch, per- 
 slstent Infidel, Honest Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 I am. Dear Sir, very truly yours, 
 
 il 
 
 PART II. 
 
 The Servickb of iNriDELiTY and Chbistianitt to 
 
 Leahhing and Science. 
 
 MR. HUMPHRBT. 
 
 Mr. D. M. Bennett, Bear Sir: Just a word of review, 
 and then we will proceed to the second proposition. 
 
 You say my ** gun scattered widely." There are two rea- 
 sons for that: — the comprehensiveness of the subject, and 
 the "scattered" condition of the "game.*' Perhaps you 
 ought to be thanked for the tacit admission that my " scat- 
 tering shot kiUs," There are indications, however, that you 
 will die ** game." 
 
 Ghosts will not down. You repeat what you have already 
 said about Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and others. I 
 will refer you to my former letters, and especially to the 
 references contained therein, for a disproof of those reiter- 
 ations. I am more anxious to furnish the firmest facts and 
 the strongest arguments than to get the ktst word. 
 
 If you will re-peruse my last letter you will find proof that 
 John Wesley did not "endorse and father bitter arguments 
 and invectives against the Colonists." There is not a " bit- 
 ter" word in his " Calm Address;" and in his letter to Lord 
 North he spoke in the most respectful and flattering terms 
 of the Americans, 
 
 As to the religious views of the framers of our Constitu- 
 
too 
 
 THB nUMPHRET-BSNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 w 
 
 tion, 1 will let the reader choose between your assertion and 
 Judge Story's opinion, quoted in my last letter. 
 
 The Slavery question is a complicated subject. One thing, 
 however, is certain, viz; that "the pianeers of modern Ab- 
 olitionism were almost uniformly devout, pious, church- 
 nurtured men " (Greeley's American Conflict, vol. i, p. 
 121). William Lloyd Garrison was a church-member when 
 he started out as an Abolitionist. Wendell Phillips' 
 religious position is somewhat uncertain. But he is 
 not an Infidel of the Paine stamp. A writer in the Boston 
 InvesHgatar, May 30, 1877, condemns and ridicules him be- 
 cause he gave an exhortation in one of his speeches to "take 
 heed to the promises of God," and to ** trust the future to 
 God." Ben J. Lundy, the Jirtt Abolitionist, properly so- 
 called, was an orthodox Quaker (Greeley's Am. Conflict, 
 vol. i, pp. Ill, 118). So is John G. Whittier. W. C. Bry- 
 ant is a Universalist Gerrit Smith, though not a church- 
 member, had family worship in his bouse. The Paineites 
 who identified themselves with the Abolition movement 
 were very scarce indeed. On the other hand, Christians es- 
 poused the cause when it was "unpopular." It cost sever, 
 al of them their lives. Who can estimate the influence of 
 Mrs. Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Who can measure 
 the eflfects of Albert Barnes' anti-slavery utterances as ex- 
 pressed in his " Notes " and other writings f If many min- 
 Isters were gagged by fear or policy, or received the hush- 
 money of the wealthy slave-holder, it must not be forgotten 
 that there were clergymen— and they were not a few— that, 
 dared cry aloud against the iDJustice and inhumanity of 
 slavery. Religious bodies declared against it. Ever since 
 the Revolution the Quakers have refused membership to 
 •uch as traffic in slaves. The Congregationalists, Baptists, 
 Presbyterians, and Methodists, have not always been con- 
 sistent on this question; but they have repeatedly, in their 
 highest tribunals, expressed their disapproval of slavery. 
 Thii ii more than was done by any "Radical Club "or 
 
 I vHm 9 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BENNETT DISCDSSION. 
 
 101 
 
 "Liberal Association." People who do little or nothing 
 themselves are often the readiest to criticise the doings of 
 others. 
 
 You try to make out that Lincoln was an Infidel. When 
 you thought you had Colfax on your side, you called him 
 a *♦ respectable Christian authority " (Sages, p. 774); but af- 
 ter discovering that he is against you, you say sneeringly 
 that the "veracity of this Christian statesman on some 
 other important matters baa been seriously questioned." 
 This is only the fox crying " Sour grapes." We have four 
 elaborate biographies of Lincoln— Arnold's, Raymond's, 
 Dr. J. G. Holland's and Lamon's. The first three say Mr. 
 Lincoln was a believer in the Christian religion. Holland 
 especially is clear and strong on this point. Lamon alone 
 tries to make out that he was a skeptic. 
 
 The following points should be carefully considered re- 
 specting Mr. Lamon's "Life of Lincoln:" . 
 
 1. It extends only to Lincoln's inauguration as President. 
 
 2. It studiously avoids quotations from Lincoln's own 
 utterances. 
 
 8. It bears internal evidence that the writer is anxious to 
 establish this allegation. Infidelity, too, has its "interested" 
 
 biographers. 
 
 4. The witnesses that Mr. Lamon brings forward are in- 
 consistent and contradictory. One says Lincoln "some- 
 times bordered on Atheism," while another declares "he 
 fully believed in a superintending and overruling provi- 
 dence." One tells us he was " utterly incapable of insincer- 
 ity," while another insinuates that "he *played a sharp 
 game' on the Christians of Springfield." One informs us 
 that he was a "fatalist;" and then the biographer assures 
 us **Mr. Lincola was by no means free from a kind of be- 
 lief in the supernatural." Hon. David Davis says: "I do 
 not know anything about Lincoln's religion, and I do not 
 think anybody knew:" but Hon. John T. Stuart says: "He 
 was an avowed end open InfideL' 
 
 
 -J 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 M 
 
•H 
 
 103 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HUMTHllET-IJENNETT DISCUSSION, 
 
 108 
 
 The jewel of consistency is not to be found in this mass 
 of testimony. The truth is, the whole thing is the result of 
 Mr. Hemdon*s culling, collocation, jury-packing and special 
 p!auling. This Mr. Hemdon is himself a ** Freethinker •/' 
 and he was deeply *' interested '* in showing that his famoua 
 partner held views similar to his own. 
 
 If Lincoln was an Infidel, how was it that his political 
 opponents did not bring this charge against him in the cam- 
 paign of 1860 ? If he was an Infidel, and *' incapable of 
 insincerity,'* why did he say that ** Chritt ia God,'' and that 
 '* intelligence, patriotism, and Christianity .... are 
 still competent to adjust in the best way our present diffl- 
 culty "r If he was an Infidel, how was it that he asked the 
 people of Springfield to pray for him, when he was leaving 
 them to assume his Presidential duties f Mr. Homdon said 
 he '* was mortified, if not angry, to see him (Lincoln) made 
 a hypocrite** (Lamon*s Life of Lincoln, p. 496). But Mr. 
 Lincoln mutt have beet^ either a hypocrite, or a believer in 
 the Christian Religion, as the citations given above, and 
 many more that might be added, clearly prove. Christiana 
 have never charged Lincoln with hypocrisy, but Infidels 
 Aaw, and Mr. Hemdon is as guilty of this as anybody. (See 
 Lamon*s Life of Lincoln, pp. 487-604) 
 
 Let us now take up the second proposition, That be* 
 
 LIEVEBS IN THE BiBLB HATE DONE MORE THAN UNBB* 
 LISVER8 TO FBOMOTE SCIBK«B AND LEARNING. 
 
 I will occupy my remaining space with proof that th« 
 Bible 'itself contains nothing inimical to science and learn> 
 ing, but that, contrariwise, it praises and encourages 
 them. When the Jewish people were, according to the nar- 
 rative, objects of the Lord's special care and instruction, 
 Ihey were inferior to no race in their cultivation of the arts 
 and sciences. They were eminently a civilized nation. 
 The Scriptures never mention skill, invention, and refine- 
 ment with disrespect On the contrary, they represent the 
 Most High as commanding the first man to discover and 
 
 utilize — in one word, *• subdue " — the forces and resources 
 of Nature. In the fourth chapter of Genesis we find hon- 
 orable mention of Jubal, as the first musician; of Tubal- 
 Cain as the first foundry-man; and of Lamech as the first 
 poet And the first poem of this poet is preserved. Noth- 
 ing is condemned in the antediluvians but their wickedness.. 
 Koah, it is said, was an object of the Divine favor. But 
 he must have been a first-class architect, and practical 
 builder, or he could never have constructed the ark. And 
 he must have been no mean naturalist, when he could class- 
 ify the animals according to his instructions. Even if yon 
 regard this whole account as mythical, it will still remaia 
 that Genesis speaks with approval of art and architecture. 
 
 The Tower of Babel indicates an advanced stage of civ- 
 ilization. The people had a language. And their applied 
 ambition showed that they were not inferior to the build- 
 ers of the Pyramids. 
 
 Abraham possessed considerable knowledge of surgery, 
 as is evinced by his administering the rite of circumcision. 
 
 The ancient Egyptians were among the most civilized 
 people of the world. In the course of events, the descend- 
 ants of Abraham made their abode with that people for a 
 period exceeding four hundred years. There they learned 
 all that the Egyptians knew. The common people obtained 
 a knowledge of the practical arts, by a hard experience, and 
 the more fortunate Moses acquired the learning and science 
 of the royal court. When they left Egypt they took all 
 that knowledge with them. And they added to it by their 
 subsequent contact with other nations, and as the result of 
 their varied observation. If you examine Josephus and the 
 Old Testament, you will discover that the Jews were infe- 
 rior to none in their study and practice of the arts and 
 frciences that characterized ancient civilization. 
 
 The women were exquisite cooks. They could make 
 bread, leavened and unleavened, and cakes of all kinds. 
 They could roast, fry, and broil meat Th^ knew how to 
 
 "H, 
 
 v^ 
 
-rrr" 
 
 101 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOH. 
 
 make butler and cliccse. In short, they could get up a meal 
 
 in first-class style. 
 
 They were excellent milliners and dress-makers. They 
 couia use cosmetics to as great advantage as any of our 
 modern ladies. If jewelry, and rich apparel, made most 
 tastefully, are indicative of civilisation, then, most assur- 
 edly, the Jewish women were highly civilised. The latter 
 part of the third chapter of Isaiah sounds very much like a 
 scrap from some olden DemoresC 
 
 And the men were equal to the women. Their division 
 of Canaan ehowe that they possessed considerable knowl- 
 edge of surveying. They were well versed in geography, 
 as their frequent allusions to it Indicate. They were inter- 
 ested in astronomy, as their naming of several constellations 
 signifies (Job. Ix. 9; Is. xiii. 10; Amos v. 8). They were 
 familiar with the uses of medicine, and the diagnosis of 
 disease, as is proved by their law respecting leprosy, and by 
 the frequent mention of physicians and healing herbs. 
 They were well acquainted with books, as their many ref- 
 erenoes to them show. They had a taste for poetry, and an 
 appreciation of first-class poets, as is evidenced by their fond- 
 liess of Job. the Psalms, and Isaiah. They were superior 
 musicians. They were fine players on the organ, fiute. 
 harp, trumpet, cymbal, dulcimer, drum, psaltery, timbrel, 
 gittith, higgaion, sackbut, and the harp of a thousand 
 strings. They were i^ccurate historians, as their genealog- 
 ical tables, and the Bible itself attest. They were the very 
 best of architects, as the tabernacle, their cities, and espe- 
 cially their Temple, demonstrate. Bvery Jew was required 
 to learn some substantial trade. 
 
 They had fixed weights and measures, an established cur- 
 rency, and a calendar equal to Caesar's or Gregory's. They 
 were active in domestic and foreign commerce. Their ships 
 traversed the seas. They encouraged phUosophy. They 
 honored statesmanship. They had their seven wise men. as 
 well as Qreece. Solomon was the pride of the Old Bcono* 
 
 THE HUMPHBBT-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 105 
 
 my, because he was a great natural philosopher. " He 
 spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thou> 
 sand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree 
 that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out 
 of the wall : he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of 
 creeping things and of fishes" (1 Kings iv. 82, 33). He was a 
 Tupper. a Linnseus, an Audubon, a Cuvler, and an Agassiz, 
 all In one. 
 
 Nor is the New Testament less friendly than the Old to 
 learning and science. Jesus wept as he contemplated the 
 downfall of the beautiful Jerusalem. It was with profound 
 sorrow that he foretold the destruction of the Temple— that 
 crown of ancient architecture. His many parables show 
 that he was a close observer and tender admirer^ of Nature. 
 Very significantly, his first worshipers were the sa^es and 
 saeans of the East. When only twelve years old, he sought 
 the company of the best scholars of the land. His '* learn- 
 ing "was the wonder of his cotemporaries (John vii:15). 
 If he chose illiterate disciples, it was in order that he might 
 educate them. The last Apostle whom he called had passed 
 through the two best schools in the world in that age — the 
 classical school at Tarsus, and the divinity school at Jerusa- 
 lem. This Apostle Paul visited the greatest cities of the 
 world. He beheld the highest monuments of genius. 
 Bid he show them any disrespect? Never. He was at 
 Ephesus, and saw the temple of Diana— one of the Seven 
 Wonders; but he did not utter a word against its artistic 
 and sculptural grandeur. He was at Corinth, and looked 
 upon the crowning achievements of culture and refinement. 
 He found no fault with the inipregnable fortress of the 
 Acrocorintbus. He expressed no contempt for Corinth's 
 extensive commerce, or for its invention of the triremes. 
 He was at Athens. He quoted their own poets to the 
 Athenians. He walked through the Acropolis and wit- 
 nessed the Erechtheum and that masterpiece of Phidias — the 
 tnow-white Parthenon. The works of the Greek masters 
 
 i 
 
 / 
 
109 
 
 THB HUMPHBET-BBimBTT DIBCUSSIDlT. 
 
 were all around him. Bat he never said a word derogatorr 
 to Greek literature or to Greek art He saw. too, the mag- 
 nificence of Rome. In its walls, arches, aqueducts, for- 
 tresses, palaces and Capitol, he found only objects for admir- 
 ation. Paul condemned only " science /afe«?y 9(hcalUd »' 
 (1 Tim. Ti-.20). He dtspised only the ^ack philosophy 
 that has been the plague of e? ery age. 
 
 I have made the foregoing remarks to show that ths BOIU 
 ttocy contains no disrespect to the highest forms of civiliza- 
 tion. It rather sanctions and encourages it And it is demon- 
 stiahle that the most advanced type of civilizaUon has hov- 
 ered around the Holy Scriptures ever since they were written. 
 In my next I will try to show some of what professing 
 Christians have done to foster and expedite education and 
 progress. Yours sincerely, G. VL Humfhbbt. 
 
 it 
 
 1% 
 
 nR« BBNRETT* 
 
 Rkv. G. H. Humphrbt, Dear Sir: As I cannot see that 
 in your last you refuted any of the positions I had taken, it 
 will be necessary to give but little space to that portion of 
 your letter. You bring no new argument to relieve Joho 
 Wesley of the charge that England had no greater foe ta 
 the cause of the American colonists than himself, and that 
 he espoused the arguments of Dr. Johnson, who denounced 
 the colonists as a race of " convicts," and insinuated that 
 they ought to be hung. Johnson thanked Wesley for join- 
 ing him and espousing his cause; the friends of the 
 American colonists in England were much incensed against 
 Wesley for the course he pursued, and he was most bitterly 
 denounced in numerous pamphlete and publications. Wes- 
 ley wielded a great influence at that time, and England had 
 no greater and no more ardent foe to American indepea 
 dince. I think you cannot disprove this. 
 
 THE nUMrnREY-BKNNETT DISCUSSIOK. 
 
 107 
 
 In regard to Lincoln*8 Infidelity, I am quite content to 
 rest it upon the testimony of a score of life-long friends 
 and acquaintances who knew him intimately, and had many 
 times heard him express himself pointedly upon theological 
 questions, and in opposition to the belief of Christians. I 
 place their evidence far above that of interested parties wri- 
 ting in the interest of the Church, or with a purpose to show 
 him to be what he was not. The discrepancies you enumer- 
 ate are more apparent than real. There is i^p material disa- 
 greement. They merely illustrate how different men may 
 express themselves upon a given subject. Nothing is better 
 proved than that Lincoln was an Infidel for more than a quar- 
 ter of a century, and there is no reliable testimony that 
 he changed his belief after going to Washington. His pri- 
 vate secretary and intimate friend, John G. Nicolay, testified 
 that he did not change. That he occasionally made use of 
 ambiguous remarks which might give the impression that he 
 had confidence in prayer, etc., is quite possible, but there is 
 no probability that he believed that "Christ is God," and I 
 do not believe that he ever said so. 
 
 If Mr. William H. Herndon is an unbeliever or a "Free- 
 thinker," it by no means invalidates his testimony Or his 
 labors. That class of men have proved themselves as capa- 
 ble of telling tiie truth as any men in the world. 
 
 As to Colfax, you misrepresent me. I have not found 
 •• his testimony against me." He did say in his speech that 
 Lincoln was an unbeliever in Christianity, and he admitted 
 the same when a friend called upon him at his home. When 
 you reported that you had written to him and he appeared 
 to •* hedge," and that he meant " Lincoln did not belong to 
 a church," I remembered that on other more important 
 subjects he had been accused and convicted of falsehood, 
 and I said I would not insist upon his evidence. 
 
 As to the Constitution of the United States, the simple 
 fact that God, Cbrist and the Bible are entirely ignored in 
 it, or never mentioned, goes much farther with me in decid- 
 
 A 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 -1 
 
 t 
 
•!■- 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 108 THK HtJMPHKBT-HENNBTT WfiCfmSIOK. 
 
 ing its Character than all that ChrUtiaii pettifoggers can saj 
 upon the subject. If the framers v>€re Christians, and they 
 did not think enough of their God, their Savior and their 
 - Book from heaven" to even allude to them, their Chris- 
 tianity did not amount to much. They were no better 
 
 than Infidels. 
 
 Now for the second proposition. I must coufess myseU 
 amused at your efforts to make the Bible appear to be a 
 book of science or especially friendly to it. A person 
 who can perceive much science in that volume has cither a 
 very acute or a very accommodating perception. Is the Bible 
 account of the creation a scientific one? Does science teach 
 that light and darkness were originally blended together 
 and had to be separated? Does science teach that the 
 countless burning suns or stars that stud the vault of heaven 
 ^cre not brought into existence until after the earth wm 
 formed, and were then "set" in a firmament which held 
 a vast body of water above the earth from falling to it? 
 Does science teach that the earth existed, had days and 
 Lights, brought forth plants, herbs, shrubs, and trees, per- 
 feeling seeds and fruits before the sun existed or before a 
 drop of rain had fallen upon the earth? Is it a scientific 
 idea of the way in which rain was produced— by opening 
 the windows of heaven (probably placed in the floor, or fir- 
 mament,) letting the body of water stored up there de- 
 Kcend to the earih, without any provision being made for ite 
 getting back again? 
 
 Would science teach that it required Omnipotence to work 
 five days to make this little globe, while the sun, a mill- 
 ion times larger, Jupiter and Saturn, thousands of times 
 larger, the countless millions of celestial orbs and suns, 
 larger than the entire solar system, could all be made in one 
 
 ^Tre the two accounts in Genesis of the formation of 
 woman equally scienlific-the one that she was formed of 
 day at the ti»o Adam waa, the other that she was not 
 
 4^ 
 
 THE HUirPHBBT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 109 
 
 formed until after the animals were made and named, when 
 « surgical operation was performed upon Adam and a rib 
 abstracted, from which she was made? Would science 
 teach that a female weighing one hundred and twenty-five 
 pounds, principally composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitro- 
 gen, and carbon, could be produced from a rib of phos- 
 phate of lime, weighing less than a pound ? 
 
 The Bible states that the earth was created in five days, 
 in which time all forms of vegetable and animal life were 
 produced. Science teaches that the earth for vast ages was 
 ft ball of highly-heated or fused matter, and that immense 
 periods necessarily had to pass before there could be 
 soils, vegetation, and anhnal life. The Bible teaches that 
 the earth, the sun, and all the vast number of shining orbs, 
 were made less than six thousand years ago. Science has 
 brought to light stars that are so remote that thousands and 
 millions of years are required for their light to reach our 
 earth, though it travels at the rate of 200,000 miles per 
 second 1 The Bible teaches that the earth was made and 
 finished in the five days that Jehovah devoted to it. Sci- 
 ence teaches that for incomputable ages the earth has been 
 growing by the aggregation of falling bodies of matter 
 accumulated in contiguous space, and called meteors, aero- 
 lites, etc. Stratum after stratum has in this way been 
 added to the earth's surface, but it has taken ages upon ages 
 to effect it. The growth has been slow and gradual. 
 
 The Bible teaches that the first formations of organized 
 life were grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees. Science teaches 
 that the lower orders of animals which exist in water, as the 
 hydrozoa, jelly-fish, star-fish, etc., classed as radiata, and 
 clams, oysters, etc., termed moUusca, and the pdyparia, ex- 
 isted ages before grass and trees could possibly have had an 
 existence. The Bible teaches that vegetation of all kinds 
 was produced on the same day. Science teaches that sea- 
 weed and water-plants of various kinds existed long, long 
 before grass and fruit-trees came into being. What is called 
 
110 
 
 THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DI8CU88IOK. 
 
 THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 Ill 
 
 the coal-plant, of which the strata of coal over varioui 
 parts of the earth were composed, grew luxuriantly thou- 
 sands of years before grass, shrubbery, flowering plants and 
 fruit-trees had an existence. 
 
 The Bible teaches that birds and quadrupeds were 
 brought into existence on the same day with reptiles or 
 creeping things. Science teaches that birds, quadrupeds, 
 and mammals could not have existed until long, long after 
 reptiles and cold-blooded animals had been upon the earth. 
 The Bible teaches that man has existed less than six thou 
 sand years. Science shows by incontrovertible proofs 
 tliat man has existed on this earth not less than one hundred 
 thousand years. The Bible teaches that man was created 
 intelligent, highly developed, and perfect, and that he fell 
 into ignorance, degradation, and barbarity. Science teaches 
 that man in prehistoric times lived in caves, roved about 
 like wild animals, was litUe above the brutes, and has grad- 
 ually risen in the scale of intelligence and civilization. 
 
 All these truths which science teaches can be demonstrated 
 by the history that for ages has been recorded in the rocks 
 that make up the crust of the earth, but want of space 
 will not allow roe to refer to it now. What, then, be- 
 comes of your harmony and friendship of the Bible for sci- 
 ence? They utterly faU. There is nothing clearer than 
 that the writers of the Bible knew nothing of geology, little 
 or nothing of astronomy, very little of cosmogony, nothing 
 of chemistry, nothing of anthropology and ethnology, very 
 little of biology, very little of boUny, very little of zoology, 
 very little of meteorology, very little of mathematics, very 
 little of hydrostatics, and very little of psychology. Their 
 knowledge of geography was extremely crude and limited 
 or they would not have talked so much about the ends, the 
 eomm's, the pillars, and the foundations of the earth. What 
 did they knovy about the earth*8 being a round ball; about 
 its revolving daily on its axis and coursing around the sun 
 every three hundred and sixty-five days T Simply nothing 
 
 «t all. What did they know about the real causes of day 
 And nighS spring and autiimn, summer and winter ? Noth- 
 ing whatever. An ordinary school-boy ten years of age 
 knows more upon this subject than did all the Bible writers 
 combined, adding your God and Jesus €hrist to Oie number. 
 Jlevelatien has never brought these simple truths to light 
 Jehovah seemed to know nothing about them. It has been 
 left to science to bring them to the knowledge of mankind. 
 
 Had you undertaken to show that the stories of Robinson 
 Crusoe and Old Mother Hubbard and her Wonderful Dog 
 harmonize with science and are friendly to it, I think you 
 would have been more successful. The first was written 
 :by a man of far more intelligence than the Bible writers. 
 It contains nothing like the number of improbabilities and 
 impossibilities that the Bible does. It has amused and in- 
 structed millions of young people without filling their 
 minds with false representations of angry gods, malicious 
 devils, and vindictive torture. Even in Old Mother Hub- 
 bard, though the tale of a dog's dressing in man's clothes 
 tind talking is perfectly absurd, it is no more so than an ass 
 talking and holding an argument with his master. Old 
 Mother Hubbard and her dog, equally with the Bible, 
 ^recognized many of the arts and trades, and said nothing 
 derogatory to them. 
 
 You speak of Noah's skill in building the ark, and of his 
 science in -classifying the animals. The ark appears to have 
 been a mtte box. or "flat-boat." and did not require a vast 
 amount of skill; besides, it is not Just to give much credit 
 of it to Noah, for God tdd him how to mak« it in every 
 particular. Nor can I see why Noah should be credited 
 with having xjlassified the animals, when there is no account 
 of his doing anything of the kind. According to the picto* 
 rial representations I have seen, the animals marched 
 into the ark two by two, like trained soldiers, and of th«ir 
 own accord, while Noah seemed to pay very little afc- 
 lenlion to them. But really, my friend, do you attach 
 
 . 1 
 
113 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BEHNBTT DISCtrSSIOK. 
 
 THE HUMPHKBT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 113 
 
 much importance to that silly " Flood Story"? Do you re- 
 gard it as a scientific statement? Does it seem scientific to 
 you to pretend that the atmosphere could support moisture 
 enough to rain over the entire earth to the depth of 
 five miles, to the tops of the highest mountains? If it did 
 not come from the atmosphere, where did it come from? 
 Does it seem scientific to say that two or three millions of 
 animals, birds and insects voluntarily and simultaneously 
 congregated from every zone and continent of the earth 
 unto Noah, to be placed in the ark? If they did not 
 come voluntarily, what brought them together? Noah was 
 busy building the ark for them, and he could not attend to 
 it Is it scientific to believe that animals from the tropics^ 
 snd animals from the frigid zone, and from all parts of the 
 earth, all of different natures, could be shut up in a tight 
 box—the only door and window closed— and remain alive 
 for any length of time? Is it scientific to believe that the 
 food of such animals as require fresh meat, fresh fish, fresh 
 grass, fresh leaves, quantities of worms and insects of all 
 kinds, and even honey, could be provided and kept in the 
 ark with all that aggregate of animal life— some 120 animals 
 and insects to every square yard the ark contained— suffi- 
 cient to last them more than a year? Is it a scientific suppo- 
 sition that when the animals from the warm countries dis- 
 tmbarked on the top of Mt Ararat, said to be 17,000 feet 
 above the level of the sea, and 5.000 feet above the line of 
 perpetual snow and frost, they could live till they descended 
 15,000 feet or more, where the weather was mild? Is it sci- 
 entific to think they could find anything to eat after all the 
 animals had been killed and every plant and tree inevitably 
 destroyed by being a year under water? Is it scientific to 
 hold that a rainbow never appeared until Noah left the ark 
 some four thousand years ago? Does not science teach 
 that rainbows have been produced for as many hundred 
 thousand years as there has been a sun to shine upon 
 descending drc^ of raiu? Can you scientifically account 
 
 for the disappearance of the water, which reached to the 
 tops of the highest mountains? Where could it possibly 
 have gone to ? 
 
 You mention the tower of Babel as being a great work 
 of science and architectural skill and compare it with the 
 pyramids of Egypt. There are pretty good proofs that the 
 pyramids were built, for they still exist nearly as good as 
 ever, but is there a stick or a stone or a brick to show 
 where the tower of Babel stood? Is there a person living 
 who has any definite idea where it stood ? Did anybody 
 ever live who knew anything about it? 
 
 Do you think it a scientific statement where Moses is de- 
 scribed as having turned rods into snakes, all the water of 
 Egypt — including the river Nile — into blood, changing 
 dust into lice, producing spontaneously immense quantities 
 of frogs, locusts, etc. Is it a scientific thought that the 
 waters of the Red Sea separated and stood up perpen- 
 dicularly like walls while two millions of people, and at 
 least as many cattle passed over dry shod, and several hun- 
 dred thousand Egyptians followed in and were drowned ? 
 Did a scientist ever see water behave in that way? Is it sci- 
 entific to think that Joshua, Elijah and Elisha were able to 
 divide the rapid Jordan in a similar manner? Is it scientific 
 to think that a man could stop the sun and moon or any other 
 of 'he heavenly bodies ? Is it scientific to pretend that Eli- 
 jau could manufacture meal and oil from nothing, that he 
 could prevent the fall of rain and dew upon the earth for three 
 years, and that men and animals and vegetation could live 
 after such a protracted dry spell ? Is it scientific to claim that 
 he could call down fire from heaven and burn up stones and 
 twelve barrels of water and over one hundred men? Is it 
 scientific to think he could travel up into the upper atmos- 
 phere in a chariut of fire, and that he could live for a minute 
 where there is no air or oxygen ? Would a real scientist 
 believe that Elisha could make an axe float on the surface 
 of the river; that Samson could with hia naked hands tear 
 
114 
 
 THE HUMPHMT-BBHNBTT DI8CU8SIOK. 
 
 the jaws of a lion, kill one thousand men at one time with 
 the jaw-bone of an ass, and finally that he could, by laying 
 hold of the pillars of a temple, throw it to the ground and 
 kill many thousand people? Could a scientist believe that 
 muscular strength could be produced by long hair instead 
 of well-developed muscles ? Could he believe that a fish 
 could swallow a man whole, retain him in his stomach 
 three days, and under water, without the man's suffering 
 for want of air, and at the end of the time throw him up 
 on dry ground as good as ever? 
 
 Does a real scientist believe that a ghost could hold inter- 
 course with a young virgin and beget a child ? Does ho 
 believe that there is any mountain in Syria from the top of 
 which a person could see all the kingdoms of the earth ? 
 Does he believe that a dead man was ever brought back to 
 life t Does he believe that water can be changed into 
 wine t Does he believe that the light of the sun could be 
 extinguished for three hours T that the graves could be 
 opened and the dead walk forth and hold intercourse with 
 their former companions ? Does he believe that a person 
 could make a trip of four thousand miles, through the inter- 
 nal fires of the earth to the centre and return in thirty-six 
 hours? (Would it not have been pretty warm traveling?) 
 Cou-d a man who is a real scientist, and who believes in the 
 immutability of nature's laws, intelligently believe that any 
 of these things could take place? To believe them, does not 
 all scientific knowledge and observation, all human experi- 
 ences have to be set aside, and a blind superstitious faith 
 and credulity substituted in their place ? Is not, in fact, 
 a belief in impossibilities utterly at variance with science? 
 and can they, in any true sense, be said to harmonize and 
 to maintain friendly relations towards each other ? 
 
 You speak of Abraham's showing his wonderful surgical 
 skill in performing circumcision upon his son Isaac. 
 Was that a feat to brag about ? Could not any Hottentot 
 have done as much ? J>o«i ll »ot require far iftpr© skill to 
 
 THB aUVPHRET-BEKNBTT DIBOtJSSIOK. 
 
 11^ 
 
 put a ring in the nose of a hog or to emasculate him ? If 
 Abraham had performed the surgical operation of cutting 
 bis boy^s head off, as he intended to do, would it not have 
 shown more skill than cutting off a little loose skin? You 
 claim that the Hebrew women were excellent cooks and 
 bread-makers. Do you allude to the peculiar cake or bread 
 which God commanded them to make, mixed with humam 
 excrement and cow-dung, as described in Ezekiel iv t Was 
 that scientific bread-making ? Is there the slightest proof 
 that the Hebrews cooked any better or baked any better 
 than the neighboring nations ? You speak about the He- 
 brew wom«n being excellent milliners and dressmakers, and 
 that they knew how to use cosmetics. Have you any cer- 
 tificate of this fact ? I call for proofs. You speak of their 
 Jewelry and rich apparel ; do you mean that which they 
 stole from the Egyptians? I think there is no special ac- 
 count of their making any jewelry, but they were adepts at 
 stealing, robbing, and murdering, invariably taking the 
 jewelry and other valuables from their victims. About the 
 greatest feat in the jewelry line mentioned in the Bible is 
 where the priest Aaron, while Moses was up on the moun* 
 tain helping God to get up the Ten Commandments, took 
 the jewelry that had been stolen from other people and 
 melted it together and made a golden calf for the Israelite 
 to worship as a god. Did that require much science ? 
 
 You quote Job to show how much the Israelites knew 
 about astronomy; but are you not aware that the best He- 
 brew scholars have long since decided that that book was not 
 written by a Hebrew but was probably borrowed from the 
 Chaldeans or the Edomites ? The fact that not a person or 
 place is mentioned in it that is spoken of in any other part 
 of the Bible goes far to confirm this opinion. It is not 
 Hebrew in style or character, and neither mentions any 
 other part of the Bible nor does any other part mention it 
 As that is the only instance where the least astronomical 
 knowledge is indicated in the. book it hardly proves the 
 
116 
 
 THB HUMPHBET-BlENinBTT DlflCUBSIOir. 
 
 Jews to haye been astronomers. All tbey knew of the 
 itars was from observation; tbey bad no knowledge of 
 calculation in tbat direction— tbey knew nothing about cal- 
 culating eclipses, transits, etc. 
 
 You claim the Israelites as " superior musicians." I can- 
 not admit it. Tbey doubtless bad several crude instru- 
 ments, and were able to play tbem promiscuously, and 
 "make a Joyful noise," as David called It, but tbey knew 
 nothing of harmony, without which there can be no real 
 music. Oriental nations have never known anything 
 about harmony, nor do tbey to this day. It is only within 
 the last two or three centuries that the world has known 
 anything about harmony, the knowledge of which was per- 
 fected in Europe. The Orientals had nothing to do with it. 
 Are you sure the Israelites played on ** a harp of a thou- 
 sand strings"? Will you please point out the part of the 
 Bible tbat mentions such an instrument ? Have you not 
 got your Bible a trifle confounded with the Hard-Shell Baptist 
 who preached in the Southwest, taking for a text, "And 
 they shall gnaw a file, and flee unto the mountains of Hep- 
 aidam, where the lion roareth and the whang-doodle 
 mourneth for her first-bom; and he played on a harp of a 
 thousand strings— sperits of Just men made perfect"? Is 
 tbat not the only instance on record where anything is said 
 about the thousand-stringed harp ? 
 
 Tou boast of the architectural skill of the Israelites. 
 You have little grounds for it. They lived in tents, and 
 knew very little about houses. Their tabemade was only a 
 tent. It is thought by many that Solomon's wonderful 
 Temple was a myth, that it never had an existence; but if 
 the Bible story is credited, it is evident that the Hebrews had 
 not skill enough to erect it, for they were obliged to send 
 for thousands of skilled workmen from Tyre and Sidon. 
 Palestine presents no relics of ancient architectural grand- 
 eur. I have it from a friend who has made four different 
 JouneyB to Paltstinf, ai^4 who baa b«en over every square 
 
 THB HUKPHBBT-BBNKETT DISCUSSION, 
 
 117 
 
 mile of that country, that there is not in the entire length 
 and breadth of the " Holy Land" a stone, a monument, a 
 Hebrew inscription, or anything of the kind, to prove that 
 a numerous and civilized people lived there three thousand 
 years ago ; while in other parts of Syria, in Chaldea, Asia 
 Minor, Phoenicia, Egypt, Greece, Cypress, and Rome, the 
 remains of ancient grandeur are often met with/ In the 
 Metropolitan Museum on Fourteenth street, in this city, 
 there are some twenty thousand specimens of ancient work* 
 manship in earthen- ware, pottery, etc., principally brought 
 from Cypress, but among them all, not one specimen of He- 
 brew manufacture. Probably there is nothing in existence 
 to-day, in the whole world, to show there was such a nation, 
 save less than half a dozen coins, and the genuineness of 
 these is disputed. 
 
 You say every Jew was required to learn some substan- 
 tial trade. But what kind of trades were they? Tent- 
 making, pasturing cattle, sandal-making, etc. Nothing 
 showing a high order of civilization. In chronology they 
 were deficient. Their calendar was inferior to Cssar^s and 
 Gregory's. Their months depended upon the moon and 
 were ever changing. It cannot be tra«||d with precision 
 like the calendars of Cflesar and Gregory. They never had 
 a commerce that amounted to anything, and the ships of 
 Palestine never made much show upon the oceans of the 
 world. They were a pastoral people, whose country con- 
 tained scarcely twelve thousand square miles — about the 
 size of New Hampshire — and half of it consisted of moun- 
 tains, ravines, lakes, etc., which could hardly be cultivated, 
 and they never were a powerful nation, nor were they ever 
 far advanced in arts, science and cizilization. It is a notice, 
 able fact that though the Greek historian, Herodotus— prob- 
 ably the most correct of ancient historians — who twice made 
 a journey through Syria. Phoenicia, etc. , never mentioned 
 the Hebrew nation, and this nearly five hundred years be- 
 fore the Christian era. Tbey were a natien or a race of 
 
■*-<■ 
 
 118 
 
 THE HUlfPHKBY-BBNKBTT DlSCtrSSIOS. 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 rd 
 
 I 
 
 shepherds, too obscure to attract his attention or to be 
 worthy of mention in his writings. 
 
 There is little doubt that Jewish history is very much ex- 
 aggerated, that there never was as large a population in that 
 country as represented. It would be wholly unable to sup- 
 port such a population. The impossibility of this can be 
 ▼ery readily seen by a little calculation. To turn out an 
 army of one million fighting men— and this number it 
 must haye had at least, to lose 500,000 in a single day— it 
 must have had a population of five or six millions— many 
 times denser than Belgium, the most populous country of 
 Europe, and chiefly a level and fertile country, with but 
 little waste land. It would be utterly impossible for such a 
 diminutive, broken country as Palestine to sustain any such 
 number of people. 
 
 There is but little ground for making a great man of 
 Solomon. He was probably a myth ; but, according to 
 the Bible, he was more remarkable for sensuality than for 
 any scientific qualities. He knew very little about the sci- 
 ences. The Proverbs accredited to him were the collections 
 of ages and from various nations. There is no proof that 
 he wrote one of them, and if the '* Song " in the Bible that is 
 called by his name is a fair specimen of his " thousand and 
 five *' songs you allude to, it is very wS that they have not 
 come down to our time. They would do him no credit, 
 and nobody any good. He assuredly was an inferior Tup- 
 per, a very poor LlnnsBUS, a weak Audubon, a puerile 
 Cuvier, and a mean apology for an Agassiz. 
 
 Does the fact that *' Jesus wept '* prove him to have been 
 a scientist ? Weeping was in his line. Sven if he had a 
 presentiment that Jerusalem would be destroyed, did that 
 make him a scientist? Is there proof that he attended any 
 institution of learning; that he studied the sciences, or knew 
 anything of them? The mention of his talking with the 
 doctors in the temple when twelve years of age is but a trif- 
 ling incident in acai«<^ jpf thirty yfan^ of which nothing 
 
 whatever is known. Did it show him to be a m m of .< ci- 
 ence to look for fruit upon a fig-tree in the part of Ibe year 
 when those trees do not bear fruit, and to get angry an^ 
 curse the tree because he was disappointed ? Your effort 
 to make a scientist of Jesus I regard an utter failure. 
 
 What if Paul did visit Athens and look upon the temple 
 of Diana and found it far more splendid than anything be 
 ever saw in Palestine; did that make him a scientist? Could 
 not an Esquimaux equally as well look upon the Capitol at 
 Washington, the Croton aquc Juct at High Bridge or upon 
 our East River Suspension Bridge without being a scientist? 
 [t is very doubtful whether he ever visited Home. In the last 
 chapter of Acts it says he did, but afterwards, in the first 
 chapter of Romans, he talks as though he was very anxious 
 to visit Rome, but says nothing about his having done so, 
 nor does it afterwards state that he ever visited the *' City of 
 Seven Hills ;" but be that as it may, he was a very small part 
 of a scientist, and taught very few scientific truths. The 
 only time he used the word science, he called it false. He 
 was great in extolling the virtues of faith and blind credu- 
 lity, and had literally nothing to say upon scientific sub- 
 jects. Like his master, he was dogmatic, dealt in parables, 
 enigmas and absurdities, and knew little or nothing of 
 ■cience. His positive assertion that he *' was determined 
 not to know anything save Jesus Christ and him crucified," 
 decides forever just how much of a scientist he was. A 
 man favorable to scientific investigation would never thus 
 declare himself. Peter and the rest of the apostles were 
 equally scientific / Faith with all of them was the sine qua 
 non; science was tabooed. Perhaps the nearest that Peter 
 ever came to being scientific and dexterous was when he 
 so neatly took off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the 
 high priest, with his sword. It seems, however, you did 
 not deem it of sufficient consequence to mention it, though 
 it was certainly equal to Abraham's surgery. Perhaps 
 Jesus performed the scientific part of the operation when he 
 
120 
 
 TBM HTJMPHRBT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 ri 
 
 m 
 
 11 
 
 ii'i 
 
 I 
 
 tottclied the place where the ear had been and healed it, but 
 whether by bringing out a new ear is not stated. What 
 business Peter, the "Rock" on which the Church is built, 
 a disciple of Jesus and key-holder of the gate of heayen, 
 had with a sword is not scientificaUy explained. 
 
 I am sorry, my friend, that I cannot find as much science 
 in the Bible and among its authors as you do, but perhaps I 
 am unfortunate to that extent. It is probable that we look 
 through different lenses. 
 
 Yours very truly, D. M. Bennett. 
 
 MR. HUMPHRET. 
 
 Ma. D. 31. Bennett, Dear Sir: As far as I am concerned, 
 you are welcome to call such men as Judge Story '* petti- 
 foggers,** and, in the face of three standard biographers, to 
 deny that Lincoln said *' Christ is God.'* My cause can 
 afford better than yours to let you ignore authorities in thai 
 summary way. 
 
 You assume that a belief in the supernatural is unscien- 
 tific. That is begging the question. For the present, suffico 
 it to say that the men who have done the most for science 
 have been believers in the possibility, reasonableness, and 
 historical reality of miracles. This we shall show farther on. 
 
 I wrote my last letter with precipitate haste, just before 
 going to the country. That will account for my inadvert. 
 ence when I said the Jewish musicians played on " harps of 
 a thousand strings.*' Of course, I am liable to make mis- 
 takes. But that I should even commit to writing this mistake 
 is rather strange. A few evenings before, I had been ridi- 
 culing that very ** harp.** Well, I shall have to come down 
 nine hundred and ninety strings. I should have said, 
 ** Instruments of ten strings** (Pss. 83:2; 92:8; 144:9). I 
 ■tand corrected. Thank yo«^ 
 
 j|i 
 
 TBB HUMFRBET'-BENNBTT DISCUSSION, 
 
 121 
 
 It is my turn now. Your letter is rich in materials for 
 retaliation. You fall into quite a number of rather serious 
 errors: 
 
 Error first: "Nor does any other part mention it** (the 
 book of Job). Job is mentioned four times in the Bible 
 (Ez. xiv: 14. 16, 20; James v, ii), and once in the Apocrypha 
 (Tob. ii:12) Neither is.it true that "the best Hebrew 
 scholars have long since decided that that book was not 
 written by a Hebrew.'* Such critics as Kennicott, Etch- 
 horn, Michaelis, Bathe, Luther, Grotius, Doederlin, Um- 
 breit, Eosenmtlller. Keimar, Spanheim, Warburton, Hilzig, 
 Hirzel, Delilzsch, Evans, Lange, etc., etc., etc., are of the 
 opinion that its author was a Jew. The name Job is Jew- 
 ish (Gen. xlvi:13). But granting that it is the work of a 
 Gentile, the reception of the book into the Scriptures proves 
 that the Israelites could appreciate its contents. 
 
 Mhrror tecand : " The only time he used the word science, 
 he called it false/* On the contrary, Paul used the word 
 gndsis, translated "science,** in 1 Tim. vi:20, about twenty 
 times in his Epistles (Englishman's Greek Concordance). 
 It was not PauPs fault that this word was not uniformly 
 rendered ** science'* in the English version, as it was gener- 
 ally in the Vulgate and in Leusden's Latin Testament. 
 Neither did Paul call Bcience false. There is a vast difference 
 between declaring that science is false and saying that there 
 is a false *' science." It was only the latter that the Apostle 
 denounced. 
 
 Error third: " They lived in tents, and knew very little 
 about houses. ** How opposite to the facts I " Houses " and 
 ** palaces," ** winter houses and summer houses," built of 
 •'hewn stone," and "cedar," and "ivory," containing 
 •* parlours,** "painted with vermilion," were no rare things 
 among the ancient Hebrews (See Jud. iii:20; Jer. xxii:14; 
 
 Amosiii:l5). 
 
 Error fourth : " They stole from the Egyptians.** " Stole 
 is not the word employed by Moses, but "borrowed** (Ex. 
 
 9» 
 
 r : 
 
I 
 
 
 I 
 
 ■■I 
 
 llfu 
 
 TBB HUMPHBXY-BBNKBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 iii : 22, xii : 81-36). Amang their first definitions of tAooZ, the 
 original word for "borrowed," FUret and Gesenius give " te 
 «8k prcssingly; to ask for; to demand urgently; to beg Tery 
 urgently; to ask for one's self." Stealing is an idea entirely 
 foreign to the word. 
 
 Error fifth : •' He was great in extolling the virtues oifaUk 
 and blind credulity." As regar4s faith, that is true; but as 
 regards ' * blind credulity," it is utterly f idse. Scriptural faith 
 and *' blind credulity " are as different as light and dark- 
 ness. Paul disclaimed and disdained the latter. He rebuked 
 even the scientific Athenians for being " too superstitious'* 
 (Acts xvii: 22). He prayed for deliverance ** from wM^ai<m- 
 Me men " (2 Thes, iii: 2) He regarded Religion as a " r««t- 
 ^mdble,'' or, strictly speaking, a " logioal service " {Or, logihin 
 iatreian, Rom. xli: 1). He reoioned of righteousness, temper- 
 ance, and judgment to come, until the Infidel Felix trembled 
 before him <Acts xxiv : 26). 
 
 You say Solomon was " remarkable for his sensuality." It 
 is tree that he fell into that grievous sin ; and the Bible 
 condemns him for It (1 Kings chap. xi). But the modern 
 Freethinkers, who regard themselves as preeminently ** pro- 
 gressive" and" advanced," are the very ones who^*w««/jr 
 ^md defend "remarkable sensuality." I refer to the doc- 
 trine of "Free-Love," which is by interpretation, Free-Lust 
 I am glad, Mr. Bennett, to see you uniting with the Bible 
 to denounce an abomination which " advanced " Infidelity 
 is doing its utmost to propagate. 
 
 You assert that the ancient Jews were " crude " musicians. 
 Of course, they were inferior to the modern masters; but 
 they were unexcelled in their tfane. They could "siag 
 praises mih (He understtinding " (Ps. 47: 7; 1 Cor. xiv: 16); and 
 they knew how to " make meet mebdy'^ (Is. xxiii: 16; Amos 
 ▼: 28; Bph. v: ID). " Crude '* music does not have the sooth- 
 ing effect that David*s harp did on the agitated Saul (1 Sam. 
 
 xvi:2S). 
 Yoa say then wis nothing among the ancient Jews 
 
 THB HUMPHREY - BBNNKTT PISCUSSION. 
 
 123 
 
 '•showing a high order of civilization." Even Rationalists, 
 like DeWette, in his Lehrbuch der Archftologie, and Jahn, 
 in his Biblical Archaeology, express a very different opinion, 
 But I cannot stop to expose all your misrepresentations. 
 What I have given is enough to show how fair, accurate^ 
 afi4 reliable you are as an expounder of the Scriptures I Let 
 me. however, furnish you with the proofs you call for, that 
 the Hebrew women were excellent dressmakers and milli- 
 ners, and that they knew how to use cosmetics. Read Is. 
 ili:16-24; Jer. iv:30; Ez. xxiii:40, and you wiU doubtless be 
 
 convinced 
 
 The Bible does not pretend to be a text-book of science. 
 And this is no discredit to it. You do not condemn a work 
 on moral philosophy, because it is not a treatise on mathe- 
 matics. It is the mission of the Bible to teach moral and 
 spiritual truth. Its references to physical science are there- 
 fore only Incidental. I showed in my last letter that those 
 references are always respectful and approving. 
 
 Let us now proceed to prove that believers in the Bible 
 have done more than unbelievers to promote learning and 
 
 science. 
 
 This is shown, in the first place, by the fact that the best 
 Educational Institutions of the worid have been almost 
 uniformly founded, endowed, and cherished by Christian 
 people. There are over thirty Universities in Germany. 
 Every one of them Is under either Catholic, Lutheran, Evan- 
 gelical, or their united control. ' * The motives which prompt- 
 ed these great establishments were without exception, pure 
 and elevated, and generally pious and Chrijtian " (Schaff»s 
 Germany and its Universities, pp. 29-32). The same is true 
 of another country famous for its higher education. There 
 iB not one University in all France that Its Infidels have 
 brought Into existence. Should you feel like contradicting 
 this statement, please name the University, with your 
 authority. The University of Paris was founded by the 
 approbation of Pope Innocent IIL (Barnard's Systems, 
 
184 
 
 THE HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 ■nil" 
 
 Institutions, and Statistics of Public Instruction in Blffer- 
 ent Countries. N. Y.. 1872, p. 198). This institution was 
 suppressed by the Infidels in the riot of 1793 (Am. Cyclope- 
 dia, 1876, Art. "University"). The higher schools of 
 France were at first religious (Ibid). So of England. The 
 American Cyclopedia will tell you that Cambridge Univers- 
 ity was originally a religious center; that the Colleges consti- 
 tuting it were founded by Cliristian gentlemen whose names 
 they bear; that it was befriei^ed by Henry III., Henry IV., 
 Henry V., Henry VII. , by Edward I., Edward 11. , Edward 
 IIL, Edward IV., and by Queen Elizabeth. And these sov 
 ereigns were all, according to Hume, believers in the Chris- 
 tian Religion. I cannot find the name of an Infidel in con- 
 nection with its foundation, endowment, or with the furnish- 
 ing of its Cabinets and Libraries, Did space permit, I couU 
 thow you similar accounts of every University in England. 
 Ireland, Scotland and Wales. You may find the records in 
 Cyclopedias, Histories, and Beports that are always accessi- 
 ble. 
 
 Cross over to the United States, and the same is true here. 
 Josiah Quincy, in his admirable History of Harvard Uni- 
 versity, shows that the originators of that institution were 
 all church people, and mostly ministers; that its first and 
 best friend, John Harvard, was a preacher; that its Presi- 
 dents were an unbroken succession of clergymen for nearly 
 two hundred years; and that ite professors and benefactors 
 were Christians in about the same proportion. Our other 
 universities and colleges, such as Yale, Brown, New York, 
 Cornell, Bowdoin, Amherst, Dartmouth, Columbia, Rut- 
 gers, Union, Lafayette, Oberlin, Princeton, Washington 
 and Jefferson, etc., etc., owe their very being to religious 
 men. Only think of it I Where would the worid be to-day 
 without the universities, colleges, academies, seminaries, 
 and schools, that Christianity has created and supported T 
 It would be in worse than Egyptian darkness. 
 
 The Public Schools of Europe and America are the pro- 
 
 THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 125 
 
 7 
 
 duct Of Christianity. In Europe religion is everywhere 
 blended with secular instruction (See Barnard's Systems, 
 Institutions, Statistics, etc.). The prime movers of the 
 •* National Society for promoting the Education of the Poor 
 in England" were Christian benefactors, chiefly clergymen 
 (0'Malley*s Sketch of the State of Popular Education, 1840). 
 The American Public School sprung up first in New Eng- 
 land. Its religious character is shown by the fact that the 
 Testament was a reader in it for many years. Webster's 
 Speller and Grammar were among the first of American school 
 books. But Noah Webster was a devout church member 
 (See his Memoir in his Unabridged Dictionary). The ma- 
 jority of school books ever since have been prepared by 
 religious scholars and educators. We may safely say that 
 more than eighty per cent, of the teachers in our common 
 schools are church members. I read not long ago. in an 
 educational journal, that there are seventeen thousand 
 schools in Pennsylvania, and that the Bible is read in four- 
 teen thousand of them. Thus, the feeling stUl predominates 
 that the State should not utterly ignore moral instruction. 
 In earlier days this feeling was more pronounced than it is 
 now. Gov. George Clinton of New York wrote to the Leg- 
 islature in the beginning of the present century: **The ad- 
 vantage to mardU, religion, liberty, and good government, 
 arising from the general diffusion of knowledge, being uni- 
 versally admitted, permit me to recommend this subject 
 (common schools) to your deliberate attention." Gov. 
 Lewis and Gov. Tompkins gave utterance still later to sim- 
 ilar sentiments (Cheever's Bible in our Common Schools, N. 
 Y. 1859, pp. 201-4). Oar facilities, then, for popular 
 education are to be accredited to men who were not ashamed 
 of the Gospel of Christ. Why, Sir, if we had to depend on 
 Infidelity for it, we would be without a respectable diction- 
 ary of the English language. Johnson, Webster, and Wor- 
 cester (see Memoir in his Dictionary), were firm believers in 
 the Word of God. And what would we be without a die- 
 
 li 
 
136 
 
 THE HUJfrHRET-BENNETT DISCCBSIOW. 
 
 V 
 
 -••I 
 
 Uh. 
 
 .Mi 
 
 tioDafj f In other #irig, what woald we know if we hid 
 nothing but Infidelity to teach U8 1 
 
 A like account may be given of the world's greatest 
 Museums and Libraries. The first circulating library 
 was established in Cesarea, about 809 a. d., by Saint 
 Pamphilus (Curwen's History of Book-sellers, p. 422). 
 Sir Hans Sloane may be called the founder of the 
 British Museum. But Sir Hans Sloane was no Infidel 
 (Encyclopedia Britannica). Those who bequeathed their 
 private libraries to the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, 
 Yale, Harrard, etc., etc., will invariably be found to have 
 been Christians, and very often clergymen. Let us look at 
 the matter nearer home. The founders of the ** New York 
 Historical Society " were godly men. We find the names 
 of Bishop Moore, Rev. Samuel Miller, D.D., Dr. John W. 
 Francis, etc, among its first and highest officers. There 
 was not one skeptic among the organizers of the Boston 
 Athenteum (see Josiah Quincy*8 History oO- John Jacob 
 Astor, the founder of the magnificent library that bears his 
 name, was a life-long church member (Parton's Famoui 
 Americans, p. 435). Peter Cooper is a Unitarian, accepting 
 the Bible as the inspired word of God. I have not been abid 
 to find anything very positive about the religious opinions of 
 James Smithson, the originator of the Smithsonian Institu- 
 tioo in Washington. But the current sketches of his life 
 contain many circumstantial evidences of his subscription 
 to the Christian system. Where are the public museums of 
 art and science, the libraries and institutes, that Infidels 
 have established f Ah, my friend, they are almost as few 
 and far between as you would say that angel visits are. 
 
 Did you ever observe, in reading the lives of our 
 Revolutionary heroes and statesmen, how that nearly all of 
 them received their education from Christian clergymen t 
 Where would they have been without an education ? But 
 what of their education, if they had been obliged to seek it 
 from Infidel teachers and professors t 
 
 I 
 
 i; 
 
 TKB HUUPHRBT-llBNNETr DISCtTSSIOIf. 
 
 itn 
 
 The greatest discoverers, inventors, and literati have been 
 believers in the Bible as a Divine revelation. I can name but 
 a very few of them. Among them I will mention Coper- 
 nicus, the reviver of the heliocentric theory; Galileo, the 
 inventor of the telescope ; Isaac Newton, the greatest of 
 philosophical discoverers; Bacon, who introduced the in- 
 ductive method; Descartes, the prince of metaphysicians; 
 Leibnitz, the rival of Newton; Columbus, the discoverer of 
 America; Kapler, the formulator of ** Kepler*s laws;" Pas- 
 cal, that prodigy of profoundness; Jenner. the discoverer of 
 vaccination ; Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of 
 the blood; Sir William Jones, the Sanscrit scholar; Adam 
 Smith, the unrivaled political economist; Dr. Priestley, the 
 discoverer of oxygen gas; George Stephenson, the perfecter 
 of the steam-engine; Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone 
 Lighthouse ; the Duke of Bridgewater, the first English 
 canal constructor; Christopher Wren, the architect of St. 
 Paul's; William Edwards, the "rainbow" bridge-builder; 
 Sir Humphrey Davy, the chemist, and inventor of the 
 Safety Lamp (Works, London, 1839, vol. i. pp. 114, 431; 
 ▼ol. iz. pp. 214-388) ; Robert Fulton, the first steamboat 
 Imilder (Golden's Life of Fulton pp. 254, 281, 369, 371); 
 Prof. 8. F. B. Morse, the inventor of the electric telegraph 
 (Prime's Life of Morse, N. Y., 1875, pp. 730-7); Cuvier, the 
 comparative anatomist (Lee*s Memoirs, London, 1830, pp. 
 10, 85, 318, 327) ; Audubon, the ornithologist ; Faraday, 
 Tyndairs teacher (Gladstone's Life of Faraday pp. 118-122); 
 Sir David Brewster, the versatile scientist; the Herschels, a 
 family of astronomers; Chatham, Brougham, Burke, Henry, 
 Webster, Clay, the orators ; Blackstone, Kent, Hale, Coke, 
 Story, the jurists; the poets Chaucer, Spencer, Dante, Dry- 
 den, Gray, Wordsworth, Young, Thomson, Pollock, Milton 
 and Shakspeare (see Halii well's Life of Shakspeare, pp. 33, 
 270-289, and Wilkes' Shakspeare from an American Point 
 of View, N. Y. 1877, chap, vi.); Mozart, Haydn, Han- 
 del, Mendelssohn, Bach, Beethoven, Liszt, the musicians; 
 
M^ 
 
 us 
 
 THE HTMPaRET-BEKNETT DIBCUttSION, 
 
 'Mil 
 
 Da Vinci, Correggio, Carracci, Raphael, Angelo, West, the 
 artists; RdtwUusoo, Lepsius, Layard, the antiquarians; Wil- 
 berforce and Howard, the philanthropists. Bat I might 
 as well stop, as it will be impossible to finish the list. The 
 names of Cullen, Hugh Miller, Count Rumford, Sir Roderick 
 Murchison, Ferguson, Liebig, Leyden, Prof. Dana, Prof. 
 Silliman, Prof. Henry, Dr. McCosh, Principal Dawson, Dr. 
 Livingstone, Agassiz, (Jen. Newton, Winchell, Mitchell, 
 Guyot, Guizot, Noah Porter, Duke of Argyll, Gladstone, 
 etc., etc., are already in the reader's mind. 
 
 Now, I ask, where would art and science be without the 
 discoveries and inventions of those whom I have men« 
 tioned ? Had we nothing to-day but such original contribu- 
 tions to scientific knowledge as Infidels have made, we 
 would have scarcely anything but barbarism. We would 
 be without our best music, our best poetry, and our best 
 art We would have no astronomy, no steam power, no 
 telegraph, no America. Even now, with every advantage 
 and incentive. Infidels are in the rear as scientists. I have 
 looked quite carefully over the "Annual Record of Science 
 and Industry," for the last six years, and I fail to find that 
 the men who talk the most about science, have made any 
 contributions to it. There is the Banner of Light, editor and 
 contributors ; Ths Bdigio-PMlosophical Journal, editor and 
 contributors; Ths Boston Investigator, editor and contributors; 
 2%e Orudhle, editor and contributors ; WoodhuU d ClaffiUfC9 
 Weekly, editress (?) and contributors ; The Index, editor and 
 contributors ; and, let me add. The Tbuth Sbekbb, ed- 
 itor and contribntors^^ne might imagine from their loud 
 talk that they were scientists par excellence, and that they 
 contributed immensely to its progress! But, alasl when we 
 come to examine the records of what has been actually 
 done, and who has done it, it does not appear that they 
 have done anything whatever I 
 
 The leading Publishers of the world have been generally 
 believers in the Christian Religion. The earliest and foro- 
 
 "THB mniPHRET-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 12d 
 
 most booksellers and publishers of England have been 
 friends and members of the Church (see Curwen's History 
 of Booksellers, London, 1873). Quite significantly, Pater- 
 noster— i. e. the Lord's Prayer— Row, in London, was the 
 first to become famous for its book trade. The pioneers of 
 the publishing business in America— Usher, Ranger, Avery, 
 Phillips, Ratcliffe, Sewall, etc.— were men of faith (Thomas' 
 History of Printing, vol. ii. pp. 409-412). I presume that 
 what is true of New York is true of any large city in this 
 respect. The religious character of the New York book- 
 sellers and publishers is reflected in their resolutions on 
 the death of Mr. Fletcher Harper, where you will find 
 the following sentence: "For all that he was as a man 
 and a Christian, for all that he was permitted to accomplish 
 in the interest of literature and education, we would render 
 thanks to Almighty God'' {New Y<yrk Herald, May 31, 1877). 
 
 O, yes; I must mention the art of printing. That, too, 
 was the offspring of Christian genius. Guttenburg, the in- 
 ventor of printing, was a Roman Catholic (Thomas' History 
 of Printing, Vol. I. p. 113). The first important book ever 
 printed was the Latin Bible. William Caxton, the first En- 
 glish printer, lived and died in the Church (Ibid. p. 135). 
 America is indebted for its first press to the Rev. Jesse 
 Glover, a Nonconformist minister (Thomas' History of Print- 
 ing, Vol. I. p. 205). What would the world be without the 
 printing-press? When you give a correct answer to that 
 question, I will tell you what it would be for aught that Infi- 
 delity has done for it in that direction. 
 
 I anticipate in reply an elaborate treatise on Paine and 
 his iron bridge ; Girard College in Philadelphia ; James 
 Lick, and the California observatory; Tyndall and his ex- 
 periments; Huxley and his speculations; Darwin and his 
 theories, and ever so much more in that line. I give skep- 
 tics credit for ail they have done. But they were not the 
 pioneers of science. They do not, and they cannot sit un- 
 der ihtiir awn vine and fig-tree. They have themselves. 
 
 I 
 
133 
 
 THE iirMrnRET-BENNETT 0i6Ctr8srcni& 
 
 ■f 
 
 almost ta a man, been trained and educated by religiom 
 teachers. In the hour of difficulty and darkness, the Chris- 
 tian was in the front, bearing the brunt of the battle, 
 while the Infidel lagged behind, whining and finding fault, 
 but doing nothing. But now, after the day of donbt and 
 danger is past, and the Tictory is won, behold him scram- 
 ing forward for the booty and the glory! He beheld, pass- 
 ing along, the ehariot of Progress, drawn by the steeds of 
 Faith and Works* He saw that it was his only chance for 
 a ride. Though a " deadhead," he was not refused a place. 
 He clambered eagerly up, cocked himself on a back seat, 
 and then began to scatter hand-bills among the spectators, 
 inscribed, See/ m what InfideUtp is doing far ihe advance 
 
 mentof Science!/ 
 
 But my article is already too long. The sum of what ha» 
 been said is this: Believers in the Bible have given to man- 
 kind over a hundred universities; innumerable colleges, 
 aeademies and schools; the first and largest libraries and 
 athen»ums of the world; the cardinal discoveries and in- 
 ventions, such as the Western Hemisohere, the heliocentric 
 theory, the law of gravitation, the steam engine, the tele- 
 graph, and the printing-press, which, beginning with the 
 Bible, has filled the earth with books. Scriptural religion 
 lias ever held alofl the primeval Fiat. Let there be light. 
 This light has varied in intensity at different periods. The 
 whirlwinds of persecution have rushed upon it. The mist 
 of superstition has enveloped it. The choke-damp of indif- 
 erence has dimmed it. Many a )ack-with-a-lantern has set 
 itself up against it. But it has never been extinguished. 
 Its flame has always been the brightest, highest, and steadi- 
 est The Spirit of History is waiting for a greater than 
 Bartholdi to prepare a worthy statue of Chbistiakity En^ 
 
 UOHTENINO THK WORLD. 
 
 Yours with respect, G. H. Bvkpsbxw 
 
 i: 
 
 THB HUMPHBE7 - BSNNXTT DISOinMIOir. 
 
 MR, BBlfiriBTT, 
 
 131 
 
 Rev. O. H. Humphbet, Dear Sir: I do not call Judge 
 Story especially a " pettifogger," but mean all who try 
 to make out that our National Constitution is a Christian 
 Institution, when it contains not a word about God, Jesus 
 Christ, or the Bible. So far as the coat fits Judge Story 
 he is entitled to wear it 
 
 You mentioned Lincoln again. While his name is still 
 on the tapis allow me to refer to the fact that Robert Dale 
 Owen, the Infidel, who has just died, full of years and 
 honor, had not a little influence in causing Mr. Lincoln to 
 issue his ever-memorable Emancipation Proclamation. 
 His letter to Lincoln upon the subject, urging with power- 
 ful arguments the emancipation of the slaves of the south- 
 ern rebels, was written upon the day of the battle of Antie- 
 tam, Sept. 17, 1863. Mr. Lincoln wrote the Proclamation 
 on the 20lh and 21st, read it to the Cabinet and signed 
 it on the 22d, and it was issued on the 23d. This letter by 
 Mr. Owen has just been published for the first time 
 In our city papers. That it had irreat influence upon Mr. 
 Lincoln's mind in deciding upon the course to pursue 
 may be learned from this extract of a letter from Salmon 
 P. Chase— who was Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, 
 and who handed Mr. Owen's letter to the President— to Mr. 
 Owen: "It will be a satisfaction to you to know that your 
 letter to the President had more influence on him than any 
 other document which reached him upon the subject—/ 
 think T might say more than aU others put together. I speak of 
 that which I know, from personal conference with him. " I 
 mention this matter l»ecause it has recently for the first time 
 been brought to the notice of the public, and to show that one 
 of the oldest Infidels in the country had far more influence 
 in the issuing of the Proclamation of Emancipation than all 
 that Christians said upon the subject, including the Chris- 
 tian McClellan, who, in his Harrison Landing letter to Lin 
 
; -I 
 
 i 
 
 ii' 
 'ii, 
 
 
 If 
 
 m 
 
 THB HUMPHHBT-BlirKBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 coin, strongly urged him to take no steps towards disturb- 
 ing the institution of Slavery. So, here is another proof 
 that the credit of the emancipation of four mUlions of 
 daves, which you claimed for Christianity, really belongs 
 
 to Infidelity. 
 
 I was in hopes that inasmuch as you hold the Bible to be 
 a book of science, and your faith in it is so strong, 
 you would give a scientific explanation of how the earth 
 could exist, morning and evening take place, vegetation of 
 all kinds grow and flourish, perfecting fruit and seeds, be- 
 fore the sun had been brought into existence and before 
 there had been a drop of rain upon the earth. I hoped, 
 too, you would explain scientifically how the water was 
 produced which covered the earth 30,000 feet in depth, and 
 where it went to afterwards; for many thousands have 
 wondered in their simple hearts how God could make so 
 much water and how a little wind which he sent over the face 
 of it could dry it all up, and where it went to when in a 
 state of vapor. I was in hopes you would bring your 
 science to the task of explaining how a man could stop or 
 control any of the heavenly bodies; how the waters of seas 
 and rivers can be divided and made to stand up in perpen- 
 dicular walls and wait for millions of people and cattle to 
 pass over. I was in hopes, also, you would give a scientific 
 explanation of the hundreds of utter impossibilities with 
 the accounts of which your scientific book is so plenti- 
 fully filled; but it seems you found it more convenient to 
 skip over them and thousands of years of superstition and 
 error— for which your Bible is directly responsible— and 
 come down to modem times, when science has been able to 
 raise its head and wield some influence in the world. ^ 
 
 You speak of my "misrepresentations," and enumerate 
 several of them. I did not intend to use misrepresentation 
 nor falsehood, and, with your permission, will look at my 
 mistakes and see how " gross " they are. What you claim at 
 "error first" is where I said the book of Job is not men- 
 
 *■ 
 
 THE HUMPnUEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 188 
 
 tioned in any other part of the Bible. You show that the 
 name of Job is used in three places. Pardon me; I can- 
 not see bow that shows that I misrepresented. I said 
 the hook was not mentioned, not the name ! The name Job 
 is mentioned once in Genesis (and there are not the slight- 
 est grounds for supposing it was the man who had the 
 boils) ; it is mentioned once in Ezekiel, and once in the 
 New Testament. I did not succeed in finding it in the 
 Apocrypha where you directed me. Ezekiel mentions 
 Noab, Job, and Daniel. It cannot be the Daniel who is 
 said to have been thrown into the lions' den, for that Dan- 
 iel did not live and write until a generation later than 
 Ezekiel, and many learned scholars believe that the book 
 of Daniel was not written till four hundred years later than 
 the time it ^purports to have been, so we are at a loss to 
 know what Daniel it was Ezekiel talked about, and it is the 
 same of Job. It is probable that the three names he used 
 were only myths of whom he knew nothing. The matter 
 of James' using the name of Job, and referring to the story, 
 has no more force than your or my using it. He knew no 
 more about Job or his book than we do. Mark, I did not 
 say the name Job was not used, but meant that the locality, 
 characters, and incidents of his story were not alluded to in 
 any cotemporaneous part of the Bible. 
 
 You next attempt to show that I was wrong when I 
 merely asked the question if the best Hebrew scholars had 
 not decided that the book of Job was not written by a He- 
 brew. I made no assertion, but asked a question. But I 
 was not mistaken. Ebenezar and Spinoza were learned 
 Jews who so held in relation to that book. The names you 
 give in refutation are of the past two or three centuries, 
 and of men whose opinions were given before philology 
 had been extensively brought to bear as an auxiliary in 
 deciding the origin of ancient writings. If you will consult 
 the modern learned Hebrew scholars, Ewald, Kuenen, Gold- 
 xiber, and Adler, you will find that they regard the book 
 
 
184 
 
 TBB m J MPMBl T - BBNNKTT DISCUSBIOIT. 
 
 
 of Job as a Oentile production, and also as having been 
 written at a much later period than was formerly supposed 
 —as late, at least, as the date of the Jewish captivity. The 
 learned historian and essayist, Froude, maintains the same 
 opinion, as you will find by reading his Essays. Chandler 
 Halstead also entertains the same views. They all found 
 that the personsB of the drama, or poem, were not Hebrew, 
 most of il\em being Arabic; the names of the constellations 
 mentioned are Greek, while the theological ideas employed 
 were distinctively Egyptian, and were not written till some 
 centuries after the translators supposed it to have been. 
 The conception of the character, Satan, is not Hebrew, and 
 his name is mentioned in only three other places in the 
 Old Testament, which is the part of the Bible I referred to 
 in connection with Job. The writers of the New Testa- 
 ment certainly knew nothing of him. I did not misrepre- 
 sent as to Job. 
 
 You arraign me next for saying that Paul used the word 
 idence but once, and say he used the word which should 
 have been translated tcisnes about twenty times. I referred 
 solely to the English version, deeming that sufficient for our 
 purpose. If it was not translated right, so much the worse 
 for the translation ; it is no fault of mine. But the Greek 
 word gn6»i» does not mean sdenee; it simply means to know 
 and corresponds with our ^ord know or knowledge. It 
 does not reach the dignity of science, of which Paul knew 
 and cared very little. Thus you will see I was not in error 
 
 here. 
 
 You next take me to task for saying the ancient Jews 
 lived in tents and knew very little about houses. To dis- 
 prove the fact you quote the singing of visionary, dreamy 
 prophets about Summer-houses, Winter-houses, houses of 
 ivory, etc. Summer-houses were doubtless very slight edi- 
 fices, and probably composed of vines and branches. The 
 Winter-houses may have been of rough stones and earth. 
 «' Houses of ivory" probably had a far more ideal than 
 
 ■^ 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BBNHKTT DISCUSSION, 
 
 1C5 
 
 Teal existence. I must repeat that the remains of houses of 
 tewn stone are not to be found in Palestine. Not a hewn 
 stone, not a monument, not a Hebrew inscription is to be 
 found in the whole country. The Jews were a branch of the 
 Semitic race, and more or less of a mixed character— 
 ^brothers of tl^ Arabs— and semi-barbarians. These races 
 ^11 lived in tents and knew very little of houses, and there 
 is no proof to the contrary. Until there is something more 
 reliable to depend upon than the inventions of dreamers 
 ^nd singers, I oan hardly xjhange my position upon the 
 subject of Israelitish dwellings. 
 
 Let me here give a quotation^ as not inappropriate, from 
 Albert Barnes, the -distinguished theologian: **The Bible 
 came from a land undistinguished for Uterature- a land not 
 rich in classical associations, a land not distinspiished for 
 pushing its discoveries into the regions of science. Ohal- 
 4ea had its observatories, and the dwellers then looked out 
 on the stars and gave them names ; Egypt had its temples, 
 where the truths of science as weU as the precepts of re- 
 ligion were committed to the sacred priesthood 4 Greece 
 bad academic grores, but Judea had neither. To such 
 things the attention of the nation was never turned. We 
 have aU their literature, all their science, ail their knowledge 
 of art, and ail this is in the Bible. Among the ancients they 
 were regarded as a narrow-minded, a bigoted, a supersti- 
 tious people " (Lectures on Ev. of Christianity, p. 257). 
 
 You next arraign me for saying the Hebrews stole from 
 the Egyptians. Are you not catching at small straws t 
 What is the difference morally, or in fact, between stealing, 
 and barrawing without the slightest intention of ever 
 returning ? Besides, in Exodus xii. 36. in alluding to this 
 very business, it says the Israelites epoOed the Egyptians. 
 In Webster's Christian Dictionary, epoil is defined to mean 
 to rob, to plunder. So I was not far out of the way. If I 
 had used the harsher word roh, it would have been quite 
 correet 
 
 

 
 136 
 
 HUMPHBET-BENNETT DZSCUSSIOK. 
 
 k 
 
 Yoa next indict me for saying Paul was great for eitoll- 
 ing tlie virtues of faitli and blind credulity. Tou acknowl- 
 edge the correctness of fmlh^ but say as to blind credulity 
 it is "utterly false." Now I cannot see mnch difference 
 between faith and ereduiity, whether blind or not blind. You 
 ■eem to make a distinction where there is no difference. 
 What is faith unless it is credulity 7 Webster, in his Chris 
 Han dictionary, defines it as belief; assent of the mind to 
 the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and 
 implicitly on his authority and veracity— in other words 
 *"* going it bliad." Paul had a great deal to say about faith. 
 He used the word oyer one hundred and fifty times. 
 In the Old Testament it is used but once. Paul said, 
 ** Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the cTidence 
 of things not seen*' (Heb. zi 1). Now if the things be- 
 lieyed in were not deen, was it not a kind of blind er§- 
 dvUtyt Haye not you and all other Christians faith in 
 many things which you never saw, and of which you never 
 had any proof ? Bo you not believe that Jesus was Godf 
 that he was begotten by Qod or by himself ? that he had no 
 natural father ? that faith in him is sufficient ta save mill- 
 ions of poor souls from the torments of hell ? that one is 
 three and three are one f that a son can be as old as his 
 father and equal in all respects ? You have no proof of 
 these things ; you never saw them. You believe without 
 proof — nothing more or less than hUnd credulity, I have 
 heard Christians again and again declare the importance of 
 having faith without proof. That is bUnd faith ; nothing 
 less. There are many things in the Christian faith that are 
 firmly believed which have not the slightest proof. 1 call 
 such faith lUind credulity, and I can make nothing else of 
 it It is the same confidence which a young robin (blind) 
 has in its parent when it opens its mouth and takes what- 
 ever is given it. I have often heard that kind of confidence 
 and credulity extolled by Christiana. It certainly is a ver^ 
 lUiad cxednli^. 
 
 THE HUMPHRBT-BENNBTT DISCUSSIOIT. 
 
 187 
 
 You next attempt to show that I misrepresented when 
 I said Solomon was remarkable for his sensuality. You 
 admit the fact but seek to evade its force by saying 
 the Bible condemned him for it. You hardly state the 
 truth. It does not condemn him for sensuality, but for 
 going after other gods. "And the Lord God was angry 
 with Solomon because his heart was turned from the Lord 
 God of Israel " (1 Kings, xi. 9), but not a word of anger 
 was expressed because he had seven hundred wives and 
 three hundred concubines. It was not asked of him to be 
 any better than was David, his father, and you cannot have 
 forgotten how his sensual love was aroused towards another 
 man's wife, Bathsheba ; how he committed adultery with 
 her and then caused her husband to be put to death to 
 cover his guilt. This conduct was all right enough, so he 
 did not turn away from his God. Solomon, in like manner, 
 could have committed adultery and gross sensuality as 
 much as he pleased, if he had not worshiped other gods. 
 Herein consisted his sin. His sensuality, like David's, 
 could have been easily winked at. 
 
 Here let me say that you seem to have stepped out of your 
 way to malign Freethinkers and make the untruthful 
 assertion that " the most progressive and advanced Free- 
 thinkers justify and defend remarkable sensuality.'* The 
 most advanced or the most prominent Freethinkers' do noth- 
 ing of the kind. So far as my acquaintance goes among 
 Freethinkers (and I ought to be as thoroughly acquainted 
 with them as yourself), they live as faithfully and happily 
 in their domestic relations as any class of men. Tyndall, 
 Proctor, Holyoake, Bradlaugh and Watts in England, 
 Owen, Mendum, Seaver, Draper, Abbot, Ingersoll, Un- 
 derwood, Denton, Tuttle and scores of others, will com 
 pare favorably in this respect with the very best of citi- 
 zens. JIven the ** Free-lovers," so called, are not guilty of 
 '^remarkable sensuality," as were David and Solomon. 
 They indulge no more in " free-lust " than other persons 
 
i- 
 
 •If 
 
 f 
 
 y 
 
 -t 
 ♦it 
 
 im 
 
 THB BUKFHBKT-BBNKBTT DIBCUSBIOH. 
 
 They simply hold that love should he free. Let me ask if you 
 are in fayor of forced love 7 Ought not love always to be 
 firtef As you are a member of the American clergy, let me 
 say to you in the most friendly spirit, that you ought to be 
 careful how you make the charge of sensuality against Free- 
 thinkers, for however virtuous you may be yourself, your 
 brethren are certainly very vulnerable. If I were to look 
 for acts of sensuality and adultery I know of no more 
 prolific source than among the clergy of our country. I 
 think I can name some hundreds of cases where adultery 
 has been proved upon them, and I defy you to do anything 
 of the kind among Freethinkers. I do not say that not one 
 among the latter has ever made a mistake in this direction, 
 but I do insist that they are as law-abiding and as moral as 
 other men. For every adulterous Freethinker you point 
 out, I agree to name twenty adulterous clergymen. You do 
 not strengthen your case by such uncalled-for insinuations. 
 
 Tou take exceptions to my saying there was nothing among 
 the ancient Jews showing a high order of civilization. It 
 does not seem that I am far out of the way when nothing 
 can be cited to the contrary. Not an ancient painting, not 
 a piece of sculpture, not a work of fine art, no ruins of 
 temples or splendid architecture, nothing of the kind, while 
 in other countries there is much that speaks of ancient grand- 
 eur and art. So far as DeWette is concerned, he can hardly 
 be ranked as a Rationalist. Some of his writings tended 
 slightly in that direction, but he gravitated towards the 
 Church, and he was accepted as orthodox. 
 
 You close your arraignment by saying you ** cannot stop 
 to expose all my misrepresentations." Indeed I What 
 haste you must be in. If I made misrepresentations I wish 
 them exposed; but with all due respect allow me to say that 
 I thiok you made out a slim case in exposing my errors. 
 I claim that in every instance where you charge me with 
 misrepresentation I was entirely correct 
 
 You did not satiily iii» •■ to proofs about th« intimate 
 
 THB HUMPHBBY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 m 
 
 knowledge the Hebrew women had of dressmaking, cos- 
 metics, etc. You quote from Isaiah, etc., where they are 
 complained of for being haughty, stretching out their 
 necks, having wanton eyes, mincing steps, and mak- 
 ing a tinkling with their feet; about their rings in thek 
 cars and their noses^ all of which sounds more as though 
 they were semi-savages than highly cultured and intellect- 
 ual ladies. I must confess myself unconvinced as to theit 
 perfect and refined civilization. 
 
 You next say " The Bible does not pretend to be a text- 
 book of science." That is just what I think, and I looked 
 upon it as a mistake in you to set up the claim that it had 
 any affinity or connection with science. There is hardly a 
 book in existence that Is more unscientific than the Bible, 
 none more at variance with the experience of mankind and 
 with the laws of the Universe. 
 
 It appears to me that you are wide of the truth when you 
 claim a close intimacy between Christianity and science, or 
 that the former has been friendly to the latter. A marked an- 
 tagonism existed between them for more than sixteen hun- 
 dred years. Christianity found Southern Europe in theenjoy- 
 ment of an advanced state of phUosophy and science. The 
 labors and scholarship of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato* 
 Euclid, Hipparchus, Aristotle. Eratosthenes, Ptolemy. 
 Archimedes, Apollonius, and others, had given to the world 
 a higher degree of philosophy and learning than it had 
 before enjoyed. Astronomy, geology, chemistry, mathe- 
 matics, mechanics, etc, had been developed and brought to 
 the knowledge of thousands. During the five centuries 
 before the dawn of Christianity science achieved more 
 distinction and position than it had ever before attained. 
 But when that system of religion became a ruling power in 
 the world this was immensely changed. 
 
 Christianity was made up of the theology of the Hebrews, 
 combined with the story and teachings of the reputed Jesus, 
 incorporated with the dogmas of Paganism. Neither the 
 
 - -J 
 
 -" .1 
 
 * I 
 
 1 
 
140 
 
 THB HUMPHREY - BENNiftT DlSCUSSIOli. 
 
 accredited founder of the system nor any of the disciplef 
 or apostles whom he chose as companions were men of 
 learning. There is no authentic record that Jesus attended 
 school or that he was a scholar. There is no statement that 
 he ever wrote a word or imparted a particle of practical 
 scientific knowledge. All the narratives we have of him 
 represent him as a strolling mendicant who taught his fol- 
 lowers no useful pursuits of life, and who stifled all 
 enterprise, thrift, and foresight by enjoining his fol- 
 lowers and listeners to take no thought for the mor- 
 row—to make no provision for the future. Though he 
 is believed to be the son of Jehovah or to be the great 
 Deity himself— the source of all knowledge and all science- 
 he never during his ministry gave his students one lesson 
 in practical science. He gave no evidence of knowing any- 
 thing about astronomy, geology, chemistry, mathematics, 
 hydrostatics, mechanics, biology, philology, psychology, 
 or any of the kindred sciences. Had he possessed sci- 
 entific knowledge, and had he felt disposed to be a practical 
 benefit to the human race, what a splendid opportunity 
 was afforded him for imparting a great fund of information 
 to those who listened to him I But he had not the informa- 
 tion to impart 
 
 The Apostles were no better. They were unlettered, 
 ignorant men, and were capable of treating of but little save 
 tiie excellence of faith in the merits of the blood of a cruci- 
 fied God. They did cot present to the people to whom 
 they ministered any new scientific truths, nor did they in 
 the slightest degree advance the knowledge of the world in 
 the practical, useful, vital affairs of life. 
 
 The early Fathers of the Church were of the same char- 
 acter. A majority of them were uneducated men. Some 
 became proficient in the lore of the time, but science 
 and learning were the least among their cares. Their ob. 
 Jcct was to establish their system of religion, and to hold up 
 the uncertain statf of happiness in a future life aa of moi« 
 
 THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSaiON. 
 
 141 
 
 consequence than education and prosperity in this. As the 
 Church increased in numbers, and under the murderous 
 Contantine became a political power in the world, the phi- 
 losophy and learning of the previous centuries receded from 
 view and were superseded by sectarian contention, bigotry, 
 superstition, and ignorance, until the priesthood of the 
 Christian Church became themselves the most ignorant of 
 men; not one in twenty could read, or write his own name. 
 So far from aiding the cause of science and learning, it 
 rather did all it could to retard them. The Serapion of 
 Alexandria, which contained four hundred thou«and vol- 
 umes, by far the largest library in the world, was ruthlessly 
 destroyed near the close of the fourth century by the Chris- 
 tian Archbishop Theophilus; and Hypatia, the daiighter of 
 Theon the mathematician, a devoted student and teacher 
 of science and learning, and who distinguished herself by 
 her expositions of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, as 
 well as by her comments on the writings of Apollonius, 
 was assaulted while on her way to the academy by a mob •f 
 Christian monks under bt. Cyril, who had succeeded to the 
 episcopacy occupied by his uncle Theohpilus, and she was 
 stripped naked in the street, then dragged into the church, 
 and there killed by the club of Peter the Reader. Her 
 corpse was cut in pieces, the flesh scraped from her bones 
 with shells by those Christian fiends, who doubtless felt 
 that they had done great service to their Church and their 
 cause. 
 
 Professor Draper thus tersely speaks upon the subject: 
 " So ended Greek philosophy in Alexandria; so came to an 
 untimely close the learning that the Ptolemies had done so 
 much to promote. The 'Daughter Library/ that of the 
 Serapion, had been dispersed. The fate of Hypalia was a 
 warning to all who would cultivate profane knowledge. 
 Henceforth there was to be no freedom for human thought. 
 Every one must think as the ecclesiastical authority ordered 
 him— JL D. 414. In Athens itself philosophy awaited iia 
 
142 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BSXNETT DISCUSBIOIT. 
 
 '1(1 
 
 m 
 
 doom. JustiDian at length prohibited its teaching and 
 caused all its schools in that city to be closed." 
 
 The history of the triumph of faith over reason, learning, 
 and science is one sickening to read. It is full and explicit, 
 but the limits of this letter will allow me to make only here 
 and there a quotation. *' The fourth Council of Carthage 
 forbade the reading of secular books by the bishops. Je- 
 rome condemned the use of them except for pious purposes. 
 The physical sciences were unqualifiedly condemned, as 
 their cultivation was considered incompatible with the prac- 
 tice of religious dulies. ... No importance was at- 
 tached to anything of an intellectual character except the 
 childish and unintelligible controversies which were carried 
 on for centuries " (Underwood). " These disputes diverted 
 studious minds from profane literature, and narrowed down 
 more and more the circle of that knowledge which they 
 were desirous to obtain " (Hallam*s Middle Ages, p. 458). 
 Thus says the Christian historian, Guizot: "We saw them 
 (profane literature and pagan philosophy) soon disappear ; 
 sacred literature and Christian theology alone remained. 
 We no longer meet with anything but sermons, legends, 
 etc This decay has generally been attributed to the tyr- 
 anny of the Church, to the triumph of the principles of 
 authority and faith over the principles of liberty and rea- 
 son " (Hist. Civilization, vol. iii, p. 80). 
 
 " The lives of the saints was the literature of the time. 
 There were men who occupied themselves in collecting 
 them, writing them and recounting them for the edifica- 
 tion, no doubt, but more especially the intellectual pleasure 
 of the Christians" (ibid, vol. ii, p. 33»). ''These lives of 
 the faints filled fifty-three volumes. There were 1442 for 
 the month of April alone. There were more than 25,000 
 saints contained in the fif Jy-three volumes " (ibid, vol. ii, 
 p. 350). "The legends were to the Christians of this age 
 (let me be allowed this purely literary comparison), what 
 those long accounts, those brilliant and varied histories, of 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BE2TNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 143 
 
 which the ' Thousand and One Nights ' gives us a specimen. 
 were to the Orientals" (ibid, p. 850). "Literature, prop- 
 crly so called, held but little place in the Christian world " 
 (ibid, p. 95). ** From the fourth to the eighth century 
 there was no longer any profane literature ; sacred litera- 
 ture stands alone ; priests only study or write; and they 
 only study, they only write upon religious subjects " (ibid, 
 p. 317). " Toward the end of the sixth century there are 
 DO longer civil schools ; ecclesiastical schools alone sub- 
 sist" (ibid, p. 318). "The metamorphosis of civil schools 
 into ecclesiastical schools was complete" (ibid, p. 818). 
 " Not only did literature become entirely religious, but it 
 ceased to be literary; there was no longer any literature, 
 properly so called" (ibid, p. 320). "Doubtless nothing re- 
 mains belonging to this age either of philosophy, poetry, 
 or literature, properly speaking . . but there was a world 
 of writings; they are sermons, instructions, exhortations, 
 homilies and conferences upon religious matters'' 
 
 (ibid, p. 321). 
 
 You must accept Guizot's authority, for he was em- 
 inently Christian; but Ingersoll portrayed much the same 
 stete of facts when he said, " In the Dark Ages the Church 
 had the world by the throat. Every thought was strangled, 
 every idea lost. Science was actually thrust into the brain 
 of Europe at the point of Moorish bayonets." 
 
 Hal lam you will accept as a reliable Christian historian. 
 Although in many instancea he seems actuated by a desire 
 to present the side of the Church in as favorable a light as 
 possible, the facts he states are suflicient to forever damn it.. 
 I will make a few quotations from his Middle Ages: '*A 
 cloud of ignorance overspread the whole face of the Church, 
 hurdly broken by a few glimmering lights, who owe al- 
 most the whole of their distingtion to the surrounding 
 darkness " (p. 460). '^ In the shadows of this universal igno- 
 rance a thousand superstitions, like foul animals of niglit, 
 were propagated and nourished* France reached her low* 
 
 f 
 
 1I 
 
 r 
 
 H 
 
fl 
 
 / 
 
 144 
 
 THB HXTMPHRET-BSNNETT OISCUSaiOH. 
 
 est point at the beginning of the eighth century > but 
 England was, at that time, more respectable, and did not 
 fall into complete degradation until the middle of the ninth. 
 There could be nothiog more deplorable than the state of 
 Italy during the succeeding century. In almost every 
 council the ignorance of the clergy forms a subject of 
 reproach. It is asserted of one held in 993 that scarcely a 
 single person was to be found, in Home itself, who knew 
 the first elements of letters. Not one priest of a thousand 
 in Spain about the agje of Charlemagne, could address a 
 common letter of salutation to one another" (p. 460). Inger- 
 Boll stated the case in reference to the influence the Church 
 had exercised when he said it had " reduced Spain to a 
 guitar, Italy to a hand-organ, and Ireland to exile." 
 
 I will make a quotation or two from Lecky : ** Mediseval 
 Catholicism discouraged and suppressed in every way secu- 
 lar studies, while It conferred a monopoly of wealth and 
 honor and fame upon distinguished theologians" (History of 
 Morals, vol. ii. p. 222). " Not till the education of Europe 
 passed from the monasteries to the universities; not till 
 Mohammedan science and classical f reethought and indus- 
 trial independence broke the scepter of the Church did the 
 intellectual revival of Europe commence " (ibid, p. 219). 
 ** Few men who are not either priests or monks would not 
 have preferred to live in the best days of the Athenian or of 
 the Roman Republics, in the age of Augustus or in the age 
 of the Antonines. rather than in any period that elapsed be- 
 tween the triumph of Christianity and the fourteenth cen- 
 tury " (ibid, p. 13). 
 "The influence of theology having for centuries benumbed 
 and paralyzed the whole intellect of Christian Europe, the 
 revival which forms the starting point of our modem 
 civilization was mainly d^e to the fact that two spheres of 
 intellect still remained uncontrolled by the scepter of Cathol 
 icbm. The Pagan literature of antiquity and the Moham- 
 medan echoola of scienee were the chief agencies Ik resus 
 
 TBB HXJMPHKET- BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 145 
 
 citating the dormant energies of Christianity ",(ihid. p. 18). 
 
 Here is given the true sources of the science which the 
 civilized world enjoys: first, the learning of the ancient 
 Pagan nations, and secondly, the Mohammedans who con- 
 served the sciences and kept them alive while Christendom 
 was sinking and groping in the theological darkness of the 
 Middle Ages— the Church driving the last remains of learn- 
 ing from the people. It is not Christianity that gave sci- 
 ence, education and art to the world, and it was only when 
 they saw that the people were determined to advance in 
 intelligence and mental culture that the priests gave any 
 encouragement in this direction. Science and civilization 
 exist in Christendom not by the good offices of Christian- 
 ity, but in spite of it. 
 
 I would like to quote more largely from the same and 
 other authorities, but my letter is already too long and I 
 
 must hasten on. 
 
 You name Copernicus and claim that his scientific discov- 
 eries were due to Christianity. To show how unjust your 
 claim is, it is only necessary to state that his discoveries 
 were rejected by the Church. They were declared to be in 
 opposition to the Bible and to revelation ; and for a century 
 afterwards his views, though of so much importance and 
 BO true, were not accepted by the Christian Church, either 
 Catholic or Protestant. Luther denounced him as an oU 
 fool, and said he was trying to wp*e< the whoU art of astronomy 
 and in refutation of his views appealed to the teachings of 
 the Bible. This discovery of Copernicus was one of the 
 grandest ever made by man. It ended a fallacious system 
 founded on pretended inspiration from heaven to the effect 
 that the earth is the centre and principal part of the Uni- 
 verse, and created a new and truthful theory that the sun is 
 the centre of the solar system, and that the earth, like the 
 other planets, revolves around it. Christianity, however, 
 cannot be credited with the discovery. She opposed it 
 
 firmly and persistently, and half a century after the discov- 
 
 r 
 
 ,"• 
 
 .-I 
 
lie 
 
 THE HUMPHKET-BENNErr DISCUSSION. 
 
 €ry the disciple of CopefHUIls, Giordano Bruno, was impris- 
 oned in the infernal Inquisition for two years and tortured 
 in the most cruel manner, and was finally burnt at th€ stake 
 for his devotion to science and truth. This was the way in 
 vhich Christianity fostered science and the doctrines of 
 
 i^pernicus. 
 
 Btill later, Galileo had much the same experience to pass 
 through. He embraced the doctrines of Copernicus, and 
 made some additional discoveries in astronomy, but for 
 this the Christian Church pursued him and punished him 
 with the most vindictive cruelty. For holding and teach- 
 ing that the earth moves round the sun he was, after he 
 had become advanced in life and in feeble health, throwB 
 into the dungeons of the Inquisition and kept for years a 
 prisoner of the Church. The old man was compelled to 
 forswear, on his knees, his honest convictions and to gife 
 the lie to the great truth that the earth is a sphere and re- 
 volves around the sun. Had he not done this his life proba- 
 bly would have been taken. This is another instance of the 
 way in which Christanity fostered science, and now you 
 have the assurance to claim for it the honor of the persecu- 
 ted man's discoveries and teachings, when at the peril of his 
 life it compelled him to recant the truth of his doctrine. 
 
 Vanini was another scientist— another disciple of Coper- 
 nicus whom the Church persecuted unto death because he 
 dared to entertain views which it did not approve. Oh, 
 what a patron of science was the Christian Church for over 
 sixteen hundred years! It frowned furiously upon every 
 effort in that direction. 
 
 I will make one more quotation, and from Professor 
 Huxley: ** Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of 
 every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Her- 
 cules; and history records that whenever science and 
 orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been 
 forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not 
 annihilated: scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy ia the 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 147 
 
 Jl 
 
 Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither 
 can it forget; and though at present bewildered and afraid 
 to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that the first chap- 
 ter of Genesis contains the beginning and end of sound 
 science; and to visit with such petty thunderbolts as its 
 half-paralyzed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade 
 nature to the level of primitive Judaism " (Lay Sermons, 
 
 p. 278). 
 
 For some sixteen hundred years the Christian Church 
 held the world, or so much of it as was under its control, 
 bound in the chains of darkness and ignorance. WhUe 
 science and learning were being fostered and cherished 
 by the Arabians and other Oriental nations, Christianity 
 held a black pall of superstition and degradation over its 
 entire domain. Draper thus states the fact: "When Europe 
 was hardly more enlightened than CafEraria is now. the 
 Saracens were cultivating and creating science. Their 
 triumphs in philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, 
 medicine, proved to be more durable and therefore more 
 important than their military actions had been '"(Intellect- 
 ual development, p. 306). Christian nations were at length 
 glad to receive from the Mohammedan the science and 
 learning which for centuries it had been conserving; and 
 had not this source been accessible it is probable the night 
 of Christian ignorance would still be hanging over Europe 
 to-day. Where the reign of Christianity has been most 
 absolute, the ignorance and degradation of the masses has 
 been the most complete. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, 
 Ireland, and Mexico are cases in point. The Reformation 
 raised an opposition to this rule. A spirit of rebellion or 
 infUmty to the old regime actuated it. To this extent it was 
 beneficial to the world. The more infidelity it exercised, 
 the more beneficial its results. Protestantism is little more 
 than the original system of Christianity with a modicum of 
 Infidelity blended with it. This is what the Church prac- 
 tically declared, and it has denounced as heretics and 
 
 )• 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 I' 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
1411 
 
 THE HUlfPHRET-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 149 
 
 Infidels all who embraced its schismatic teachings and doc- 
 trines. This rupture in the rule of the Church doubtless 
 opened the way for an increase of learning among the 
 masses, though it is unfortunate that the new Church held 
 to ihe same miserable and debasftig dogmas which charac- 
 terized the old. It made little or no improvement in the 
 articles of belief, but that it tendtd to break to some extent 
 the iron rule of the Romish Church cannot be denied. 
 
 For the last two centuries Christianity has shown more 
 favor to science and learninij than previously. It has been 
 compelled by the spirit of the age to take this course. The 
 priesthood have often evinced the disposition and ability to 
 yield to the public demand when compelled to do so. 
 They did so in the matter of education, though they used 
 every exertion to make their old theological dogmas the 
 dominant element. They have ever sought to make science 
 subservient to superstition. The wily and designing Jes- 
 uits have established schools of learning, and numbers of 
 them have reached degrees of advanced scholarship, but 
 their object has been to promote their own interests and 
 not to elevate and enlighten the masses. To keep the peo- 
 ple in subjection has ever been the spirit and purpose of 
 Christianity. 
 
 You make a formidable array of names of Christians who 
 were men of education and comparative science, and men- 
 tion many colleges which have been established under 
 Christian auspices. With a large portion of these men 
 Christianity was a mere incident, not a motive. They are 
 reckoned Christians because they were born and reared in 
 Christian countries. Being so born and reared did not in- 
 crease their intellectuality or love of learning. The rule 
 will be found to hold good that those who have been most 
 wedded to science, and who were the most proficient In 
 its pursuit, cared the least for the dogmas of the Church. 
 From motives of policy, and to secure personal safety, they 
 yielded a tacit allegiance to its rale— nothing moi«. 
 
 *With an air of triumph you ask: ** Where are the public 
 museums of art, science, the libraries, and institutes that 
 Infidels have established?" If you had taken a fair view of 
 the field, I think you would hardly propound such a conun- 
 drum. Until within the last two centuries Infidels and 
 scientists have been compelled to look out closely for their 
 own personal liberty and their lives, for the minions of the 
 Church were after them like bloodhounds upon the track 
 of an escaping slave ! What chance had Copernicus, 
 Galileo. Bruno, Vanini and Bcrvetus to found colleges and 
 museums? Three of them were burned at the stake by the 
 strong arm of the Church, and the others barely escaped. 
 Universities and institutes are founded successfully only 
 under government auspices, or by wealthy corporations. 
 Governments have been in the hands of Christians, and 
 what chance had a few ignored, despised Infidels to 
 found such institutions? A spirit of irony must have 
 actuated you to put such a question. It is almost adding 
 insult to injury. But within the last half century a change 
 has taken place. With the advance of science, and the prog- 
 ress of political and mental liberty, Infidels have grown a 
 little bolder and now dare to speak aloud and say their 
 souls are their own. For the time and means at hand, they 
 have done nobly in the cause of science. With what James 
 Smithson did in Washington, Stephen Girard in Philadel- 
 phia. Peter Cooper in this city, James Lick in Ban Fran- 
 Cisco, the London University established fifty years ago 
 independent of Christianity, and where its dogmas are not 
 promulgated, Infidels can now hold up their heads^^with 
 a degree of pride that Christians cannot honestly feel. You 
 have doubts about the religious status of James Smithson. 
 You need not have when you are aware that the matter 
 ■ of introducing and championing the bill for the estab- 
 lishment of the Smithsonian Institute was placed in the 
 hands of the Infidel Owen, just deceased, who ably engi- 
 neered it through Congress. Be assured, had there beea 
 
 m 
 
 k 
 
 i!' 
 
160 
 
 THB mmiUREt-SESnSETt Discussioir. 
 
 the slightest grounds for claiming Smithson as a Christian, 
 our cyclo[jedias and biographical dictionaries would have 
 so stated it yery prominently. Neither can I yield the 
 Tenerable Peter Cooper, who has done more for the peo- 
 ple of this city, in an educational point of view, than a 
 thousand ministers have ever done. He is a good man, but 
 he does not believe in the miraculous qualities of the blood 
 of Jesus; he is not one of your kind. He is guilty of 
 the same grave 'doctrinal crime for which your great leader, 
 John Calvin, caused Michael Servetus to be burned to death 
 by a slow fire. Had Peter Cooper lived at Geneva under 
 Calvin's rule, there never would have been a Cooper 
 Institute established. No 1 no ! you cannot claim Peter 
 Cooper I He has not faith enough for you I 
 
 Who are the leading men in the world of thought to-day? 
 Are they the men who believe that the Jewish, personal, 
 anthropomorphic Jehovah made the entire Universe of suna 
 and worlds from nothing, less than six thousand years ago? 
 Or are they the men who have risen above all the childish 
 and puerile creeds of superstition and revelation, which 
 have bound the world for thousands of years? The men 
 who are leading and moulding the thought of the world this 
 hour are skeptics, scientists. Infidels. They are holding up 
 the light of science in view of the masses, and the mists and 
 fogB of superstition are fast disappearing. Preceded by 
 Fuch men as Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, Spinoza, Goethe, 
 Humboldt, Lyell, and others, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, 
 Spencer, Wallace, Helmholtz, Haeckel, Schmidt, Draper, 
 Proctor, and hosts of others, are pressing vigorously on 
 towards the temple of truth, rejecting the errors and follies 
 which the theologies of the past have so persistently fast- 
 (iiied upon the people of the world. 
 
 Some of the institutions of learning which you claim as 
 Christian can hardly be justly so claimed. Cornell, for in- 
 staucf, has a very .diluted article of Christianitjr. I am 
 credibly informed that every one of the professois ^e un* 
 
 I 
 
 THE HUUPHRET-BENKETT DISCXT8SI0N. 
 
 151 
 
 belieyers in the dogmas of Christianity, and are readers of 
 Radical Journals. Cornell has been denounced as an Infi- 
 del institution. Harvard is little better. It does not retain 
 enough of the original faith to do very much harm. The 
 great law of evolution is working in the Christian Church, 
 as well as elsewhere, and ultimately science and truth must 
 triumph over superstition and error. 
 
 Probably the most ridiculous assumption you made in 
 your last letter, is that a belief in Christianity is conducive 
 to the inventive faculty. If you succeed in establishing 
 that Christians are more inventive than other portions of 
 the human race, will it not go far towards proving the 
 system of Christianity itself a mere invention ? Is it pos- 
 sible that you honestly maintain the opinion that a man who 
 believes that a person was once begotten by a ghost, that the 
 being so begotten is as old as his father ; that the kind 
 author of the Universe could create a burning hell to throw 
 millions upon millions of his creatures into to suffer eternal 
 agony; that to save a limited number from this fate, he 
 caused his only beloved Son to be put to an ignominious 
 death, do you think that believing this enables one to get 
 up a better steam-boat, mowing-machine, improved bee-hive 
 or patent churn than other men ? The Chinese and the 
 Japanese are very mechanical, inventive people ; is it be- 
 cause they have so much faith in Jesus and accept the Chris- 
 tian dogmas ? The Abysinians are a Christian nation, ia 
 tbat what makes tbem such finished mechanics? The Span- 
 iards, Italians, Portuguese and Mexicans are very ardent 
 Christians ; if your rule holds good, they should there- 
 fore be full of mechanical inventions. Are they ? 
 
 So far as my observation has extended, inventors and dis- 
 tinguished mechanics arc not especially pious and full of 
 lath. They are generally a practical sort of people, and 
 think more of cog-wheels, mechanical forces, etc., than they 
 do of Gods and Christs, sanctification and imputed right- 
 eouane8«. The Christian Church probably distin^ished it- 
 
 U 
 
 if 
 
 i\ 
 
 « 
 
Y.. 
 
 ISa t«B HtJMf iniET-BENN2TT DISCtJSSIOK. 
 
 felf in the field of invention more in getting up racks, 
 thumb-screws, puHies, wlicels, boots, pincers, buming-irons. 
 and other engines of torture without name, with which to 
 mangle and kill thousands of the poor heretic wretches 
 whom they took under their kind protection and inventive 
 care. Could the Church have obtained a patent for its . 
 every invention of this kind, and could have sold the patents 
 at a good price, the revenue from this source would doubt- 
 less have equaled that from the sale of indulgencies. and 
 from the pardons in advance, for the most heinous crimes. 
 Pollock describes the pleasure the Church took in its inven- 
 tions for torture thus : 
 
 •• InQuisltion. model most complete 
 Of perfect wickedness, where deeds were done- 
 Deeds I let them ne'er be named— and sat and planned 
 Deliberately, and with most musing pains. 
 How to extromest thrill of agony. 
 The flesh and blood and souls of men. 
 Her victims, might be wrought; and when she saw 
 New tortures of her laboring fancy born, 
 8he leaped for joy. and made great haste to try 
 Their force, well pleased to hear a deeper groan." 
 
 Tou have evoluted a long distance from where your 
 brethren of the Church stood two or three centuries ago. 
 You claim now that all these useful inventions belong to the 
 Church while your predecessors consigned them to the 
 dfivU. Hundreds of the inventions which you now claim 
 for the Church used to be traced directly to his Satanic 
 Majesty. Even the art of printing, which you fain 
 would monopolize, has many and many a time by your 
 former brethren been denounced as the work of the devil and 
 a device of helL Gutenberg and Faust, when they in- 
 vented printing, were said to be in league with the "Evil 
 One." Leading bishops and priests of the Christian Church 
 did all they could to suppress the art and denounced it at 
 * groat enemy to tlie Ohurok They perceived that Upofr" 
 
 I' 
 
 1'^ 
 
 THE nUMPnUET-BBinrETT DISCTJSMOK. 
 
 ltd 
 
 sesscd facilities for conveying intelligence to the massc8> 
 and they feared its influence. William Tyndale, a man of 
 note, was, in 1536, by the authorities of the Church, burned 
 at the stake for translating and printing the Bible. I think 
 it was Gov. Berkeley of Virginia, an eminently pious Chris- 
 tian who, since the settlement of this country, thanked 
 God that there was not a printing-pre^i in the whole State, 
 and he prayed that there might not be. 
 
 In like manner hundreds of other inventions were piously 
 denounced as being the works of the devil. In this cate- 
 gory may be placed the steam-engine, lightning-rods, the 
 telegraph, railroads, reaping-machines, sewing-machines, 
 friction-matches, etc., etc. Even your pious Church breth 
 ren, the Presbyterians of Scotland, for many years persist- 
 ently fought the use of the fanning-mill for cleaning their 
 rye, oats and beans, and called the wind it engendered 
 •* the devil's wind." Is it not amusing to see you now turn 
 around and claim all these inventions as the special prop- 
 erty of the Church ? Verily, who is it sitting on the back 
 seat of the tar of progress throwing out hand-bills on 
 Avhich is inscribed, **See what we are doing for the ad- 
 vancement of science"? I fancy, Bro. Humphrey, I see 
 you among the number. 
 
 Yuu recite a great number of names of inventors, artists, 
 etc., who lived and died in Christian countries. Tou could 
 have increased this list greatly by copying the names of 
 artisans and mechanics from the New York Directory. 
 Ninc-tentbs of these would doubtless be found tacit believ- 
 ers in Christianity, and they would serve to swell the list 
 greatly. You might with equal propriety claim Christian- 
 ity as the foster parent of brothels, gambling hells, rum- 
 holes, lotteries, policy-shops, stock-gambling oflSces, horse- 
 races, concert-cellars, etc. , etc. , for you would find a large 
 proportion of those who conduct these establishments, as 
 well as their patrons, believers in the Christian religion, 
 «nd they are Just as honestly entitled to be counted and 
 
 fl 
 
10f 
 
 THE HimPHHST-BEKNETT DISCXTSSIOir: 
 
 I* 
 '■;t. 
 
 .1 
 
 claimed by you as the inTentors, painters, sculptors, poeti, 
 printers, book-sellers, etc., etc. I am disposed to yield to- 
 you all that is Justly yours* 
 
 You name several Freethought and Spirituaiistic journals 
 and intimate tliat they hare done little or nothing in the 
 cause of science They certainly have done something in- 
 that direction, and have at least labored to do their duty in: 
 in unpopular cause, each according to its ability. They 
 will, I think, compare very favorably in the direction of 
 being teachers of science with Thd Obaerver, The Shangdist^ 
 The Christian at Work, The Christian Union, Working 
 Church, and the four hundred other pious Christian papers^ 
 published in this country. Are they par excellence teach- 
 ers of science? If teaching Christianity and teaching. 
 science are the same, what a vast amount of science the 
 sixty-five thousand clergymen of the United States alone 
 ought to be able to present to the people! With so many 
 teachers of science, every individual in the country over fif- 
 teen years of age ought to be well versed in its great; 
 trulhs. But it is not the case, for all the science they 
 all teach can be put into a very small space. $200,000,000' 
 are paid annually for the promulgation of antique mytb» 
 ftnd obsolete dogmas, and the truths of science form but a 
 amall share of their instructions. 
 
 I could hardly repress a smile when I saw that you 
 claimed the dictionary as a Christian bequest. Why, there 
 were dictionaries in the world before a Christian was 
 thought of. Besides, the author of our dictionary and the 
 old spelling-book was, during a part of his life a skeptic, 
 especially when he wrote the spelling-book (see Memoir in 
 Dictionary). Why do you not claim the rule of addition 
 and the multiplication table as Christian institutions? Tou 
 could do so with equal justice with much that you have 
 claimed. 
 
 A.t the close of your last letter you draw a very pretty 
 pictoie of the Car of FiQgsess passing by, and of a d«)ad-head 
 
 mt HtTMPHREY - BBNN«t-r mSCUSSIOK. 
 
 155 
 
 wishing a ride, and of his clambering up, taking a back 
 seat and at once throwing out his handbills, claiming great 
 honor for what he has done for science and the elevation of 
 mankind. This is all very pretty, only you have made 
 a mistake in the individual. His name instead of 
 Infidelity is Christianity— Sknoiher instance of where you 
 have claimed too much. In view of the manner in ^hich 
 the Church persistently stifled the aspirations of mankind 
 for mental liberty and the truths of science for fifieen 
 hundred years, and only when compelled was induced to 
 recognize them, it is very refreshing to now see it mount 
 the back seat and swing its banner, claiming thousands 
 of years devotion to science. Yes; it is very amusing. 
 
 In closing let me make one more quotation from IngersoU 
 «* Christianity has always opposed every forward movement 
 of the human race. Across the highway of proerress it has 
 always been building breastworks of bibles, tracts, com- 
 mentaries, prayer-books, creeds, dogmas and platforms, 
 and at every advance the Christians have gathered together 
 behind these heaps of rubbish and shot the poisoned arrows 
 of malice at the soldiers of freedom." 
 
 Pardon me for my great length. To answer your general- 
 izations in detail necessarily requires considerable space. 
 I have not aimed at aught else but to answer the points 
 you raised. There is much more I would like to say bear- 
 ing upon the same subject, but must defer it for the present. 
 I am very truly yours, J). M Bennett. 
 
 MR. HVMPHRBT. 
 
 Mr. D. M. Bennett, D»ar Sir: I wish, first of all, to 
 state that I did not, in my last letter, assert that any instl- 
 tution or individual was of a Christian character, until I had 
 examined the very best accessible authorities on the eub- 
 Ject I did not follow traditions or newspaper ilemi*. 
 
 / 
 

 i 
 
 m 
 
 TEM RCriffFHBBT-BBNKBTT DlSCUSSIOir. 
 
 Keither did I reckon any one a " Christian because ho was 
 born and reared in a Christian country." Throughout this 
 discussion I have stuck rigidly to the terms of our propo- 
 sitions, and to the standard definitions of words. 
 
 Yon remind me of a class of men who rejected John be- 
 cause he did not eat and drink like other people, and then 
 rejected Christ because he did eat and drink like other peo- 
 ple (Matt xi. 16-19). You have contended that the f ramers of 
 the Constitution must have been Infidels, because they ex- 
 pressed no Constitutional partiality to any form of religion, 
 and you have insisted that Franklin was an Infidel, though 
 his writings abound in religious sentiments, though he de- 
 clared himself a '* Protestant of the Church of England," 
 and a "sincere lover of social worship/' and though he 
 made a motion for daily prayers in the very Convention 
 that brought the Constitution into existence. The Consti- 
 tution is unsectarian ; but it is not irreligious. Immedi- 
 ately after its adoption, Washington and Adams, with no 
 precedent to press them to it, made annual Thanksgiving 
 Proclamations. I repeat, then, the language of Judge Story, 
 that none could hold Christianity in more reverence than 
 the framers of the Constitution. 
 
 In your last letter you show several individuals in a false 
 light. What authority had you for saying James Smitbson 
 was a *' Freethinker"? None whatever. As I have said 
 already, the circumstantial evidence is all the other way. 
 For instance, he graduated in the University of Oxford, at 
 ft time (1786) when that institution conferred no degree on 
 anybody who was not a member of the Established Church 
 (See Am. Cyclopedia, Art "University'*). Where is your 
 proof that he was a lying hypocrite at that time, or that 
 he changed his views afterwards t 
 
 I cannot find that Robert Dale Owen had much to do 
 with the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. 
 Neither Johnson's nor the American Cyclopedia mentions 
 liis nain^ in that connection. It was the Hon. Richard 
 
 THE HXJMPHREV-BEIJNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 157 
 
 Rush who prosecuted the claim to Smithson's bequest; be- 
 fore the British government. Prof. Joseph Henry— a most 
 estimable scientist and Christian— has been at the head of 
 the Institution ever since 1846. 
 
 Peter Cooper " is not one of your kind." He would 
 scorn the idea of being a disciple of " Tom Paine." Un- 
 solicited, he offered the Great Hall of the Union to the ser- 
 vices of the Evangelical Alliance in 1870— all free of 
 charge. He addressed a letter to the Delegates, wherein he 
 said that "Christianity is in Tealiiyatrue scienee of life**; 
 ** that he (the godly man) is guided by that great prineiiiie 
 that controlled the life of Christ,** and much more in the same 
 vein. Did Mr. Cooper ever offer his Hall to an Infidel 
 Convention ? Did he ever say that Infidelity is in reality 
 a true science of life ? No. He accepts the Bible as the 
 inspired word of God. He belongs, therefore, to my aide 
 of the proposition under discussion. 
 
 Ezra Cornell, the founder of the University that bears 
 his name, was a Quaker. The other leading benefactors of 
 that institution— Hiram Sibley, John McQraw, Dean Sage, 
 Henry W. Sage, President White— are all thorough believ- 
 ers in the Christian religion. I got this information from 
 Messrs. Henry W. Sage, 67 Wall street, A. B. Cornell, 16 
 East 42d street, and H. W. Sibley, 21 Courtlandt street. 
 Nor is Cornell University conducted on the godless princi- 
 ple. There are prayers in the chapel every morning. Mr. 
 Dean Sage's donation was made expressly to furnish the 
 students with ** Evangelical preaching," as Mr. Sage him- 
 self put it, or with *' lectures on general theology by divines 
 of different denominations," as the American Cyclopedia 
 expresses it. Prof. Felix Adler is not ** wanted " there any 
 more. So you see that Cornell is in no sense ' an Infidel 
 
 institution.'* 
 
 The same may be said of the London University. I was 
 surprised to see you laying any claim to it I would like to 
 your assertion backed with some proof. 
 
 i 
 
158 
 
 THE iimiPiiRiT-BiEirNSTT Discusaioir. 
 
 I 
 
 1 k 
 
 Tou are hardly better aa a Bible critic than as a delineator 
 of character. You regret that I did not take more trouble to 
 harmonize the conclusions of modern science with the teach- 
 ings of Scripture. That reconciliation is by no means im- 
 possible. There is no conflict between the Bible, rightly 
 understood, and Science, properly so called. But it is as un- 
 desirable as it is impossible to reconcile the Bible with every 
 whim, vagary, and balderdash, that every scribbler persists 
 in calling science. If you are disposed to read in that line, 
 you have access to such works as Kurtz* " Bibel und As- 
 tronomic"; O. M. Mitchell's "Astronomy of the Bible"; 
 Chalmers* "Astronomical Discourses**; Hugh Miller*s 
 "Testimony of the Rocks"; Dana*s '* Manual of Geol- 
 ogy," 1875. pp. 765-770; Dawson's " Nature and the Bible "; 
 Hitchcock's " Geology,*' 1853, pp. 284r-315 ; Duke of Ar- 
 gylFs " Reign of Law "; McCosh' " Christianity and Positiv- 
 ism"; Morris '** Science and the Bible"; Mozley's "Bamp- 
 ton Lectures on Miracles,'* 1865 ; WinchelPs "Doctrine of 
 Evoldtion/' and "Reconciliation of Science and Religion," 
 and many other works of the kind, with which everybody 
 ought to be familiar. ^ 
 
 Ton show an inclination to dispose of some Bible char- 
 acters by calling them •* myths.** Are you not aware that 
 the " mythical theory'* is going out of fashion among the 
 "thinkers" of Germany! That little critical farce is 
 about played ontv Whately has shown in a book called 
 "Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon," that the myth- 
 ical theory would apply to Buonaparte with just as much 
 force as to Solomon, Daniel or Job. Why, Sir, there is 
 as strong a probability that Thomas Paine was a ** myth " 
 as there is that Moses was. The accounts of his life are 
 very "contradictory." His career was full of "inherent 
 improbabilities. " Nobody k nows to-day where his reputed 
 remains are 1 Prove that Paine was not a " myth," and I 
 will show by the same process of reasoning that the promi- 
 nent characters of the Bible were no fiotiona. 
 
 TKB HUmPHREY-BENNBTT DTSCUSSION. 
 
 159 
 
 The critics who believe that the book of Job was written 
 fcy a Hebrew, are not all as old as you say. Many of them 
 have lived until quite recently ; and several of them are 
 •still living. Your disUnction between the ^ook and the 
 name of Job looks more like a loop-hole than anything 
 «l6e. What is Job apart from the book! Who thinks of 
 Hamlet without the play ? As the book of Job was well 
 Jinown among the Hebrews many centuries before Christ. 
 Jthe book and the man must have always gone together in 
 
 tthe Jewish mind. 
 
 I am afraid you have not read the work of that eminent 
 scientist. Sir Isaac Newton, entitled " Observations upon 
 <he Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." 
 li is the product of the same mind as the "Principia." A 
 -diligent study of it might modify your views of Daniel's 
 date and real existenoe. 
 
 You say Bolomotf e sin did not'consist in hie many marri- 
 :age8 ^ Have you forgotten that it was unlawful for the Is- 
 raeliles to marry '* strange," that is, heathen'wives t Have 
 you not observed that Solomon is said to have *" sinned by 
 4hese things" (Neh. xiii, 26, 27)? You are certamly not 
 ignorant of the fact that David himself looked upon hia 
 adultery as an " evil,'* a " sin," an - iniquity " and a " trans- 
 ^resslon" (Pss. xixii. and li). 
 
 You stick to what Dr. Smith, Classical Examiner hi the 
 University of London, calls "the mlffor objection" m 
 regard to the Hebrews - borrowing " from their Egyptian 
 masters. Dr. Smith adds: - The word « borrow ' should be 
 * ask ' There was no promise or intention of repayment. 
 The jewels were given for fa^ <Ex. xii: 8^, as well as fear; 
 and they were a flight recompense for all of whidi tlw 
 Egyptians had robbed the Israelites during a century of 
 bondage" (Old Testament History, 1869, p. 153). Perhaps 
 the word "stripped," employed in the Douay Version, cor- 
 wsponds with the original better than "spoiled,' m the 
 iweseat sense ^f that word. 
 
 
 » t 
 
> L 
 
 -I!: 
 
 it! ; • 
 
 if 
 
 100 
 
 THE HUMPHRET-BENNLTT DISCUSSIOIT. 
 
 You are still unable to distinguish faith from ** blind ere* 
 dulity." Faith is trust Id that which is trustworthy- 
 credence of that which is credible. It is confidence in 
 reliable testimony. It is "nidenu of things not seen/' in 
 Ihe same way that Le Yerrier^s computations were an 
 evidence of the existence of Neptune before it had been 
 diflcoyered. 
 
 You say incorrectly that the word '* faith/' occurs but 
 once in the Old Testament. It is to be found at least time 
 in King James* Translation (Deut. xxxii:20; Hab. ii: 4); and 
 Ihe word so rendered in these passages appears more than 
 tioeniy times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Taylor's Hebrew Con- 
 cordance)w There is nothing like being uceurate, Mr. Bennett. 
 
 You hsTO said more than once that Palestine contains no 
 relics of an ancient eiTiliiatlon. Your informant is some 
 "Great Unknown." In rebuttal of Mr. '* Great Unknown's " 
 testimony I will cite the authority of that celebrated scholar, 
 traveler, antiquarian^ and educator, Dr. Edward Robinson. 
 As late as 1852 he found in Jerjsalem ** beveled stones/' 
 •* viaducts/* "aqueducts,** ** fortresses/* ** ancient arches/* 
 *' massive ancient chambers,** and many other ** remains of 
 antiquity** (Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adja- 
 cent Regions, Boston, 1867, toI. iii. pp. 161-263). Thus» 
 in spite of tbe depredations of the Infidel Mohammedans, 
 something still survives to attest the former existence of an 
 advanced civiliaation. 
 
 Just as I expected I You give the " bloody shirt ** another 
 shake. You reiterate the usual aecounts of ecclesiastical 
 persecutions and oppositions to science. Let us look at the 
 facts of the case: 
 
 1. The Greek Church has never arrayed herself against 
 learuing and science. Dr. Draper exonerates her in these 
 words: *' It has always met it (science) with welcome. It 
 has observed a reverential attitude to truth, from whatever 
 quarter it might come ** (Conflict between Religion and Sci- 
 ence, 187S^ Preface). 
 
 'I 
 
 THE HTJMPHREY-BKNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 mi 
 
 % Protestantism has never disfavored the progress of 
 science. This, too. Dr. Draper admits (ibid). A few indi- 
 viduals may have shown it some dislike; but no Protestant 
 demmination has ever taken measures to obstruct its ad- 
 vancement. On the contrary, Protestants have given, and 
 given munificently, of their time, means, and influence, to 
 establish institutions of learning, and to diffuse knowledge 
 among the masses. It was the knell of the Reformation 
 that awakened science from her lethargy. Dr. Draper says 
 that «* modern science is the legitimate sister— indeed, it is 
 the twin-sister of the Reformation** (Conf. bet. Rel. and 
 Sci., p. 853). He should have added that, Jacob-like, Sci- 
 was' enabled to come forth into the light of day by clinging 
 to the heel of the Reformation. The twins have been most 
 thrifty and intimate ever since. 
 
 8. The only organized opponent to science has been 
 the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am not a member 
 of that Church. I cannot accept all her dogmas. I dis- 
 approve of her policy in many respects. But there were 
 circumstances that, to some extent, extenuated her faults 
 
 imd crimes: 
 
 (1) Catholic opposition to science was more an error of 
 the head than of the heart Prof. Huxley admits this in 
 one of his Lay Sermons. 
 
 (2) There has always been, as there is to-day, so much 
 poor stuff passing under the misnomer, " Science,** that 
 suspicion, and shy acceptance of It, and that only after 
 close scrutiny and careful sifting, Is quite excusable. There 
 may be wheat in the pile on the threshing-floor. But that 
 l8 no reason why everybody should be required to gulp it 
 down with "blind credulity "—bran, shorts, chaff, cockle, 
 
 thistle, smut, and all. 
 
 (8) Even through the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church kept 
 in existence "Schools,** where the human mind was made 
 strong by a thorough discipline. The intellect of Coperni- 
 cus and Galileo was no sport of Nature. It was the natural 
 
 "' 
 
 i.'l 
 
102 
 
 THE HmfPHRKT-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 S 
 
 product of a mental training that had been continued when 
 Science was at its lowest ebb. 
 
 (4). Before, and especially since, the Reformation, the 
 Catholic Church has done a great deal for Science. Hux 
 ley does not hesitate to say that the Jesuits were the 
 " best school-masters »' of Descartes* day (Lay Sermons, 
 p. 331). The American Cyclopedia says of the Benedic- 
 tines: "During the middle ages they were the great 
 preservers of ancient learning, and assiduous cultivators 
 of science and art, copying and preserving the classicg, 
 the Scriptures, and writings of the early Fathers. For cem* 
 luries they were the principal teachers of youth ifi 
 their Colleges and Schools " (See Articles. ** Benedictines " 
 and " Library "). We must not forget that Copernixjus, 
 Galileo, Pascal, Columbus, Descartes, and a host of other 
 eminent philosophers, lived and died in the Church of Rome. 
 Read Sir David Brewster's " Martyrs of Science," and you 
 will find that Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler received 
 encouragements from leveral ecclesiastics. The great life- 
 work of Copernicus was printed " at the entreaty of Cardie 
 nal Schomberg (Draper's Conf. bet. Rel. and Sci., p. 168> 
 Galileo received permission from the Pope to publish his 
 discoveries. And when his book appeared, it was attacked 
 more fiercely by the philosophers than by the theologians. 
 The mathematieiana said Amen to the verdict of the Inqui- 
 sition (Chambers* Biography, London, 1855, p. 9). 
 
 As a matter of course, you told us about the destruction 
 of the Alexandrian Library. I am glad you did; for you 
 thereby nave me an opportunity to tell the whole truth about 
 that unfortunate affair. Julius Caesar was the first to set it 
 on fire. He burned nunv than a half of it (Draper's Conflict 
 between Religion and Science, pp. 21, 103). It was next dli* 
 persed by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. He de- 
 stroyed U89 than the remainder of it. He was •* enjoined ** 
 to do it by the Emperor Theodosius (ibid, pp. 54,103). Its 
 destiuction was completed by Amrou, Lieutenant of tbo 
 
 THB miMPfiBET-BSNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 ie3 
 
 Khallf Omar. John Philoponus— a Christian scholar- 
 interceded for it, but in vain (ibid p. 103). Gibbon gives 
 the deUilA. But these salient facts are sufficient. They 
 diow that the Christians burned the Alexandrian Library 
 O71C0, and that the Infidels hurned it tfoiee. The Ii^dels, 
 Uierefore, burned /<!ir more of it than the Christians. 
 
 It was to to be expected that you would also go over 
 the story of Hypatia and Cyril. I will not reply in your 
 style, and say Hypatia was a "myth.** I will admit that 
 her treatment was most disgraceful But the rnoHw was 
 not the extinguishment of science, but the removal of a 
 woman who was supposed to be too intimate with Orestes^ 
 prefect of Alexandria, and who, as it was imagined, alien- 
 ated his affections from the Archbishop (Smith's Classical 
 Dictionary). It is notorious that the most accomplished 
 women of the period between Socrates and Cyril were 
 courtezans (Lecky*s History of European Morals, Vol. il, 
 pp. 308-314). Bo the truth as it may about Hypatia, it is 
 plain that Uie ol^ect aimed at in her massa€re was not the 
 extermination of science. 
 
 I trust the foregoing remarks will do something to correct 
 the Infidel catechism. I protest against the customary 
 lumping of all Christians, and saying they are opposed to 
 science. This is true of only one of the three grand divis- 
 ions of Christendom, Would it be just to say that aU 
 Infidels are "terrible,** and hostile to learning, simply be- 
 cause the French "Freethinkers" instigated the •* Reign of 
 Terror," and suppressed the University of Paris ? Would 
 it be right to say that all skeptics are licentious, because the 
 freethinking "Free-lovers** wish to abolish marriageT 
 Certainly not. On the same principle it is wrong, out- 
 rageously wrong, to say that the Christian religion is hostile 
 to science, when there is only one species of it so. 
 
 But have scientific men never persecuted one another? 
 Have they, too, not resisted scientific innovations ? They 
 certainly have. It was at edentieta more than as mere theolo- 
 
M 
 
 TBS mrMPHBXT-BSNHXrT DISCUSBIOir. 
 
 THB HUMPHBET-BENNfiTX DISCUSSION. 
 
 166 
 
 n- 
 
 giaot that Copemicas* and GalUeo's cotemporaries con- 
 demned tbe heliocentric theory. They stood up in defense 
 of what science had hitherto tavght. They made their great 
 mistake in supposing that science is crer absolutely correct, 
 infallible, and unchangeable. When Hanrey announced the 
 true theory of the circulation of the blood, the doeUfn were 
 the last to welcome the discovery. When Jenner gave vao» 
 cination to the world, the dactara were the tardiest to appre- 
 ciate and commend it. When Cotton Mather was tryini? 
 to introduce inoculation in New England, who opposed 
 him with all their might ? The doeton again (Sparks* Am. 
 Biography, vol. vi, p. 814)1 Who are to^ay more hateful 
 to each other than the different *' Schools" of Medicine f 
 But the doctors have always been regarded as icientific men. 
 When Franklin announced his discoveries in electricity, 
 Abbe Nollet did all he could to bring discredit on them. 
 (Parton's Life of Franklin, vol. i, p. 298). Did Newton 
 give his great ideas to the world without opposition f No. 
 Even such eminent scientists as Hooke and Huygens perse, 
 cuted him. Newton himself used that very word, ** perse- 
 cuted" (Brewster's Life of Newton, revised by Lynn, 1875, 
 p. 51). How the engineers fought the improvements of 
 George Stephenson ! Huxley is out of humor with Prof. 
 Owen because he denies that the Ape is possessed of a "poste- 
 rior lobe," and a '^hippocampus minor." Prof. Owen's of- 
 ense is iiideed a grave one— ignoring the infallibility of Prof. 
 Huxley! But a "liberal scientist" should not lose bis 
 temper under any circmnstances (See Huxley's Evidences 
 as to Man's Place in Nature, N. Y., 1868, pp. 188-8). 
 Clergymen are not allowed to cross the threshold of Girard 
 College. So it seems that Infidels are not always so mighty 
 "liberal "after all. They, too, can set up proscriptions 
 and interdicts whenever they get the chance. 
 
 The greatest enemies of Science and Art are Scienc# 
 and Art The footman opposed the horseman; the horse- 
 pan opposed the sta^^e-coichi the stage-coach opposed the 
 
 ■team-engine. Slow transit has always been an enemy to 
 " rapid transit." The Telegraph has always been a subjecjt 
 of contention and litigation. Every great improvement has 
 sent a multitude into bankruptcy. The car of Progress, 
 as it moves along, ruins many a trade, impoverishes many an 
 industrious workman, and crushes to the earth many a 
 handsome fortune. How many a poor Jennie did the 
 spinning-jenny throw out of employment I Thus the mo- 
 tives for showing indiilerence to Art and Science are not all 
 religious by any means. 
 
 The progress of Civilization is inevitably slow. Science, 
 like the Church, must arrive at the Heaven of her parity 
 and triumph " through great tribulations." She must get 
 rid of her dross. As the iceberg breaks from the Northern 
 shores, and floats southward, cold, creaking, imposing in 
 appearance as it goes, resisted now by surface, now by 
 under currents, in the meantime, however, melting grad- 
 ually awty, until at last it disappears, leaving a small 
 deposit on the Newfoundland banks, so the Human Mind 
 detaches from the shores of the boundless Unknown, now 
 an "hypothesis," and then a "theory," which is borne, often 
 slowly, and through many resistances, toward those lati- 
 tudes where bulky error vanishes, and where only the 
 residuum of Truth remains. These modern speculations, 
 erroneously termed " science," are only icebergs. They are 
 vast in the dimensions of their pretensions. They seem 
 bright— with borrowed light. They may wreck the bark of 
 many a weak one's faith. But the Christian insists that it 
 would be unwise to build a house on any of these icebergs. 
 He believes, moreover, that their destiny, for the most part, 
 IB— disappearance. But he will be among the first to accept 
 the modicum of truth which, it is hoped, some of them 
 will leave behind. 
 
 I will now submit the case to the reader. I have endeav' 
 ored to show that the spirit of the Scriptures is friendly to 
 genuine Science; that believers in the Bible have given to 
 
t-- 
 
 / 
 
 180 
 
 THE HUMFHREY-BBKMBTT DIBOXT88IOH. 
 
 the world almost all its institutionB of learning, libraries, 
 museums, discoveries, and inventions; that only one out of 
 the three grand divisions of Christendom has offered sys- 
 tematic resistance to science and learning; and that even 
 the Catholic Church has done infinitely more for both than 
 any Infidel organization that was ever formed. I know 
 that my work is incomplete. Many things have been left 
 unsaid. But it is to be hoped the reader will take these 
 scanty outlines as prompters to a more thorough investiga- 
 tion of the subject. 
 
 Yours very sincerely, Q. H. Humfhbet. 
 
 ! 1 
 
 BIR. BENNBTT. 
 
 Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Bear Sir: I see it is hard for 
 you to give up the convention which framed our National 
 Constitution, and which was so very pious and Christian 
 that that instrument utterly ignores God, Jesus Christ and 
 the Bible— a Convention which, in the words of Ingersoll, 
 •• knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man 
 out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would 
 be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for de- 
 stroymg the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible 
 history of the Church too well to place in her keeping, or 
 in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They 
 intended that all should have the right to worship or not to 
 worship ; that our laws should make no distinction on ac- 
 count of creed. They intended to found and frame a gov- 
 ernment for man, and for man alone. They wished to pre- 
 serve the individuality and liberty of all ; to prevent the 
 few from governing the many, and the many from perse- 
 cuting and destroying the few." So while the Convention 
 and the Constitution please you highly as genuine Chris- 
 tianity, they suit me very well as practical Infidelity. I 
 would simply ask the question, if, as Judge Story insists, 
 
 -Ci 
 
 THB HUMPHEET-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 
 
 167 
 
 the Constitution is a Christian Instrument, why is it 
 that our most zealous Christians are so anxious to insert 
 their God, their Christ and their Bible into it? If it i^ 
 first-lass Christian document as it is, why not let it remain 
 so ? Why seek to change it? 
 
 I regret that you deem it necessary to say: "You show 
 several individuals in a false light. What authority have 
 you for saying James Smithft)n was a Freethinker ?" I 
 said nothing of the kind, and you should not so charge me 
 until I have done it. My words were, " You need have no 
 doubt about the religious status of James Smithson when 
 you are aware that the matter of introducing and cham- 
 pioning the bill for the establishment of the Smithsonian 
 Institute was placed in the hands of the Infidel Owen, who 
 ably engineered it through Congress." I added, in sub- 
 stance, that had there been good grounds for claiming 
 Smithson as a Christian the claim would have been made 
 in all the Encyclopsedias of the country. I think the infer- 
 ence fair and correct When a great man is not claimed by 
 such Christians as yourself, it is highly probable he is an 
 unbeliever. But I did n#t say Smithson was a Freethinker, 
 and you should not have charged me with saying it. 
 "There is nothing like being accurate," Mr. Humphrey. 
 Why do you ask for my proof that Smithson was " a lying 
 hypocrite " when I intimated nothing of the kind, thought 
 nothing of the kind? Accuracy 1 Accuracy f Mr. Humphrey. 
 You express doubts about Mr. Owen having much to do 
 with the establishment of the Smithsonian Institute. By 
 referring to the Congressional Globe of the time your doubts 
 may be removed. He not only introduced the bill and 
 urged it through Congress, but he was one of the first 
 regents of the institution. 
 
 If I *' showed several people in a false light," you ought 
 to have named them. I certainly want only to show the 
 truth and will thank you to point out my errors. 
 Peter Cooper « we of my kind, so far as being unsecta 
 
 '1^1 
 
^> 
 
 TEE HTTHPHBET-BEHNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 169 
 
 t- 
 
 THB HUMPHBBT-BBimSTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 riaa, an unbeliever in the marvelous efficacy of the bloocll 
 of a man who was put to death over eighteen hundred 
 ^ears ago, and that the man who was so executed was the 
 God of heaven and earth. He is not a believer in miracles, 
 myths, and fables, and does not take much stock in the Bible 
 as being a revelation from heaven. It looks very iDCon- 
 sistent for you to hug to your bosom and claim as a brother 
 in the faith a man who believes precisely as did he whom 
 your leader and patron saint» John Calvin, condemned to a 
 cruel death by fire, on account of his unbelief. Peter 
 Cooper belongs to a class of unbelievers whom orthodox 
 Christians have a thousand times denounced as Infidels 
 and deserving of hell. I remember distinctly a case where 
 a Presbyterian clergyman said the Unitarian Church did 
 more harm than all the rum-holes, theatres, and houses 
 of prostitution in the city. Verily, my friend, you are 
 evolving very far from where your brethren of the Church 
 stood but a very few years ago. 
 
 You have no authority for saying *' Peter Cooper would 
 scorn the idea of being a disciple of Tom Paine.*' I did 
 not say he was such a disciple; *but he is an honest man 
 and he doubts not that Paine was an honest man, who had 
 the independence and candor to say what he thought, 
 whether it made him popular or not. Mr. Cooper neither 
 scorns Paine nor his disciples. I presume in speak- 
 ing of Paine he would be gentlemanly enough to call 
 him Mr, Paine or Thomcu Paine. I do not think he 
 would follow the suit of pious Christians and call him by 
 the nickname, ** Tom Paine." In many points Mr. Cooper 
 believes as Thomas Paine did. If Mr. Cooper gave the use 
 of his hall to the Evangelical Alliance, he at the same time 
 took occasion to give expression to his views, which were 
 far from being orthodox. You ask if Mr. Cooper ever gave 
 the use of his hall for an Infidel convention. For a very good 
 reason he did not. No large Infidel convention has been held 
 hera to whom he eould offer it Aa regards his offering tho 
 
 
 use of his hall to the Evangelical Alliance, Mr. Cooper said 
 to a friend that his object in doing so was to be able to pre- 
 sent some of his own heterodox views before them, and he 
 playfully alluded to the fact that he was invited upon the 
 platform and seated beside the President, as being a good 
 joke that a heretic like himself should be thus honored in 
 the Evangelical Alliance. He has often styled himself a 
 " heretic." 
 
 I said nothing about the founder of Cornell University. 
 You say he was a Quaker. Good enough. The Quakers are 
 largely good Infidels so far as a majority of their doctrinal 
 points are concerned. Elias Hicks was of this class, and 
 also many intelligent Quakers of my own personal acquain^ 
 ance. The ceremony of prayer is very likely kept up in tho 
 college, but the assertion I made about the skepticism and 
 f reethinking of the professors was from a gentleman who 
 had gone through a course of instruction there, and knew 
 precisely what he was talking about. I have it also from 
 a personal friend of President White that the latter is en- 
 tirely an unbeliever in Christian dogmas. The letters he 
 has recently written from Europe, where he has been trav- 
 eling give clear indications as to where he stands. In a 
 letter from bicily he said in substance, when looking over 
 the countries where the heavy hand of the Church had in 
 past centuries crushed out human liberty, and almost human 
 incentives: "I see in all these countries where the ecclesi- 
 astical powers have triumphed that the right of opinion and 
 the right of liberty have been suppressed;'* and more in the 
 same line. Prof. W. C. Russell, acting President of Cor- 
 nell University, is a stock-holder in The Index, an Infidel 
 paper of Boston, owning two shares of $100 each. He pays 
 The Index an installment of $20 per year besides his sub- 
 scription, and is one of the firmest supporters of that paper. 
 President White has also taken The Index from its com- 
 mencement, and is strongly in sympathy with it. Prof. 
 Adler was not turned out of the Institution. He left there 
 
 ', 
 
 ii: 
 
170 
 
 THE HUMFHEET- BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 li 
 
 
 not because he was not wanted, but because he was wanted 
 
 elsewhere more. 
 
 As to the London University, I simply claim that it k 
 unsectarian, and that eoclesiasticism and theological dog- 
 mas are not admitted there, and hav« not been for fifty 
 years. I think this is trae. That is as good Infidelity as I 
 ask for. Alexander Bain filled one of its important chairs, 
 «nd he is one of the strongest Materialists in England, and 
 Professor Clifford, a pronounced Atheist, fills another. 
 Thus the facts bear me out in all I claimed. 
 
 You seem greatly dissatisfied with Stephen Qirard be- 
 <jau8e he stipulated that the clergy should not have 
 admittance into his college. He did that, not in a spirit of 
 llliberality, bat because he well knew and wished to avoid 
 the designing, grasping, Jesuitical priesthood. For the 
 express reason that he wanted the college to be fr§% 
 «nd Vbwal did he forbid the admission of priests. But 
 with all the old man's precautions and all the safeguard! 
 he aimed to throw around the college, his wishes have 
 l>een nearly subverted, and the clergy have gained more 
 iftfluence there than he Intended they ever should. 
 
 Ah! you have at length caught me in an error I I said 
 that that word of marvelous power— /ati^i— upon which 
 the Christian world depends for happiness and salvation 
 from hell through an endless eternity, appeared but once 
 in the Old Testament or Bible proper. It is found there 
 twice. I acknowledge the mistake. I overlooked it in 
 Habbakuk; but I' have standing on the other side of the 
 ledger nine hundred and ninety harp-strings which you 
 gracefully acknowledge as an error. I will offset this last 
 " faith" against one of them, and that leaves me nine hun- 
 dred and eighty-nine still ahead. 
 
 You still wish to make a difference between •* faith" and 
 "credulity" when there really is none. Credulity, like cre- 
 dence, credit, etc., is from ewddiw. Webster defines credence 
 ea that which gives a claim to credit, belief, confidence; and 
 
 TMB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 171 
 
 J 
 
 'j', 
 
 Illustrates it with this quotation from Trench : "To give ere- 
 dence to the Scripture miracles." CTeduUy is -easiness of 
 belief; a disposition to believe on slight evidence." Faiih is 
 "belief; the assent of the mind to what is declared by 
 another; resting solely and implicitly on his authority and 
 veracity; reliance on testimony,'' etc. There is no real differ- 
 ence. The Christian is called upon to have faith in a great 
 deal which is told him, and of which he has no proof. He 
 must have credulity to have the necessary faith, and they 
 are both JMnd enough for all practical purposes. The more 
 credulity a trusting Christian has to believe what the Bible 
 and the priests say, the more faith he has and the better 
 Christian he is considered. It takes cfredvUiy to believe 
 impossibilities and monstrosities, and one cannot beUeve 
 them unless he has credulity, and that belief is/a«A-they 
 are the same, and both as UinA as an owl in sunlight 
 
 It appears to me you have not told the vih^ truth about 
 the Alexandrian Library. If a portion of it was burnt 
 when Julius C«sar be^eiged the city, a century before 
 Christianity had an existence, it was by accident or as an 
 incident of war. It proves, at least, that the learning and 
 science which the library contwned was not in any way de- 
 pendent upon Christianity. It is unfair to represent that 
 Julius Cffisar burned it with the same motive that influenced 
 Theodosius and Bishop Theophilus four hundred years 
 later. Csesar was a lover of books and learning. He 
 was the author of several works, and did not burn the 
 Ubrary from any hatred of literature. He established 
 libraries in several instances, and purposely destroyed none 
 as did the Christian Spaniards when they conquered 
 Mexico, or the Christian Crusaders who are charged with 
 having burnt a very extensive library in Tripoli. 
 
 You do wrong to call Caesar and Omar lnji4eU, in the 
 accepted meaning of the word. Of course neither were 
 Christians, but both were believers in religion. C«sar had 
 Ms gods and his creed, and Omar was as much of a zealot 
 
 ■tl. 
 
 1 
 
m 
 
 TBB HXTMPHSST-BBNIISTT DI8CU88IOK. 
 
 r't 
 
 t 
 
 and fts devout as a Christian, but accepted Mohammed as 
 the prophet of Allah. When he ordered the destruction of 
 what remained of the library, in «48, it is said to have been 
 done upon the grounds that if the books agreed with the 
 Koran— the word of God—they were useless, and need not 
 be preserved, and if they did not agree with it, they were 
 pernicious, and should be destroyed. This motive was so 
 like the Christian sentiment it is hard to discern much 
 difference between them. The great trouble between Chris- 
 tians and Mohammedans was not because they had not faith, 
 but because they had too much faith, and had different 
 systems and accepted different leaders. Their contests 
 led to the death of many millions of people. 
 
 You evidently dislike to own up that Palestine affords no 
 
 proofs of an ancient Hebrew clvUization, and characterize 
 
 the friend from whom I obtained f acU upon the subject as 
 
 the " Great Unknown." You are as wide of the truth here 
 
 as in other instances. The gentleman is modest, but is not 
 
 unknown. He is not a ** myth." Prof. A. L. Rawson 
 
 has been honored by the colleges of Europe and 
 
 America with the honorary degrees of Master of Arts, 
 
 Doctor of Divinity, and Doctor of Laws, has made 
 
 four journeys to Palestine, has edited a History of all 
 
 Religions, History of the Roman Catholic Church in 
 
 America, Statistics of Protestantism, Antiquities of the 
 
 Orient. Introductions to the Holy Bible, etc., etc.,; 
 
 as an artist, illustrated Be€cher*s Life of Jesus, Howard 
 
 Crosby's Jesus, his Life and Work, Dr. Deems' Jesus, 
 
 Commentaries by several authors. Youthful Explorers in 
 
 Bible Lands, Free Masonry in the Holy Lands, Bible 
 
 - Lands Illustrated, Pronouncing and Comprehensive Bible 
 
 Dictionaries; and is now engaged on a large work on the 
 
 chronography, geology, climate, antiquities, and natural 
 
 history of animals and plants of Palestine, with maps and 
 
 engravings, soon to appear by one of the leading publishing 
 
 houses in this city. You wiU find him at almost any 
 
 •T 
 
 ri'i 
 
 ■? ' rf, 
 
 TSS HUMFHBET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 173 
 
 hour of the day in his studio, 84 Bond st. You will find 
 him affable and disposed to give you any information he 
 possesses in reference to Palestine. He will take pleas- 
 ure in showing you drawings and photographs of ruins, 
 etc., taken in various parts of Palestine, Syria, and the 
 adjacent countries, and he will assure you that every piece 
 of ruins that is found in Palestine is traceable to the 
 Grecians, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the 
 Arabs or the Saracens. He will repeat to you the assur- 
 ances I have already given that he found not a stone 
 nor a vestige of anything traceable to the ancient Hebrews, 
 and that Dr. Robinson admitted as much, with the exception 
 perhaps of the lower part of the foundation of the Temple, 
 which, of course, cannot be accurately determined. Let 
 me add here that Captain Wilson and Captain Warren who 
 were sent out to Palestine by the London Palestine Explo- 
 ration Society, and who also spent four years in that 
 country, in Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 813, make this state- 
 ment: "Looking through the series of photographs taken 
 for the Palestine Exploration Fund, we recognized two 
 distinct styles of work; the one rich but debased Roman 
 work, the other Greek or Byzantine." But they found 
 none of ancient Hebrew. Let me also make a quotation 
 from Dr. Paley in his Evidences of Christianity: **Our 
 Savior assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic Institution. 
 I conceive it very diflOicult to assign any other cause for the 
 commencement or existence of the institution, especially 
 from the singular circumstance of the Jews adhering to the 
 Unity when every other people slid into polytheism, for 
 their being men in religion and children in every thing else; 
 behind other nations in the arts of peace and of war; but 
 fiuperior to the most improved in their sentiments and 
 doctrines relating to the Deity." While I think I can show 
 that to the Jewish God were assigned attributes and quali- 
 ties more abhorrent than to any other gods. Dr. Paley's 
 admission that the Jewa were behind other nations in the 
 
 .:vi 
 
 i 
 
tn 
 
 THB nUMPHBST-BBNNETT DIKCU8SI0K. 
 
 TWB HtrMPHRET-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 175 
 
 arts is an important one. There are few things more 
 certain than that the ancient Jews were a semi-barbarons 
 people, and that there are not now any proofs to show that 
 they ever, as a naUon, attained to any high degree ol 
 eivllization. 
 
 I think yon are mistaken in supposing that the belief that 
 the past ages were replete witlj myths is being lessened. 
 There was never a time when the general opinion was 
 stronger than now that a great share of the ancient history 
 of the world is mythical, and this is especially true of Jew- 
 ish history. The belief that there ever were such persons 
 as Adam, Methusaleh, Noah, David. Solomon, etc., is 
 wonderfully weakened by the investigations that are being 
 made. There is no earthly proof of them except the crazy, 
 improbable Jewish stories in the Bible, and they could easily 
 have been fabricated at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 4>i as late, even, as the time of the Maccabees. It is a veiy 
 suspicious circumstance that the name of Moses was not 
 used by an/ of the older prophets. If he really was the 
 captain, lawgiver, and savior which the Bible makes him; 
 if he and God were in each other's company daily for forty 
 years*, if Moses advised God, restrained him, and controlled 
 him. as the Bible represents. It would seem as though he at 
 least should have been mentioned by all succeeding proph- 
 ets. The entire Jewish history rests under a dark cloud of 
 doubt There are no corroborating proofs in existence. 
 Of course, the hills and rivers of Palestine still remain, but 
 the entire country never was capable of sustaining a popu- 
 laaon able to raise two millions of fighting men, nor able so 
 soon after emerging from the pastoral, semi-barbarous con- 
 dition it was in at the time David was made king, to acquire 
 the enormous amount of gold and wealth said to have 
 been used by his son Solomon. The story is nearly as 
 extravi^ant as some of the tales of The Arabian Nights, 
 though not nearly as well written. There is about as much 
 
 proof of OiQ fiusteiMM of Sinbad the SaU^r. Aladdin. Gulli 
 
 tier^ Robinson Crusoe, and Baron Munchausen, as of the 
 Bible myths. It is quite probable that, a few centuries 
 before the Christian era, feeling that a national history was 
 necessary, some cunning and capable writers got up what 
 Is called the Bible history j and as but a limited number 
 of copies were written, and a limited number of people had 
 access to it, or could read it if they had, and they the priests 
 only, it attracted but slight attention for a long time. 
 As time wore away, a veneration grew up for it, which is 
 so easy for superstitious people to bestow upon that which 
 has great age, oris supposed to have. This may be a mat- 
 ter of mere speculation, but one thing is certain, such a 
 thing could have been very possible. There is nothing in 
 those old stories that a man or men of fair taleni could not 
 write, and it is more probable that they were «o written 
 than that many of the statements made were tiae. If the 
 Jews were such a powerful nation as the Bible makes them^ 
 if David and Solomon were such mighty monarchs, and 
 reigned midst such regal magnificence, it is singular that 
 other nations and cotemporaneous historians knew nothing 
 of it. As I said in my last, Herodotus the celebrated 
 Greek historian, made two ^urneys through Syria five ceutu- 
 ries after Solomon was said to have reigned, and when his 
 magnificent Temple ought to have been standing, but he 
 makes not the slightest mention of Solomon, of the Temple, 
 nor even of the Jewish nation. If they existed at all then 
 it was as a race of rude nomadic people, semi-barbarians not 
 worthy of his attention. Their numbers, their wealth, and 
 their splendor were doubtless matters of subsequent inven- 
 tion. ' 
 
 You will have it that Thomas Paine is as much a myth 
 as Moses. I have seen several m«n who have seen and con- 
 versed with Paine. I have seen the grave where his body 
 ' was buried. I have seen men who saw the wagon convey- 
 ing his remains from the grave under the direction of Wm. 
 Cobbett. I hav« seen men who saw the bones of Paine 
 
 tV 
 
, 1 I 
 
 i 
 
 
 176 THB HtlMPHBKT-BKinWTI DttOOBHOK. 
 
 exposed In CoVbeWn bookstore In Fleet street. I;ondon. 1 
 Ld it from a trustworthy party t'''' '^^ """^ J^ 
 Uken to one of the large potteries of England. P<>"°d »° 
 n^wder. mixed with flne clay and "--f « '»'» """"i;";; 
 Jd trinkets for keepsakes. 1 have read Paine s wrU.ng»- 
 They are characteristic of the man, clear, simple. forcAle, 
 logiL and unambiguous, such only as Paine was capable of 
 writing. But what does the world know "bout Mose^TWh*^ 
 did it ever know about him t The place ol his bunal wa» 
 never known, and it U . matter of grave doubt 'Aether - 
 a Uving man he wm ever known. It U probable he was 
 llkeMenes of Egypt. «id Mino. of <i^'1^^l%^^ 
 riarism of the Menu of India. It i. claimed that he wrote 
 TL five books of the Bible, but there U not the dight^ 
 authority for the claim. A- ««rtion that hewas thewn^ 
 U not made in any one of the books credited to him. In 
 ^probability he had no more to do with Uie writmg ot 
 STbook. Ln you or L They relate i-WenU «d J- 
 l«ie to evenu which occurred hundred, of ye«s a^ter h. 
 w« «id to have Uved. A. smart m he '" ^^'-^f 
 to he able a. he wm to «lvl.e and control Jehovah 
 he WM 3ly capable of narrating minutely what took 
 pL^TthousaniyL. before he w«i bom or two hundred 
 JeTrs after he wm buried. The dim. two a*""*'; j^ 
 L^ r he WM dead, that he wm the author ot thoM writing. 
 U much easier made than proved. _fc.ti.«rfiiid 
 
 One thing may be Mt down M the truth: ^H-t ^ c^~ 
 the Mo«ac writing. «e not the oldest record, in Oie worij 
 
 „„r could th^ have been written «" '*'- i^f'^^^dt 
 The world hM had three .yrtem. of wriUng. The old^ 
 Lwn is the"anowheads.»or cuneiform ««="P'^^j; 
 the Chaldean. «id Babylonians. These were not written 
 Sth an alphabet of letter, representing «>unds. but cha^ 
 ui representing .yllable. and words. Q^o^* S'^'*"* 
 Sn. I^wlinson discovered great number, of t^e^^J^ 
 fem inKripaon. in Nineveh. «d found Q^ practtelly 
 
 THB HUMPHBBT-BBNNBTT DISCUaSIOH. 
 
 177 
 
 Ihe same legends of the Creation and the Flood as those 
 which were afterwards adopted as their revealed cosmgony. 
 After this system, came into vogue the Egyptian hiero- 
 glyphics, or picture-writing. These were used many cen- 
 turies, and numerous inscriptions on the temples and 
 pyramids of Egypt in hieroglyphics remain to this day. It 
 is not known how long the systems of cuneiform inscrip- 
 tions and hieroglyphics were used, but probably thousands 
 of years. Not till long after these was an alphabet formed. 
 Letters representing separate sounds are comparatively a 
 modem invention, and as Hebrew was only written with 
 an alphabet, whatever was written in that language was 
 long subsequent to the use of the other two systems. From 
 this it is clear that the Hebrew is far from being the oldest 
 language in the world, and alphabetic writing far from the 
 most ancient. 
 
 You make out a very weak apology for David and 
 Solomon for their licentiousness. There is not the slightest 
 proof that David wrote the Psalms you pointed out, nor the 
 slightest proof that in those Psalms his adultery with Bath- 
 sheba, or his having Uriah put to death, were meant at alL 
 His confessions of sins committed are general and indefinite. 
 The condemnation in Nehemiah in regard to Solomon are 
 far from emphatic, for notwithstanding his gross sensuality 
 with his 700 wives and 300 concubines in one of the verses 
 you named it says: "There was no king like him beloved of 
 God. " Thus, notwithstanding David's lechery and murder, 
 he was a special favorite with God, and though Solomon was 
 the greatest libertine that ever lived, God loved him above 
 all other kings. My assertion, then, stands good, that Solo- 
 mon was condemned for his idolatry and not for his licen- 
 tiousness. 
 
 For a friend of science you speak disrespectfully of it, I 
 must say. Such epithets as "poor stuff," "bran," "shorts," 
 "chaff," "cockle," "thistle," "smut and all," sound singu- 
 lar coming from a professed friend. An enemy would hardly 
 
 
 'i 
 
 I 
 
I* 
 
 f!9 
 
 «m MinfPHBVP-inDimETT racuBsiaflr. 
 
 THE HUMFHBST-BENNETT DISGUSStOH, 
 
 179 
 
 undeHake lo heap mow obloquy upon it In fact, I would 
 prefer an out-and-out enemy to such an ambiguous friend. 
 How is it with your teienHfie hook, the Bible? Does it have 
 any "bran/' ''shortSk" "chaff," "cockle," "thistle," and par- 
 ticularly, 9mut f I fancy I find much of all of these diffused 
 through its 9cUm$, For the latter quality, "smut" (if you will 
 not teU Comstock), I wiU refer you to the beautiful Song of 
 the favorite king, Solomon, to the story of Lot and hia 
 daughters, of Dinah and Schechcm, of Reuben and Bilhah, 
 of Judah and Tamar, of Onan by himself, of Joseph and Mrs. 
 Potiphar, of Zimri and Cozbi, of the Levite and his concu- 
 bine, of Ruth and Boaz, of David and Bathsheba, of Amnon 
 and Tamar, of Absalom and his father's concubine, and 
 many other choice bits too numerous to mention. Are 
 there any books published, save a few that are justly 
 tabooed by law, that contain so much "smut"? To read 
 these lascivious recitals is enough to make one wonder why 
 the sainted Comstock has not long since arrested the Amer- 
 ican Bible Society for sending out obscene literature. 
 Such indecent matter could not circulate in any other book. 
 I prefer the friendship that Professor Huxley evinces fo» 
 science to yours. Hear him: "Modern civilization rests 
 xepon physical science; take away her gifts to our country 
 and our position among the leading nations of the world 
 is gone to-morrow; for it is physical science that makea 
 intelligence and moral energy stronger than brute force. 
 The whole of moral thought is steeped in science. It has 
 made its way into the works of our best poets, and even 
 the mere man of letters, who affects to ignore and despise 
 science, is unconsciously impregnated with her spirit, and 
 Indebted for his best products to her methods. She is 
 teaching the world that the ultimate court of appeal is 
 observation and experience, and not authority. Slie is 
 creating a firm and living faith in the existence of immut- 
 able moral and physical laws, perfect obedience towhicb 
 is the highest possible aim of an intelligent being." 
 
 Tou magnanimously admit that the putting of Hypatia 
 to death was " a disgraceful affair." I should think it was I 
 •^just about as disgraceful as millions of other acts of the 
 same character committed by the Christian Church. Do 
 you imagine, however, that it makes the crime less offen- 
 sive to every instinct of ennobled human nature to throw 
 an insinuation over the memory of the murdered woman 
 that possibly she had been intimate with Orestes ? If it 
 was true — which by no means is made clear — would 
 that justify the knocking down of a defenseless woman 
 upon the streets, dragging her into a church, stripping her 
 naked, beating her with clubs till dead and then finishing 
 the very Christian proceeding by scraping the flesh from 
 her bones ? Was that slight impropriety "more an error 
 of the head than the heart"? 
 
 In your brief allusion to " the reign of terror " in France, 
 you commit the same mistake which your Christian breth- 
 ren have done in hundreds of instances, that is to charge 
 upon Freethinkers the blame for the excesses that were 
 committed at that time. I will not say that you are dis- 
 honest in insinuating this, but you ought to be better in- 
 formed. The excesses so committed were wholly of a 
 political character, and neither religious or anti-religious. 
 The extravagant conduct of those who become Invested 
 with power was a natural reaction or rebound of a mercu- 
 rial people from the rule of a corrupt monarchy, a corrupt 
 aristocracy, and a corrupt priesthood which for a long time 
 had ruled the country. It is a law in human nature that 
 where a nation or a community emerges from a state of op- 
 pression before an equilibrium can be gained, a rebound 
 to the opposite extreme is inevitable. 
 
 The causes which led to the excesses under consideration 
 were some of them remote. Under the reign of Louis 
 XIV. corruption, extravagance and licentiousness reached 
 a great extreme, no less on the part of the monarch and 
 the nobility than the ecclesiastical authorities. The king 
 
 i 
 
180 
 
 TBB BVJtPHRBT-BBllHSTT DISCUSfllON. 
 
 1 
 
 r ; 
 
 wasted tiie reycnues of the government in the grow- 
 est eztraTagance in building useless palaces, reclaiming 
 waste places, etc., etc. The treasury was also sadly de- 
 pleted by the licentious clergy and aristocracy. Rioting, 
 revelry, court carnivals, mistresses, royal favorites, and 
 debauchery were the order of the day until the wealth of 
 the nation was exhausted. This state of things was fol* 
 lowed in 1786f by a devastating hail-storm, which cut off the 
 crops over a large portion of the kingdom and brought the 
 people to starvation. The cry was "Bread or blood. *• 
 The enemies of Marie Antoinette excited the prejudices of 
 the hungry mobs against ** the Austrian.** The issue came 
 between the starving masses on the one hand and the op- 
 pressive aristocracy on the other — between monarchy and 
 mobocracy. The heavy exactions of a lordly priesthood 
 had much to do in leading to the bloody result. The 
 noted Infidels of Paris so far as they meddled with the ter- 
 rible transactions of the times, sought to stay the threaten- 
 ing storm. Count Mirabeau, an Atheist, and the most pow- 
 erful man in France, both with the people and the nobility, 
 sought to reconcile the frantic factions, and probably would 
 have succeeded to a great extent had he lived ; but at this 
 critical moment hesnddenly died, while negotiating between 
 the mob and the monarch ; and the saturnalia of blood suc- 
 ceeded. The throne of the Bourbons was dashed to pieces. 
 So the "reign of terror," I repeat, was simply a reaction 
 against the twin-oppressors, kingcraft and priestcraft, by a 
 long suffering, starving people. Paine, the Infidel and the 
 Republican, hazarded his own life in attempting to save 
 the dethroned king and to avert the frenzied storm he 
 saw in the near future. He was thrown into prison and 
 his life was saved by the merest fortuitous circumstance. 
 The Infidels were really the conservatives all through that 
 bloody period when madness was the ruling power, and 
 many of them lost their lives as a sacrifice to the prin- 
 ciples of liberty and peace. Tes, the people did set up the 
 
 • 4 
 
 TSB HUIIPHRBT-BBNKETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 181 
 
 'i! 
 
 Goddess of Reason, and it was high time that they did, 
 when they saw that the altar and throne leaned together, 
 and so foully sustained each other. To show what 
 was the status of Robespierre, who became for a time 
 the ruling spirit in that mad hour, it should be stated 
 that he caused God to be recognized in the new con- 
 stitution that was framed. His memorable remark before 
 the convention was: "If it is true that there is no God, it 
 behooves us to invent one.'* His suggestion was carried 
 out. This is the truth about "the reign of terror," and 
 shows how untrue is the charge so often made by Christians 
 that it was the work of Infidels or Atheists. It was strictly 
 of a political character, and with the impulsive French 
 people was a natural reaction from the priestly oppressions 
 they had so long endured. 
 
 But let us get right down to the question of science and 
 the patronage which it derives from the Bible and Chris- 
 tianity. We have already seen how Bible science and real 
 science compare. The explorations which scientists have 
 made, such as the antiquities of the stone age, the finding 
 under immense deposits of alluvial soil and drift numerous 
 implements of roughly carved stone and the bones of 
 man side by side with the bones of animals which long 
 since became extinct; human bones found under the stalag- 
 mite formations which by careful computations were 
 found to be the accretions of scores of thousands of years; 
 fossils pertaining to the human race found in the tertiary 
 rocks, convince the wisest and most observing that the 
 human race has existed on the earth fully 100,000 years. 
 The Bible makes it less than 6,000. Scientists know most 
 positively that the Bible cosmogony is wholly untrue. But. 
 without stopping to enumerate the many instances where 
 the Bible is m direct opposition to science, I will make the 
 assertion as true, that in scarcely the slightest particular is 
 there an agreement between the Bible and science; and it 
 aeems the wildest vagary a man can be guilty of to 
 
 I 
 
>■ 
 
 J^ 
 
 183 
 
 THM HUMPHBlT-BKNNftTT DISCITSSION. 
 
 THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 183 
 
 
 seriously undertake to show thai the teachings of science 
 harmonize with the unnatural and impossible Bible stories. 
 I notice, too, that you pass over those monstrosities Just ai 
 easily as possible. I cannot wonder that you do not wish 
 to give Bible cosmogony and archeology an examination. 
 They will not bear it in the light of science. Christian /atZA 
 and (^ndiMp are all that can make them seem truthful. 
 
 Christianity is very little more in unison with science 
 than is the Bible. How can it be, when it is founded upon 
 those old unscientific Bible stories? The genius of Christian- 
 ity—if it may be said to have a genius— is diametrically 
 opposed to the spirit of science. The latter depends upon 
 investigation, study, testing, digging, smelting, assaying, 
 meltuig, burning, distilling, analyzing, accepting and con- 
 demning, as the case requires, while Christianity says it has 
 a revelation from an unknown God in the sky, which we 
 must accept without proof, and without question. The 
 voice of science says "8iudy, examine, and learn,'* The voice 
 of Christianity is " Bdiew or be damnedJf Science tells us 
 we must not believe without proof; that we must look into 
 the causes of existences as we find them, and learn more 
 and more as we extend our observations and investigations. 
 Christianity tells us that its revelation contains all that man 
 needs to know, that coming from God it is perfect and can- 
 not improve. It provides for no change or progress, so far 
 as its revelation Is concerned. Science says: *' Press for- 
 ward, men; be not satisfied with old discoveries and old 
 opinions; increase your investigations; dig deeper; climb 
 higher; know more ; believe less ; learn all that is possible 
 for you to know.*' Christianity says: "I have given you 
 the ultimate of truth, the sum of all knowledge; it cannot 
 be improved upon; it cannot be revoked; it cannot be ex- 
 celled; you must look no farther, you must search no 
 higher." Science commands in sonorous tones: "Doubt 
 everything until you have proof upon which to found an 
 opinion; believe nothing except upon evidence; insist upon 
 
 the facts in every instance; take nothing on tick." In 
 thundering and authoritative voice Christianity vocifer- 
 ates: "Accept what I give you; believe without a question^ 
 h&ve faith, faith, FAITH 1 that is all you need.*' Science 
 says: "Distrust even what I say, until you know it is cor- 
 rect; always t)e convinced before you accept; learn ever, 
 more and more, and thus be happy." Christianity replies-: 
 "Doubt nothing I declare unto you; accept, and live in 
 :glory in the city with golden streets, with crowns of dia- 
 monds upon your heads; but if you presume to doubt you 
 shall be thrust down into the regions of darkness and sub- 
 jected to fires of inconceivable intensity and forintermin- 
 able ages." Science has its teaschers, hut they make no 
 onerous demands upon its votaries; it imposes no burdens 
 upon its followers, and kindly invites all to follow its 
 peaceful lead. Christianity has its priests, and they place 
 heavy loads upon the necks of their di^es; it unposes such 
 burdens upon the people that they become wearied with 
 life, and are dragged down almost to penury and exhaus- 
 tion. Science sits lightly and wears a smiling and cheerful 
 face for alL Christianity is sombre and forbidding, and 
 while it points to the beautiful city of gold for the few that 
 have/attA, it ever ei^oses the horrid, yawning gulf of hell 
 to the many who do not bdieve. The rule of science in the 
 world has been peaceful, elevating, and happifying. It 
 has not drawn the sword; it has not deluged the earth with 
 blood. It has made the world better, wiser, and happier. 
 Christianity has ruled with an iron hand. It has savagelf 
 nsed the sword, the scaffold, the stake, the rack, and the 
 dungeon. It has caused millions to groan in terror, sorrow 
 and anguish. It has blighted the happiness of tnai&ind. 
 Science has not purposely caused the death of a single indi- 
 vidual in the worid. Christianity has been most cruel and 
 relentless; it has pursued its victims with hate; it has tor- 
 tured them without mercy; it has laughed at the wretched- 
 ness It has caused. It has drenched the earth with the 
 
Mi 
 
 THE nXTMFHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSIOK. 
 
 THE HTTMPmiET-BENinETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 185 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 blood of millions of the hapless yietims it has slain. 
 Science has been the leading element in the progress that 
 man has made. It has given him knowledge, usefulness 
 and power. It has been the great factor in the civilization 
 of the world. It has been the real Savior of man. Take 
 from the earth what science has done, and in the language 
 of IngersoU, "we would go back to chaos and old night. 
 -Philosophy would be branded as infamous, Science would 
 again press its pale and thoughtful face against the prison 
 bars, and round the limbs of Liberty would climb the 
 bigot's flame.'* Take from the world what Christianity has 
 done, and I insist the world would be the better for it. 
 Fully seventy-five millions of hapless mortals would be re- 
 turned to life : desolate lands would be restored to plenty 
 ftnd happiness; the heavy rule of popes, prelates and priests 
 would be set aside and humanity vrould become its own 
 mler. Centuries of ignorance would be wiped out, and the 
 reign of darkening creeds would seek the shades of ob 
 livion. 
 
 Friend Humphrey, in your argument you exhibit much 
 ingenuity and flippancy, but you cannot successfully deny 
 the great facts pertaining to the subject under discussion. 
 Science is classified knowledge. Christianity is a bundle of 
 theological dogmas derived from Judaism and Paganism. 
 The world had a respectable share of learning, science and 
 philosophy before the birth of Christianity. Christianity 
 originated with the unlearned. In its infancy it was cm- 
 braced by the uneducated. At that lime it did not foster 
 and encourage the learniog which had previously existed 
 In the world. It destroyed books and discouraged litera- 
 ture. It insisted that the wisdom of this world was a dam- 
 age to mankind, and that the knowledge how to escape the 
 regions of sulphurous flames was all that man needed to 
 know. When Christianity became a political power and 
 gained supreme control over several countries, it did not 
 ■eek to elevate learning and science, but within ita do- 
 
 main the people gradually sank into ignorance and deg- 
 radation. At the very time when in Moslem countries edu- 
 cation was fostered, science was encouraged and schools of 
 philosophy flourished, in Christendom these were all neg- 
 lected, and numerous councils were convened to decide 
 whether a son could be as old as his father ; whether a 
 ghost could beget a child; whether the God-nature or man- 
 nature predominated in Jesus; whether they became one, or 
 remained separate ; whether God had a mother ; whether 
 she had an immaculate conception ; whether women have 
 souls; whether bread and wine were absolutely transubstan- 
 tiated into the real body and blood of Christ ; whether this 
 miraculous diet should be partaken of by the priests when 
 unmixed, and whether the wafer combined of the two 
 should only be dispensed to the laity, and whether certain 
 manuscripts written by unknown authors, should or should 
 not be regarded as sent from heaven. Over these and 
 other similar questions bishops and priests quarreled 
 and fought ; and science and mental liberty gradually less- 
 ened as theological dogmas became the ruling principle 
 in Europe. The more the dogmas of Christianity triumphed 
 the faster did science and human freedom go to the wall. 
 After a few centuries of Christian supremacy the whole 
 mass of the people were so ignorant that not one in a 
 thousand could read or write, and even a large portion of 
 the priests were unable to write their own namea 
 
 During this benign and heavenly reign of theological 
 ignorance the Christian Instiintion par excellence, the "Holy" 
 Inquisition, was established, and for nearly five hundred 
 years this engine of cruelty was a terrible scourge to 
 Southern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of hapless 
 men and women, of all ages and of all conditions in society, 
 were dragged before it, at all hours of the day and night, 
 for the simple crime of daring to think for themselves and 
 for not bending the knee with acceptable suppliance to tho 
 rule of ecclesiastical power. Here the poor wretches were 
 
 
ti 
 ''1 
 
 186 
 
 THE HUMPHRET-BENXETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HUMPHHEY-BHITNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 187 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 I 
 
 arraigned and put upon the torture rack If itliout knowing 
 who were their accusers or what were the offenses with 
 which they were charged. Ecclesiastical demons presided 
 over these diabolical institutions and submitted the 
 wretched victims to the crudest tortures their ingenuity 
 was capable of inventing until the victim conf eased to the 
 satisfaction of the " Holy Inquisitor." The wretches were 
 put upon the rack or the "wheel"; the crank turned a 
 little more, and a little more, until the joints were torn 
 asunder and the bones of the body broken one after an- 
 other, and at intenrals the hapless victim was agaiu called 
 upon to confess. A millionth part of the suffering thus 
 damnably inflicted can never be known to the world. 
 According to Victor Hugo five millions of human beings 
 were thus murdered by the Christian Church in cold blood. 
 Of the stake I need not speak. The horrors of the auto da 
 f6 are too well known to need description here. 
 
 Let me introduce an appropriate quotation from Mark 
 Twain's Innocents Abroad: "We look out upon many 
 objects of interest from the dome of St. Peters; and last of 
 all, almost at our feet, our eyes rest upon the building which 
 was once the Inquisition. How times changed between 
 the older ages and the new ! flome seventeen or eighteen 
 centuries ago the ignorant men of Rome were wont to put 
 "Christians in the arena of the Coliseum yonder, and turn 
 the wild beasts in upon them for a show. It was for a 
 lesson as well. It was to teach the people to abhor and f eai 
 the new doctrine the followers of Christ were teaching. 
 The beasts tore the victims limb from limb, and made poor 
 mangled corpses of them in the twinkling of an eye. But 
 when the Christians came into power, when the Holy 
 Mother Church became mistress of the barbarians, she 
 taught them the error of their ways by no such means. 
 Nil ; she put them in this pleasant Inquisition and pointed 
 to the Blessed Redeemer, who was so gentle and merciful 
 to all men, and urged tho barbarians to love him; and the 
 
 did all she could to perstAde them to love and honor him- 
 first by twisting their thumbs out of Joint with a screw ; then 
 by nipping their flesh with pincers— red-hot ones, because 
 they are the most comfortable in cold weather; then by 
 skinning them alive a little; and finally by roasting them in 
 public. She always convinced those barbarians. The true 
 religion properly administered, as the good Mother Church 
 used to administer it, is very, very soothing. It is wonder- 
 fully persuasive, also. There is a great difference between 
 throwing parties to wild beasts and stirring up their finer 
 feelings in an Inquisition. One is the system of degraded 
 barbarians; the other of enlightened, civilised people. It 
 is a great pity the Inquisition is no more." 
 
 These terrors and inhumanities are the special science of 
 Christianity. Here it showed its invention and its art. 
 During the long night of religious darkness 8 man of learn- 
 ing was a rare exception. Duns Scotus, in the 13th century, 
 was one, but where, for five hundred years before or two 
 hundred years after, will you point out another like him t 
 True, schools were kept up to a certain extent all through 
 the dark ages, but what kind of schools were they ? Not 
 schools of science, but Christian schools, where dogmas, 
 ecclesiasticism, and theological mysteries only were taught. 
 The common branches of education were denounced by tho 
 magnates of the Church as being " profane " and ungodly. 
 Gregory the Great sharply blamed St. Dizier for teaching 
 grammar, and said: "It is not fit that a mouth sacred to 
 the praises of God should be opened to the praises of 
 Jupiter." The highest authorities, including Mosheim, 
 Hallam, Guizot, Lecky, Draper, and others can be abun- 
 dantly quoted to show the truth of the statements I have 
 made, but my letter is already too long, and I must forego 
 the pleasure at this time of bringing these writers to my 
 support. 
 
 Ti am aware it is unpleasant to you to acknowledge and 
 approve all the acts and persecutions of the Catholic 
 
188 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HUlfPHBBT-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 189 
 
 I 
 i 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 I! 
 
 Church, hut I cannot see how you can get hy it. It looks 
 bad for a man to deny his own mother and accuse her of 
 base conduct. When a person "goes back" on his mater- 
 nal parent he is regarded as being in a depraved condition. 
 That the Bomish Church is the parent of the Protestant 
 Church is too patent to be questioned for a moment. As 
 much as you are disposed to condemn her for her murders 
 and persecutions, she is still your mother. Every dogma, 
 every point of faith is retained by you ; you have added 
 nothing to the old system. 
 
 Tou would have it appear that the Greek Church has not 
 been inimical to science. If she has not taken as much 
 pains to fight it as the Bomish division has done, her 
 friendship for science has not been of such an ardent char- 
 acter as to induce her to ma^ke any special advance in its 
 pursuit. I believe the Greek Church to this day has not 
 distinguished herself in scientific education. 
 
 I freely admit that many Christians in the last two cen- 
 turies have been friendly to learning and science, and that 
 many have done much to increase the facilities of popular 
 education ; but this did not come from their ardent Chris- 
 tianity or their love for ecclesiasticism. It arose from their 
 Liberalism and the spirit of progress and the genuine love 
 of linmanity inherent in their natures. Despite the selfish- 
 ness and intolerance of the dogmas of Christianity, which 
 causes its votaries to believe they are going to heaven with 
 a select few to sing the joyful song of Moses and the 
 Lamb through a blessed eternity while countless millions, 
 by nature as good as themselves will be doomed to roast for 
 countless ajses, numerous Christians who from lack of 
 knowing belter, have accepted the creed in which they 
 were bom and educated, have evinced the grand character- 
 istics of love of their kind which have actuated good men 
 In all ages of the world and in all systems of religion. It 
 la no more Christianity than other forms of creed that 
 cause men to feel these implulsei or to act upon them, but 
 
 It is the grand spirit of Liberalism which has shown itself 
 in spite of religions and creeds— Christianity as well as 
 others. 
 
 I think no charge can be brought against you for not 
 claiming enough for your pet system. Like your brethren, 
 you claim for it not only all the advancement science has 
 made, but civilization, free government, etc., as well. Our 
 government is often called a Christian government, and our 
 popular institutions are called Christian institutions. These 
 claims are untenable. Civilization is not dependent upon 
 any creed nor upon any form of religion. Buckle and 
 Draper have consistently shown that climate, meteor- 
 ology, soil, and formation of country have had much to 
 do with modifying civilization. Bace and customs are also 
 important factors in the process. The more the different 
 races of men are brought into contact, the more the mind is 
 stimulated and rendered active by other minds, the more gen- 
 eral intelligence and civilization are promoted. Some races 
 are more disposed to savagism and barbarism than others, 
 9Jid per c<mtra it is the same with civilization ; certain nations 
 and races take more kindly to it than others. Some races 
 are better mechanics than others, and some will gain a 
 higher altitude in learning and science than others. The 
 more intercourse is promoted, the more nearly all nations 
 become one nation or one family, the better for alL 
 
 Are our laws Christian laws ? By no means. The better 
 part of them are from the Bomans, while our most 
 cherished institutions, as trial by jury, voting by ballot, 
 etc, eta, are of ancient Teutonic, Saxon, and Pagan 
 origui, probably handed down from the Druids of Northern 
 Eorope. In the extreme Christian countries in Southern 
 Europe, trial by jury is hardly known even at the present 
 day. It is as unjust for Christianity to claim the paternity 
 of our civilization as of modem science. Moslemism is 
 quite as much entitled to the honor as is Christianity, but 
 neither that nor any system of religion is the soorce ct 
 
VBB UOMFUttBT-BKNNSTT DISOUBBIOir. 
 
 Church, but I cannot see how you can get by it. It looks 
 bad for a man to deny his own mother and accuse her of 
 base conduct When a person " goes back " on his mater- 
 nal parent he is regarded as being in a depraved condition. 
 That the Romish Church is the parent of the Protestant 
 Church is too patent to be questioned for a moment. As 
 much as you are disposed to condemn her for her murders 
 and persecutions, she is still your mother. Every dogma, 
 every point of faith is retained by you ; you have added 
 nothing to the old system. 
 
 You would have it appear that the Greek Church has not 
 been inimical to science. If she has not taken as much 
 pains to fight it as the Romish division has done, her 
 friendship for science has not been of such an ardent char- 
 acter as to induce her to make any special advance in its 
 pursuit I believe the Greek Church to this day has not 
 distinguished herself in scientific education. 
 
 I freely admit that many Christians in the last two cen- 
 turies have been friendly to learning and science, and that 
 many have done much to increase the facilities of popular 
 education ; but this did not come from their ardent Chris- 
 tianity or their love for ecclesiaaticism. It arose from their 
 Liberalism and the spirit of progress and the genuine love 
 of humanity inherent in their natures. Despite the selfish- 
 ness and intolerance of the dogmas of Christianity, which 
 causes its votaries to believe they are going to heaven with 
 a select few to sing the joyful song of Moses and the 
 Lamb through a blessed eternity while countless millions, 
 by nature as good as themselves will be doomed to roast for 
 countless ages, numerous Christians who from lack of 
 knowing better, have accepted the creed in which they 
 were born and educated, have evinced the grand character- 
 istics of love of their kind which have actuated good men 
 in all ages of the world and in all systems of religion. It 
 is no more Christianity than other forms of creed that 
 eaose nieii to feel these implulses or to act upon them, but 
 
 THB HnMPHRST-BSHNSTT DISCUSnON. 
 
 189 
 
 
 V 
 
 It is the grand spirit of Liberalism which has shown itself 
 in spite of religions and creeds— Christianity as well ■■ 
 others. 
 
 I think no charge can be brought against you for not 
 claiming enough for your pet system. Like your brethren, 
 you claim for it not only all the advancement science has 
 made, but civilization, free government, etc., as well. Our 
 government is often called a Christian government, and our 
 popular institutions are called Christian institutions. These 
 claims are untenable. Civilization ia not dependent upon 
 any creed nor upon any form of religion. Buckle and 
 Draper have consistently shown that climate, meteor- 
 ology, soil, and formation of country have had much to 
 do with modifying civilization. Race and customs are also 
 important factors in the process. The more the different 
 races of men are brought into contact, the more the mind is 
 stimulated and rendered active by other minds, the more gen- 
 eral intelligence and civilization are promoted. Some races 
 are more disposed to savagism and barbarism than others, 
 BMd per contra it is the same with civilization ; certain nations 
 and races take more kindly to it than others. Some races 
 are better mechanics than others, and some will gain a 
 higher altitude in learning and science than others. The 
 more intercourse is promoted, the more nearly all nations 
 become one nation or one family, the better for all 
 
 Are our laws Christian laws ? By no means. The better 
 part of them are from the Romans, while our most 
 cherished institutions, as trial by jury, voting by ballot, 
 etc., etc., are of ancient Teutonic, Saxon, and Pagan 
 orlghi, probably handed down from the Druids of Northern 
 Europe. In the extreme Christian countries in Southern 
 Europe, trial by jury is hardly known even at the present 
 day. It is as unjust for Christianity to claim the paternity 
 of our civilization as of modern science. Moslemism is 
 quite as much entitled to the honor as is Christianity, but 
 neither that nor any system of religion is the source of 
 
 \ 
 
mo 
 
 THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 civUizatioQ and scieace. They come not from creeds, re- 
 Ugions, nor mythologies. They come not from a belief in 
 mysUcisms, superstitions, or supernaturalism. They are 
 the legitimate heritage of man, despite of ecclesiasticism, 
 priestcraft, and faith. It is a weighty question whether 
 religions have not greatly retarded the progress of civUiaa- 
 tion, science, and menUl liberty. So far as they haYo 
 cramped and bound the mind of man, so far as they have 
 curtaUed the right of opinion and freedom of thought they 
 have doubtless done it You and many others think that 
 religion is the great panacea, the great savior of the world. 
 I do not. The world has had far too much of religion. It 
 has been the bUghting curse of thirty centuries. I turn 
 lovingly and confidently to science, mental freedom, and 
 civilizaUon. These liberate the human intellect, loosen the 
 mental fetters, and render mankind blessed and free. 
 
 Does it please you that scientific men have their Uttla 
 differences, and that they are sometimes impadent with 
 each other ? Unlike theologians, their contests are blood- 
 less. They do not take life. How different the contesU 
 of scientists and ecclesiastics 1 The former are usually bound 
 together by the Ues of fraternal regard, while the wars 
 of the latter have literally deluged the earth with blood. 
 From seventy-five to one hundred millions of men, women, 
 and children have been deprived of life by Christian wars.' 
 Science has never demanded a single human life. Chris- 
 tianity made slaughter, murder, and torture her principal 
 business for more than a thousand years. You do injustice 
 to Prof. Huxley. I think he has not been badly out of 
 humor with any brother scientist He is a gentleman of an 
 equable mind, and not liable to fly into a passion. 
 
 You speak of the icebergs of science as they come slowly 
 floating down from the great Northern Ocean, cold, creak- 
 ing, and massive, but gently melting in the warm southern 
 sun. You deem them unfit places upon which to erect 
 habitations. You say they are bright with borrowed light j 
 
 THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCVSSION, 
 
 191 
 
 btti 5011 are again sadly mistaken. Astronomy, geology, 
 natutal p'nilosophy, chemistry, and mathematics do not 
 shine ^Ith borrowed or false light. Nor are they icebergs. 
 They are rathei luminaries which shine with the steady 
 brilliance of tne sun. Neither are they lessening in size, 
 nor melting away. On the contrary, they are growing and 
 spreading, attracting more and more attention, and doing 
 more and more good. 
 
 I fancy the iceberg that crossed your vision was the huge 
 body of ecclesiasticism, mysticism, and theological fiction. 
 This miserable iceberg has, for thousands of years, been 
 floating around in the great sea of humanity, and for many 
 centuries the old giant mass grew and spread in every direc- 
 tion, but thanks to the glorious orbs of science, intelligence, 
 and truth, that great body of ice is steadily melting away. 
 Its days are numbered. In comparatively a few decades it 
 will be so reduced in size that it will neither obstruct oui 
 view of the horizon and the heavenly bodies, nor be a hin- 
 drance to the free navigation of the teeming waters of life. 
 
 I am glad to see you quoting so freely from Prof. Drapei. 
 Let me urge you as a friend to quote him often, and read him 
 closely. You can hardly find a safer authority. I would 
 gladly have quoted him more fully in this letter, but I have 
 been so diffuse that I have allowed myself very little spacb 
 for the purpose. 1 cannot, however, forego the temptation 
 to make a single quotation from the last paragraph of his 
 Conflict between Religion and Science: *'As to the issue of 
 the coming conflict, can any one doubt? Whatever is resting 
 on flction and fraud will be overthrown. Institutions thai 
 organize impostures and spread delusions must show what 
 right they have to exist Faith must render an account of 
 herself to Reason. Mysteries must give place to facts. Re- 
 ligion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering 
 position which she has so long maintained against science. 
 There must be absolute freedom for thought The ecclesi- 
 astic niust learn to kisep himself within the domain he has 
 
 4^^^4^ 
 
m 
 
 rm HDiiPHi«Y.B«innnPT wscussioir. 
 
 choMn. and cease to tyrannize ow the DhIlofl««h*. «w 
 
 wiu Dear such interference no longer. " 
 
 Pardon me once more for writing so lone a letter t 
 hare endeavored to confine myself toTho „' f 
 
 and to correct your numerouTrrll™ f '^ ^°" "''"'*' 
 a mwl H«.i -v# numerous errors has necessarily taken 
 
 a good deal of space. Like yourself. I am willing ,„ leave 
 It with our readers as to Which has the truth on iS^dl 
 I have endeavored to show that the Scripture theo-TofTot 
 mosony on which Judaism and ChristianUy are folded a^d 
 
 Wk l^rr"""' "'""^ '•''** ^0™ Paruof^hfsle 
 Zs Z ^^ ""^""^ *" ""« P''^' ^^'"'Wngs of sci! 
 e«» and common sense. Ton have studiously avoided 
 tmng to reconcile the discrepancy, and, a. I ^Heve 
 
 i^nr '"!!^ "^'"^ «■" tapo^ssibimy of do^-^: 
 
 caUom, of science. I caH upon you to perform the task If 
 you fa.1 to attempt this work our refers may ftSJ^mf" 
 , that you shrink from the undertaking ^ 
 
 I have attempted to diow that Christianity ha. wt been 
 the fnend and foster-parent of «,lence; that Oh/Sa^ 
 absolutely dragged the civilized world irom a sta^e whew 
 leaxning. science, and phUosophy h«i long held s^'ytwn 
 ^Ignorance, faith and degrad^ion; that when Si^uJ 
 
 did nothmg for science and education, but bound tte heavv 
 
 Zp esLd lei' /''"• <^''''««'«"'y''«<l effectually 
 
 suppressed leammg and science in its own domain u^ 
 
 enemies, the Mohammedans, were establishing sch^rVo. 
 t«nng earning, and proving themselves the fast fUend 'f 
 education and culture, that it was this class orp;i,e thai 
 preserved science, and then generously bestowed U upon 
 tte Christie, world. While many Christians of "ate have 
 
 friendly to it. thqr «w on^y be looked upon « «i,^ted 
 
 |i 
 
 THB SUlfFHBBT-BBKNSTT DI80XJBSIOK. 
 
 103 
 
 tons, and in embracing science they lunre to that extent 
 proved recreant to the original precepts and practices of 
 Christianity. 
 
 I am sincerely yours, 
 
 D. !£. Bbstrbtt. 
 
Tta aOMFuitST-BKinfBarT ducituioh. 
 
 IM 
 
 ] 
 
 PART III. 
 
 U THEM A StbonOHB PROBABILITY THAT THB BiBLB US 
 BlYINB THAN THAT InFIDBLITT IB TbUB f 
 
 MR. HUUPHRBT* 
 
 Mr. D. M. Bennett. Dear Bir: As the vigflant farmer 
 walks around his fields after a windstorm has passed over 
 them, to replace here a fallen board, and to readjust there a 
 leaning post, so I will have to glance over my last letter, 
 after the gust of your ** Reply " has swept over it, to pml 
 things back where they properly belong. 
 
 Since you have asked the question, I will explain why 
 some religious people wish to insert a recognition of God 
 in the Constitution of the United States : It is to protect it 
 from misunderstanding and perversion, in the face of 
 recent Atheistic claims in regard to it. The Christians of 
 eighty years ago did not think of such an insertion, although 
 they were more particular about such matters than the 
 Christians of to-day. This shows that in their time the 
 Constitution was not viewed by anybody as an Infidel docu- 
 ment. Perversion of a law often necessitates an amend- 
 ment, not to change its character, but to bring it back to 
 its original scope and meaning. 
 
 You failed to strengthen your claim to Peter Cooper. I 
 wiU only add that there is not a copy of Paine's works in 
 the Cooper Institute, whUe there are plenty of Bibles on the 
 
 tables of the reading-room. Does this look as if he were 
 •* one of your kind T" 
 
 All you have said of Cornell University can be disproved 
 from the pen of President White himself. " Referring to it, 
 he says : " I might picture to you the strategy which has 
 been used to keep earnest young men from an institution 
 which, it is declared, cannot be Christian because it is not 
 sectarian. ... I might show how it has been denounced 
 by the friends and agents of denominational colleges and 
 In many sectarian journals ; how the mo8t preposteroitM 
 cTujvrget have been made and believed by good men ; how 
 the epithets of 'godless,' 'infidel.' 'irreligious,' 'unrelig- 
 ious,' 'atheistic' have been hurled against 9k body of Chrii^ 
 Uan trustees, profeuan, and ttuderiu " (Warfare of Science, 
 p. 144). 
 
 The silence of Herodotus about Jerusalem does not prove 
 that that metropolis was insignificant. It might be shown 
 in the same way precisely that Rome was an obscure, 
 '• semi-barbarous '* town. Herodotus did not visit it, neither 
 did he say a word about it. Your argument is a specimen 
 of proving nothing by proving too much. 
 
 It is pleasing to see you beginning to give the names of 
 some of your informants. I say leginning; for you still 
 attempt to establish some of your points by an appeal to 
 the testimony of "a friend," "a gentleman," "a trust- 
 worthy party," and "a personal friend." I entertain no 
 disrespect for your friends ; but in a controversy like this 
 everything should be above-board. Anonymous testimony 
 Is as worthless here as it would be in a civil court. 
 
 You still ignore the distinction between Protestantism and 
 Catholicism. This is neither philosophical nor ingenuous. 
 There is neither sympathy, connection, nor codperation be- 
 tween the two. Would it be right to hold the Government 
 of the United States responsible for all the past acts of 
 Great Britain, even if the latter is in some sense our 
 «* mother countiy "? So it is a flagrant injustice to charge 
 
TM HUMFRHBr-Bunnn Dnonnoir. 
 
 the two Innocent action, of Cirirtendom with the em,« 
 »nd ioiqaltiea of Romanism. 
 
 trnVif- ""'• *'/°V"«'*"»«t«. "y • dlsreapectful word of 
 
 2„.^^rH .T'" "'^''"^*" *"^' ">« adulterated and 
 counterfeited article. 
 
 ril°" '"fh "'''V*^ """°'"*°* '•^'""« ".emi-barba- 
 utterly drnproved this. How could they be ".emi-barba- 
 n«« after aojouming for centuries in Egypt, at that time 
 tte most cmUzed country in the world f How could they 
 
 ™Jr""'jT™" ''"""' "''^^«"» •-«"'« the first t^ 
 
 ^Z^h?K.^'^ "''''«"«* How could they be 
 «m.-barba„ans." and be f«niUar with "many book, f" 
 OBcoxa 130 How could they be " wmi-barbarian. '• «»« 
 Po««» such a collection of wit and wi«lom «i the book of 
 Rorerbs f How could they be "aeml barbarians " when 
 
 tt^f w "T"!*'^'"' '^ •'"'^ *^' '^y »' J**". «! idea 
 that has made Darwin famous ? I refer to the " ;.rIatlou 
 of species under domestication » (Gen. xxi 87-48) How 
 could th^be "semi-barbariami.. when, queen of Sheba 
 ^c«ne from the uttermost parU of the earth to hear the 
 w^om of Solomon », How could they be " semi-bari 
 runa and have one of the grandest Temples on the face 
 of the earth t The difficulty to beUere in the real exist- 
 ence of such a Temple is entirely remored by the fact that 
 we have the architectural fia» of that Temple to^ay in the 
 Je^h Scriptures. As we would underst«.d that the ag. 
 of Pencles was famous for its Art. even if we had nothing 
 to show It except the conceptions of Phidias expressed in 
 plans, sketches, and drawings, so we know from the con- 
 ception and plan of a magnillcent Temple, still before us in 
 the Sacred Scriptures, that Solomon's wu a Golden Aite. 
 As to the remain, of that edifice, antiquarians diiagL 
 
 ir^.„l '*"~''^'"^''"'«»'»'y <«««'er. 
 
 «• yet to be ■een. Hitherto, whrtwer wm Imagined to bi 
 
 YHS HtJMPHBEY-BBKNETT Ol8Ctt88l09. 
 
 197 
 
 a relic of the ancient civilization, has either been destroyed 
 by prejudice or carried away by superstition. Still, Prof. 
 Rawson stands almost alone among^ travelers in saying that 
 there are no indications of an ancient civiliaation in Pal- 
 estine. 
 
 Now as to the "mythical theory'': it certainly is on the 
 wane. Baur, Bauer and Strauss are falling into disrepute. 
 The halls of Tabiagen are emptier than of yore. Dr. 
 Schliemann's **Troy and its Remains" is showing that 
 much of what the world had consigned to Mythology may, 
 after all, belong properly to History. 
 
 Were I disposed to taunt you, I would still insist that 
 Paine was a *'myth.*' Doubtless you saw what somebody 
 toid had been Paine's grave. How did your informant know 
 that the person who carried the remains (?) away was Wm. 
 Oobbett ? How do you know that those men who said they 
 had '* conversed with Paine " were not deceived ? Have 
 you not seen men who thought as firmly that they had 
 "conversed *' with ghosts ? The story of Paine's skeleton 
 hanging in a book-store, and then taken into a pottery to be 
 ground, and mixed with clay, to be *'made into ornaments, 
 trinkets and keepsakes,'* is at once horrible and incredible. 
 Paine — if such a man ever existed — was treated about as 
 disrespectfully and barbarously as Hypatia. I guess. Bro. 
 Bennett, you will have to settle down in the conclusion that 
 Thomas Paine was a '* myth,*' since it is as difficult to find 
 his ** remains " as those of Solomon's Temple. 
 
 Your dialogue between ** Christianity " and ** Science " 
 is an innocent little thing. I have only to say that " Chris- 
 tianity,'* in this case, as in many others, has either been 
 incorrectly reported, or else it has been personated by an 
 enemy. I repudiate your ventriloquous dialogue altogether. 
 
 Tour attempt to wash the " damned spots *' of blood from 
 the hands of the French "Freethinkers'* is, of course, an 
 utter failure. Seas of sophistry and explanations can 
 neither scrub them out nor cover them up. The ** Reign of 
 
 '» T 
 
198 
 
 «H« HmO'HBBT-BBRRBTT DIflCtJSSION. 
 
 I* 
 
 K: 
 
 Terror" wis nothiii; more than " Freethought »» embodied 
 in free deeds. Many of the leaders of that •* Reign " were 
 Atheists. Several of them, however, and notably Robes- 
 pierre and Paine, believed in the existence of a God. But 
 they were all Infideli of some description. 
 
 You affect great nausea over some of the plain narrative 
 of the Bible. It is true the sacred writers were more anx- 
 ious to give the wliale truih than to accommodate deranged 
 stomachs. But will you please explain why Infidels are so 
 much given to placing their hands on their noses when they 
 approach the Bible, while they regard greater stenches la 
 their own authors as sweet bouquets. Rousseau's writings 
 are full of the grossest indecencies. Some of Michelet's 
 works seethe with sensuality. A great deal of Byron's 
 poetry is saturated with impurity. Voltaire's PuceUe stinks 
 with obscenity. Diderot's Bijom IndiwreU is simply a lit 
 eraiy dunghill. Some of Dumas* novels are unfit for the 
 walls of a water-closet. As Theodore Parker said, "there 
 .was mUn9§ tflawness" about your Pope, Thomas Paine* 
 Tictoria WoodhuU— another "Liberal" champion— hae 
 been delivering her tongue— I wiU not say mindr^f such 
 stuff as might well bring the blush to the cheeks of rake- 
 hells and strumpets. Yes, and *' rtform " Journals Uke the 
 Boston Investigator and The Tbuth Seeker contain weekly 
 advertisements of "Marriage Guides," "Plain Talks," 
 ••Sexual Physiology," and " Spermatorrhea " doctors (?)r 
 Even my esteemed Friend Bennett has defended and lion- 
 iaed men like John A. Lant, George Francis Train, E. B. 
 Poote and Charies Bradlaugh, who have been convicted of 
 circulating obscene literature. All this shows that "Free, 
 thinkers " feign vomiting over the "indelicacy" of the Bible, 
 not because they are of such exquisite refinement and 
 dainty modesty, but because they want some excuse for op. 
 posing a book whieh they dislike for other reasona 
 
 THE HT7MFHB8T-BENNBTT DISOUBfllOK. 
 
 199 
 
 Our third proposition is as follows : That there is a 
 Stbongeb Probability that the Bqlb is Divine thak 
 
 THEBB IS THAT InPIDELITY IS TbUE. 
 
 I. I will base my first argument on Phrenology. I do 
 this mainly because the teachers of that system persist in 
 calling it a " science," and because many Infidels profess to 
 accept it. We are taught that the •* Moral and Religious 
 Faculties" occupy the central and highest place in the 
 brain. They constitute what is termed the ** crown of the 
 head." A symmetrical and "large" development of these 
 faculties is indispensable to a perfect manhood (Fowler's 
 Phrenology, pp. 123-159). How dtformed a human being 
 would be with the top of his head scooped out half way to 
 his ears! But that is what a consistent Infidel would call a 
 faultless cranium! This is not the only sense in which Inft- 
 delity would fain deprive man of his erawn, 
 
 2. Infidelity is always flattering human nature. We hear 
 a great deal about the nobleness of the natural heart, and 
 about the '• Oracle of reason." If we may take the Infiders. 
 word for it, the average sentiment of mankind is perhaps 
 the highest standard of Truth. 
 
 I am willing to decide our case in this court of appeals. 
 There is an innate and indestructible conviction in the 
 average mind that Godliness is better than Godlessness; that 
 Piousness is better than Impiousness; that Religion is better 
 than Irreligion ; that Puritanism is better than Impuritan* 
 ism; that Fidelity is better than Infidelity. 
 
 8. Infidelity cannot be true because it is not self-consiS' 
 tent. What can be more contradictory than Atheism and 
 Pantheism? Materialism and Spiritualism? Positivism and 
 Nihilism? These cardinal isme do not differ merely on the 
 surface, and in non-essentials. They are antagonistic and 
 irreconcilable in their heart of hearts. They cannot, there 
 fore, all be right. But which is true? That is a question 
 which can never be settled on the Infidel principle. A de- 
 cision, declared by any one, would be " dogmatism " ; and 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 800 
 
 THE HTJMPHBET- BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HtJMPHRET-BEKNKTT DISCX788ION. 
 
 Mi 
 
 •• dogmatism/' we are told, has no place in the world of 
 "Liberalism." 
 
 4. Infidelity is inferior to tSie Scriptures because that, from 
 its very nature, it is disintegrating and disorganmng. You can- 
 not constitute government of any kind without forming and 
 adopting a code of laws. But the moment you do that you 
 encroach on the "sovereignty of the individual." The 
 citizen is not then permitted to follow his own Inclination 
 in all the affairs of life. In other words, a civil creed has 
 been made for him; and that is unutterably repugnant to 
 ** liberal" notions. In the language of a modern Atheist, 
 noted for his diarrhcBa ttrborum^ " Every creed is a rock in 
 running water; humanity sweeps by it Every creed cries 
 to the Universe ' Halt I* A creed is the ignorant past bully- 
 ing the enlightened present." As mankind is everywhere 
 adopting not only religious but social and civil creeds— lawa 
 and constitutions— it is plain that Infidelity is an enemy to 
 compabU and organizations of all kindi. If ** Freethinkers" 
 are law-abiding citizens, it is became they are inconsistent 
 They withhold from civil enactments the objections which 
 they bring against every rdigiouM declaration of principles. 
 Were the Infidel doctrine to be applied simultaneously to 
 e^enfihinQ, the whole world would be in a state of hope- 
 less anarchy in twenty-four hooiil 
 
 But in spite of Ita inoonsistencies and restraints, (he dis- 
 solving and disorganizing character of Unbelief is very 
 manifest Pore Infidelity has produced no ''Orders," 
 "Brotherhoods," or "Societies." It has created noinsti- 
 Intions of charity or learning. Of course, it is doing iU 
 utmost to annihilate the Church. Its self-styled " advanced 
 thinkers" are endeavoring to sever the golden bonds of the 
 family. The most godless nation within the limits of civ- 
 ilization—the French— are the most seditious and ungovern- 
 able. The history and the teachings of Infidelity prove 
 that its tendency is to universal disinteRratlon and decom- 
 position— that is, universal death, since death is only disso- 
 
 lution. But this is an evidence of its dangerous and 
 destructive character. What can men accomplish merely 
 AS individuals? Where may man find joy and blessedness 
 as he can within the sacred covenants of Friendship and 
 Wedlock? What hour was more auspicious to the world 
 than that in which " We the People" took a solemn oath 
 to honor, obey, and defend our National Confession of 
 Faith— the Constitution of the United States? 
 
 The Bible encourages by precept and example Hie organic- 
 ing Principle, It gives no uncertain sound as to the sanc- 
 tity and inviolability of the Family. It teaches obedience 
 to lawfully- constituted and righteously-administered govern^ 
 mcnt. It has created the Church to promote man's moral 
 and spiritual well-being. It teaches that " in union there is 
 strength." 
 
 In the proportion that an organizing and integrating, t. e. 
 a f>ital Principle is superior to a disorganizing and disinte- 
 grating, i. «., SL fatal Principle, the Holy Bible is superior to 
 Infidelity. 
 
 5. The Bible inculcates and Christians exercise more Sin- 
 ct7*% than Infidels practice. The words "sincere," "sin- 
 cerely," and "sincerity "are found about sixteen times in 
 King James' Version. The same idea is set forth by many 
 equivalents in words and phrases. Insincerity is one of the 
 tilings which the Sacred Writings condemn most unspar- 
 ingly. 
 
 How the Apostles showed the depth of their convictions 
 by their incessant laborsl How subsequent believers have 
 evinced their earnestness by their adherence to principle, 
 even under persecution and in death I The myriad churches 
 of Christendom attest the sincerity of those who erected 
 them. Doubtless the wolf of hypocrisy has stolen often- 
 times among the sheep. But notwithstanding all, the Chris- 
 lian Church exhibits far more Sincerity than her opponents. 
 
 A great many Infidels have betrayed their life-long hypoc- 
 risy l^ their death-bed misgivings and confessions. Others 
 
I 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 m vm mvFBBXT-BBnnm sbboubsioii. 
 
 liaTe shown either fear, duplicity, or both, by not announc- 
 ing their yiews until the dose of their liyee. Dr. Johnson 
 used to say that ** Bolingbroke was a scoundrel and a coward; 
 he loaded a blunderbuss against Christianity which he had 
 not the courage to fire during his life-time, but left half a 
 down to a hungry Scotsman to draw the trigger after he 
 was dead." And Thomas Paine, about whose " honest con- 
 Tictions" and ** boldness ** we hear 90 much, saii he believed 
 it would be best to postpone the publication of his Deistical 
 thoughts ^*ta the latter part of life.*' If these men really 
 belieyed that the principles they had to disseminate would 
 be a blessing to the world, was it not a erims to withhold 
 them so long? and did their delay not proTC either that they 
 did not care about benefiting mankind, or that they did 
 not themselves believe what they had to sayf 
 
 The insincerity of Infidels is shown farther by the scanti- 
 ness of their efforts to propagate their ideas. Avowedly 
 Infidel Journals are not well supported. '^Freethought 
 Lecturers " have to do a prodigious amount of advertising, 
 drumming up, and indirect self-puffing, in order to squeeze 
 <Hit a sufilcient number of engagements to keep them in mo» 
 tion. All the Infidels in America have not zeal enough to 
 remove the debtincubus (|70,000) from the onl§ structure 
 between the two oceans erected and dedicated to the mem- 
 oiy of Paine t In the great eity of New York, the InfideU 
 have never founded a building for their own use. The most 
 they have done was to ** hhre a hall.** JLnd even in that 
 they have not exhibited much generoeity. * ' SonoiCB HallI*' 
 That mmndi ^ell a thousand miles away. But when the place 
 it actually visited, it will be found to be a dingy little back 
 room with neither scientist nor scientific apparatus near 
 it. If it is so important that the world should know 
 the doctrines of Deism, Atheism, Spiritualism, Materialism, 
 Free-Love, etc, why is it that the Infidels of Europe and 
 America do not keep a legion of home and foreign mission- 
 aries continually at workf It 10 trae Mr. InijersoU— having 
 
 THB HUlfFHBBT-SKNrarr DlSCfJWIOlf . 
 
 203 
 
 nothing else to do— has gone to the CaUfornia heathen to 
 tell them ai)out hii "GhoeU** and " Bob"-goblin8. But 
 alas I his glad tidings are not for the poor. There is an 
 '•Admission Fiftt Cbnts*' between the masses and the 
 "i^Vw-thoughts" of the '* Iree-thihker." And then, Mr. 
 Ingersoll is— I hope I give no offense— only one man. The 
 laborers are indeed few on the Infidel field. All this goes 
 to show how shallow and inactive is the conviction and sin- 
 cerity of skeptics generally. 
 
 Other things being equal, the greater the sincerity, the 
 greater the merit. But " other things " are equal, and more 
 than equal on the side of the Bible and iU believers. Hence, 
 the superior Sincerity of Christians, as compared with Unbe- 
 lievers, goes to establish the aflirmative of our proposition. 
 6. There is another fact worthy of serious consideration: 
 JmmoraiUy it eonmtent with Infidelity. I do not by this mean 
 that all unbelievers are bad men; but that, if they were so, 
 no one would feel that they were at variance with " Free- 
 thought." It is quite true that many professors of religion 
 have been guilty of unlawful practices. But everybody felt 
 that they were acting contrary to their profession and prin- 
 ciples. Everybody exclaimed, J3bw inconsistent/ Everybody 
 thought they should be censured or excommunicated. Ana 
 the Church is continually doing this. Little does the out- 
 side and fault-finding world know of her concern for hei 
 erring ones. But it ought to see that she does not permit 
 ain to pass unnoticed. You and other Infidels seem to take 
 ecstatic delight in recounting the vices and crimes of men 
 who were once ministers. But we may show by these very 
 men the infinite superiority of Christianity over Infidelity. 
 Even suspicion will degrade the standing of a clergymen. 
 Those who have been convicted of immorality have been de- 
 posed. They have ceased to be preachers; and it is improper 
 to speak of them as such. This fact, backed by the public 
 sentiment, proves that ImnwraHty a?id CAristianity are in- 
 consistent. 
 
.(I 
 
 I 
 
 104 
 
 1«B HUMFBBBY-BUniETT DnOmsiOlff. 
 
 I 
 
 But with Infidelity it is not so. An Infidel cannot 
 injure Ms standing, as an Injldd, by anything he may 
 do. No injustice or rileness on his part could bring man- 
 kind to feel that he bad violated his principles. This can 
 be shown from history. Bolingbroke could be a ''notorious 
 libertine"; Byron could be a scandalous debauchee; Shelley 
 could leave his wife, even when she was with child, and 
 break her heart by living with a "companion"; Girard 
 could quarrel with his wife until she beeame insane; Ches- 
 terfield eould advise his bastard son to be a whore-master; 
 Rousseau could live in adultery, and send his illegitimate 
 children to the Foundling Hospital; Voltaire could perjure 
 himself, tamper with legal documents, spend years **pla- 
 lonically "(?) with a female that was never his wife; 
 Collins, Ralph, and Keith could "greatly wrong" Franklin; 
 John Stuart Mill could associate with a "lady friend" 
 in a way that would have blasted the name of a clergy- 
 man; Auguste Comte could mislead a living woman, 
 and worship a dead one; Paine could live with Mrs. 
 Bonneville, and be ''godfather" to her youngest son "who 
 had been named after him"; Goethe could be himself the 
 Mephistopheles who defiled and ruined many a poor Mar- 
 guerete; Gen. Charles Lee could be unfaithful to his trust; 
 Tweed could steal millions from the city of New York; 8. 
 S. Jones could seduce another man*8 wife; Dr. Dillingham 
 could be indicted for practicing abortion; George Francis 
 Train can act the fool to his hean*8 content; Victoria 
 Woodhull can be the quintessence of nastiness— all these 
 could be all this, and nobody thinks any the less of Infidelity I 
 Nobody ever remarked that they were at all inconsistent 
 with " Liberalism." They did the cause no harm. 
 
 You may array all the counter-charges you please. But 
 the fact will still remain that Christianity condemns immor- 
 ality, while Infidelity is consistent with it, and encouraging 
 to it. This was the deUberate judgment of Franklin, when 
 he said in his Autobiography thai ''immorality and in- 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BKNNBTT DlSCUSSIOlf. 
 
 205 
 
 justice migTU have been expected from a want ofrdigion^^ and 
 when he asked in one of his letters: " If men are so wicked 
 mth religion, what would they be without it"? 
 
 The Bible, that prohibits "all appearance of evil," is 
 certainly superior to Infidelity, which is both inviting to, 
 and consistent with, every species of iniquity. 
 
 7. Infidels are full of all the short-comings with which 
 they charge Christians. They are bigoted. It is said that 
 the word " bigot " originated with Rollo, who, when he was 
 required to kiss the foot of King Charles in return for the 
 province of Neustria, replied, '*JVd«, bi G^<"— Not so, by 
 G — d In this sense of using profane language, " Freethink- 
 ers " are generally the greatest bigots in the world. Col. 
 Ingersoll is "matchless" at cursing and swearing. And 
 they are bigoted in the sense of being "unreasonably devoted 
 to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of 
 others." How many of them boast that they never go in- 
 side of a church I How few of them give the Christian 
 side a candid and thorough study I Such books as I men- 
 tioned in my last letter are not examined by the mass of 
 Infidels. Many of them heartily hate everything and every- 
 body that is religious. All this is bigotry. 
 
 Infidels are illiberal. We have already shown that they 
 are so with their money. They have endowed scarcely any 
 institutions of learning. They support no charities. The 
 best hospitals of Germany, France, England, and America 
 are under religious auspices. I have before me a "Hand- 
 book of the Benevolent Institutions and Charities of New 
 York for 1877." The Jews, the Catholics, and all the 
 Protestant denominations have a noble record. But it does 
 not appear that the Infidels are supporting one hospital or 
 benevolent institution. 
 
 Neither are they '* liberal" even toward each other. 
 There was a furious rumpus at one of the " Liberal Club " 
 elections not many weeks ago. Do you not rather think 
 the Investigator ia trying to "freeze" out Thb Tbuth 
 
9tm mmpHiorr-BSKKStT discubsioit. 
 
 8BEKiBf Less tban a centnry ago Infidels beheaded Infidels 
 In Paris. Hume and Rousseau had a most violent quar- 
 rel The ''Liberal" Pike shot the *' Liberal »» Jones 
 because the latter had been wry "liberal" with Mrs. Pike. 
 
 They are extremely illiberal to professing Christians. 
 When rumors are afloat about a minister or a church mem- 
 ber, they always believe the worst, and that before there is 
 proof of guilt. If they can help it, they will tolerate nothing 
 that has the least savor of religion in it. Stephen Girard 
 represented the character of their " Liberalism " when he 
 made an imperative stipulation in his will that no minister 
 should ever enter Girard College. Several of the originally 
 orthodox Universities of Germany have permitted Rational- 
 ism to be taught in them; but there never was an institution 
 under Rationalistic or Infidel control that would tolerate 
 evangelical instruction within its walls. 
 
 Infidels are hypocritieal. According to Infidel writers, they 
 are wry hypocritical. How often do we see and hear the 
 assertion that there are ever so many that are Infidels at 
 heart, who yet allow themselves to pass for orthodox in soci- 
 ety, in the Church, yea, and in the pulpit. As far as this is 
 false, it proves that those who say so are liars. As far as 
 it is true, it proves that Infidels are craven and sneaking 
 hypocrites, Toland professed to be a " Freethinker " and a 
 •'good churchman" alternately, as self-interest dictated. 
 When Voltaire was over fifty years of age, he dedicated one 
 of his plays to Pope Benedict XIV, wrote to him as his "Most 
 Blessed Father," and "Head of the true religion," requesting 
 bis benediction, and closing with these words: " With the 
 profoundesi reverence, I kiss your sacred feet " (Voltaire's 
 Works, trans, by Smollett and Francklin, London, 1763, 
 Vol. XXV, p. 16). It is plain from this that Voltaire was 
 cither a Catholic in heart, and an Infidel dissembler, or else 
 he was an Infidel in heart, and a Catholic dissembler. But 
 lave it as you will, he was a hypocrite. We have seea 
 already thaX Thomas Paine ptwCmdM to be a beUever in tho 
 
 TBB BtTMFllBKT-BSlt NKTT DISCUSSIOIT. 
 
 t07 
 
 Christian Religion during the period of the Revolution. It 
 is on record that David Hume advised a friend to take false 
 yows, and preach doctrines he did not believe, in order that 
 he might get the emoluments. For mysel€, I have always 
 been suspicious of the pretended respect of Materialistic 
 editors for Spiritualism. 
 
 Infidels are superstitioue. If anything is a greater exhi- 
 bition of superstition than Spiritualism, I would like to' know 
 'What it is. The majority of the "clairvoyants," and 
 "astrologers," that disgrace our cities are ^'advanced" 
 Spiritualists, or some nondescripts in that neighborhood. 
 I am really surprised to find Thb Trutk Sbekeb, that 
 |)retend3 to be so opposed to impostures of all kinds, adver- 
 4^8ing "astrologers." Quite recently a gentleman in Wash- 
 ington was offering for sale Thomas Paine's old spectacles 
 and shoe-buckles <Tbuts Seekeb, March 8, 1877). Verilyl 
 Bome Infidels have come right down to venerating relics 1 
 I have heard that extremes meet; and Id an instance — the 
 Catholic and the Infidel meeting devoutly at the sacre4 
 shrine of the Selie, the one kneeling in the presence of 
 Peter's sandal, and the other bowing before Paine's epeo- 
 taclesl O, what a spectacle 1 
 
 Infidels exercise blind creduUty. You wiU perhaps regard 
 this a;^ the keenest cut of all. But nothing can be more 
 true. How many there are who believe everything they see 
 in Infidel papers! They do not veiify what they read. 
 They simply sit down to swallovo. Skeptics talk a great deal 
 about the conclusions of science. But can they personally 
 loUow the astronomer through his computations f Can 
 ihey personally accompany the geologist step by step until 
 he arrives at his inferences f Can they personally compre- 
 hend and see all the intermediate "evidences '* of Evolutionf 
 No; not one in ten thousand is able to do this. They merely 
 accept by faith the conclusions of others. As far as they 
 Aemselws are concerned, it is " going it blind." 
 
 Infidels are very much given to copying one. another. 
 
»HB mmPHBBT-BBllKBTT MSCtTBSKMf. 
 
 VBM HUMPHBET-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 209 
 
 III 
 
 How many have got into trouble because they quoted ToJ- 
 taire, imagining that be was a reliable historian 1 Perhaps 
 you will allow me to say that your own "World's Sages, 
 Infidels^ and Thinkers" is far from being trustworthy. 
 Many of its claims, assertions, and implications are demons 
 arably incorrect. Now I do not impute this td dishonesty 
 in my friend Mr. Bennett I do not believe that he would 
 intentionally play the Ananias with the gold of Truth. I 
 ascribe it entirely to his unfortunate combination of credo- 
 Mty and incredulity. He believes too much evil and too 
 little good about Christians, and he believes too much good 
 and too little evU about Infldels. The action of incredulity 
 always begets an equally great reaction of credulity. 
 
 Infidels are unprogrmive. The Paine sect of unbelievers 
 is producinir ▼ery little that Is new. Nearly a century haa 
 passed, and yet nothing better to offer a ** thinker" than 
 the "Age of Reason"! Too bad i Voltaire's " Philo- 
 sophical Dictionary " is still kept in circulation, fraught 
 with the ignorance and blunders of more than a hundred 
 years ago 1 . The Infidels of to-day are Uving on old hash^ 
 cold hash^ and rehaah. 
 
 All this goes to show that '-laberals" have every fault 
 which they impute to Christians. They call themselves 
 " Beformers^" but they are not reformed. They imagine 
 they are " advanced " and "progressive," when in reality 
 they are only going ahead like the crab— backwards. And 
 they are more hopeless than anybody because they fancy 
 Ihey are superior to everybody. 
 
 My article is already long, and I must break off right 
 here. I trust that the reader has received some assistance 
 to see that Infidelity cannot be true, 1. Because even 
 Phrenology condemns it 2. Because the average senti- 
 ment of mankind is against it a Because it is hopelessly 
 self-contradictoiy. 4. Because it is a disorganizing, fatal 
 principle. 6. Because it is comparatively insincere. <L 
 Becaui t is ooniiitent with immoraU^. And 7. Becauso 
 
 Infidels, though they style themselves " Heformers," have 
 all the imperfections of those whom they condemn and per. 
 secute. 
 
 I beg pardon, if occasionally I have been a little ironical 
 or sarcastic. I want to close with a good feeling all around. 
 I cherish the best wishes for my doubting friends. I would 
 that, as searchers for Truth, they would take for their ex- 
 ample some model man, like Sir Isaac Newton. In him 
 met all the elements of complete manhood. He was as pure 
 as the snow-flake, and as strong as the granite. He was as 
 simple as a child, and as profound as Nature. He combined 
 in his soul the critical and the devout, the manly and the 
 godly. To be one such a man is better than to be a thousand 
 kings. Yours with respect, G. H. Humfhbet. 
 
 MR. BBITHBTT. 
 
 Rkt. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Si/r: I fancy I see you 
 walking over your domain endeavoring to repair the dam- 
 ages of the storm of argument which so recently swept 
 over it. I see you anxious to replace and readjust the posts, 
 etc., which you had so carefully planted, and that the task ' 
 is too hard for you. But I perceive, too, that you have the 
 faculty, where you cannot remedy the effects of the storm, 
 of quietly letting it pass and of saying nothing about it 
 Where you were damaged the most and your posts are 
 completely gone, you say not a word. 
 
 In your subsequent efforts to recover from the damage 
 you become excited and wild. You remind me of a dis- 
 comfited champion of the prize ring who has received such 
 stunning blows that his head rings and swims, his face 
 bleeding, his eyes swollen and closed, his strength ex- 
 hausted, and he strikes wildly and frantically in aU di- 
 notions without object or aim* What have the adver- 
 
 .1 
 
no 
 
 ncM HtmiPfliiY-BfiiiiiTT Dtscnssiov. 
 
 YHB HTJlfPHBBT-BENNBTT DIHCUSSIOll. 
 
 su 
 
 tisements In the coltnnns of Ths Tbuth Seeker and other 
 journalB, the treatment of epermatorrhcDa, the sale of medical 
 works, astrology, Paine Hall, Science Hall, The World's 
 Sages, George Francis Train, Mrs. Woodhull, John A Lant, 
 and n^any other things you strike at and clutch at, to do 
 with the subject under discussion f Where your posts were 
 eotirely swept away, I see you fain would set up new ones, 
 but they will hardly serve you. I fancy you appear to 
 better advantage on '* the back seat of the car of Progress,*' 
 throwin^^ out your hand-bills, claiming great scientific 
 achievements for Christianity than in the role of a post- 
 tetter and defender, or ae a bully in the P. R 
 
 I can hardly notice all the points you touch upon, but yon 
 inake so many glaring misstatements and misrepresentations 
 that I cannot let all pass unnoticed. While I have you 
 under my charge I feel a certain responsibility for your 
 conduct, and cannot let you make misstatements without 
 applying a gentle corrective. I fear your cause is not a good 
 one if misrepresentation is necessary to help you out. It 
 may be set down as an axiom that Truth never needt fal^ 
 hood to euatain it, Tou doubtless think with Paul, your 
 guide and authority, that falsehood and guile may serve a 
 good purpose in certain emergencies (Bom .ill, 7, '*For if 
 the truth of €k>d hath more abounded through my lie unto 
 his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner," and 2 
 Oor. zii, 16, '*But be it so, I did not burden you; never- 
 theless, being crafty, I caught you with guile")* but the 
 clearest judges do not accept falsehood and guile as proper 
 factors in making up the most excellent moral character or 
 as the best agencies with which to effect good works. Let 
 me point out some of your departures trom truth. 
 
 1. You say I failed to strengthen my claim to Peter 
 Cooper. I think not. I proved that he admitted that he was 
 a heretic. He is not orthodox, and will so admit to you if 
 you caU upon him. What if Paine's works are not in his 
 library uid the Bible is? He did not select the hooka for 
 
 the library. He does not bellcTe all contained in the books 
 in the library, nor discard all in books not in it. The 
 Life of Paine and Voltaire's Writings are there, and if 
 your argument proves anything, Peter Cpoper mast believe 
 them. On a certain occasion, in a short speech at a public 
 meeting in his hall, Mr. Cooper admitted that he did not 
 regard the Bible stories of the creation, the fall of man, and 
 the flood, as being literally true, but as mere legends. Be- 
 sides, let me inform you that Paine's Work's are in. hia 
 library— now, if not n hen you looked for them. 
 
 2. You say all I have said about Cornell University 1b dis- 
 proved by the quotation you make from President White. 
 Not so. It does not disprove a word of it. The assertions 
 I made are true and must stand. Of course, he wishes to 
 have religious young men attend his school, and he 
 caters somewhat to them, but neither he nor acting-Presi- 
 dent Russell are believers in the central dogmas of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 8. The silence of Herodotus about Jerusalem and the 
 Temple is a proof that they were not in existence, or were 
 not worthy of remark. He visited Syria twice; and as Pal- 
 estine is included in Syria, had there been such a city, such 
 a nation, or such a temple, he assuredly would have known 
 it and described them. He may also have visited Rome, 
 and his allusions to that city may have been in the portions 
 of his works that were lost. What he wrote about Syria is 
 not lost, and he says not a word about that part of it where 
 the nomadic Jews resided. 
 
 4. You misrepresent Prof. Rawson. You say he stands 
 alone among travelers in holding that there are no indica- 
 tions of ancient civilization in Palestine. He has not 
 claimed that there are no proofs there of an ancient civiliza 
 tion. He readily admits it, but claims they are not proofs 
 of Hebrew civilization. There are ruins there of Egyptian, 
 Grecian, Roman, and Arabic origin, but nothing distinct- 
 ively Jewish. Neither does he stand alone in this position. 
 
1^13 
 
 THl HlTMPHBBT-BUrifSTT DISCITSSIOir. 
 
 TUB HUMPHRBY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 213 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 Dr. Robinson prftcticallytdmitfl the same, and is confirmed, 
 as I showed in my last, bj Captains Wilson and Warren. 
 
 I see you dislike to acknowledge the fact that the Jews 
 were semi-baibaxians, but you may as well do so with the 
 best grace you can. Their being degraded slavea in Egypt 
 would not disprove it. Slaves are not apt to be far ad- 
 vanced in education and civilization. Your attempts to 
 prove that they were not barbarians by referring to the 
 silly story of Jacob and his ringed and streaked sticks, and 
 about Queen Sheba coming *< from the uttermost parts of 
 the earth/* seem to me weak and sophistical. Where are the 
 ''uttermost parts of the earth** located? That the Jews were 
 barbarians it is only necessary to state that they offered aa 
 sacrifices both animals and human beings. For an instance 
 ol the latter, I will refer you to the case of Jephtha and hia 
 daughter, and to Leviticus xxvii, 28 and 29. *' Notwith- 
 standing no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the 
 Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast.*' etc. 
 "None devoted of man shall be redeemed; but shall surely 
 be put to death.** That they also ate human flesh I will 
 refer you to the following passages: Deut. zxviii, 63-<S7; 
 Lam. iv, 10; Ezekiel zzxiz, 18, and Bar. ii, 8. 
 
 5. It is hardly fair In you, after I had given you Prof. 
 Bawson's name and address, and after you had called upon 
 him several times, to still insinuate that I withhold author!, 
 ties. I will in all cases give them where it is necessary. 
 The statement that Peter Cooper calls himself a "heretic" 
 ia from Mr. Egbert Hasard, a cultivated and weU-known 
 gentleman. 
 
 6. Tour repetition that the ezcesses connected with the 
 French Revolution and the Keign of Terror were a part 
 of the programme of Freethought is most untrue. If you 
 assert it a thousand times, it is still untrue. They were 
 wholly political in character and origin. The Reign of 
 Terror bogaii with the reign of Robespierre, and continued 
 whilf he was i« potwer. pe was the leading spirit of the 
 
 timet; and for proof that he was a Christian, a religious 
 fanatic, I will refer you to Chamber's Encyclopedia, and 
 to Thiers* French Revolution, vol. ii, p. 376. and vol. iii. 
 pp. 11, 12. 
 
 7. You flay: "Infidelity is always flattering human 
 nature." Untrue. It simply aims to tell the truth about it 
 and to show how much it is capable of doing. Christianity 
 is always demeaning human nature, insisting that it is 
 totally depraved and incapable of itself of doing anything 
 good or praiseworthy. The doctrine of total depravity leaves 
 no room for good in the human heart. Infidelity in tills 
 respect teaches truth, and Christianity falsehood. 
 
 8. You say: " Infidelity is not self-consistent." It is per- 
 fectly so. However difilcult it may be to decide the nature 
 of a Supreme Power, or whether we have an individual ez- 
 istence after this life, the rejection by all classes of Liberals 
 of the absurd dogmas upon which the Christian religion is 
 founded is perfectly consistent and perfectly correct. 
 
 9. You insist that Infidelity is inferior to the Scriptures 
 because it is disintegrating and disorganizing. Incorrect. 
 While Infidelity does not form creeds and dogmas, it accepts 
 the moral law of doing the greatest good to our fellow-be- 
 ings, compatible with individual rights. Infidelity is supe- 
 rior to the Scriptures because it rejects the supernatural, it 
 is less contradictory, less obscene, less bloody, less murder- 
 ous, less cruel. Do you pretend to say there is more diversity 
 of opinion among Infidels than there is among Christians 
 with their hundreds of modifications and differences over 
 which they have contended and fought for nearly twenty 
 centuries? 
 
 10. You say "the history and teachings of Infidelity 
 prove that its tendency is to universal disintegration and 
 decomposition— that is, universal death." This assertion is 
 entirely devoid of truth. Pagan and anti-Christlan nations 
 have been as much devoted to the organization of families 
 and societies aa Cliristendom hm ever been. Pagan sages 
 
 .Jk^^ 
 
814 
 
 Tm BtnfPHBEy-BBNNBTT Discussnm. 
 
 THE HtrMPnBET-BENNKTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 215 
 
 i;'i 
 
 m 
 
 •ad philosophers ha^e neTer been excelled in their inculca- 
 tions respecting the sanctity of home, duties to parents, 
 children, and all members of society. I refer you to the 
 Institutes of Menu, the teachings of Zoroaster, Buddha, Con« 
 fncius, Mencius, Bias, Socrates, Spicurus, Plato, and num- 
 erous others of later date. 
 
 11. Tou declare that ^'Advanced thinkers are endeaTor> 
 ing to sever the golden bonds of the family.** Untrue. 
 The leading thinkers and reformers are seeking to make 
 family love and family happiness more perfect and more 
 productive of good. As a complete refutation of your 
 assertion, let me refer you to the lecture of Col. Robert O. 
 IngersoU, our leading exponent of Liberalism, upon the 
 *' Liberty of Man, Woman and Child,'* which appeared In 
 the last issue of Thb Tbuth Sbbkbb, and which contains 
 eloquent appeals for the sanctity of the home and mar- 
 riage relation. The marriage ceremony itself is an In- 
 fidel institution. It originated with the pagans, and was 
 adopted from them by the Christians. It was your orffai^ 
 Mng Jesus who taught: "If any man come to me, and 
 liate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and 
 brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot 
 be my disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). When making such sweep- 
 ing charges as you do, you should adduce some proofs. 
 Who are they who are ** endeavoring to sever the golden 
 bonds "f Either name them or cease to make the charge. 
 
 12. Tou next say, **If Freethinkers are law-abiding cit- 
 izens, it is because they are inconsistent ** It is a marvel to 
 me how a man who makes any pretension to sanity and 
 truthfulness can make such a reckless assertion. Free- 
 thinkers are law-abiding citizens for the same reason that 
 all good people are who recognize the necessity of law and 
 order in the regulation of society. 
 
 18. Again, you say: **Were the Infidel doctrine to be 
 applied simnltaneously to everything, the whole world 
 would be hi a state of hopelees anarchy in twenty-four 
 
 honn." I do not know how a man could insert more untnith- 
 fulness and absurdity in a single sentence. There is not a 
 word of truth in it. Infidelity is simply a denial of the super- 
 natural origin of the Bible and Christianity. Nine tenths 
 of the inhabitants of the world are disbelievers in this di- 
 vinity, and they still do not exist in a state of anarchy, but 
 are absolutely more orderly and moral than Christians. 
 Verily, my friend, you have taken the text for your last 
 letter from Rom. iii. 7 previously quoted; and, of course, to a 
 man who can accept such immoral teachings as the word of 
 God, truth must always be subservient to the interests of 
 his creed or of himself. The evil effects of a thorough be* 
 lief in the Bible are making themselves manifest. 
 
 14. Tou have the hardihood to assert that "Pure Infidel- 
 ity has produced no orders, brotherhoods or societies; it has 
 created no institutions of charity or learning.'* Wholly 
 untrue. Nations not accepting Christianity have produced 
 far more orders, societies, brotherhoods, associations, and 
 the like than Christianity has done. There are at the presen t 
 time in the world hundreds, yea, thousands of societies and 
 associations under Infidel auspices. They have established 
 numerous colleges and institutions of learning and charity. 
 Do not be so blind or narrow-minded as to think that 
 Christianity has done all that has been effected in this line. 
 
 16. Tou say; ''The Bible inculcates and Christians ex- 
 ercise more sincerity than Infidels practice.'* A most 
 ridiculous absurdity, and not susceptible of proof. No 
 class of people In the world exercise mere sincerity than 
 Infidels; and as proof I assert the fact that to maintain 
 their honest convictions they bear the opprobrium, abuse, 
 and condemnation of the votaries of theological mysticism 
 who belong to the popular respectable (?) class. It takes a 
 sincere, honest, and truly brave man to be a good Infidel. 
 
 16. Tou reiterate the threadbare untruth that " a great 
 many Infidels have betrayed their life-long hypocrisy by 
 their death-bed misgivings and confessions. " It is perhAi)s 
 
210 
 
 THE HtrMPHRET-BENNBTT DI8CTJ88I0H. 
 
 THE HTJMPHREY-BEITNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 tn 
 
 harsb to tell a man lie utters a falsehood, but in this case It 
 Is mild language to do so. The charge is as false as the 
 doctrine of hell ! No distinguished Infidel has confessed 
 his error on his death-bed, nor recanted his views, and I 
 defy you to prove where one has. But there are thousands 
 of cases where Christians have died in great doubt, and in 
 utter fear and terror. " Martin Luther despaired of the sal- 
 vation of his soul. Shortly before his death his concubine 
 pointed to the brilliancy of the stars of the firmament: 
 •See, Martin, how beautiful that heaven is.* 'It does 
 not shine in our behalf,* replied the master, moodily. *Ia 
 it because we have broken our vows?* resumed Kate, in 
 dismay. 'May be.* said Luther. 'If so, let us go back.' 
 •Too late, the hearse is stuck in the mire;* and he would 
 hear no more. At Eishenben, on the day previous to that 
 on which he was stricken with apoplexy, he remarked to 
 his friends: 'I have almost lost sight of the Christ, tossed 
 as I am by these waves of despair which overwhelm me, 
 and after a while he continued. * I who have imparted sal- 
 vation to so many cannot save myself.' . . *He died 
 forlorn of God, blaspheming to the very end.* Schussel- 
 berg, a Protestant, writes thus of the death of Calvin: 
 •Calvin died of scarlet fever, devoured by vermin, and 
 eaten up by an ulcerous abcess, the stench whereof drove 
 away every person* iTheU, Calvin, t. ii. p. 72). *In great 
 misery he gave up the ghost, despairing of salvation, eyok- 
 ing devils from the abyss, and uttering oaths most horrible, 
 and blasphemies most frightful.* John Hszen, a disciple 
 of Calvin, and an eye-witness of his death, writes thus: 
 • Calvin died in despah*. He died a death hideous and 
 revolting, such as God threatened the impious and repro- 
 bate with.' And he adds: 'I can vouch for the truth of 
 every word, because I have been an eye-witness* {De vita 
 Calvin). Spalatln, Justus, Jonas, Isinder, and a host of 
 other friends of Luther, died either in despair or crazy. 
 Henry YIIL died bewailing that he had lost heaven, and 
 
 his worthy daughter Elizabeth breathed her last in deep 
 desolation, stretched on the floor— not daring to lie in bed, 
 because at the first attack of her illness she imagined she 
 saw her body all torn to pieces and palpitating in a caul- 
 dron of fire " (Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day, 
 byM. Segur). 
 
 How did your own dear Savior leave this world f In 
 utter fear and terror, crying out in mental agony, **Eloi, 
 Moi, lama mbacthanif—My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me I" How different the death of these great 
 lights of your Church from the courage and calmness dis- 
 played by Socrates, Bruno, Spinoza, Mirabeau, Hume, Vol- 
 taire, Volney, Hobbs, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Gibbon, Jef- 
 erson, Ethan Allen, Paine, Kneeland, Theodore Parker, John 
 Stuart Mill, Michael C. Kerr, and hosts of other unbelievers 
 who died peacefully and placidly, without the slightest 
 fear. "In all my experience," says the Rev. Theodore 
 Clapp, for a long time a prominent clergyman of New 
 Orleans, and who doubfeless preached nearly ten times as 
 long as you have, "I never saw an unbeliever die in 
 fear. I have seen them expire, of course, without any 
 hopes or expectations, but never in agitation from dread or 
 misgivings as to what might befall them hereafter. It is 
 probable that I have seen a greater number of those called 
 irreligious persons breathe their last than any other clergy- 
 man in the United States. . . When I first entered the 
 clerical profession I was struck with the utter inefficiency 
 of most forms of Christianity to afford consolation in the 
 dying hour." Add to this the testimony of a great light 
 of your own Church, the Rev. Albert Barnes, who for half 
 a century preached the gospel of Jesus to anxious souls. As 
 he neared the close of a long, busy life he said: "I see 
 not one ray to disclose to me the reason why sin came 
 into the world, why the earth is strewn with the dying 
 and the dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity. 
 I have never seen a particle of light thrown on these sub- 
 
 !' 
 
fits 
 
 VBB BUlffHBIT-BEinilTT DISOUSaON. 
 
 TBB HUKFBBSY-BSKNVrT KSCUSSIOir. 
 
 S19 
 
 5' I 
 
 ]ect8 that has giyen a moment's ease to my tortured mind; 
 nor have I an explanation to offer or a thought to suggesi 
 that would be a relief to you. I trust other men, as they 
 profess to do, understand this better than I do, and that 
 they have not the anguish of spirit I have; but I confess, 
 when I look on a world of sinners and sufferers, upon 
 death-beds and graveyards, upon the world of woe, filled 
 with hearts to suffer forever; when I see my friends, my 
 parents, my family, my people, my fellow citizens; when 
 I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and dan- 
 ger ; when I see the great mass of them wholly unconcerned; 
 and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet h« 
 does not do it, I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark (# 
 m$»aul,andl caniwt dUffvim W* (Practical Sermons, p. 124). 
 Thus we see, from Christian authorities, that instead of 
 Infidels dying in fear and terror, it is leading Christiana 
 who have done this; it is they who so frequently recoil ai 
 the approach of the King of Terrors. 
 
 It is an unfair insinuation in you to attempt to make il 
 appear as cowardice in Paine that he deferred the publicar 
 tion of the Age of Reason tiO the latter part of his life. 
 There Is not the slightest warrant for your doing this. To 
 charge Thomas Paine with moral cowardice is like charging 
 the sun with being the source of darkness. 
 
 You quote Dr. Johnson as calling Bolingbroke a coward, 
 but Johnson was himself far more a coward. He was 
 noted for his timidity and superstition, and he entertained 
 a perfect horror of death. 
 
 17. You say, "The ineincerity of Infidels is shown by 
 the scantiness of their efforts to propagate their ideas." 
 Not so. While they do not believe the promulgation of 
 their views is necessary to save souls from the seething lake 
 of fire and brimstone, they have evinced commendable zeal 
 in bringing their views to the knowledge of their fellow 
 beings. Many have spent their li\es in disseminating the 
 tmthaof Libeialiam. and with lUght expectation of pecu- 
 
 niary remuneration. I claim to be one of this class. I 
 have devoted my time and strength to this labor of love. 
 I do not believe there is a Christian in the country who 
 gives as many hours* service in a year to spreading his 
 views as I do mine, and who does it with less expectation 
 of making money by it. 
 
 18. Again, you say, "Freethought lecturers have to do 
 a prodigious amount of advertising, drumming up, and 
 self -puffing." This is a contradiction of your previous 
 assertion. It is a specimen of your fairness and consistency 
 to taunt Infidels with making no efforts to promulgate their 
 views and in the same breath to asperse them for making 
 " prodigious " efforts in that direction. Our lecturers do 
 not do a " prodigious amount of advertising,'* but a limited 
 amount Our two most popular lecturers, IngersoU and 
 Underwood, are under very litUe necessity of advertising. 
 IngersoU, without a single effort of the kind, could have 
 fifty audiences for every night in the year, could he serve 
 them. Underwood has more calls for his services than 
 he is able to supply. He is compelled to refuse many ap- 
 plications. It is not necessary for him to advertise. New 
 lecturers have, of course, to make themselves known. Your 
 fling at the cost of Infidelity is in keeping with your other 
 criticisms. Christianity has cost the world a thousand 
 times more than Infidelity ever has or ever wilL 
 
 W. You say, " Infidel journals are not well supported." 
 They are supported well enough to continue to exist. The 
 Investigator has put in an appearance every week for 
 nearly half a century. Newer papers, considering the time 
 and capital employed, have done well. Have Church 
 papers all done well ? Par greater numbers of them have 
 been forced to the wall for want of adequate support 
 than Liberal papers. How is it with the Christian daily, 
 Th4 WitTU88, which has been running a long time at a heavy 
 lots I The compositors and other employees recently struck 
 for the 18,000 that is owing them for their labor, and the 
 
S90 
 
 in HVMFHBXT-mBnraTT miouBnoN. 
 
 paper wts compelled to be Issued with a single page of new 
 matter. My compositors have never been under the neces- 
 sity of striking. They have received their pay every Satur- 
 day night. 
 
 As to efforts being made to "freeze The Tbuth Seeker 
 out," I know nothing of it. Just now the temperature is 
 such HibX freezing seems to be the most unlikely misfortune. 
 It began with the financial panic in the autumn of 1873. It 
 had neither capital nor experience to back it; but in spite 
 of the unprecedented hard times it has grown from a 
 monthly to a semi-monthly, then to a weekly, and its num- 
 ber of patrons and readers has steadily increased. 
 
 20. You say Sciencb Hall "is a dingy little back room." 
 Not true; it is of fair size; 80 by 85 feet, and has seats for 
 about five hundred persons. It is not gorgeously fitted up 
 with richly cushioned seats and a $10,000 organ, but it is 
 not dingy. It is no farther back from the street than nine 
 tenths of the churches in this city, and is more quiet for 
 being removed from the front. Do you think your churches 
 would be more pleasurable if the pulpits were close to the 
 noisy streets T Scientific apparatus, diagrams, and costly 
 Illustrations are used there when needed. I have seen them 
 all used there repeatedly, but not once in any of your 
 churches. Whatever aspersions you may please to make 
 about want of grandeur and style in Sciencb Hall, I can 
 assure you it was not stolen, and it is not in debt. It is not 
 likely soon to be sold out at Sheriff's sale, aa was the altar, 
 the pulpit, the organ, and all the holy paraphernalia at the 
 "Church of the Holy Savior " recently, to pay a debt the 
 church could not meet. I will call your attention to a 
 recent article in the Trihuns, taken from the county records, 
 showing on fifty-four churches of this city, of various 
 denominations, mortgages amounting to $2,867,886, and 
 will ask you whether it is not better for Sciencb Hall 
 to rest under your imputation of being little and *' dingy" 
 than to be grand and fashionable by following the Christian 
 
 THB HtrilFHBBT-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 221 
 
 example of going in debt to accomplish it ? If Science 
 Hall people had borrowed $40,000, which is less than the 
 average owing on the fif ty-four churches alluded to, they 
 doubtless could have fixed the place up splendidly, but they 
 preferred to not be embarrassed with such a debt for mere 
 grandeur. 
 
 In enumerating the places in the city where Liberal meet- 
 ings are held, it would not have been unfair to have named 
 the magnificent Masonic Temple where Mr. Frothing- 
 ham discourses to large audiences, Standard Hall, where 
 Professor Adler holds forth to the Ethical Society, 
 Bepublican Hall and Harvard Kooitj, where the Spiritual- 
 ists meet regularly, and the hall in which the Cosmopolitan 
 Conference meets every Sunday, at 1214 Broadway. 
 
 21. You set it down as an axiom, that **lmmoraUiy is con- 
 iistent with Infiddity." It is most untrue. Infidels are 
 admirers of virtue, morality, and good deeds. They 
 esteem them for the results they produce, and not be- 
 cause they think the practice of them will save anybody 
 from a literal hell. Knowing they cannot be counted 
 righteous by the good deeds of another, they realize the 
 necessity of performing the good deeds themselves. They 
 are lovers of virtue for virtue's sake, and not for Jesus' sake. 
 22. Again you say, "An Infidel cannot injure his standing, 
 as an Infidel, by anything he may do. No injustice or vile- 
 ness on his part could bring mankind to feel that he had 
 violated his principles." I cannot conceive how a man could 
 go to work to state a more palpable untruth. Infidels are 
 just as susceptible to the effects of bad conduct as any class 
 of men in the world. Injustice and vileness sink them in 
 the estimation of their fellow-beings as much as any class 
 of men. It is the Christian who can consistently commit 
 unmanly deeds and be guilty of immoral conduct, for he 
 does not expect to be saved by his own merits, nor to be 
 damned for his misdeeds; it is faith hi the blood of Jesus 
 that takes him to heaven. It is the dying pangs of his 
 
229 THE HUMPHBEl-BWfWBTT DttCUBMOH. 
 
 Savior that waft his soul to Pwadise. No matter how 
 much vile conduct he may be guUty of. if he only has 
 •• faith," he is aU safe. Let him contract ever so many 
 debts, " Jesus pays it all." 
 
 23. You step out of your way to throw filth and abuse 
 upon the memory of some of the best men the world hai 
 ever produced. While there may be some truth in your 
 charges, they are distorted, and you traduce where praise 
 is more deserved. I can hardly take the room to follow 
 you in all cases, and show how unjust your charges are 
 Girard did not make his wife Insane by quarreling with 
 her You have no grounds for insinuating that Paine lived 
 improperly with Mrs. Bonneville. You have thrown out 
 this slander before, but offered no adequate proof to sustain 
 it I should be equally Justified in claiming that Jesus 
 committed adultery with the Mary whom he loved so well. 
 Goethe was not an immoral man. Rousseau was an 
 upright, well-disposed man. Voltaire was not a perjurer. 
 Chesterfield did not seek to make his son a whoremaster. 
 John Stuart MiU sustained a character too pure for you to 
 besmirch. Shelley was not guilty of wrong in leaving his 
 wife- nor was he dissolute. What are the facts in his case! 
 When a mere boy he was expelled from college and driven 
 from home because he presumed to disbelieve what the 
 ortbodox taught about God and devils. Two years before 
 he became of age he was thrown in the company of Harnet 
 Westbrook, and they, as boys and girls so often do, fell in 
 love with each other. She proposed to elope with him, but 
 lie declined to do this, and they were legally married. But 
 unfortunately, as is too often the case, as time sped away, 
 they found thiy were uncongenial to each other. This 
 state of things was intensified by the conduct of a maiden 
 sister of the wife, who, because of Shelley's unbelief, used 
 every effort to turn her sister's mind against him. They 
 finally mutually agreed to separate, and the same was done 
 wiih the approbatiQO of the wife's father. Shelley did not 
 
 ram huiifhbet-benkbtt discussion. zis 
 
 forsake her, but contributed to her support and felt friendly 
 towards her. The worid has produced few more brilliant, 
 amiable and pure men than was Percy Bysshe Shelley; and 
 though he died before he reached his thirtieth year, h^ has 
 left such a monument of the beautiful creations of his gen- 
 ius and sterilng truths as will carry his name in honor and 
 glory down to the latest generation. Byron, it is true, 
 was wild and amorous; but he, too, died young. Had he 
 lived to late manhood, it may well be supposed he would 
 have "sowed his wild oats," and become a staid and 
 exemplary member of society. 
 
 Your flings at Geo. Francis Train, John A. Lant, Dr. Poote, 
 Charles Bradlaugh, and the fanatic and insane Pike are per- 
 haps worthy of you. Let me assure you that neither of 
 these were really guilty of obscenity. Dr. Poote and Brad- 
 laugh published scientific information needed by the peo- 
 ple. Train published without comment portions of the' 
 "Holy Scriptures." Lant did even less. These were all 
 victims of Christian bigotry and oppression. Let me also 
 assure you that Mrs. WoodhuU has never been claimed 
 by the Infidels of this country. Sbe is one of your kind, 
 and is a strong believer in the Bible. She takes it with 
 her upon the lecture platform, and selects texts from it the 
 same as you and her other brethren do. She prevented a 
 witness from being allowed to testify in court because he did 
 not believe in the "Gawd "of the Bible. It is asserted that 
 she has joined the Church, so I beg of you not to traduce a 
 sister m the Lord as being the " quintessence of nsstiness. " * 
 
 You have, of course, studiously hunted up all the dark 
 spots you could find on the escutcheon of prominent Infi- 
 dels, and you have presented them to their worst advantage 
 But really what does it all prove? It proves that unbeliev- 
 ers are human beings, and have sometimes made mistakes. 
 What class of men is there in the worid, that running over 
 their records for hundreds of years, as many charges could 
 ^^ot be brought against them f 
 
234 TH» HOMPHEM-BKNHBTT DISCOTBIOIf. 
 
 Tou tove succeeded Inglytagrt moBt but » short cata- 
 logue of the errors of Infidels, men who claimed no power 
 from on high to aid them la withstanding the impulses of 
 human nature. To counterbalance the arraignment let me 
 before I clo», give you a single chapter of the cnmes of the 
 old patriarchs and worthies of the Jewish Church and some 
 oi the spiritual leaders and bright lights of the Ohn^an 
 Church-men who are thought to have the spirit of God 
 with them to guide them aright, and the --^iJcaUon and 
 holine«i of Jesus and the Holy Ghost. ""V^^y *° ''^ 
 them to lead pure Utc. but to be leaders and pUots to those 
 haying less assistance from the heavenly throne. I wiU 
 resume this part of my Buhject further on. 
 
 8t You say " Ingersoll-iaying nothing else to^""''" 
 gone to the California heathen to tell them about h» 
 Ghosu." eta How do you know no well that he has no^- 
 tog el» to do» Let me inform you that he U one oftt. 
 "west «Kl most popular lawyers in IlUnois. and for year. 
 tL had.l«ge and constantly increasing practice. As* 
 S^ly^ your aspersions that Infidels have no mlssiona.7 
 sSeJi let mVsay. that had they «.ch or^-^^^^J^ 
 would not cost thirty-nine out of every forty doU^ J* 
 ceived by them to pay the officer., etc., a. w.. the c«« 
 ^Z, the pious St. John's GuBd in this city, nor ninety-n me 
 ZTTJ^ hundred doUar. received. - »• th* ««• '"J 
 Zll^Z. foreign misdon. -Hi. poor ^ea^^n who 
 rtand in «. much danger of being plunged into heU do not 
 SJ «t the benefit of one dollar In a hundred of tto 
 ^nly'fhat is persistently begged from S^day^'T ' ^^^ 
 dren servant girl., and silly children of older growth. Th* 
 S^ds th,^ obtained are u.«l t" P'^ ^'-^^T "f * 
 Zs of the organizations, and to line the pockets of the 
 
 T^^ou-TttarSuLity condemns immo^li^. 
 .hil. infidelity isc^-wlthit^d^en^^esj^ 
 
 Wby, my pious Inena, ao you mmmm •»«*•• 
 
 THB HtnCPHBXT-BBNNETT DlSCUSSIOir. 
 
 S2$ 
 
 tioni ? Ohristianity excels no religion in tke world in con- 
 demning immorality. It has sanctioned » and its believers 
 have practiced, for many centuries the g ossest of crimes. 
 There is more crime in Christian countries than in any 
 others on the globe. If Christian doctrines are true, moral- 
 ity is wholly unnecessary. Morality cannot save the world 
 but the blood of Christ can, and it can save an immoral 
 world— an immoral people— just as well as a moral one. 
 Faith is the only ingredient necessary. Infidelity does not 
 encourage immorality. It exalts morality and teaches that 
 it is the source of happiness. It does not call it ** filthy 
 rags/' etc., as Christians have done thousands upon thou- 
 sands of times. 
 
 26. Tou again repeat that ** Infidelity invites and is con- 
 sistent with every species of ini<|uity.*' In the mildest 
 language I can command I must characterize this charge as 
 uncalled for, uncharitable, unfair, and positively false I I 
 demand of you to prove your charge or withdraw it. It 
 avails you little to quote Franklin in a remark about '' re- 
 ligion." He does not sustain your slanderous position at 
 all. Of course he had a sincere veneration for religion, but 
 none for Christianity. He did not laud the Christian dog- 
 mas, nor harp about the blood of Jesus. Until you can 
 show when he praised the Christian faith, and acknowl- 
 edged it as his, it will be quite as well for you not to claim 
 him as a supporter of your system. 
 
 27. You say ^'IngersoU is 'matchless' at cursing and 
 swearing.'* Mistaken again. Tou wrong the gentleman. 
 He may occasionally use some expletives, but there are 
 thousands of clergymen in the country who surpass him a 
 long way in cursing and swearing. I have been in his com- 
 pany for hours, and at different times, but do not remem- 
 ber to have heard him swear or curse. Tou should be a 
 little more careful in making charges. 
 
 28. Again you say, ** Infidels are illiberal They have 
 endowed scarcely any iofititutions of learning," etc Tou 
 
TMM ■mopBBvr-BSNNxrr piflouwioir. 
 
 thus wrong them agiiii. With the beqaesto of Stephea 
 Oinrd, Smithson, Peter Cooper, Qerrit Smith, and James 
 Lick iu memory, how can you make such a statement f 
 When LiberalB give in charity it is not as a sect, an order, 
 or as a class, but as citisens of the world. I know not why 
 they should not be just as generous to give according to 
 their means as belieyers in myths and superstitions. It w as 
 the practice of Christianity for so many centuries to kill o£E 
 the Infidels that the latter had few opportunities to accum- 
 «lat« wealth to give away. It kept them pretty busy to 
 save their lives. 
 
 29. You say " There was a furious rumpus at one of the 
 •Liberal Club' elections." How easy it was for you to 
 exaggerate and misrepresent. There was some dilTerence 
 of opinion as to which members were suitable or unsuitable 
 lor certain offices, but there was nothing '* furious " or vio- 
 lent about it. Have not Liberals the same right to disagree 
 in matters of opinion of this kind that Christians exercise 
 BO largely T There is nothing in the country more common 
 than church quarrels and fights. Hundreds of cases could 
 be cited were it necessary. The proportion of church quar- 
 rels to Liberal quarrels is probably a million to one. 
 
 80. Again, you say " Infidels are hypocritical." Indeed t 
 It took you to make that discovery I It is possible some of 
 the weaker ones, in order to keep on good terms with Mrs. 
 arundy and Mrs. McFlimsy, may not be outspoken in ac- 
 knowledging how little they believe, but it is only the weak 
 ones who act in this way. The bulk of Infidels show a 
 great amount of honesty and independence in acknowledg- 
 ing their views. Tou must have been put to your trumpa 
 to rake up charges against them. 
 
 »1. "Infidels are superstitious." This is too weak to 
 demand attention. If there are any people in the world 
 free from superstition they are Infidels. They have no 
 faith in myths and supernaturalism. They believe in the 
 Univeffie-4n matter and the powers end for6e8 that pertain 
 
 :nE nUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 227 
 
 to it, and in nothing else. Superstition forms no part of 
 their composition. As to astrologers, it is, perliaps, hardly 
 worth your whUe to slur them. There have been, and still 
 are, men with more intelligence than you and I both possess 
 who believe that the planeto exercise a decided influence on 
 the people and affairs of this world. Thales, Pythagoras, 
 Hippocrates, Aristotle, Claudius Ptolemy, Roger Bacon, 
 Lord Francis Bacon, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and Sir Isaac 
 Newton, were firm believers in astrology. Your rap at the 
 advertisements that appear in the columns of The Truth 
 Seeker was hardly necessary. The publishers of papers 
 are never expected to endorse every advertisement that is 
 brought to them. Christian papers advertise patent medi- 
 cines, gift concerns, insurance companies, patent rights, 
 etc., and nobody thinks they are responsible either for the 
 worth or worthlessness of the articles advertised. 
 
 82. "Infidels exercise blind credulity." Then you add, 
 '* You will perhaps regard this as the keenest cut of alL" 
 O, no! I donH think it keen at all. If instead of " keen" 
 you had said " silly," I would not have disputed you. Of 
 all the people in the world Freethinkers are the least given 
 to blmd credulity. It takes solid proofs and facts to con- 
 vince them. 
 
 88. ** Infidels are very much given to copying." Not 
 any more than other people. That they sometimes use argu- 
 ments that others of their numbers have used is not impos- 
 sible. I believe there is no law against it. A good argu- 
 ment will bear repeating. But do not Christians pattern 
 after one another ? Have they not been preaching the same 
 fables, and telling the same tales about God's anger, the 
 fountain of Jesus' blood, the lake of burning sulphur, and 
 all the rest of that similar nonsense, for many centuries f 
 
 84. You have the kindness or unkind ness to allude in 
 some rather uncomplimentary remarks to my work, •* The 
 World's Sages," etc. You pronounce it "untrustworthy" 
 and ••demonstrably incorrect." Youmi^ be right It may 
 
be wholly untmetwor&iy, !mt allow me to say in the most 
 gentle manner that if I thought there were half as many 
 errors of statement in it as there are errors of doctrine in 
 your little volume of 180 pages on your favorite theme of 
 " Hell and Damnation "—in which you labor so earnestly 
 to prove an angry God, a personal Devil, a literal Hell of 
 fire and brimstone in which hundreds ot millions of help- 
 less beings are to fry forever— I would get them all together 
 and burn them to ashes. The facts contained in my vol- 
 ume were taken from biographies and cyclopedias of the 
 highest reliability, and I am very sure no fact was distorted 
 or misrepresented. The information regarding moderns 
 treated in the work was sometimes obtained from the par- 
 ties themselves, and sometimes from near friends. I assure 
 you truth and accuracy were the ends kept in view. 
 
 35. ** Infidels are unprogressive. • . Nearly a century 
 has passed, and yet nothing better to offer a thinker than 
 Pdne's Age of Reason. . . The Infidels of to-day are 
 living on old hash, cold hash, and re-hash." You certainly 
 have the faculty of compressing untruth into a small space 
 to a greater extent than any other person I can think of. 
 There may be truth in your remark that there is nothing 
 better than the Age of Reason. In its way it is hard to 
 beat, and has never been refuted nor answered by your 
 ablest clergymen. It will live long after you and I are for- 
 gotten. But you are greatly mistaken in thinking that 
 •' thinkers '* have had nothing given them since the Age of 
 Reason. With your knowledge of the works of Humboldt, 
 Darwin, Spencer, Mill, Tyadall, Huxley, WaUace, Amber- 
 ley, Holyoake, Bradlaugh, Draper, and many others, it is 
 most singular you should mf^e such a statement. If we 
 can always have such old hash or cold hash as the writings 
 referred to, we think we shall thrive nicely. We greatly 
 prefer it to the brimstone broth which you ladle out 
 
 SO. Tour attempt to prove by phrenology that Infidelity 
 is false appeart to me futile, and as evidence of it I would 
 
 
 TflB HmfPSBKr-BBNUBTT mfiCUSRON. 
 
 My that phrenology is strictly a natural science, and has no 
 connection with the supernatural. Nearly all Freethinkers 
 and scientists accept phrenology as being mainly a true sci- 
 ence, which teaches that the brain is the organ of the mind, 
 and that character corresponds to structure. 
 
 37. The average sentiment of mankind is not against 
 Freethought any farther than it is cramped and dwarfed by 
 ecclesiasticism and superstition. Had it been, the Protes- 
 tant religion would never have been known, and instead of 
 you and I living to publish our opinions in an Infidel paper 
 we would long since have been burned on a pile of pine 
 wood carefully prepared by your Catholic mother whom 
 you haVe so unceremoniously shaken. Martin Luther was 
 ft Freethinker for his time, and Infidels now are only finish- 
 ing the work which he commenced — the demolition of the 
 Christian religion. As fast as the human mind becomes 
 emancipated from mythological and theological dogmas 
 and errors, it is free to embrace the great truths of the Uni- 
 verse, which practically constitute them Freethinkers or 
 Infidels. The average sentiment of mankind is certainly 
 opposed to Christianity. If the majority is to decide what 
 is truth, your system could not get more than one vote in 
 ten, taking the whole world into account. 
 
 38. In your closing paragraph you make a very compli- 
 mentary allusion to Sir Isaac Newton, and hold him up as a 
 specimen of perfected manhood. Newton was a great man, 
 and when he kept within the range of positive science he 
 was mainly correct. But when he entered upon the realm 
 of superstition he was perfectly at sea, and steered wildly. 
 Blot, in his Life of Sir Isaac Newton, after giving a full 
 account of his work (Observations upon the Prophecies ot 
 Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John), remarks: *'It will 
 doubtless be asked, how a mind of the character and force 
 of Newton^s, so habituated to the severity of mathematical 
 considerations, so accustomed to the observation or real 
 phenomena, so methodical and so cautious even at his 'sold- 
 
TMM HUMPHSBT-BBNiniTT DUOHaiXOV. 
 
 Mt moments in physical sptcQlation, and oonsequeutlj bo 
 well aware of the conditions by which alone truth is to be 
 discovered, could put together such a number of conjec- 
 tures without noticing the extreme improbability that is 
 iuTolved in all of them.'* ** The only answer that can be 
 given to this question is« that this work was written at a 
 time when Newton had almost ceased to think of science— 
 that is, after the fatal aberration of his intellect in 1698." 
 This is the answer, in brief, which Biot gives, and which ie 
 accepted not only by scientists, but by the majority of well 
 informed theologians. 
 
 Thus I have followed you through more than a third of 
 a hundred errors and misrepresentations which you made. 
 Several others I must leave unnoticed this time. In taking 
 my leave of them, allow me to say I hope in the future you 
 will be more careful and guarded in your statements. It is 
 unpleasant to have to take so much time and space to cor- 
 rect your mistakes. My replies would not need to occupy 
 half the space they do were it not for correcting the egreg- 
 ious errors you appear so capable of makmg. A public 
 teacher like yourself ought to despise misrepresentation 
 and untruth. 
 
 You have a way of plUying fast and loose with the Catholic 
 Church. When it suits your convenience to claim what it 
 has done as an honor to the Christian cause you readily 
 count it in as of the true elect, but when its damnable enor- 
 mities and abominations are in view, you find it equally as 
 convenient to disown it. I think in my former reply I said 
 something about the ingratitude of axsLild's turning against 
 its mother and denouncing her as an old prostitute. Such 
 conduct cannot be justified. You must remember that all 
 that Protestantism has she obtained from the Mother 
 Church, and all that makes her any better than her crimi- 
 nal mother is the modicam of Infidelity and independence 
 she dared to espouse when she set up business for herself. 
 
 Let me now folflll my promise tnd give you an install- 
 
 ^ 
 
 ;SBB SUMPH&BT-BBNHBTT DIBCUSSIOir. 
 
 231 
 
 tnent of the immoralities and crimes of distinguished patrl 
 archs and saints of olden and modern times, to serve as an 
 offset to the short chapter of similar short-comiogs which 
 you arrayed against prominent Infidels. As you seem to be 
 fond of this kind of literature^ it gives me pleasure to grat- 
 ify your tastes in that direction. 
 
 To begin with old Father Noah, we have Bible authority 
 that he was a drunkard, and tiiat lie indecently exposed Mm- 
 4self while lying in -a drunken debauch. That he cursed bis 
 grandson and his descendants to perpetual slavory because 
 Ham laughed at old man Noah while thus lying drunk. 
 This is held to be the cause of African slavery, which your 
 own Church, the Presbyterian, has declared to be a divine 
 institution, and regarded itself as an agent to sustain it. 
 
 Lot was also guilty of drunkenness and of the horrible 
 crime of incest. 
 
 Abraham was not only a liar «nd an adulterer, but he 
 turned tlie woman he had used as a wife, together with Ids 
 own cliild, out in the wilderness to perish with Iranger. 
 
 Isaac was a liar and ioolish dissembler. 
 
 Jacob was a deceitful trickster, a liar, a swindler, aa 
 4idulterer, a polygamist and a fraud. 
 
 Beuben, son of Jacob, was guilty of cohabiting with his 
 f ather*s concubine. 
 
 Judah, another son, was guiltj of whoring on the public 
 liighway. 
 
 Moses was a murderer, a bigamist, a thief, or the planner 
 of wholesale theft, he was a tyrant, a slaughterer in cold 
 blood of fifty to one hundred thousand women and chil- 
 dren. He turned thirty-two thousand innocent girls over 
 to his soldiers for the gratification of their brutal lusts. 
 
 Aaron was an idolater and a manufacturer of gods. 
 
 Joshua was a blood-thirsty slayer of the human race, a 
 brigand, a robber and an appropriator of other people^s 
 property. 
 
 £^ideon, besides being a reveller in human blood, a rob- 
 
SBB EfntrBBXT-BKHinm maeumaom. 
 
 ber uid despoiler, wai a libertfne— a regtilar Brigbam 
 Toang. He kept many wives and eoncabines for his own 
 iis^ and had seventy sons of his own begetting, not to 
 count the daughters. / 
 
 Samson^ another judge !a Israel, ws9 a murderer, a thief 
 sod a dallier with a Philistine prostitute. 
 
 Bayld, the sweet siager in Israel, and the man after 
 God's own heart, w;:9 a robbir, brigand and murderer. He 
 delighted in deeds of slaughter and bloodshed. He was 
 Tery sensual, keeping many wives and concubines. He 
 tlyly watched the fair Bathsbeba while she was taking a 
 bath, had her conveyed to his own bed, committed adultery 
 with her and then meanly and murderously caused her hus- 
 band to be pot to death, and from that adulterous source the 
 Bavior of man is claimed to have descended, but there is a 
 serious break in the lineage. As a proof that David had the 
 venereal disease very bad, I will refer you to Psalms xxzviii. 
 
 Amnon, a son of David, raped and ravished his own 
 sister. 
 
 Absalom, another son, held adulterous connection with 
 his father's concubines, and hi view of all the people. 
 
 Solomon, the son of David and Bathsheba, was the most 
 lecherous man that ever lived. His seraglio consisted of 
 seven hundred wives and three himdred concubines. He 
 was also a worshiper of idols. 
 
 Skipping several hundred years of lecherous and murder- 
 ous king^ and rulers among the Jews, let us get down into 
 the heart of the Christian Church and see If they are any 
 better than unbelievers and pagans. 
 
 Peter was guilty of lying and treachery. He flew into a 
 passion and cut off a man's ear with a sword. 
 
 Paul advocated lying and guilt, if l^ them his purpose 
 could be achieved. 
 
 Xusebiua was a faldfler, forger, and iaterpolaler. 
 
 Coostanthie, the Qieat Christian Propagandist, murdered 
 hit own Mm* his nephew, his wife— in all, he put to death 
 
 »ni HUicPiisBT-BEXiffSfT vncwKaoiK, 
 
 883 
 
 seven members of his own family— besides the numerous 
 other murders of which he was guilty. 
 
 St Augustine was one of the most lecherous and dissi- 
 pated men ia Carthage. A thousand times worse than Ben- 
 edict Arnold, he invited the Vandals under Genseric into 
 Africa to ravage and destroy his own country. 
 
 Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, was a pious pillager and 
 a religious ruffian and has justly been styled *«a bold, 
 bad man." By his order the Alexandrian Library was de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 St. Cyril was an atrocious assassin. The horrible murder 
 of the beautiful and talented Hypatia was ordered by him. 
 Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, beat to death the bishop 
 of Constantinople, while attending a Christian council. 
 
 St Alexander, another bishop of Constantinople, poi- 
 soned Arius, a brother bishop. 
 
 Macedonius passed over the bodies of three thousand 
 men and women to obtain the bishopric of Constantinople. 
 St. Cyprian was guilty of so many black and damnable 
 crimes that it would take a volume to contain a recital 
 of them all. The history of his foul deeds may be found m 
 Mosheim and the Bihlioihtqe UniveraeUe, 
 ; Charlemagne, styled ''The Pious Augustus, crowned of 
 God," was a wholesale butcher, who, in one day, cut the 
 throats of 4,500 Saxons because they would not consent to 
 be baptized. 
 
 Clovis, " The Eldest Son of the Church," assassinated his 
 relatives and all the princes eligible to the throne, and 
 removed by treachery and murder all the heads of the 
 Prankish tribes, and soaked the soU of Gaul with the blood 
 of the Arian proprietors. 
 
 Theodosius, called the Great, massacred seven thousand 
 defenseless persons in the circus of Thesalonica. 
 
 Clotilda, wife of Clovis, and to whom he owed his con- 
 version, caused, in her old age, two of her grandsons to be 
 stebMl 
 
XHS HmfPEBXT-BSraSTf MBCUMIQH. 
 
 Pope Joan, a proatltiite, the head of the Church, and 
 Ticar of Jesoa Christ, it is claimed gave birth to a child 
 in the streets wliile at the head of a religious procession. 
 
 Pope Gregory the Oreat sanctified the most atrocious 
 assassinations ever committed. 
 
 The pious Phocus assassinated his Emperor Maurice. 
 
 Pope John XIL was a drunkard, a profligate, and a mur- 
 derer. He converted the papal palace into a brothel. He 
 repeatedly raped widows, wives, and virgins while kneeling 
 at his shrine, invoking his holy idd in the practice of re- 
 ligious purity and piety. 
 
 Pope Gregory YIL lived in open adultery with Countess 
 Matilda. 
 
 Pope Innocent IIL was one of the crudest persecutors 
 ever known. He caused hundreds of thousands of the 
 virtuous Albigenses to be put to horrible deaths. He often 
 •used this expression: *'Sword, whet thyself for vengeance.' 
 This might have been the sword which the lovely Jesus 
 spoke of having brought into the world in place of peace. 
 
 Pope Alexander YL was guilty of the most brutal and 
 sensual conduct. He seduced his own daughter, and con- 
 spired with his son to poison four cardinals. Poisoning 
 and gross licentiousness were his great delight. He was 
 unquestionably one of the moat licentioui villains that ever 
 lived. 
 
 Pope John XSII, a pirate in early life, was guilty of 
 simony, rape, sodomy, illicit intercourse with his brother*8 
 wife, and of debauching three hundred nuns. 
 
 Pope Julius IIL was a licentious brute. He committed 
 sodomy with boys, men, and even cardinals. 
 
 In fact, many of the popes and cardinals kept boys for 
 the express purpose of sodomy, and the cardinals often 
 committed this vile offense among themselves. Monks, 
 priests, and friars were notoriously guilty of this damnable 
 crime. 
 
 SI. ]>«niini« was th» f«aad«t •! th« '* Holy Inquisitiont** 
 
 SSB BmfPaBBT-BINNKTT DZSOUBttOK. 
 
 285 
 
 tlie crudest and most damnable organization ever instituted, 
 and which Victor Hugo claims caused the death of 5.000,000 
 persons. 
 
 Peter D. Arbuss was Inquisitor-General of Arragon, and 
 caused the most cruel deaths to great numbers of heretics. 
 
 Pope Gregory IX. sent out bloody, murdering persecutors 
 against the Albigenses. caused the death of a great number 
 of men. women and children. 
 
 Simon de Montfort was a monster in human form. He 
 hung, gibbeted, butchered, slaughtered, and put to death in 
 every cruel manner that pleased his fancy, thousands of 
 hapless human beings whom he was pleased to regard as 
 heretics; and this was kept up for years. 
 
 Pope Alexander HI issued an edict against those who did 
 not entertain the right faith, and caused the death of great 
 numbers. 
 
 Pope Innocent VIII. directed his Nuncio to take up arms 
 against the Waldenses and other heretics, and caused great 
 slaughter among them. Blood was made to flow in 
 rivers. 
 
 The Christian Catherine de Medici, the notorious poi- 
 soner, with her mad son, Charles IX. caused the butchery 
 of 66.000 people. 
 
 Duke Alva caused the death of 80,000 in the Netherlands 
 because their faith was not of the grade he demanded. 
 
 Torquemada, the cruel monster, was at the head of the 
 Inquisition, and caused the death of eight thousand people 
 in Bpain because they did not agree with him in their opin- 
 ions. 
 
 Heniy VHI. of England, •• Defender of the Faith," burnt 
 many men and women at the stake. He beheaded two of 
 his six wives. 
 
 The pious *' Bloody Mary" burnt three hundred persons 
 for diverging a trifle from her standard of the true faith. 
 
 John Calvin, the great founder of Presbyterianism, was a 
 tyrant and a murderer. He Mused the death of tw# exeel- 
 
THS HimraBBT-BINimTT KSCUaSIOH. 
 
 kill men, Michael Serretns and James Oraet, for nut enter- 
 tatning the required belief about the Trinity. 
 
 Manzer, disciple of Luther, was a reckless agitator. At 
 the head of 40,000 men he ravaged the country, bringing 
 destruction on many. 
 
 Clayerhousc (Sir John Graham) was a marauding perse- 
 cutor who at the head of a force of fanatics and murderers 
 spread desolation oTer much of England and Scotland. 
 
 Oliver Cromwell ordered or permitted the massacre at 
 Wexford, Ireland, of five thousand people, including three 
 hundred who had gathered around a cross pleading for 
 mercy. He also deluged the streets of Drogheda with 
 blood, and gave God the credit for doing it. 
 
 Cortez and Pizarro proved themselves cruel monsters in 
 Mexico and South America. They put many to death for 
 being heathens. 
 
 Guy Lusignan, first king of Jerusalem, was a murderer. 
 
 Louis XL was a crael tjrrant, who confined his dovbting 
 subjects in iron cages, and put many to death. 
 
 Balhuaser Gerald, hi a fit of religious zeal, committed 
 murder. 
 
 Bevaillac assassinated Henry IIL of France. 
 
 Guy f^wkes, in the interest of the Romish Church, at- 
 tempted to kill the king and both houses of Parliament. 
 
 Jeffreys, the Christian Judge, was the most infamous that 
 ever sat on an English bench. 
 
 Pandulph, the Pope's legate to the Court of England, 
 though under a vow of celibacy, was found in bed with a 
 prostitute. 
 
 Archbishop Oranmer imported in a box a mistress from 
 Germany, and she came near being suffocated by the box 
 being left upside down. 
 
 Cardinal Woolsey was a lecherous man and died of 
 
 ■%. 
 
 syphiliSk 
 
 Bevs. Farris and Cotton Mather, in Salem, Mass., perse- 
 ^ted many poi^ wretches to dtath upon the ground tha» 
 
 tBB HUMPHBXT-BSNNBTT DISCUBSIOir. 
 
 1^87 
 
 they were Influenced by witches. Parris stood calmly by 
 while weights were piled upon an old man of eighty years 
 until his tongue protruded from his mouth, when Parris 
 tried to poke it in again with his cane. The old man died 
 in agony. 
 
 Father Achillie was denounced in England by Cardinal 
 Manning for the lowest licentiousness and filth. The 
 father denied it most positively, whereupon Manning sent 
 to Italy and procured witnesses who proved such an amount 
 of lewdness, licentiousness, and vulgarity, as were before 
 seldom proved against a man. The pious man. ultimately 
 confessed all, but justified himself by claiming that he com- 
 mitted the vile offenses when he belonged to the Roman 
 Church, where such crimes were the common practice with 
 the clergy. 
 
 Bishop Armagh, Protestant, of West Ireland, was guilty 
 of long continued sodomy with his coachman. Upon discov- 
 ery both were compelled to fiee the country. 
 
 Bishop Onderdonk, of the Episcopal Church in this city, 
 was deposed for being culpably guilty of lecherous conduct 
 with many females, some of whom were wives of clergy- 
 men, in his library, and notoriously with his servant girls 
 in all parts of his premises. 
 
 Bishop Onderdonk, of Pennsylvania, brother to the 
 above, was convicted of similar conduct, and retired in dis- 
 grace. 
 
 Rev. L. M. P. Thomi>son, of the Second Presbyterian 
 Church in Cincinnati, regarded as the most able clergyman 
 in the city, was guilty of whoring and promiscuous inter- 
 course with many females. He was expelled from the min- 
 istry, and after confession he united with the Synod at Buf- 
 falo, and was allotted to a charge in Jamestown, bat soon 
 fell into the same carnal practices, and was again expelled 
 from the Church. He is now traveling in Europe and act- 
 ing as correspondent for a religious weekly. 
 Bev. T. Turner. D.D.. President of the English Wesleyan 
 
138 
 
 TBM HUlfPHRXT-BENNETT DOOUaaZON. 
 
 Turn MUlfPKBET-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 Sd9 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 CJonference, about 1850, was convicted of the sedaction pf 
 several servant girls. He left England in diflgract, and nest 
 appeared in Australia. 
 
 Rev. Epiiraim K. Avery, of the Methodist Church, 
 seduced a young girl and then murdered her. During the 
 long, searching trial the church swore him through and did 
 all they possibly could to screen him and keep him from 
 the hands of justice. 
 
 Bev. T. Marson, of the Ifethodist Book Ck>nceni, 1840, 
 was guilty of seduction and disgraced. 
 
 John Newland Mafflt, Methodist, a great revivalist, was 
 widely known in the Western States thirty and forty years 
 ago. He talked and sung sweetly for Jesus, and pictured 
 hell in ito most lurid colors, and gave the devil his very 
 blackest garb. His greatest love was for the dear sisters. 
 In revival times it was a common thing for him to put hit 
 hand in their bosoms to see if they had the Holy Ghost, 
 and to go home with some kind sister and sUy all night. 
 He committed adultery with the dears many scores of 
 times and in various parts of the country. The lovely 
 creatures deemed it a privilege to do for Bro. MafBt 
 anything he wanted. I have received many authentic 
 statements of his antics with the sisters. A near and 
 excellent friend of mine, Oscar Roberts, saw Mafflt on 
 one occasion, in the private bed-room of one of the leading 
 sisters of the church at two o'clock in the morning. A 
 bright fire in the vicinity brought them to the window, and 
 they exposed themselves before they thought. This was 
 during a big revival, and the next night he plead for Jesus 
 as earnestly at ever, and there was a great inflowing of the 
 spirit 
 
 Rev. E. W. Sehon, a great light of tlie Methodist Church 
 in the West, long a presiding elder, and afterwards at the 
 head of an^ducational establishment, had adulterous inter- 
 course with a prostitute late one evening in his own church 
 In LooisviUe, Ey. He was a veiy anoroui man. and went 
 
 It "on the sly" with many of the good sisters. Many 
 charges of this kind were brought against him. 
 
 Rev. McCraig, El Paso, 111., was guilty of erim eon with a 
 lady of the place and had to leave. 
 
 A clergyman of Detroit forsook his wife and went away 
 with another woman. He resumed preaching in the far 
 West and wrote back that he ** hoped to meet his friends in 
 heaven." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Wesley, Qeneseo, BL, ran away with another 
 man's wife. 
 
 Rev. E. P. W. Packard caused his wife to be confined in 
 an insane asylum because she would not believe that a por- 
 tion of the human race were destined to burn in hell for- 
 ever. 
 
 A Catholic priest of Evansville, Ind., was proved guilty 
 of gross improprieties and immoralities with the young girls 
 under his charge. 
 
 A clergyman of England not long ago was convicted of 
 forgery and other criminal conduct. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Torrey, of the Conference of Western New 
 York, was tried and convicted of holding assignations in 
 his church. After prayer-meetings a select few of the sis- 
 ters would remain, the lights would be extinguished and 
 several hours, and sometimes the whole night, would be 
 spent in sexual pleasure. A discovery was, however, made 
 and the interesting game closed. He was removed to an- 
 other field of labor. 
 
 Rev. Henry Brown, Methodist, seduced a girl in Texas 
 under promise of marriage. 
 
 Rev. A. Q , D.D., now preaching in a prominent 
 
 town in Massachusetts, officiated for a few weeks in 
 Plymouth pulpit in 1875, for Henry Ward Beecher. Dur- 
 ing his stay he was known to have adulterous Intimacy with 
 two fancy women on Fourth avenue in this city. He some- 
 times had them both in bed at the same time. Proofs of 
 this can be produced if called fer. 
 
 A 
 
f!BB SUlfPB&XT-BBHirXTT DliOuillOH. 
 
 A well known D.D. and LL.D., for many years President 
 and Dean of one of the leading theological colleges of New 
 England, was in the habit of committing sodomy with cer- 
 tain students under his charge. He seduced for this pur- 
 pose a pleasing young man» and the abominable practice 
 was continued with him for sixteen years, and after the 
 young man also became a D.D. professor in the same col- 
 lege. This unnatural intercourse practically unsexed the 
 younger man and depraved his tastes. He married, but 
 from consequent deficient virility growing out of the vile 
 habit alluded to, his wife was dissatisfied and committed 
 adultery with several of the professors of the college. This 
 horrible case can be fully attested by a learned physician of 
 this city, who gave the younger man surgical and medical 
 treatment for the physical injuries he had sustained in that 
 monstrous, criminal course of life. 
 
 Rev. S C , D.D., of this city, was a well 
 
 known whorlst for more than twenty years. 
 
 There is now preaching in Brooklyn a distinguished D.D. 
 whom a friend of mine cured of gonnorhosa. The same 
 medical friend has treated numerous elders, deacons, class* 
 leaders, church stewards and church members in almost 
 countless numbers for private diseases. Among this class 
 he has known many mere moral wretches whose history 
 was too low and filthy to relate in the public press. Names 
 can be given if insisted upon. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Allen, of Cincinnati, in 1865 and 1866 was con- 
 victed of intemperance and whoring. 
 
 Rev. J. S. Bartlett, Milford, Ohio, was guilty of criminal 
 intimacy with a pretty married woman of that town, who 
 had no children. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Linn, of Pittsburgh, was guilty of several im- 
 proprieties with the ladies of his congregation. 
 
 Rev. Maxwell P. Gaddis, an eloquent Methodist preacher 
 of Cincinnati, a loud temperance lecftirer and United States 
 revenue collector under A Johnson, was guilty of looseness, 
 
 THB HUMPBBBT-BBKNXTT DnCtmnOV. 
 
 Ml 
 
 whoring and drunkenness. His wife was also a loose char- 
 acter, and had sexual connection with numbers of men. A 
 pretty pair of pious cases, indeed! 
 
 Rev. Miriam D. Wood, of Decatur, seduced Miss Emma 
 J. Chivers. Result, a bouncing boy without a legal father. 
 Rev. J. M. Mitchell, of Savanah, Ga., and formerly from 
 Maine, was guilty of improprieties with females of his fold. 
 When charged with the offences, he stoutly denied it, and 
 asserted his innocence ; but when proofs accumulated and 
 stared him in the face, he was compelled to confess to 
 Bishop Beckwith, that he was not only guilty of the offen- 
 ces as charged, but that he had used the grossest falsehood 
 in endeavoring to conceal his crimes. 
 
 The embroglio between Rev. Dr. Langdon and Rev. Mr. 
 Goodenough, and several other Reverends of the Methodist 
 Book Concern of this city, is well remembered, when 
 charges of dishonesty, embezslement, falsehood, etc., etc., 
 were freely made against each other. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Lindsley, of Medina, N. Y., whipped a little 
 child of his, three years old, for two hours and until it died. 
 The excuse alleged by the reverend " man of God " was, 
 that the child would not obey its step- mother and say its 
 prayer^. He was imprisoned at Albion, and came near 
 being lynched by an infuriated populace. 
 
 A Methodist minister in Cheltenham, Pa., was boarding 
 with the wife of one of the deacons of his church. The 
 . deacon had a blooming daughter of fifteen summers, with 
 whom the parson became so much enamored that his pas- 
 sions were greatly aroused. The mother of the young girl 
 was justly shocked on a certain occasion to find the clerical 
 gentleman in bed with her daughter. The pastor endeav- 
 ored to explain the unfortunate occurrence to the satisfac- 
 tion of the parent, by claiming that he must have got into 
 U^e c)iild*s bed when asleep, but the story was not credited 
 by the parents, and he was given twenty-four hours to leave 
 the neighborhood. 
 
VMS MUMPHBXT-BSNNXTT DlSOUStlOV. 
 
 Bey. Dick Botties, of Meridwi, Haas., WM trrestcd tot 
 •teftUng ham; but aa he ia a aon of Ham, poaalbly he thought 
 he had a right to it 
 
 Rev. Charles A. Graber, pastor of the Lutheran church 
 in Meriden, Conn., was accused of Beecher-like immorality, 
 and of improper connection with the sisters. Like Beecher 
 he denied it« but would not stand an examination, saying 
 he preferred to resign his charge. 
 
 Bcv. Mr. Wilcox held a revival of several days' duration, 
 several years ago in Northern Illinois. He was loud and 
 earnest in his appeals for ** dying sinners to come to Jesus;" 
 but in due process of time it was found that during that 
 religious revival the Eev. Mr. Wilcox had become the father 
 of four illegitimate children. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Dowling, Indianapolis, Ind., prominent among 
 the Campbellites, committed adultery with his servant girl, 
 «nd was seen in the act by persons from a higher window 
 in a neighboring house. 
 
 Abbe Joseph Chabert, a prominent Catholic ecclesiastie 
 of Montreal, and Principal of the Government School of 
 Art and Design, was on Sept 25th, 1876, arrested on a 
 charge of rape, committed on Josephine Beauohamp, a girl 
 ©f fifteen years, and in his own room. Probably his saint- 
 ship had indulged too much in ceUbacy, until the flesh re- 
 belled against the spirit 
 
 Rev. John A. Hudkins, of Mount Aiiy, Ohio, was a big- 
 amist, or rather a trigamist, having three wives at a time. 
 Be eluded Justice by escaping to Canada. 
 
 A Baptist clergyman of North Carolina was imprisoned 
 for bastardy. The fine assessed against him was paid by 
 members of his church, and when he was released from 
 confinement the sistors of his congregation met him at the 
 prison door and received him with open arma. 
 
 Rev. W. H. Johnson, of Rahway. N. J., wtt couTlcted 
 for steaUng chickens, and was sentenced to prison for the 
 dfensiu 
 
 n» HUMPORBT-BSNNBTT DISOUSSIOK. 
 
 MS 
 
 Bev. Luke Mills, of the Methodist church, Norwich, Ct., 
 decamped with a eonsiderable sum of money which had 
 been collected for building a new church. He was also 
 said to be guilty of irregularities with a female member of 
 his congregation. 
 
 A well known Episcopal clergyman of Covington, Ey., 
 has several times partaken too freely of intoxicating liquors, 
 so as to plainly show the effect it had upon him. On Christ- 
 mas day of 1874 he preached a sermon in St John's fash- 
 ionable church in Cincinnati, and he was so fuddled with 
 egg-nogg and communion wine, his preaching was so strange 
 and his language so incoherent that his condition was made 
 known to all present. His mumbling became so senseless 
 that the wardens made signals to the congregation, and In 
 shame and disgrace they left the church and the drunken 
 pastor to talk to empty itenches. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Warren, of Busset Hills, N. T., resigned his 
 charge at the special request of his congregation, because 
 he was the husband of three living and undlvorced wives. 
 He asked to preach a fareweU sermon, but they would not 
 consent to It It was only leniency on their part that pre- 
 vented them from prosecuting him for bigamy and sending 
 him to State prison. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Deardoff, of Yates City, HL, held a protracted 
 meeting at that place, some time ago, and was one night In- 
 vited by one of the sisters to go home with her and stay 
 over night. Upon arriving there he began Improper famil- 
 iarities, and she not feeling In the humor for the like, and 
 tearing herself away from his embrace, rushed to one of the 
 neighbors for safety. It Is needless to say the protracted 
 meeting came to a sudden termination, and the reverend 
 gent proceeded to another field where the sisters were more 
 accomiuodatlng. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Curtiss not long since conducted a revival meet- 
 ing at Piano, Dl., and lived on *' chicken fixings" and the 
 best the pious sisters knew how to get up for him. Clerical 
 
Ml 
 
 V8B HimPHBXT'-BBIIIfBTT DnCtTlilOIC 
 
 n^ 
 
 business called liim to the Tillage of Blackberry, where he 
 put up at a hotel and staid over night. When he retired ho 
 was either so absorbed in the spirit, or in the flesh, that he 
 accidentally got into bed with a woman not his wife. When 
 discovered in the interesting situation by some over-curious 
 individuals, he claimed that the little affair was entirely an 
 accident. It is singular how many of these little accidents 
 do take place. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Fiske, upon a trial for adultery in Michigan, 
 unlike many of his brothers of the cloth, honestly owned 
 up as follows : '*I frankly confess to the fearful sin which 
 I am charged with, and I will not be a coward to lie or seek 
 palliatiott'of my weakness and guilt I have returned my 
 letter of fellowship to the denomination I have so grievously 
 stricken, and have abandoned the profession I have so de- 
 plorably shamed. I am not a coward or sneak to make 
 Adam's plea, that a woman did it It was my own weak 
 and unguarded soul that in a moment of frensy and passion 
 wrought my downfall T' This man was much more honor- 
 able and honest than a majority of his brothers who are 
 tried for similar offenses, and insist '* through thick and 
 thin/' in the face of positive proof, that they are perfectly 
 innocent 
 
 Rev. L. D. Huston, the clerical villain of Baltimore, was 
 guilty of seducing and ruining several young, innocent 
 girls, daughters of widows and other members of his 
 congregation, who were sent to him for moral instruction. 
 The fiendish ingenuity he employed in accomplishing his 
 vile purposes was enough to strike one with horror. 
 
 Rev. A. T. Thompson, Methodist, Cincinnati, O., was 
 guilty of numerous criminal intimacies with married and 
 unmarried females of his congregation, and also of gross 
 intemperance. His condnct was of the most scandalous 
 character. 
 
 Bev. Dr. Griswold, of Maine, of South Carolina, ind of 
 iith«r loealities, was a noted '* ladies' man." His love adven* 
 
 Tsa nmtFBBMI - bknnxtt hiscussiqv. Stf 
 
 tores were numerous and spicy. He was also very fond of 
 Jovial and convivial company. He committed bigamy, hav- 
 ing two wives at one time. 
 
 Rev. E. F. Berkley, of St. Louis, was guilty of criminal 
 intimacy with the * ' gentle ewe-lambs of the fold. " Among 
 them was Ella C. Perry of the immature age of 11 years. 
 
 Rev. Washington W. Welch, near Holly, Mich., commit- 
 ted a rape on Mrs. Louisa Green, the wife of a brother min- 
 ister. 
 
 Rev. Geo. Washburn, of the Lewiston and Bradford cir- 
 cuit, Alleghany Co., N. Y., was engaged in courting several 
 young ladies at the same time, and was under promise of 
 marriage to two or more of them. 
 
 Rev. Wm. Holt, near Paris, BL, whipped a widow woman 
 with plow-lines. 
 
 Rev. Thurlow Tresselman, in Annetia, N. Y., seduced 
 several young ladies of his flock, and when unmistakable 
 indications became so apparent that he was charged with 
 the matter and about to be tried, he left the place very early 
 one morning with the gay Mrs. Hurst, the wife of a gentle- 
 man who was absent from home. 
 
 Rev. B. G. Ribble, of DeKalb Co., Bl.. seduced four 
 young girls of the neighborhood, and ran away, leaving 
 liis wife and two children unprovided for. 
 
 Rev. B. Phinney, of Westboro. Mass., was guilty of licen- 
 tiousness with various females connected with his church. 
 Rev. Mr. Reod, of Maiden, was in the same category. 
 Rev. I. B. Kalloch, of Kansas, while a resident of Massa- 
 chusetts, visited a neighboring village with a woman not 
 his wife, and hiring a room in a hotel for a short time, com- 
 niitted adultery with her then and there, as testified to by 
 an eye-witness. Mr. Kalloch, after this little affair, removed 
 to Kansas, and for several years wallowed in the mire of 
 politics; but not succeding just to his mind in obtaining 
 offices, he for the second time turned his attention to min- 
 isterial duties and pleasures. But sad to say, the lovely 
 
 i^^ 
 
I. ('. 
 
 ■■( 
 
 lii 
 
 I 
 
 VHB KmCFaRBT-BBNNBTT DISCTTafllOK. 
 
 ■isten once mow proved too charming for him, and ha 
 wandered in by and forbidden paths. He was hauled up 
 before the church authorities for his peccadilloes, and 
 finally stepped down and out for a season; but he is said to 
 be now once more imparting to his admiring hearers the 
 will and requirements of Qod. 
 
 Bev. Dr. Pomeroy, Secretary of the American Board of 
 Foreign Missions, Boston, was proved to be a liberal patron 
 of houses of Ill-fame, where he freely used the money his 
 confiding flock had donated for the conversion of foreign 
 heathen. By his own confession, he had paid more than 
 six thousand dollars to women of notorious character in 
 
 that city. 
 
 Bev. Tunis Titus Kendrick, of Brooklyn, was proven 
 guilty of drunkenness and other immoral conduct. He 
 struggled for a long time to regain admission Into the 
 church from whieh he was expelled, but did not succeed* 
 
 Bev. B. H. Williamson, Wilkesbarre, Pa., (pastor of the 
 Bt Stephen's Episcopal Church) waa guilty of visiting 
 houses of ill-fame, and of other immoral conduct. 
 
 Bev. Mr. Smith, of Illinois, a few years ago drowned hit 
 wife in a shallow stream by holding her head under water. 
 
 Bev. Father John Daly, Catholic. Montgomery, Mo., 
 seduced a young girl nineteen years of age, named Liszie 
 McDonnell, whose mother had been housekeeper for the 
 priest for a long time. After getting her in a condition to 
 soon become a mother he procured an abortion for her. The 
 congregation were much excited in consequence, while a 
 portion of the church authorities did all they could to 
 smother the reports. 
 
 Bev. Archibald Hines, Knoxville, Tenn., was charged 
 with stealing fifty cents from a bowl in the cupboard of one 
 of his parishioners, and it made a great excitement among 
 
 the saints. 
 
 Bev. T. M. Dawson, Brooklyn, Cal.,left that locality and 
 wont to Nevada, leaving a number of his brethren, in the 
 
 «H» HUMPHEBT-BBNKBTT DIBCUflSIOH. S47 
 
 i3!ffn^rr^ '^"'*"^' ^^ ^^'""^ ^^ *"^«"' ^« having 
 Rested for them in mining stocks. He was also, not lonf 
 
 W^ivorced from his wife on the ground of des;rtion, ^ 
 e«^e, Tl! ^'^^"^«P-«d ^0' ^'S-ny at Glov. 
 wi!!!Iwr ^^«''^^°' 8ame place, was afterwards charged 
 
 jatchel in his room, fle was arrested and he left his ^atc^ 
 in payment for his board biU. 
 
 h^\^/' ^r^^' * ^*P'*'* ^^^^' *" Shelbyville, Ky., 
 had a faU from decency. He eloped with one of the istfi^ 
 
 1 Ir^'""'"'' ''^ ^" ''^"^^' ^"^^'^ ^^ pair in 
 
 T ^''' ^* ^ Davidson, recent State lecturer for the Grand 
 
 £Sor dr f '''"''"" ^' Pennsylvania, was arresTeTat 
 
 Erie for drunkenness and disorderly conduct and had a fine 
 
 to pay. He is said to have organized more lodges than anv 
 
 other person in the State. ^ 
 
 Bev J M. Porter, Bethlehem, N. J., was deposed from 
 
 ounrr'^"'.'^^''""^ fellowship by an ecclesiasUcS 
 
 TZ^T''^'''''''''''' connection With the sister. 
 
 Elder Sands, of the Baptist church in Hoosick N Y 
 formerly an insurance agent in this city, was charged with 
 naughty » conduct with a ewclamb of his flock. He pa d 
 requent visits to her, and one day her brother surprised 
 
 ing committee was appointed to enquire into the case. The 
 
 f 1 17" '^!'''^^ "'''°' ""'^ ^"^ "^^ communication to make 
 on the subject. The elder confessed to having his hands 
 under the young lady's clothes but further than that deposed 
 not. The affair, however, was smoothed over and hushed 
 
 failhfS ^^ """ '*"^ ^''*^' *^* ^'"^^ ^^ *^^« ^ ^« 
 
 Rer. G. W. Porter, Methodiit. recently had a trial ai 
 
S48 
 
 THE HUMPHBET-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE BUMPHBBT-BSNNSIT OISCUSSIOlT. 
 
 249 
 
 rnt 
 
 II \ t 
 
 Panbyborougli, Vt., for adultery with Hiss Battle Allen. 
 The young lady was on the witness stand nine hours and 
 made a clean breast of the affair, making the preacher's 
 guilt most apparent to all present 
 
 Rev. John W. Hanna, Presiding Elder, and the most 
 prominent Methodist preacher in the State of Tennessee, 
 and one of the ablest lights in the Episcopal Church South, 
 had recently in Murphysboro, Tenn., a trial before a 
 church investigating committee, consisting of Bishop 
 McTyeirie and five prominent clergymen, for gross immor- 
 ality in writing a lascivious letter to Miss Parilla Nailor for 
 trying to seduce her from the path of virtue and to yield 
 herself to his lustful embrace. In his amorous suit he di- 
 rected the attention of the young lady to the seventh chap- 
 ter of Solomon's Songs, hoping the sensuous character of 
 that portion of "God's Word " would aid him in his unholy 
 enterprise. Fortunately the young lady's brother inter- 
 cepted the base letter and detected the hoary, clerical 
 lecher. Upon exposure he became very penitent and ac- 
 knowledged in great sorrow his criminal folly. The love 
 of Jesus in his case was altogether insufficient to keep him 
 
 pure and upright. 
 
 Rev. John S. Glendenning, of Jersey City. N. J., it will 
 be remembered had a long trial for the seduction of Mary 
 K Pomeroy. who deposed with her dying breath that he 
 was the father of her child, and that he had seduced her. 
 Although the clergyman boldly and persistently asserted 
 his innocence, the public were satisfied that he was a basely 
 guilty man. He subsequently removed to Henry county, 
 EliDois, and preached to the faithful there. 
 
 Rev. W. H. Batler, pastor of St, Luke's church. (Lu- 
 theran) of New York, was arraigned before the church 
 authorities for deceiving a young lady under promise of 
 marriage. He was requested to resign his charge and he 
 had the good sense to do so. 
 
 Rev. Austin Hutchinson, of Termont, was charged by 
 
 his own daughter, Ida, with being the father of her babe 
 five months old, she asserting the fact with great persist- 
 ency. 
 
 Bev. Benjamin P. Bowen, Cold Spring, K Y.; was tried 
 for malicious trespass. , 
 
 Rev. L. L. Copeland, of Vermont, and a revivalist of 
 some note, was denounced as a rascal. The credentials 
 upon which he entered the ministry, even, were proDounced 
 forgeries, and he was accused of being a swindler and a 
 bigamist. 
 
 Rev. J. H. Todd, of Sioux City, Iowa, played an unmanly 
 trick upon his wife. While she was mending his pants ho 
 slipped out of the house and eloped with a milliner. 
 
 Rev. A. B. Burdick, of River Point, R. L, was guilty of 
 improprieties of a social character with female lambs of his 
 flock. Eight witnesses testified pointedly against him, his 
 guilt was unmistakably established, and he was compelled 
 to ** step down and out." 
 
 Rev. K. N. Wright and Rev. Mr. Kristeller, both con- 
 tested for the same pulpit at Newbridge, N. Y. The first 
 had preached there a year, and was opposed to leaving. 
 The second was appointed by the Conference to succeed 
 him. The first refused to vacate; hence the quarrel. The 
 Church divided as to the two claimants, some joining one 
 side, and some the other. The quarrel waxed very warm 
 until the saints shook their fists at each other in a very un- 
 godly manner. 
 
 Rev. A. W. Torrey, KalamaEoo, Mich., was tried by the 
 Church for falsehood, and found guilty. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Coleman, of the M. E. Church, in E. JanesvUle 
 Circuit, Iowa, was held in $5,000 bonds for committing a 
 rape on a girl thirteen years *ld. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Parshall, Oa'^jand. Cal., was not long ago tried 
 by a church council for lascivious conduct with sisters of 
 the congregation. He was convicted and left town. 
 
 Rev. John Hiiichin&on. Episcopal, Boston, was sent to tho 
 
IC 
 
 % 
 
 TBS HUM P MB gr ■ MMUITCT sDcinnoR; 
 
 Hoase of Correction for eight montiit, for twindlinic George* 
 ▲lien onl of ft thousand dollars. 
 
 BeT. A. W. Eastman, West Cornwall, O., wta expelled 
 from the Bikptist Church for immorality. 
 
 Another Baptist clergyman at Sahin, Mich., was detected 
 In too mnch familiarity with some of the sisters, and ran 
 away to avoid the shame of exposure. 
 
 BeT. Wm. Rice, Methodist, Mason, Mich., was eonyicted 
 of adultery. 
 
 A pious reverend in Warren, McComh Ca, Mich., waa 
 charged with violating a dozen school girls and swearing 
 them to secrecy on the cruciflz of the ehureh. He rait 
 away to escape exposure. 
 
 Bev. D. M. White, Presbyter! wi, Pittshnrg; Fa., wat 
 ■ent to State prison for two years for stealing money. 
 
 Bev. D. S. K. Bine, same place, was charged by a young 
 woman with sexual irregularities. 
 
 Bev. Dr. Wm. G. Murray, rector of the Central Churchy 
 Baltimore, got druok and was extremely profane. 
 
 Bev. A. Steelson plead guilty to the charge of too much 
 intimacy with the sifters. 
 
 'Bev. James Beedsdolph, Methodist, Adrian, Mich., was 
 sent to the Detroit House of Correction for sixty days, for 
 false pretenses and getting drunk. 
 
 Bev. Mr. Beynolds, Muhlenburg Co., Ky., brutally and 
 repeatedly whipped his daughter, eighteen years of age, to 
 force her to marry a man she did not love. 
 
 Bev. Hiram Meeker, Granville, N. T., was convicted of 
 fornication and adultery. 
 
 Bev. H. Foster, Circleville, O., was compelled to marry 
 his servant girl whom he had seduced. 
 
 Bev. John Seeley Watson, Kansas, murdered his wife. 
 
 Bev. Mr. Johnson, Williamson Co., Tenn., seduced a girl 
 fourteen years of age. 
 
 . Bev. £. 8. Whipple, Baptist, of Hilsdale College, Mich., 
 seduced a deacon's wife, and when charged with the 
 
 THE HI7MPHBBT-BB17NBTT DISfTUBSION. 
 
 S51 
 
 crime was compelled to confess it He afterwards prayed 
 with the deacon and his wife. The deacon must have* 
 •»nioyed that. 
 
 Bev. Richard Dunlap, Baptist, Midland, Mich., was con- 
 victed of adultery with a Mrs. Burnett. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Davis, same denomination, was arraigned for 
 adultery with sister Brunk. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Kirby, Chambersbnrg, 0., was fined $300 for 
 seduction. 
 
 Rev. Malcolm Clark, superintendent of the Sunday- 
 school, Howard, Mich., ran away with $400 belonging to 
 his mother-in-law, and also forged her name to obtain 
 other money. 
 
 Rev. Mr. White, Washington, Pa., was found guilty of 
 seduction. 
 
 Bev. J. H. Hose, Baptist. Hartford, Mich., was guilty of 
 forgery. 
 
 Rev. Jay H. Fairchild, lea-Jing Congregational clergy- 
 man of Boston, after honorable service in the pulpit many 
 years, was guilty of intercourse with the sisters. Left 
 Boston, went to Exeter, was tried for seduction. Confessed 
 that he had bound the young girl by a solemn oath not to 
 divulge that she ever knew him. He attempted to preach 
 again in Boston but was not successful; was charged by the 
 public press with the crime; brought suit for libel, and 
 upon full exaoiination of the case was defeated. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Fay, a very eminent divine of Boston for over 
 twenty-five years, had been esteemed and beloved by his 
 Church; committed fornication and adultery; was charged 
 with it; denied it and swore that he was innocent. A Church 
 Committee examined the case, were disposed to clear him; 
 were about to report him innocent when one of them, Dr 
 Hooper, said he could not sign the report, and proposed to 
 adjourn for a fuller examination. When Dr. Fay heard this 
 he begged them not to adjourn; said he had a communi- 
 cation to present, when he confessed his crime in full. 
 
 m 
 
TBM ■UUimJUT^BBAmETT DlflCUSSKKET. 
 
 Her. Mr. Btrasbnrg, First Pretbyterian Charch at Albany, 
 large coBgregation of influenUal citizens, and those con- 
 nected with State gOTernment, an able, eloquent, and pop- 
 ular preacher. Accused of debauchery, herding with 
 negroes, and of the lowest and dirtiest conduct. Was put 
 on trial, found guilty and deposed. Thus was prematurely 
 hushed a voice eloquent for Jesua. 
 
 Rev. Hr. Southard, son of Senator Southard from New 
 Jersey. Was founder of the Calvary Episcopal Church in 
 this city. Accused of gross immoralities. The church 
 tried to shield him, but his character was deemed so base 
 that he could not continue preaching here ; went to Kewark 
 and founded the *' Home of Prayer; was kicked out, and 
 went South, dividing his time while there between the pul- 
 pit and low dens of prostitution in southern cities. He died 
 drunk in a low brothel in New Orleans. 
 
 Rev. Augustus Doolittle (or St. Clair, as he sometimes 
 called himself), preached at Hoosic Falls, and was accused 
 of unlawful intimacy with a wife of one of the deacons of 
 his church. Was first charged with the guilt by a single 
 person, who wa? beset and persecuted. Additional proofs 
 came to light, and after several months the seductive saint 
 confessed in full that the crime had been committed by him 
 on numerous occasions for several. 
 
 Prof. Webster, a pious Christian, connected with the 
 leading univeraities of Boston, murdered Dr. Parkman, etc. 
 Denied his crime most persistently, but the Jury had suffl 
 cient proofs to find him guilty, and he was duly executed. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Reed, Congregational, Maiden, Mass., was 
 guilty of most heinous crimes with youths of both sexes, 
 and children even. Was proved guilty of most disgusting 
 and revolting crimes. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, Congregational, preached in a fashion- 
 able church in Bangor, Me. Was Secretary of American 
 Board, a position of high honor and tmst. Was followed 
 to houses ol ilMsme in Botlon, la this city tB4 la cities oC 
 
 THB HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSSION. 263 
 
 Uia West. Denied that he was guilty of any impropriety 
 but claimed that he visited those places to reform the sinful 
 inmates He was charged, tried, condemned and deposed. 
 Rev. Charles Rich, from Boston, was settled over a most 
 respectable church in Washington, the one in which Dr 
 Bunderiand preached for several years afterwards. He was 
 convicted of immoralities and indecencies unfit to be named 
 and died in disgrace. * 
 
 Rev Mr. Thompson, Presbyterian, preached in Buffalo 
 and afterwards in Arch street, Philadelphia, was over and 
 over again charged with adultery. Was tried several times, 
 but managed through the sharp practice of friends to 
 escape. 
 
 Rev Mr. Johnson, of the Evafii;elist, a very pious man. a 
 oud advocate of temperance, was several times seen in the 
 third tier of the theater drinking with low prostitutes and 
 acting disgracefully. He was tried and deposed in disgrace. 
 Rev. Dr. Magoon, at this time President of Jones Col- 
 lege, a Congregational institution, was guilty of very 
 licentious conduct with females of his congregation Was 
 tried convicted and deposed. But after confessing and 
 humbling himself was taken back into fellowship and set 
 to preaching again. 
 
 Rev. Horace C. Taylor, one of the chiefs of the church 
 at Oberlm, O., was guilty of seduction, was tried, con- 
 victed and imprisoned. Was afterwards restored to the 
 mmistry, but he fell again and was more sinful than before 
 
 Eev. Richard Pink, of Grand Rapids, Mich., was in 1874 
 found guilty of adultery with a young sister of his church 
 He was eloquent, popular and highly esteemed. The case 
 was so plain against him that he readily resigned 
 
 Rev. Joseph Stillim, Winchester, Pa., was charged with 
 mining a young lady. Miss Sarah Hall, who stood high in 
 the society of that locality. The great disgrace rendered 
 lier insane, but In her lucid moments she averred that the 
 reverend gentleman quoted scripture to her to prove that 
 
SSi 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DIBCUSSIOH. 
 
 ii 
 
 his conduct was in keeping with the word of God. She 
 unfortunately trusted too much in a false shepherd. 
 
 Father Forhain, of the Catholic church, Chicago, was 
 charged with and tried for embezzling several thousand 
 dollars that belonged to the church. He claimed that a 
 pari of the money was won by gambling in a church fair, 
 that there was no legal owner of it, and that he had as 
 much right to it as any one. He was held in $5,000 bail. 
 
 Rev. Alfred N. Gilbert, of Baltimore, had charges pre- 
 f erred against him by members of his own church for sinful 
 intimacies with a grass widow also belonging to his congre- 
 gation. The widow was induced to leave, and the matter 
 was piously hushed up, and the pastor's preaching and 
 praying were resumed. 
 
 Rev. A. J. Russell, Methodist, preached in Berrien Springs, 
 Mich., in the year 1876, holding one or two revival meetings 
 during the time, and securing quite a number of converts. 
 He also developed a great amount of "true inwardness." 
 On one occasion he met a young lady member of his church 
 and went home with her. The family being absent, he fol- 
 lowed her into her private room and attempted to bestow a 
 •* holylnsB" a la Beecher. The young lady, a school teacher 
 of most excellent character, demurred to the proceedings, 
 ftnd exposed the reverend rascal; but for this the elders 
 advanced him to higher honors in the church. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Humpstone, Malta, N. Y.. in coniequence of 
 a church difficulty, tendered his resignation in April, 1875. 
 On the following Sunday it was arranged that the Rev. Mr. 
 Cook should officiate in his place; but as he did not appear, 
 it was suggested by a member that brother Humpstone read 
 the services. Dr. Bellinger opposed the proposition and 
 rebuked the brother for making it. When brother Hump- 
 stone arose to speak, Dr. Bellinger ordered him to sit down. 
 The ex-pastor would not be thus suppressed. The con 
 tending parties then clinched, and a disgraceful fight ensued. 
 Rev. J. K. BUllwell, of Logansport, Ind., wis brought 
 
 THE HUMPHEBT-BENHETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 8» 
 
 before the Church for making improper advances tc the 
 aisters of his flock. A clear case was made against him, 
 and without adding falsehood and perjury to his other 
 crimes, he had the discretion to confess his offenses, resign 
 his charge, and leave the place. The local papers regretted 
 the circumstance, more especially as it came in the midst^f 
 a successful revival, which was sensibly checked by the 
 publicity of the clerical scandal. 
 
 Rev. Thomas Barnard, of London, recently got disgrace- 
 fully drunk, and in that condition went to the Globe Thea- 
 tre, where Lydia Thonxpson was engaged. That evening a 
 new piece was put upon the stage, in which Mrs. Thompson 
 did not appear. This so enraged the drunken parson that 
 he stamped, shouted and hissed to such an extent that a 
 policeman arrested him and took him to prison. 
 
 Rev. J. J. Reeder, a young clergyman, went in 1874 io 
 New Milford, Pa., and studied for a time under the Rev. 
 E. F. Bledsoe, pastor of the Methodist church in that vU- 
 lage. Subsequently he was sent to Newark, N. J., Confer- 
 ence to fill a vacancy at that place. The young divine 
 proved to be popular, especially with the younger sisters of 
 the society, with whom he spent the most of his time. Ho 
 afterwards manifested a great fondness for horoe-flesh. He 
 traded in fast horses, and soon obtained the reputation of 
 being a good judge of equine stock. He finally purchased 
 a valuable horse, for which he gave his note; but just be- 
 fore it became due he suddenly decamped for parts un- 
 known, leaving many unpaid bills behind. In his hasty 
 Hight he left his trunks and books, which were sold to pay 
 his debts; but unfortunately they went but a short way 
 towards paying them. It is not known in what part of the 
 moral vineyard he is now laboring. 
 
 Rev. Charles S. Macready, of Middleboro, Mass., on May 
 20, 1875, commited suicide by cutting his throat with a razor. 
 
 Rev. J. J. Howell, Presbyterian, Minneapolis, Minn., 
 Imn^ himself in M%y« 1875. 
 
 i\ 
 
 M 
 
 1 I 
 
 I 
 
Vm HUMPHRET-BEinaBTT DiBctrasioir. 
 
 1^ 
 
 tt 
 
 a 
 
 Rev. Samuel B. Wilson, of the First Presbyterian Church, 
 LouiBvlUc, Ky.. was in May, 1875, deposed by the Presby. 
 tery for immoral condact 
 
 Rev. John W. Porter, in the Winter and Spring of 1875, 
 liad a charge at Van Sycles Corners, Hantington Co., N. J. 
 In addition to preaching, he also taught school. It turned 
 out that the villain basely seduced one of his young female 
 pupils named Silenda Stires, daughter of Peter W. Stires, a 
 well-to-do farmer in the neighborhood. While she was yet 
 a mere child, she was about to become a mother. Upon 
 being questioned, she informed her parents of the nature of 
 the lessons the clergyman had taught her. When con- 
 fronted by the injured father, the villain confessed the 
 crime, and turned over his horse and buggy to partly make 
 amends for his shameful conduct, and with his heart-broken 
 wife, took the first train for another field of labor. 
 
 The case of Henry Ward Beecher is fresh in the minds 
 of all; of his various liasons with the females of his flock, 
 particularly with Mrs Elisabeth R. Tilton. His protracted 
 trial of six months for the crime of adultery; the amount of 
 damaging testimoay that was arrayed against him, his 
 confession, etc, ai© not forgotten. Probably twenty-five 
 millions of the people of America believe him guilty not 
 only of the offense charged against him, but also of the 
 most barefaced perjury, when for thirteen consecutive days 
 he swore positively that he bad not done it. He still fills the 
 pulpit as a spotless shepherd, to lead the little lambs to the 
 arms of Jesus. 
 
 Lucius M. Pond, of Worcester, Mass., a aealous leader in 
 the Methodist Church, and very active in all religious 
 movements, committed forgeries to the amount of $100,000^ 
 and borrowed and purloined all he could obtain, after 
 which he suddenly left and had it given out that he 
 ^ad been murdered for his money. He intended to 
 liave gone to Australia, but was arrested in -San Francisco 
 mad was brought back, convicted and punished. 
 
 THE HUMFHBET - BXKIIBTT DttCUBHON. 
 
 957 
 
 Rev. Aug. C. Stange, Presbyterian, of Patterson, N. J., 
 was guilty of gross improprieties with Sister Pfennibuker 
 in the church. He was tried and acknowledged his 
 guilt. The sister, however, accused the clergyman of 
 forcing her contrary to her wishes. 
 
 Rev. John James Thompson, of Orange Co., N. Y., was 
 arraigned for making a criminal attack upon a young female 
 member of Lis church. The plea made in his defense was 
 insanity. There has been too much of that kind of insanity 
 about. 
 
 Rev. Ambleman Wright, of Whitestown, N. Y„ by pres- 
 ents of money, coaxing, etc., induced a little girl of twelve 
 years to yield her body to his lusts. He was a man with a 
 wife and married daughters. 
 
 Rev. Fred. A. Bell, of Brooklyn, was charged with mak- 
 ing improper advances to Mrs. Mary Morris, a member of 
 his church. 
 
 L. K. Strauss, superintendent of the Sunday-school in 
 Huntington Co., Pa., and deemed a very exemplary Chris- 
 tian, seduced one of the teachers, Miss West. The crimi- 
 nal practices were continued a long time until the young 
 lady became stricken with remorse and confessed. He was 
 tried and fined #4,500. 
 
 Rev. E. D. Winslow, of Boston, swindled confiding banks 
 and financiers out of $500,000 and left suddenly and has not 
 yet returned. 
 
 Rev. J. J. Kane was sued by his wife for a divorce on 
 account of inhuman treatment. 
 
 Elder Doolittle was tried in the Juneau county. Wis., 
 Circuit Court on a charge of incest and adultery. The 
 testimony was conclusive, he was found guilty and was 
 sentenced to six years' imprisonment in the State prison at 
 Waupun. He was over sixty-three years old, and one of his 
 victims was a simple-minded girl, his own niece. 
 
 Rev. F. W. May, presiding elder of the Methodist church, 
 Chesaning, Mich., was guilty of grossly immoral practicea 
 
 
w. 
 
 THB KiniPHR»T-BBNNETT DIBCUB8I0H. 
 
 With several of the steters. A number of them testified 
 
 against him. . 
 
 ReT, Henry A. Heath, Methodist, formerly of Maine and 
 later of Morrison, lU., was a lecherous old hypocrite. He 
 left his wife in Maine and committed adultery with numer- 
 ous females, both pious and not pious. His crimes were 
 
 many and black. 
 
 Rev. Joseph M. Berry was tried by his church in Ash- 
 viUe, N. C, for drunkenness and adultery, and was found 
 
 guilty. _ „ 
 
 Rev. Jonathan Turner, Methodist, Fourth street, PhUa- 
 delphia, was arraigned for embepling from Mr. Myers 
 and was held in $1,000 bail. 
 
 Rev. P. F. Rea, of Durham, Conn., was expelled from 
 the Congregational church for drunkenness. 
 
 Rev. Beth B. Coats, of Dallas City, IlL. was tried for im- 
 proper conduct with the females of his congregation, both 
 single and married. The testimony was explicit and unfit 
 
 for publication. j .*v 
 
 Rev. Mr. Parker, Presbyterian, AshUnd, Ky.. eloped with 
 a young girl, daughter of a deacon of the church, and left 
 a wife and several children. . . ^ ♦ 
 
 Rev. Francis K Buffum. Congregationalist, was tried at 
 Hartford, Conn., for holding criminal mtercourse with 
 Miss Cora Lord, who lived in his family. He procured an 
 abortion upon the young woman. His wife left him and 
 
 sued for a divorce. 
 
 Rev Mr. Kendrick seduced a little girl, the organist of 
 his church, and but thirteen years of age. He did it with 
 cheap jewelry and a twenty-flve cent penknife. 
 
 Thomas W. Piper, sexton of a Boston church, ravished 
 a chUd five years old, named Mabel Young, and murdered 
 her in the belfry of the church. 
 
 Rev E. S. Fit«, Southampton, Mass.. was tried for very 
 Improper conduct with the sisters. The evidence wai of 
 the moat tpicy chan«t«r and nther unfit for publication. 
 
 THE HUilPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUaSION. 
 
 * The brethren and sisters did all they could to screen him, 
 but bis guilt was too apparent. 
 
 Rev. O. M. Davis was caught by his wife in a very im- 
 proper connection with another lady, and this in the church. 
 Much excitement in consequence. 
 
 Rev. D. Ellington Burr, of EUardsville, Mo., was tried 
 and suspended for three years for using intoxicating liq- 
 uors, and being criminally intimate with women. . 
 
 Rev. J. B. Patterson, Presbyterian, Slixabeth, K X., 
 upon an examination being instituted, confessed to being 
 guilty of dninkennsss and immoral conduct with the sisters. 
 He was very contrite. 
 
 Rev. James Regan, Methodist, Madison, Ind.. was de- 
 posed for improper intercourse with Mrs. McHenry, a beau- 
 tiful widow. The crime was committed on board a steam- 
 boat on the Ohio River. 
 
 Rev. C. D. Lathrop was expelled by the First Congrega- 
 tional Church of Amherst, Mass., for cruelty to his family, 
 and other unchristian conduct. 
 
 Rev. Arthur Watson, Protestant, Killowen near Kinman, 
 over fifty years of age, killed his wife by shooting her. 
 
 Rev. E. P. Stemson, of Castleton, N. Y., was found 
 intoxicated in the streets of this city and was arrested by 
 oflicer Ryckman. The Judge in kindness let him oflEl 
 
 Rev. Thomas B. Bott, of one of the Baptist churches in 
 Philadelphia, has had many charges preferred against him 
 for lascivious conduct with various females. The last one 
 was Miss Louisa Younger, daughter of one of the deacons 
 in his church. It was proved that he visited her at unsea- 
 sonable hours, that they passed several days together at a 
 place of Summer resort; they went in bathing together, and 
 he was seen in a nearly naked state in her private room. 
 She was seen sitting in his lap, and they were kissing each 
 other, etc. He has a wife and family, and the latest newi 
 in reference to him is that his wife has brought suit against 
 him for neglect and desertion. 
 
C'j in f*- 
 
 m 
 
 Tha.. Brother Humphrey. I bare giren y««^»"« « '^j 
 rtaUmeitof the crime, and Bhortcommg. <rf «>»» «»"• °' 
 J^Sw-eiti«eBS who would have it understood ha hey 
 ^ neamto God th«. the masses of the people that they 
 ^ fe'orld with an extra amount of aid from on hi.h. and 
 r,^Zf iTfluence at the Throne of Grace than the aver 
 Ziot mankind. 1 assure you though I have gone into the 
 Thject at some length, that it is by no mean, exh^s^e^ 
 I can furnish you with a good deal more of the .ame kind 
 
 riiould you wish it „_.„i nt tha 
 
 I have »mply mentioned the »»"'«.»' •^"'"'*' 
 characters «id their crimes, without gmng a moiety, even 
 TZ d«nuable practices of which they were gu^ J 
 have now in course of preparation a ^orkj^Wcb w.11^. 
 out in a few months, entitled "T" Cha««^. o, th» 
 fL«cH- or Biographical Sketches of Eminent Christian. 
 ^1.2 L^o of one thou.«.d pages, and will conUin 
 ^:l^ Of much that ha. he«i ^»-Jj ^'fj^^^ 
 .hove named, and by many other.. In tte name of Chris 
 :Sy. Sucha.wishtoinformthem«.v^ofm«yof^. 
 facts in the rise and progress of Christian, y. lU «'">«••»« 
 ^sLs, it. persecution, and executions, iu w*" -«» "^ 
 «cres ito UMUtionsness and immoralities, will find in the 
 "S^onaof the Church" the information tbey^^ . 
 
 imTy mention in connection with the fraotj^^^*' 
 ttatmore of them have been hung U. ^'''^''^'^.^^ 
 «lr. than of Infidels More of them are in our State, 
 jrn tciita. offense. A. compared -th ..tor. wjo 
 ^ often denouuceda. a wicked clasB. '"'"ordmg to .Ut* 
 ^ carefully compiled, clergymen have committed more 
 Orders than actors in the proportion of twenty to one. 
 «^ ley exceed actors In about the «im. proportion in 
 
 •eductions and adultertes. , ^ , , /t# ♦^t-x ^rnva 
 
 % ,h. charges you made against MdelaOf trt.e)pn.Te 
 th.m to be b«l men Mid In error, doe. not the array of 
 S tl» I have pmented ^;.i».t «!« American clergy 
 
 THX UUMFUUBT-BBITNETT mSCUBglOK, 
 
 Ul 
 
 Incontestibly prove them not only weak and bad men, 
 but utterly unworthy to be looked upon as guides and 
 leaders of the young and inexperienced, and entirely mis- 
 taken in the superiority of the system they advocate ? Can 
 a good tree bear so much bad fruit ? 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the instances of clerical 
 criminality here noted are but a small part of the cases that 
 actually occur. But few of those that have been made 
 public are named here, and not one case in fifty is suffered 
 to come to light. '*For the good of the cause" every in- 
 stance of this kind is smothered and covered up that can be, 
 and it is only here and there a case comes to the ear of the 
 public. But those that are known, are enough to appall 
 the stoutest hearts and strike conviction deep into the 
 thinking men and women of the country, that they are sup- 
 porting a fallible and useless class of privileged characters 
 that would be doing far better were they engaged in some 
 honest and useful calling, producing something or manu- 
 facturing something of value to the human race. 
 
 The fact is, the priesthood, as a class, have for thou- 
 sands of years, and under various systems of religion, 
 been living upon the credulous masses and drawing their 
 support from the patient, submissive toilers who are willing 
 to labor for them. The priesthood have never been a pro- 
 ducing class. They have not grown what they have needed 
 to eat, nor spun and woven what they needed to wear, but 
 they have fed upon the best of food and have been clad in 
 the finest broadcloths, linens, and furs, because it has 
 been superstitiously supposed that they were mediators 
 between the gods and the people, and were able to tell the 
 gods what the people wanted of them, and in return give 
 the will of the gods to the people. I mean nothing personal 
 '.H this, friend Humphrey. I entertain much respect for you 
 and believe you honest and sincere, but I think 1 have 
 correctly stated the character of the priests of the 
 world. 
 
TKl HUXPHRKTBINNBTT DISCUMIOS. 
 
 THB HUMPHBBT-BBNNETT DIBCIT38ION. 
 
 2m 
 
 hd% me state, too, that they are all upholding systems of 
 ■uperatition and error. Whether priests of Brahma, Ormuzd, 
 Fohi, OsiruB, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Tbor, Allah or Jehovah, 
 it Is all the same. Their rule is to hoodwink the people 
 and to draw their support from them, without rendering 
 a just equivalent in return. 
 
 All the religions of the world have been handed down 
 from the ages of prehistoric barbarism, myths and super* 
 atition. The Christian religion is no exception to this rule. 
 It is made up of Judaism and Paganism. I make the asser- 
 tion and call upon you to disprove it, that Christianity con- 
 tains not an original dogma, rite, sacrament or point of be- 
 Utl Everything upon its programme was borrowed from 
 the Jewish and Pagan theologies, and largely the latter. 
 
 The fundamental legend or idea of a son of God being 
 bom of a virgin was old long before the birth of Christi- 
 anity. The conception of Virgin and child dates away 
 back thousands of years. The Egyptians had their Isis 
 (virgin) and infant three and four thousand years ago. The 
 Hindoos, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Siamese, the 
 Thibetlans, the Grecians, the Scandinavians and many other 
 nationalities had similar legends. There have been— accord- 
 ing to the old legends— at least forty different saviors and 
 redeemers bom into the world, and a large proportion of 
 them of virgins and of deiflc paternity. Nearly half of 
 them, after a life of holy teaching, performing miracles, 
 leading obscure lives, it has been believed were cracifled 
 for the salvation and happiness of mankind. 
 
 The symbol of the Cross has been used in the religions of 
 the world fully three thousand years. That and the steepli 
 were handed down from the Phallic worship. 
 
 Baptism by water was practiced as a pagan rite centuries 
 before Christianity had an existence. 
 
 Fasting, Prayer and Praise were employed thousands of 
 years before Christianity began. The Trinity and the Holy 
 Qhost were early pagan conceptions. 
 
 The existence of a devil and demons was believed in by 
 pagan nations long before there were any Christians to be- 
 lieve in them. 
 
 Confession of sins, monasteries, monks, nuns, the eucba- 
 rist, anointing with holy oil, belief in a day of judgment, in 
 the resurrection of the body, in angels and spirits, the sec- 
 ond birth, belief in sacred writings or bibles, holiness, 
 repentance, and humility, prevailed among pagans many 
 centuries before there was a Christian in the world. This 
 can be fully substantiated, and if it is not true, I call upon 
 you in the most earnest manner to disprove it. 
 
 If what I have stated is the truth, it follows that the great 
 system of Christianity, which you and millions of others 
 venerate, is simply modified Paganism, and that the story 
 of Jesus, his miraculous birth, hie moral teachings, his 
 band of followers, his ignominious death upon the cross, 
 and all the rest of it, is a mere clumsy rehash, or plagia- 
 rism of the old pagan fables. I am honestly of the opinion 
 that this is the case, and that a man of your intelligence and 
 research ought to be able to see it and understand it. 
 
 I charge you, then, with supporting and defending a bor- 
 rowed system of myths and superstitions handed down 
 from the ages of darkness and ignorance, and that the 
 supernaturalism upon which it is founded is untrue and 
 impossible. 
 
 I should rejoice could you become a convert to the truth 
 as it is in the Universe and is revealed by science, and if 
 you could freely discard all belief in gods, devils, hobgob- 
 lins, lakes of sulphur, etc., until you have some proof of their 
 existence, and reject every oreed and dogma that depends 
 upon supernaturalism or the setting aside of the immutable 
 laws of Nature. 
 
 I am sincerely yours, 
 
 D. M. Bennett. 
 
 
m^^m 
 
 «n BUMFHBir-BBNHSTT DliOUSBIOK. 
 
 S65 
 
 Mb. D. M. Bbnkett, Dear &r : It seems to me that you 
 have resorted to some rather imbecile arguments ; at way 
 rate, I think that, were I to make use of similar ones, you 
 would be among the first to belittle them. For instance, 
 you meet my observation on the equal silence of Herodotus 
 about Rome end Jerusalem by saying that '* he may have 
 also visited Rome, and his allusions to that city may have 
 been in the portions of his works that are lost." Right here 
 let me ask two questions : 1st. May it EOt be as fairly pre- 
 sumed that his promised but missing history of Assyria, or 
 Syria, as the Greeks called it, contained '* allusions" to 
 Palestine and Jerusalem ? 2nd. What would, you say of a 
 Christian critic, if he should base an explanatioa of a diffi- 
 cult passage of Scripture on the supposed contents of some 
 of the lost documents frequently mentioned in the Old Tes- 
 tament! Again, you plead for Byron that '*had he lived 
 to late manhood, it may be well supposed he would have 
 * sowed his wild oats,' and become a staid and exemplary 
 member of society." Tell the candid truth now, Mr. Ben- 
 nett: would you show any respect for a prospective apology 
 of that kind for a wayward professor of religion? I am 
 afraid we should have to hunt up your ** lost works »' to 
 find an instance of such a thing. Speaking of my exposure 
 of some leading Infidels, you say: ''But really, what does 
 it all prove? It proves that unbelievers are human beings, 
 and have sometimes made mistakes. What class of men is 
 there in the world, that, running over their records for hun- 
 dreds of years, as many charges could not be brought 
 against them ?" That is very nice. Of course, you will not 
 o])ject to throwing the same cloak of charity over the " mis 
 Ukes" of the professing Christians whom you have enumer- 
 ated. A good rule always works both ways. 
 
 A few weeks ago, I law a couple of quoUtions from Panl. 
 
 iB the Boston Inwstigatar. It was clear that their drift and 
 meaning had never been investigated by that Journ^ As 
 the Apostle himself said, he was "slanderously reported" 
 (Rom. iii, 8). Imagine my surprise at finding' the same 
 citations, put in the same way, in your last Reply I I could 
 not help thinking of Byron's lines, slightly modified: 
 
 A man must serve his time to every trade. 
 Save oensure— critics all are ready made ; 
 Take hackney'd jokes from Mendum, got by rote. 
 With just enough of learning: to misQuote ; 
 A mind well skilled to find or forge a fault, 
 A turn for punninsr. call it Attio salt. 
 
 JSnolish Bards atid Scotch Beviewers, 
 
 You furnished an item about church debts. The TribuM 
 is a very acceptable authority ; but you did not give the 
 date, so that the statement you refer to could be verified 
 and examined. But grant that there are fifty-four churches 
 in New York city under "mortgages amounting to $3,367,- 
 886." If these churches were each under a debt equal to 
 that on Paine Hall ($70,000), the sum would be $3,780,000— 
 almost a million and a half more. And it should not be 
 forgotten in this eonnection that this is a comparison of 
 fifiyfowr churches and the Christians of a single city, with 
 OTM building and the Infidels ofIhA whole Western Continent. 
 Then it should be remembered that there are hundreds of 
 magnificent churches, and thousands of tidy chapels all over 
 the country, entirely free of debt. You will see by the 
 Directory that there are over ^wo hundred and fifty in 
 New York City alone. Most emphatically, then, there 
 is nothing in this direction but very odious compari- 
 sons for Infidelity. Its liberality is as nothing in the 
 p^ence of the munificent and varied generosity of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Your last letter is the fullest and clearest illustration I 
 ever saw of the meaning of the Latin phrase, ipse dixit. The 
 solidified and petrified Past seems to be mere dough in your 
 
 m:- 
 
M( TBI HmttaKK-BMIWl'" DMCTiSKW. 
 
 httd.. Tott can put tte features and Uneamentt of InllcW- 
 tty on It with the greatest of e«^ In order to show h... 
 let me place some of your assertions and the fixed facU of 
 history side by side: 
 
 •• Voltaire was not a perjurer." (D. M. Bennett). 
 
 "When very hard pushed, he would not swerve from » 
 false oath " (Morley's VolUire. N. T.. 1873 p. 200). 
 
 "Eusebius was a falsifier, forger, and interpolater (D. 
 
 ])£. B ). 
 
 - Euseblua wrote under the presture of the great commo- 
 Uons of his age, but with much freedom from prejudices, 
 with a more critical spirit thau many both of his predeoes- 
 sors and successors, and with an eccclesiastical erudition 
 uusurpassed in his age" (Ajnerican Cyclopedia). 
 
 -St. Augustine was one of the most lecherous anddia. 
 •ipated men in Carthage " (D. M. B.). 
 
 That is true of him only when he was an unbeliever in 
 
 4;hristianity. After his conversion »• it is believed Uiat he 
 
 was at once the pumt, the wisest, and the kdtsH of men. 
 
 dually mild and firm, equally prudent and fearless, equally 
 
 afriend of man and a lover of God" (Am. Cyclopedia). 
 
 •• Girard did not make his wife insane by quarreling with 
 
 her" (D. IL B.). . ,.« v -i^^, 
 
 " He about this time married the daughter of a shlpbmldei 
 of that city, but the union was unhappy. Mr Girar^ 
 applied for a divorce, and his Wrfe ultimately died insane 
 in a public hospital " (American Cyclopedia). 
 
 -He was very eccentric in hia habits, a free tWnker 
 ungracious in manner, ill-tempered, and lived and died 
 without a friend " (Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia). 
 
 '•You have no grounds for insinuating that Paine lived 
 Improperly with Mrs. BonnneviUe " (D. M. B.). 
 , -Mr. Paine was godfather to one of the others, whc 
 had been named after him" (Vale's Life of Paine. p.l4^ 
 
 " Thaam has the features, countenance, and temper oc 
 Paine " (€heith*m'i Life of Pain* P- ^^ 
 
 TOB HUMPHRBT-BB27NBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 267 
 
 ** Goethe was not an immoral man ** (D« M. B.). 
 
 "His first years there (in Weimar) were spent in wild and 
 tumultuous enjoyments, in which 'affairs of the heart.' it is 
 to be feared, did not always end with the heart. * There is 
 not a woman here,' wrote the simple-hearted Schiller more 
 lately, *who has not had her liaison.* ... A relation 
 with Frau von Stein, which Goethe had long maintained, 
 was now broken off, but the poet soon formed anotlier with 
 Christine Yulpius. She was uneducated, and lived in some 
 domestic capacity in his house; but in spite of the enormous 
 scandal which the new tie occasioned even in Weimar, 
 Goethe afterwards married her to legitimate his son " 
 (American Cyclopedia). 
 
 " Shelley was not guilty of wrong in leaving his wife ; 
 nor was he dissolute " (D. M. B.). 
 
 ** Toward the close of 1813 the estrangement which had 
 been slowly growing between him and his wife resulted in 
 their separation, and she returned to her father's house, 
 where she gave birth to a second child. . • . He was 
 soon after traveling abroad with Mary, afterwards the second 
 Mrs. Shelley, daughter of William Godwin and Mary WoU- 
 stonecraft, all of whom deemed marriage a iLsdese institution. 
 
 . . On his return he found that his wife had drowned 
 herself, and his sorrows are said to have made him for a 
 time actually mad, and as such he describes himself in 
 'Julian and Maddalo.' He now married his second wife. 
 who had been his companion for two years " (American Cyclo- 
 pedia). 
 
 " Chesterfield did not seek to make his son a whoremas- 
 ter"(D. M. B.). 
 
 *' Un arrangement^ which is, in plain English, a gallantry, 
 is, in Paris, as necessary a part of a woman of fashion's 
 establishment, as her house, stable, coach, etc. A young 
 fellow must therefore be a very awkward one, to be reduced 
 to, or of a very singular taste, to prefer drabs and danger to 
 a commerce (in the course of the world not disgraceful) 
 
 r] 
 
 ; I 
 
ran HiniFHBVT-BSNNETT Dieoustxov. 
 
 m 
 
 if 
 
 II 
 
 
 with a woman of health, educadon, and rank" (Ohester- 
 fleld-B Letters to his Son. Letter 227). 
 "John Btuart Mill sustained a character too pure for you 
 
 to besmirch " (B. M. B.). 
 
 I only said, and I again repeat, that a minister's name 
 would be tarnished or "besmirched " were hs to do as Mill 
 did with another man's wife. Let me quote Mr. Mill : " At 
 this period she lived mostly with one young daughter, in a 
 quiet part of the country, and only occasionally in town, 
 with her first husband, Mr. Taylor. I visited her equdUy in 
 loth places; and vfos ffreaUy indebted to the strength of charac- 
 tor ioMeh enabled her to disregard the false interpretations liable 
 to be put on the frequency of my visits to her vshUe living gerwr- 
 aUy apart from Mr, Taylor, and on our occasionally traveling 
 together, though in all other respects our conduct during 
 those years gave not the slightest ground for any other sup- 
 position than the true one, that our relation to each other at that 
 time was one of strong affection and confidential intimacy only, 
 ^W (hough we did not consider the ordinances cf satiety binding 
 on a sul^ so entirely personal, we did feel bound that our 
 conduct should be such as in no degree to bring discredit^ 
 on her husband, nor therefore on herself* (Autobiography, 
 N. Y., 1875. pp. 186, 229.) Thtre is Mr. Mill's word for it. 
 I am willing to accept it. But I am sure that If a bishop 
 were to follow his example, the Infidels especially would 
 wink, and Insinuate, and put their mouths in position to 
 Bay "lecherous.** 
 " Rousseau was an upright, well-disposed man" (D. M. B.). 
 
 Whew I That assertion needs no quotation to disprore 
 it No wonder you could flatter the Devil In one of your 
 preceding letters. If Rousseau was moral, immorality 
 is an Impossibility ; and you should not be so Inconsistent 
 as to condemn " clerical beasts " any more. 
 
 I have entered Into these details In order to vindicate my 
 former statements, and to show the reader how scrupulous 
 yon ara about hlatorical truth I I have quoted largely from 
 
 TUB KUXFHBBT-BBEEKSrr DlflCUsaiOir. 
 
 the New American Cyclopedia, partly because It is unsec- 
 tarlan, and far from partial to Protestantism and Orthodoxy, 
 but chiefly because you have expressed your acceptance of 
 it as high and unquestioned authority (Reply No. lii). 
 
 I have been traclug some of your references. You point 
 to several Scriptural passages in evidence that the Jews 
 " ate human flesh." Do you by this mean that they were 
 cannibals f Your language is framed so cunningly that it 
 at the same time conveys this impression, and leaves you a 
 loop-hole in case of exposure. Well, I will have to force 
 you into the loop-hole. Deut. xxviii, 47-^8; Lam. iv. 10; 
 and Bar. ii, 8 do not at all refer to the ordinary customs of 
 the Hebrews, but to the last desperate resort of a people 
 dying with famine. Ez. xxxix, 18, does not speak of 
 human beings as "eating the flesh of the mighty and 
 drinking the blood of the princes of the earth." In the 
 preceding verse we are explicitly told that this was done by 
 " every feallieredfowV and by ''every beast of the field.'* Let 
 the reader examine these passages carefully and he cannot 
 fail to see that you have tried to play a trick on him. All 
 your other Scriptural comments are about as critical and 
 accurate as this one. 
 
 I have also examined Thiers, and Chambers* Cyclopedia, 
 but I found no evidence whatever that Robespierre was a 
 Christian. As your generosity has recently placed Paine'a 
 works in Cooper Institute, in order that you may be able to 
 say they are there, so, I am afraid, your jaundiced imagin- 
 ation sometimes reads things into authorities which they do 
 not really contain. I have taken considerable pains to ex- 
 amine Thiers* History of the French Revolution; Carat's 
 Memoirs of the Revolution; Lamartine's History of tiie 
 Girondists; and especially Lewes* Life of Robespierre, and 
 I find that Robespierre was simply a Deist; that his mode 
 of thought was moulded by Rousseau's philosophy; and 
 that his coadjutors were avowed Infidels. It Is true some 
 of the Atheists sneered at him as a lund of religionist, be- 
 
ii 
 
 JTO THl HUMFHBMT-BIHKBTT DIBCTJ88IOK. 
 
 cause he belieyed in the Being of God. But that docs not 
 prove your allegation. For the same reason Paine became 
 unpopular with the very same class of people. And it had 
 been said long before that even Voltaire was -retrograde." 
 "superstitious," and a " bigot," because he was a Peist 
 
 (Morley's Voltaire, p. W). « .^ „ 
 
 You. too. can play "fast and loose" with Catholic 
 authorities. While you would scornfully reject their testi- 
 mony about skeptics, you can accept, with smacking gusto, 
 Iheir most spiteful mirepresentations of the life and death 
 of Luther and Calvin, 
 
 It is quite likely that some Infidels have *' died as the 
 fool dieth," with stolid unconcern. But it is on record that 
 many of them approached death with fear and trembling. 
 There is good evidence that Voltaire died whining for a 
 Catholic priest, and that Hobbes contemplated " the inevi- 
 table " with terrible trepidation (Condorcet's Life of Vol- 
 taire; Thomas* Dictionary of Biography; Blackburne'a 
 Life of Hobbes; Hume's History of England, new ed.. 
 London, 1864, vol. v. p. 97>. A conscientious hiatorian 
 says that Robespierre and his fellows, when besieged m the 
 Hotel de Villo. writhed like a knot of snakes encircled by 
 fire. Henriot was drunk. Las Basas despatched himself 
 wiih a pistol. Couthon cut ghastly gashes in his bosom, 
 but lacked courage to drive the knife to his heart. Robes- 
 Pierre made an attempt to shoot himself, but succeeded only 
 in breaking his jaw. St. Just begged his comrades to kill 
 him (Scott's Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, vol. i, chap. 
 
 xvii). 
 
 It is nobler, like Hamlet, to meditate on death in a aeri- 
 ous vein, than to breathe the last, like Hume, with a deck 
 of cards in his hands. But who, except a true Christian, 
 can die with the serene assurance of Bt. Paul, and say: " I 
 am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure 
 18 at hand. I have fought a good fight. I have finished my 
 course. I hsve kepi the faithj henoef^h there is laid up 
 
 ~-i- '-.-. 
 
 *■» RincPBRxr-BKinnn Discnssiou. 271 
 
 for me • crown of righteousness, which the Lord the 
 righteong Judge, shall give me at that day " (3 Tim, Iv, 'e-*)? 
 I might as well improve this opportunity, onM for all 
 to say a word about Calvin and Servetus. Everybody i« 
 familiar with these two names. Callow striplings that 
 never saw a Life of Calvin, far less read one, are able to 
 articulate the three words: " Calvin burned Servetus " fe. 
 ttorami that can hardly tell the difference between Calvin- 
 ism and Galvanism, somehow manage to say, with aknowiair 
 rir: Calvin burned Servetus." The sectarian hater of 
 Calvinism; the Catholic hater of Protestantism; and the 
 Infldel hater of Christianity, can stand side by side and 
 chant together: "Calvin burned Servetus." Againsaver 
 cornered, squelched, and extinguished in controversy can 
 My that much, anyhow: "Well, CWvin burned Servetus " 
 Wow I am prepared to say, and I hereby say deliberately, 
 that Calvin did not Boas Sbbvktosj nbithbe did m 
 C0N8EIT TO ma BtJBNnfo bt othkbs. The/acft about that 
 sad afiair were these: 
 
 J:^TV^ '*"*'"'' '° PnnfaWng Incorrigible hereUcs 
 With death. 
 
 1 Servetus himself, and hi. follower, Socinus, cherUhed 
 the same belief. 
 
 8. C^vin instigated the arrest of Servetus. and furnished 
 tue evidence against him in the trial. 
 
 4. The authority that pronounced the sentence on Serve- 
 tus was vested in the Senate of Geneva. 
 
 6 Calvin exerted all his influence to secure s modification 
 of the sentence from burning to death by the sword 
 
 It 18 true, this bears a most painful resemblance to the 
 humanen^ of the French Infidels, when they discontinued 
 the use of the awkward axe, and proceeded to choo each 
 other 8 head, off with the more graceful guillotine. Never- 
 theless, let the truth be said, even of John Calvin. 
 
 6 That age gave a general endorsement to the execution 
 of Servetus The cwiton. of Berne, Zurich. B.,e, an,! 
 
 f ! • I 
 
 I 
 
i7f 
 
 THB BPMPHREY-BBNWBTT DI8CUSSI0H. 
 
 .1 
 
 •Il 
 
 1 
 
 'C 
 
 Schaffhausen concurred la the wsUon of Genev*. Melanc 
 thoa Beza, Farel. Bacer. Oecolampadios, ZuingU, Vlret, 
 Peter Martyr. Bullioger, Torretin, and the cotemporaneous 
 theologians and sUtesmen generally approved of it. 
 
 This was confessedly a dark spot on the character of 
 Calvin. But he should be judged in the light of his own 
 age and surroundings. He was trained a Romanist; and it 
 was hard for him to shake off entirely the dregs of intoler- 
 ance. Even Draper eays: "He was animated, not by the 
 principles of the Reformation, but by those of Catholicism, 
 from which he had not been able to emancipate himself 
 completely" (Conflict between ReUgion and Science, p. 
 804). Besides, he found himself in Geneva under an an- 
 cient law that declared heresy a capital crime. The public 
 opinion sanctioned that law. Aod we know how hard it is for 
 mortals to be several centuries ahead of their times. Cal- 
 vin*s crime was the crime of his age; but I admit that it was 
 a crime nevertheless. 
 
 I cannot see why Presbyterians should suffer reproach on 
 account of the Calvin and ttervetua affair any more than 
 other denominations. Calvin was no part of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. If the Westminster divines adopted, to a 
 great extent, his system of doctrines, they did no more than 
 the Bapdsts, and the earlier EpiicopaUwia and Congrega- 
 
 tionalists. 
 
 The iforld should not forget its many obligations to John 
 Calvin. Bancroft, in his History of the United States, 
 traces the germination and development of republican prin- 
 ciples to his system. Froude has shown that " Cal vinUm " 
 has been no secondary force in the progress of civilization; 
 and he has testified as to Calvin's private character, that 
 he *'mads irath, ta the Imt fibre afU, ih$ rtde of practical life.'' 
 
 There are extatt ever so many discussions of "Calvin 
 and Servetus." But no one has been just to the memory of 
 Calvin until he hat seen what may be said in his favor 
 by imOing Btm\ Wat«mi»nX McCrie't. Mickenxie •. and 
 
 m HVlfFHRBT-BBITHBFr DISCUSSION. 
 
 37S 
 
 efipecially Henry's Life of Calvin; RiUiet's Calvin and Ser- 
 vetus; Chauffpi4*s article on Servctus in his continuation of 
 Bayle*8 Dictionary; the Encyclopedia Britannica; Coleridge*8 
 Table-Talk; the Biblical Repertory, vol. viii, pp. 74-96, and 
 the Bibliothcca Sacra, vol. iii. pp. 51-94. There are two 
 sides to this question; and no conclusion can be fair .where 
 both sides have not been thoroughly investigated. 
 
 I deny that Biot is accepted by the be»t scientists and 
 theologians as good authority on Sir Isaac Newton. David 
 Brewster contradicts him fltitly, and proves conclusively 
 that Newton's greatest religious works were thought out and 
 written before the temporary cloud passed over his mind, 
 (Life of Newton, ch. xvi, Lynn^s ed.) 
 
 To me it is one of the clearest things in the world thfU 
 Infidelity is of a disintegrating character. I mean, of 
 course, unmixed Infidelity. Many Infidels are unconscious- 
 ly restrained by the internal and external influences of 
 religion. As many professed Christians are worse than 
 their principles, so many professed Infidels are better than 
 their principles, or, rather, non principles. Imagine a world 
 of universal skepticism. God is denied or ignored. Where 
 then is Moral Obligation? Will you say that society 
 shall declare its own requirements, by enacting laws to 
 direct and govern itself ? But what right has society, any 
 more than a body of bishops, to think for the individual ? 
 Plainly enough, the spirit of Infidelity is inimical to every 
 thing organic among men. This is illustrated by palpable 
 facts. All Infidels are making an onslaught on the Church. 
 The Free-Love Infidels are waging war on the Family. 
 Atid the Communistic Infidels are breathing out threaten- 
 iags and slaughter against Civil Government. 
 
 So you think Infidelity is consistent with Morality 1 You 
 arc then far in * 'advance*' of some of your predecessors, 
 D* Hoi bach grunted under the burden of showing that Athe- 
 ism furnished the strongest motives for virtue and justice. 
 Voltaire requested D'Alembert and Ooadorcet not to talk 
 
 ' ' 
 
f7i 
 
 ^■i BirifPHBsr-jfsinfvrr vncvrntim. 
 
 Atheiim in the hearing of his lerraats, giTing ai hii reasoir 
 thit lie "did not want to have his throat cut that night "^ 
 Bame saya that ** Hobbes' politics are fitted only to pro- 
 mote tyranny, and hi» ethicM encaurage UeerUunutrnt " (His- 
 tory of England, toI. ▼, p. W). He says farther in one of 
 his Essays: "Disbelief in futurity loosens in a great meas- 
 vre the ties of morality, and may be supposed for that 
 reason, to be perniciona to the peace of ciTil society/' 
 Bolingbroke says: "The doctrine of rewards andpunish- 
 BtenU in a future stote, has so great a tendency to enforce 
 the ci¥il laws and to restrain the vices of men, that, though 
 reason would decide againet it cm the principles of theologyr 
 she will not decide against it on the principlea of good 
 policy. ... No religion ever appeared in the world, 
 whose natural tendency was so much directed to promote 
 the peace and happiness of mankind as the Christian. The 
 Gospel of Christ is one continual lesson of the strictest 
 morality, justice, benevolence, and universal charity." 
 
 But this question needa no baching by ^aotation^. It 
 stands to reason; as they say, that a man who thoroughly 
 believes in a €h>d who will certainly punish iniquity, an* 
 as certainly reward goodness, will be more moral thaa 
 another one who has no God to fear or love; no Hell to shun,, 
 no Heaven to seek. A man who believes that he is only a 
 beast is quite likely to live like a beast. 
 
 Let us now consider some of the popular objections to 
 
 Beiigion: 
 
 1. There is a lurking fallacy, and a sly begging of the 
 question, in some of the words which Infidels are very fond 
 of using. For instance, they persist in speaking of the 
 entire clergy of Christendom as prUiU, prieUhood, and 
 priestcraft. They ought to be more just and accurate. 
 They ought to know that the great body of Protestants do 
 not regard a minister as a priest in any sense different from 
 the. lay believer. In other words, there is no distinct 
 order called the Priesthood, under the Oospcl Dispenfialion, 
 
 '.• 
 
 TBB HUMPaBBT-BWIHETT DI8GUflai0»>. 
 
 27^ 
 
 (Hodge's Systematic Theology, vol. iii, p. e8».) The Infi- 
 del use of these words is only an unfair attempt to cover 
 Protestantism with the odium that is associated with Ro- 
 manism. 
 
 It is frequently assumed that "common sense " is all on 
 the side of unbelief. This is both gratuitous and egotistic. 
 As Huxley says, common ignorance passes very often by the 
 more deceiving name of Common liense (Lay Sermons, p. 
 830). There is not a book in the world that contains as 
 much "common sense " as the Bible. 
 
 What self-complacency there is in the skeptic's use of the 
 word "Liberalism"! It takes for granted what does not 
 exist in fact, viz., that Infidels are more truly liberal than 
 Christians. What is popularly called "Liberalism" is 
 really an unwritten creed, which runs about as follows: 
 
 Art. L Every individual is the smartest fellow in the 
 world. 
 
 Art. IL It is to be presumed that anything and everything 
 may possibly be true, provided always orthodoxy is ex- 
 cluded from this supposition. 
 
 Art. III. It makes no difference what you believe or do — 
 youUl fetch up all right. 
 
 How much superior to all this is the Liberalism of the 
 Kew Testament: "Be kindly affectioned one to anotlier 
 with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another" (Roni. 
 xii, 10). " Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only 
 use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love 
 serve one another" (Gal. v, 18). 
 
 Similar things may be said of the words " Freethought," 
 and '* Freethinker." The Infidel is not more /re« as a 
 thinker than his religious neighbor. For one, I can testify 
 that my mind enjoys unbounded freedom. I think exactly 
 as I please. FreetJtougUl That is certainly a high-sounding 
 name. But we should remember that great names are fre- 
 quently given to very insignificant concerns. You will 
 '^f ten see a low corner grogshop dubbed " London H jusc, " 
 
TBB auMPHBwr-Biinfwrr DiscuaeioN. 
 
 or •' PariB Hotel." But it is a low comer grogshop after all. 
 It is 80 with Infidelity. It may style itself " Freetbougbt, 
 •• Liberalism.- "Progress," and all that; but its true char- 
 acter will still remain the same. In the language of Prof. 
 Huxley. " many a spirited freethinker makes use of his free- 
 dom mainly to vent nonsense " (Lay Ser., p. 62). From the 
 way many Infidels stagger through History, bungle Philoso- 
 phy, and blunder over Scripture, I should say that Freetinkcr 
 would be a more appropriate term than - Freethinker. 
 
 How often it Is assumed that if a man is a mnker, he is 
 sure to bean unbeliever. When we remember that such 
 men as Columbus, Descartes, Locke. Blackstone, Milton, 
 Bacon, Cuvier, Newton, Kepler. Brahe ^^^l'^^^'^^! 
 Brewster. Burke. Faraday. Herschel, Morse, Mitchell. Gui- 
 ^ot Handel, Haydn, Rawlinson. Chalmers, Agassiz. etc., 
 etc* etc., were firm believers in the Christian Religion, this 
 a<sJmptlon is at once ridiculous and contemptible. There 
 arc ever so many - Bages " and - Thinkers " who are not 
 "Infidels;" and there are hosto of Infidels who are neither 
 " Sages " nor " Thinkers." It might be well for some peo- 
 pie to keep in mind that long hair, weird looks, spectacles, 
 funny clothes, and other eccentricities. aU put on. do not. 
 foso facto, constitute a Udnktr. 
 
 i It is sometimes objected to ReUgion that it makes pec 
 pie insane. But is this a sound argument ? Is it applied 
 to anything else ? News, good and bad, have caused some 
 lo lose their minds. Should newspapers, telegraph com- 
 panics, and all post-offices, be suppressed on that account ? 
 Disappointment in love has made many a bonnie lass and 
 siKhing swain crazy. Daes it follow that courtship should 
 be dicountenanced the world overt Financial embarras- 
 ments have overwhelmed the mind of many an enterprising 
 
 merchant. Does that prove that ^««i^^««'f™,^^^\^t 
 money should be banished from the earth t Childbirth is 
 often followed by derangement. May we thence argue that 
 marriage is dishonorable in all? It is probable that Newton f 
 
 nn HUXPHRST-BBNNBTT DISCUSBIOK. 
 
 277 
 
 temporary aberration of mind was caused by the intensity 
 of his scientific studies. May we therefore conclude 
 that scientific investigation should be discouraged ? Every- 
 body will answer. No. Then, on the same ground precisely, 
 I will answer No, in behalf of Religion. 
 
 But why is this argument not passed around f Why not 
 insist that Spiritualism is a very bad thing, since it sent 
 even the strong-minded Robert Dale Owen into the insane 
 Asylum ? George Francis Train is either a lunatic because 
 he is an Infidel, or else he is an Infidel because he is a lun- 
 atic. Why not blazon this as a knock-down argument 
 against Infidelity ? Intemperance has made a thousand 
 crazy, where religious excesses have made one. Why is it 
 that Infidel journals do not use this fact as the ground of a 
 thundering appeal against the Liquor Traffic T It is all be- 
 cause they will not turn their style of caviling against 
 Christianity against anything else. It is because they are 
 given to straining out religious gnats, while they can swal- 
 low irreligious camels. 
 
 8. Some people, and some very intelligent people, say 
 they cannot determine anything about the Christian Re- 
 ligion, because of the multiplicity of sects. Now, it is too 
 true that there are far more denominations than are neces- 
 sary. Divisions have subdivided until the sections are very 
 numerous. But the *' Freethinker " should be the last man 
 to find fault with this. It is the result of the liberty which 
 Protestantism vouchsafes to every man, and body of men, 
 to think and act as they see fit. Thus a place is furnished 
 for almost every variety of taste and opinion. As to the 
 vital difference between these denominations, it is not so 
 very great, after all. The Evangelical Alliance could meet 
 on a common basis. And it is the united voice of Prot- 
 estant Christendom that that basis contains all the essentials, 
 the saving truths, of Christianity. The distinguishing 
 marks are non-essential— matters of taste, education, local 
 and historical attachments. 
 
I 
 
 198 
 
 im UUMFEIIXT • BBmfXTT -IMlHCiO'lMQIlli 
 
 THE BTOlCrHBET-BBNNETT DISCTJasiOW. 
 
 279 
 
 Bat let us admit that the variety of secla and denomina- 
 tions is perplexing and bewildering. I will still claim that 
 the denial or ignoring of religion on that accouot is unrea- 
 sonable, and contrary to human practice in other respects. 
 The world has a great many different forms of goyermnent— 
 Empires, Kingdoms, and Republics. Will any intelligent 
 man use this as an excase for refusing citizenship anywhere f 
 Let us be thankful that our country actually swarms with 
 most amiable and excellent young ladies and gentlemen. 
 Do any of them put matrimony out of the question, on 
 account of the wide room for choice ? Would an emigrant 
 refuse to settle in any part of America, simply because there 
 are so many States and Territories t Would a traveler 
 refuse to go to any hotel, and sleep out doors, because ho 
 was met by so many contending runners at the depot ? Do 
 our talented young men decline going to any college or 
 university, because there are so many colleges and universi- 
 ties f What are our political parties but political sects f 
 How many American citizens are there who make the 
 variety of parties a reason for identifying themselves with 
 no party ? Should the fabled ass that starved between two 
 bundles of hay, because he could not determine which was 
 the best, so that he might eat it first, be the model of rea- 
 sonable men! 
 
 Such qneations as these answer themselves. They show 
 that the objection to Religion, now under consideration, is 
 more of an excuse than anything else. But where is a man 
 to flee to get rid of tiiis excuse ? Certainly not to Infidel- 
 ity ; for sectarianism prevails even there. He will there be 
 stunned by the conflicting clamors of Deism, Atheism, 
 Pantheism, Materialism, Spiritualism, Free-Loveism, Com- 
 munism, and a hundred Nondescriptisms. Nothing can 
 be better and easier for him than to study the cardinal truths 
 of the Divine Book, absorb them into the very marrow and 
 fibres of his being, enter the Master's great Tineyard, and 
 work at the row of vines he may choose. 
 
 4. But the commonest objection of all to the Christian 
 Religion is the inconsistencies of many who profess it. Thia 
 objection is as oW as Sin and Sophistry. And it is still 
 full of life and vigor. It lives on in deflanceof logic, good 
 flense, aad consistency. You have gone to the trouble of 
 furnishing quite a list of fallen ministers. Doubtless some 
 of your sympathizers will mistake this list for -reasoning. 
 They will probably keep it as an Infidel reference bible. 
 Tery likely they will learn some of it by heart It fur- 
 nishes them with a great supply of cartridges— blank, 
 every one of them. What a sweet scrap-book you must 
 liave had t You have certainly been a diligent gleaner on 
 the fields of the " Police Gazettes"; and now you come to the 
 threshing-floor with your blasted sheaves. But you forgot 
 the case of the "confidence game" man, who, the other 
 day, donned a clerical suit, and was thereby enabled to 
 -** borrow " quite a sum of money from a rustic. He was a 
 capital Illustration of the prine^ you try to bring out 
 The apostates whom you mention were only social and 
 moral " confidence game " men. The Bible and Chris- 
 tianity are no mere responsible for them than the Consti- 
 iution and the good citizens of the United States are culpable 
 lor the existence among them of the<5riminal dasses. 
 
 I have no incUnation to doubt that your sketches of the 
 disguised wolves are in the main correct. I offer no apology 
 for those who were guilty. I wiU say of the Protestants that 
 have transgressed, and died in their sins, as Moehler, the 
 great Catholic controversialist, said of the "priests, bish- 
 ops. and popes, whose scandalous conduct and lives extin- 
 guished the still glimmering torch, which they ought to 
 have kindled: HeH hath swallowed them up »' (Symbolism. 
 Robertston's trans., Sd ed., p. 270). But in your ventilation 
 of this matter you reveal a spiteful spirit, and a readiness to 
 make unwarrantable assertions. You are not careful to 
 mention all the cases that have been deposed. You give 
 Mome names Ueice, in order to swell your list You expatiate 
 
 1; 
 
 i4 
 
y\ 
 
 TOE BinCPHRIT-BlimSTT DOCUBSIOIC 
 
 on the doings of indiyidaah whose names you can not or 
 dare not produce. Ton accuse others merely because gos- 
 sipers, quaek-doetors, and possibly, blackmailers, have 
 wagged their '* f roward tongues '* against them. Tea, you 
 liaTO been so unjust, and illegal, to say nothing o£ illiberal, 
 as to assume that many are guilty agunst whom a whisper 
 has never gone forth. 
 
 But it is only the genuine Christian that can consistently 
 condemn such irreligious and ujichristian characters as you 
 have mentioned. It was against the Bible most of all that 
 Ihey sinned. Their conduct was quite in harmony with the 
 teachings of prominent Infidels. Those who committed 
 niicide were only doing what Hume and D*Holbach pro- 
 nounced net only justifiable, but brave and noble. Those 
 who appropriated to themselves, without leave, the prop- 
 erty—or, as the Infidel Proudhon would call it, the "rob- 
 Ibery '*— of others, were only making a private application of 
 that growing child of " Freethought,*' namely. Communism. 
 The adulterers and whoremongers were nothing more than 
 Free-Lovers in disguise. li wot ths praetUe of Infidel doe- 
 trinea Hud nmde tliem tohta they igere. 
 
 But will you say, as Mrs. Woodhull said of Beecher, that 
 their sin consisted chiefly in their hjfpoerieyf According to 
 the Scriptures, hypocrisy is a damnable sin. But I have 
 shown in my last that the skeptical Hume recommended, 
 and that Toland, Paine and Voltaire practiced dissimulation 
 and duplicity. To them may be added Simon Magus— whom 
 you have hung up in your gallery of Infidels— lying, and 
 uniting with the Apostolic Church with the expectation of 
 receiving thereby extraordinary powers (Acts viii, ^24) ; Col- 
 lins and Shaftesbury partaking of the Sacrament in order to 
 qualify themselves for civil office; and Hobbes clinging to 
 the Anglican Church, though he hated its doctrines. By your 
 ahowing— which, as we have seen, is incorrect— President 
 WUte is a hypocrite, sanctioning and participating in daily 
 prajera— only to " cat«r *' to reUgious young men I O Mr. 
 
 THB HUMPHRST-BBNNSTT XIIB0U88ION. 
 
 281 
 
 . J 
 
 Bennett, Mr. Bennett, where is consistency t If suicide, 
 dishonesty, licentiousness, and hypocrisy are wrong in 
 clergymen— and they are eternally so— they are also wrong 
 in all men. But where did you learn that these things are 
 unlawful? Was it from Hume's Essay on Suicide ? Was it 
 from the utterances of Free-Love Conventions ? Was it 
 from the ring-leaders of Communism f No, dear friend: it 
 was from the blessed old Bible which you despise, and 
 which your batch of disgraced clergymen have disobeyed. 
 
 It seems that you have given us some of the advance 
 sheets of your forth-coming " Champions of the Church," 
 which you took occasion to advertise. I have seen your 
 prospectus, and found that those whom you have selected 
 for '* Champions " are, with very few exceptions, divisible 
 into two classes: 1st. Those who were no champions at all; 
 and 2nd. Those who were champions only in evil doing. I 
 hope you will proceed to give us, on ths same prindjpHe, a vol- 
 ume entitled "Champions of the American Republic," con- 
 taining exclusively sketches of Benedict Arnold, Aaron 
 Burr, Preston S. Brooks, John B. Floyd, Jefferson Davis, 
 Mrs. Surratt, J. Wilkes Booth, Raphael Semmes, Oakes 
 Ames, James Fisk Jr., Wm. M. Tweed, John Morrissey, 
 Brigham Young, Tom Thumb, Justus Schwab, Joseph 
 Coburn, and the like. If your method is fair in religious 
 it is fair in political history. 
 
 Ministers, as a class, are good men. Of course, there are 
 exceptions among them; but exceptions never disprove a 
 rule. When we remember that there are between seventy 
 and a hundred thousand ministers in the United States, it 
 is a marvel that far more of them do not prove to be wolves 
 in sheep^s clothing. 
 
 There are two reasons why the sins of a minister at- 
 tract unusual attention : First, the height of his station 
 gives special conspicuousness to his downfall. Impropriety 
 in one clergyman will elicit more remarks than greater im* 
 moralitiea in a hundred moa of tho wotld, " Irregularities " 
 
VBB nmEPflBonr-BSHNSTT DiscnsnoN 
 
 mm HtniPHRBY-BEKNBTT DISCtlSSIOH. 
 
 283 
 
 in the latter are taken almost as matters of course; and very 
 little is said about them. I would not have it otherwise as 
 regards the clergy. They should be holy men. If they sin 
 against God, and forget th«ir a^ful responsibilities, they 
 deserve to feel the keenest edge of disgrace and remorse. 
 
 Another reason for this is to be found in the fact that 
 men do not generally speak of the sins of ministers and those 
 of other people in the same terms. Dishonesty makes a 
 preacher a thief outright ~ as it ought to; but it only 
 makes an irreligious man a little ** crooked," but •* mighty 
 smart." A violation of the Seventh Commandment in a 
 church-member is adultery, fornication, lechery, and whore- 
 dom ; but in an unbeliever it is only a ** liaison,^* "tin 
 anangement^^^ "a gallanlry," "peccadillo,** "mistake," 
 and " something not menial." This manner of selecting 
 words misleads many into the belief that sin is really sinful 
 only in a religious teacher. 
 
 There are two reasons why your catalogue of hypocrites 
 makes nothing against the Christian Religion. The first is 
 the fact that the Bible does not sanction, far less command, 
 ▼ice and sin. It was because they dUoheyed the Scriptures 
 that those whom you have named, fell. There is no book 
 in the world that speaks so severely of the anfaithful minis- 
 ter as the Word of God. For examples of this, read Zepb. 
 lii ; Mic. iii, 8-12; Mai. ii, and many other places. To see 
 %hat a minister is required to he, read 1 Tim. ch. iii. 
 
 The second reason consists in the fact that the Church has 
 neUher tolerated nor connived at the sins of its Judas Iscar- 
 iots and Ananiases. By your own showing, conviction of 
 iniquity has invariably been followed by expulsion. What 
 more, what better, could the Church do r The glaring fact 
 that the Bible condemns uncompromisingly, and prohibits 
 emphatically and repeatedly, not only evil, bui"aU appear- 
 ance of evil,** and the other fact that the Church, as rapidly 
 as consistency with Justice and fair trials will permit, de- 
 poses, excoDununicates, and disowns, such of her meni' 
 
 bers and teachers as reveal wicked hearts by tangible acts, 
 effectually shield Christianity against your imputations. 
 
 Infidelity has nothing to compare with this. It possesses 
 and recognises no authoritative Statute-Book which says : 
 ^'Thou Shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
 Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness 
 •gainst thy neighbor.** It admits of no supreme standard 
 of right and wron^g. Neither does it know aught of such 
 a thing as discipline. It owns and acknowledges as teachers 
 such men as Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Voltaire, whose pri- 
 vate characters were an abomination— owns them, though 
 tiiey professed no repentance, but rather justified their 
 loathsome practices. 
 
 Your reasoning — if such it may be called — amounts to 
 this : Tlunt incon»isie'ney toith^ and violation of, any given prin- 
 ciples, are a proof that those principles are in tltemselves bad. 
 No man would think of reasoning in that way about any- 
 thing on earth but religion. When you find a dishonest 
 man, do you scold the multiplication-table f Will you 
 point to the pickpocket and the burglar as evidences that 
 all statutes against stealing should be abolished ? Will you 
 endeavor to prove by the fallen women that the law of 
 chastity and marital fidelity should be annulled f Do you 
 despise genuine money because it is counterfeited ? Do 
 you want to annihilate doctors and drugstores because 
 disease and death are still in the world ? Do you want 
 to dissolve all civil governments for the reason that so 
 many officeholders are corrupt? Would you point to 
 Benedict Arnold afi a tjrpe of American patriotism ? 
 Would you, if required to show specimens of American 
 horses to a company of foreign equestrians, take them to a 
 back stable, and there direct their eyes to some scrawny, 
 wheezing creatures, infected and disfigured by ringbone, 
 founder, spavin, glanders, and epizootic ? Suppose — we 
 may suppose anything now^a-days— suppose that Science 
 were to establish Inteiplanetary traveU and a committee of 
 
Wi 
 
 SBB SUllPaBXT-BBimXTT DI9C1TSSIOir. 
 
 THE HXTMPHRET-BENNErT DISCUSSION. 
 
 285 
 
 J^4 
 
 JttiilteriaDS were to make joxx a Tisit to request some models 
 of terrestrial beings to take back with them— would you 
 go to the Penitentiary or the Lunatic Asylum to select the 
 models f Do you despise Liberty, because — as Madame 
 Boland said a-dying— crimes are committed in its name ? 
 You will say a thousand times No to these questions. 
 Then, in the name of Sense and Consistency, I demand that 
 you shall give just the same answer in regard to the Bible 
 and the Christian Church. I insist that we are to judge of 
 the principles of the Scriptures only by those who obey 
 them. 
 
 You disparage ministers generally. Yon say they aro 
 useless and unproductive. But you said that with your 
 eyes closed. You forgot that many clergymen, such as 
 Leyden and Priestley, have been scientific discoverera. 
 You forgot that nine-tenths of the Chancellors and Presi- 
 dents of the world's Universities and Colleges from time 
 immemorial until now, have been ministers of the Gospel. 
 You forgot that the needy and distressed in every village 
 and city in Christendom go most hopefully to the Christian 
 pastor for sympathy and assistance. You forgot that a vast 
 uumber of our best Biographies, Histories, and Cyclope- 
 dias of Art and Science, are the works of clergymen. 
 
 The Ir^fiddi are more truly the unproductive class. 
 Where is the Hospital, or Benevolent Institution that th^ 
 liave founded and supported T Where, in our broad land, is 
 the Orphan Asylum, or Home for the Aged, that ihef have 
 endowed r What are ihep doing to teach the rising genera- 
 tion to love Virtue, Patriotism, Righteousness, and Holi- 
 ness T What great ideas have theif ever given to the world? 
 In the language of Carlyle, whom you have called a ** Qiant 
 Infidel," (?) "What Plough or Printing-Press, what Chivalry 
 or Christianity; Day, what Steam-Engine, or Quakerism, or 
 Trial by Jury, did thete EDcyclopedists invent for mankind f 
 They invented simply nothing : not one of man's virtues, 
 not one of Dtap's powen, is due to them ; in nil these re- 
 
 spects the age of Louis XT. is among the most barren of 
 recorded ages " (Essay on Voltaire). 
 
 Pardon the length of my letter. I could not review your 
 Beply, and expose the popular sophistries of Infidelity, in 
 less space. Your obedient Servant, 
 
 Q. H. HUMFHBET. 
 
 MR. BBHWBTT. 
 
 Bey. G. H. Huuphbet, Dear 8vr: Your letter No. 10 
 contains a great many words, displays a good deal of inge- 
 nuity, a respectable amount of skill and ability in quib- 
 bling, evading, and dodging, but, candidly, I cannot seo 
 that it has much bearing upon the subject under dis- 
 cussion. I cannot see that you have refuted any of the 
 arguments I have advanced, or disproved any of the facts I 
 adduced. With all respect for your ability, I must say, you 
 seem to me more like a shrewd lawyer who, conscious of the 
 weakness of his case, artfully defends it with sophistry and 
 clap-trap, than like a solid reasoner, who is firmly con- 
 vinced that his cause is founded on eternal truth, which 
 needs not cunning nor sophistry to defend it. Permit me to 
 remark, that I think you have the faculty of proving the 
 most from the least amount of evidence of any person I 
 remember to have met. 
 
 It seems hardly worth while to follow you through your 
 wild meanderings and flounderings, and I will stop only to 
 show you some of your deficient arguments, and how en- 
 tirely you failed to rebut my assertions — for instance, I said 
 Oirard did not make his wife crazy. To refute it you quote 
 that he married the daughter of a shipbuilder, that the union 
 was unhappy, that he was eccentric, ungracious and ill-tem- 
 pered. Did those qualities cause his wife's insanity? or 
 did lier insanity produce those qualities in him ? One is as 
 
 .sv*- 
 
286 
 
 THE HUKPHRBT-BENI7STT mSCUSSlOir. 
 
 reasonable as the other 1 Insanity is a disease. Glrard waa 
 no more responsible for any disease that his wife waa 
 afflicted with than you or I would be for any disease, men- 
 tal or physical, that oar wives might be suffering under. 
 
 I said you had no grounds tu insinuate that Paine lived in 
 adultery with Madame Bonneville. To refute it you quote 
 Yale to the*effect that one of her children was named after 
 him, and that he was godfather to another, which amounts 
 to just no refutation at all. If the fact that one of Madame 
 Bonneville's children was named after Mr. Paine was a 
 proof that he was father to it, what a great number of ille^ 
 gitimate children Franklin and Washington must have been 
 fathers tot Was it a criminal affair in Paine that the child 
 of a friend should bear his name ? Let me ask you, why is 
 it that you are so much more inclined to condenm Paine 
 for offenses of which he was not guilty, than you are to try 
 and refute his arguments? What is the reason for your 
 wishing to make him appear worse than he really was ? 
 Do you not And it easier to make false charges than to 
 refute solid arguments ? What you said about Chester- 
 field, Qoethe, and John Stuart Mill virtually exonerates 
 them from all your slanderous charges. 
 
 Ton seem, however, so fond of stirring up these charges 
 of adultery, etc., against Infidels, that I feel constrained to 
 fulfill the promise made in my last to give you more cases of 
 clerical derelictions, if that kind of literature proved inter- 
 esting to you. I will, then, continue the recital, where I 
 left off, with the assurance that if you still want more I will 
 endeavor to accommodate you. 
 
 You err in supposing I am actuated by a spiteful spirit iu 
 the reference I make to the heinous crimes of the clergy. 
 I assure you it is more in sorrow than in anger that I re- 
 count the great shortcomings of this pretentious class of 
 men. I would far rather have it in my power to speak in 
 praise of every clergyman in the land. Some of them are 
 very fine men, and were tli^ really engaged in a meritorioni 
 
 THS miMPHREY • BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 as? 
 
 cause I could wish them all the sticcess in the world. But it 
 is a sad fact that their profession of godliness does not ketp 
 them from the worst of crimes; and inasmuch as they claim 
 to be BO much better than unprof essing people who prate 
 less of God and Jesus, I feel it to be only right to show them 
 up in their true colors that their real character may be bet- 
 ter understood by the unsuspecting and. confiding. Your 
 talk about fallen clergymen acting contrary to the example 
 and teaching of the Bible worthies seems to me mere 
 twaddle, for their weaknesses were precisely in keeping 
 with the prominent Bible characters and those acknowl- 
 edged to be the favorites of God himself. They certainly 
 acted quite consistently in their adulterous practices with 
 Bible examples. Your attempt to make it appear that 
 the filthy and lecherous conduct of the Christian clergy is in 
 accordance with the teachings of prominent Infidels is slan- 
 derously false, and I am surprised that you should have 
 the hardihood to say that it was the practice of Infidel doc- 
 trines that made them what they were. I pronounce your 
 aspersions wholly uncalled for. Their conduct was emi- 
 nently Christian. You speak about the names of the sinful 
 clergymen not being given in some instances. In some of 
 the most horrible cases the names were omitted for obvious 
 reasons; but if you feel anxious to have the names you can 
 be accommodated by calling upon me. You are wrong, as 
 usual, in asserting that some cases are put in twice to en- 
 large the list. The truth is, on the contrary, that thousands 
 of cases were omitted that might be named. You must 
 know there is more than one Smith, more than one Jones, 
 more than one Thompson, who pretends to stand up for 
 Jesus, and yet lamentably fails to do so. 
 
 You must understand that, from a Christian standpoint, 
 it ia a much greater crime for an embassador of Jesus — the 
 shepherd who assumes to fold and feed the little lambs; be 
 who has bathed in the fountain filled with blood drawn 
 from Emanuera veins; who has the grace of God, the power 
 
If 
 
 TEB HUMPHBBT- BENNETT DI9CU8IIOK. 
 
 ol the Holy Ghost, and the sweet Influence of the Son to aid 
 him; who has saneiificatwn, regeneratum, and emueratian on 
 his side— for this class of men, I repeat, it seems a much 
 worse offense to commit adultery, sodomy, etc., than for a 
 mere Infldel to deviate from the strictest propriety, when he 
 has nothing to depend upon and help him save his own sin- 
 ful nature and his own " total depravity"! For a wretched 
 sinner to err is not, perhaps, strange, but for a saint who 
 has experienced the joy of the New Jerusalem, and who 
 has partaken of the manna of the heavenly world, to de- 
 scend to the slums of filth, of vice and corruption, his crime 
 is far less excusable. You may possibly look on the rela- 
 tive criminality of sins committed by Christians and Infi- 
 dels in the same light in which another clergymen viewed 
 it whom I heard of when a boy. He was asked what the 
 difference was between a Christian's sinning and a sinner's 
 binning. "Oh," said he. in pious tones, "a sinner sins 
 willingly and without protesting, but the Christian sins with 
 a most grcHi-a-cums reluctance ! " 
 
 1 admit that it is a foul, offensive narrative, but the guilt 
 consists altogether in the commission of the crimes, and not 
 in the exposure of them. Besides, bellevhig th^ clergy to 
 be dead weights and dead beats upon the body politic, I 
 conceive it to be a part of my duty to expose to public gaze 
 their hypocrisy, their villainy, and their unworthiness of 
 reverence and esteem, and I give you the positive assurance 
 that for every prominent Infidel who has been guilty of 
 adultery and sexual improprieties, I can furnish the names 
 of flfjy— not common members of the churches, but the 
 bright lights, the leaders, the men who spout most about 
 •* holiness." IiCt me resume the offensive recital. 
 
 Grafton Brown, one of the saints of the Carroll, M. B, 
 church, seduced a daughter of Mr. Thomas Sellmon. He 
 had a wife and eight children, but insisted that his wife had 
 become too cold for him. His case required one warm 
 and ardent 
 
 i 
 
 TBB HTTMPHBBY-BENNSTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 389 
 
 Her. James Bradley, a brilliant preacher of the Ironside 
 Baptist denomination at Huntsville, Mo., seduced one of 
 the church sisters and lived in adultery with her for five 
 years, when the arrival of a little infant brought his guilt 
 to light, and he suddenly had business that called him 
 elsewhere. The girl and her relatives were left to mourn 
 
 her sad fate. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Wolfe, Presbyterian, Brooklyn, N. Y., was 
 placed under bonds to keep the peace, for knocking his 
 wife down with an umbrella. 
 
 Rev. R. T. Green, of the English church at Ailsa Craig, 
 Out, was imprisoned for forging endorsements on a note. 
 
 Rev. John J. Thompson, Presbyterian, Washington City, 
 was caught in his night-shirt crawling in the window of a 
 sleeping-room where two young ladies slept. They made 
 an outcry, when he threatened to shoot them if they were 
 not stilL He tried to get into bed with them. Members of 
 his church tried to get him clear on the plea of insanity. 
 
 Rev. Levi S. Bettinger, in Baltimore county, Md., had 
 placed in his charge a young lady to educate. He seduced 
 her and then deserted her, but was allowed to retain hib 
 
 position. 
 
 Rev. A. J. Culver, of the Evangelical Association in 
 Eastern Iowa, a good-looking man and a strong-voiced 
 preacher, whose field of labor was in the moral vineyard 
 of Lisbon, Iowa, was so zealous in the cause of his 
 Master that he was called a Lieutenant of Jesus. Being 
 a single man, he engaged board with a widow who had 
 a pretty and engaging daughter. It is not strange that 
 Culver loved her, and he ought to have married her, for he 
 was the father of a bouncing big boy of which she was the 
 mother. Previous to the birth of the child she married a 
 
 fine man in the neighborhood, a Mr. H . When, soon 
 
 after marriage the child was born, her husband asked her 
 who was the father. She answered it was the Rev. Culver. 
 Ha was arraigned before a council of clergymen ; he was 
 
 0\ 
 
 i I 
 
111- 
 
 490 
 
 THB HXJlfPnilET-BENNEtT OlftCUftttdlf. 
 
 
 ■ ' If 
 
 :lJ 
 
 found guilty and expelled from liis church. The confer- 
 ence, however, reinstated him in the holy calling of ihep- 
 here to the gentle lambs, and he Is now delivering the bread 
 of life to the sinners of Illinois. The girl swore to the 
 paternity of the child before Peter Heller, Justice of 
 the Peace. The husband, not wishing to raise any Culver 
 etock, separated from his unfortunate wife and obtained a 
 4ivorce froai her. Thus her life was saddened and made 
 wretr hed by the lusts of this pious man of God. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Speare, Mason, III., an intimate friend of a 
 banker of that city, while the latter was busy with a custom- 
 er, pocketed a roll of bank bills amounting to $1,000, took the 
 train to Bloomington, deposited the money, and returned 
 as if nothing had happened. He is now under f2,500 bonds 
 to appear before the criminal court. 
 
 A colored preacher in Early county, Qa., was fond of 
 watermelons. One night he strayed Into the melon-patch of 
 a neighbor, who, having been preyed upon, was on the 
 watch. He fired upon the intruder and killed him on the 
 spot. The colored reverend died with the fruit still in his 
 mouth. Oh I water-melon choliy affair. 
 
 Rev. T. M. Dawson, Presbyterian, San Francisco, CaL, 
 was guilty of the prevailing infirmity— too much "true in- 
 ward oeas.*' His love for the sisters was too ardent. 
 
 Rtv. Lorenzo Dow, presiding elder in Eastern Kentucky, 
 eon of a clergyman, grandson of a clergyman and name- 
 sake of a great clergyman, sent his wife to her father*8 
 without money, borrowed all the money he could from the 
 brethren and eloped with a girl, a daughter of another 
 clergyman, at Louisa, Ey. He used a great amount of du- 
 plicity and falsehood to carry out his foul designs. It cast & 
 gje&i gloom over the entire community. A particular fea- 
 ture of the case was that the father of the girl could not 
 gay much, for years before, when a clergyman, he played 
 the same trick with another man's daughter. Thus they go. 
 
 i>r. Harlao, Methodist, in a Nebraska town, was driven 
 
 TBM HUUPHRET-BfiNNSTT OISCIIMIOir. 
 
 291 
 
 1 
 
 from the pulpit for lying, vulgarity and defaming his 
 brethren. 
 
 Rev. Alexander McKilvey, of Westfield, N. J., was de- 
 posed from the pulpit for criminal conduct. • 
 
 Rev. R. Petteplaoe, ot Lowell, Mass., was accused by his 
 wife of committiug adultery with the nurse-girl in their 
 employ. An inquiry was instituted, when he confessed 
 his guilt, and stepped down and out. 
 
 Rev. Wm. H. Lee, Jersey City, was guilty of grossly 
 beating his wife, and was tried for the offense. 
 
 Rev. F. D. James, of Somerville, Mass., was guilty of 
 forgery by placing other people's names to deeds and other 
 documents. 
 
 Rev. William Henry Jones, pastor of Grace Episcopal 
 Church, Toronto, was subjected to a trial upon fourteen dif- 
 ferent charges, among which were getting drunk, telling 
 falsehoods, embezzling money, vulgar conversation and 
 other unsaintly offenses. 
 
 A clergyman of Oxford, England, was sentenced to 
 twenty month's imprisonment for foully assaulting a girl of 
 fourteen years of age whom he had but recently con- 
 firmed. 
 
 Rev. P. P. Wimberly, of Atchinson, Pa., started out on 
 a grand begging campaign to raise money to pay the debts 
 of his church; but he was overcome by the weakness of the 
 flesh, and spent the money in sinful pleasures. 
 
 Rev. N. L. Phillips, Monticello, Iowa, of the United 
 Brethren Church, was guilty of immoral conduct with sis- 
 ter Biirnes, wife of Herbert Barnes. After playing a base 
 game with the unsuspecting husband in obtaining money 
 from him, the guilty ones eloped together. The villainous 
 clergyman left a legal wife and children behind, whom he 
 piously recommended to continue family worship and 
 l^rayer. 
 
 Rev. Prof. Wm. F. Black, the leading clergyman in the 
 Ohrletiaa or CampbelUte denomination in the West, and 
 
li!' 
 
 na HUMFHBXT-BINirETT DIBCITISIOir. 
 
 formerly president of the Northwestern Christian Unirer- 
 aity at Indianapolis, fell from grace and was guilty of crim- 
 inal conduct with Miss Corinne E. Voss, a gay and beauti- 
 ful woman, daughter of a very wealthy lawyer and specu- 
 lator. She started ostensibly to make a journey and visit 
 some friends in Kansas, and by agreement he met her at 
 Terre Haute and accompanied her to St. Louis, where they 
 stopped over night at the Planter's Hotel, and passed them- 
 selves off as man and wife. 
 
 Rev. E. Hopkins, St. Johnsbury, Vt., was arrested on a 
 charge of forgery, and was proved guilty. 
 
 Bev. Rudolph Weizerbeck, pastor of Bloomingdale Ger- 
 man Lutheran Church, was arrested for defrauding the 
 pension agency. When searched, two forged pension cer- 
 tificates were found upon his person. 
 
 Rev. Albert Rablete, Hoboken, N. J., was committed to 
 prison for twenty days for fraudulent begging and intem- 
 perance. 
 
 Rev. Jerome D. Hopkins swindled the people of Brook- 
 lyn by falsely representing himself as poor, and as having a 
 sister lying sick at Washington. In this way he raised con- 
 siderable funds. 
 
 Rev. J. H. Foster, whose last field of nsolessness was in 
 the First Congregational Church at Hannibal, Mo., though 
 talented, and prepossessing in appearance, and very popu- 
 lar with the sisters, turned out to be a bold, bad man— in 
 fact, a regular wolf in sheep's clothing. It was proved that 
 he had wives living to the number of five, and that he was 
 a gambler and a dissolute person. He wore a most saintly 
 countenance, but the Devil was too near his heart. He dis- 
 creetly resigned his charge, and betook himself to other and 
 more congenial fields of labor. 
 
 Rev. John H. Morris, who a portion of the time preached 
 at the Paasyunk Baptist Church in Philadelphia, proved 
 himself to be a criminal of the most revolting character. 
 In 1875 he lost his wife, and subsequently married her sit* 
 
 THE HUMPHRKT-BKNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 293 
 
 ter. Soon after that he adopted a little girl eight years of 
 age, named Mary Rue, daughter of a widow, and it turned 
 out that for a year the brute — worse than any brute — 
 had been holding criminal relations with that small child. 
 His wife caught him in bed with the child at two o'clock in 
 the night, and in the criminal act. The girl subsequently 
 confessed all about it to her mother, and stated that the 
 pious man by intimidation and threats had subjected her to 
 his vile uses. He was imprisoned for trial which has not 
 yet taken place. 
 
 Rev. John C. Simpson, of Oregon, Mo., was convicted of 
 illicit distilling, the Jury finding him guilty on all five 
 counts. He is fifty years of age, and has been preaching 
 twenty years. 
 
 Elder Samuel H. McGhee, of the Christian or Campbellite 
 denomination, whose last fiock attended upon his minis- 
 trations at Ashton, Lee Co., 111., had the weakness to fall 
 in love with a pretty, intelligent young lady of his church, 
 named Lorilla Paddock, and that he might take her to his 
 bosom, he procured poison and administered it to his wife, 
 who died in great sufferinir. His trial was held in Dixon, 
 and the verdict of guilty was rendered against him. He is 
 now working out his sentence of fourteen years at hard 
 labor in the State prison of Illinois. 
 
 Rev. J. P. Roberts, Methodist, of Ulien, Wis., was sub- 
 jected to a trial for lying and slander. 
 
 Rev. J. F. Leak, Methodist, at Troy, Kansas, an aged 
 clergyman, who for many years has been looked upon as 
 a saint of the first water, brought himself into great tribula- 
 tion by making love to an interesting young lady of his 
 fiock, who weekly attended upon his ministrations and 
 draok in the words of piety that fell from his lips. He 
 wrote her a number of letters, and plead with her mo^t 
 earnestly to fly with him to England where, by the side of 
 a beautiful lake, like Como, they could make a paradise of 
 their own, and where the rude eyes of curiosity could never 
 
S0i 
 
 THB HirMPHRET-BKHKET? BlSCUSaiON. 
 
 And them oat For some reason, they did not atart for 
 tliat loTely paradise; and an ugly feature of the interesting 
 case is that the young lady has given birth to a child, and 
 the dear pastor is in about as much trouble as he wishes tc 
 feeL. The mishap is seriously regretted by all the faithful 
 of the church, but such things seem to happen very fre- 
 quently. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Keely, of Madison, was led into trouble by the 
 bewitching airs of a pretty woman, named Clemmens. 
 
 Rev. John Moody, Cincinnati, was imprisoned for appro- 
 priating to his own use money that he had collected for 
 building a church. 
 
 Rev. Dewitt Knowlton, Boltonville, was brought to great 
 disgrace by the persistency with which a sister of the 
 church demanded that he should acknowledge the pater- 
 nity of her child. The affair cast a cloud over his other- 
 wise fair nameu 
 
 Rev. A. J. Warren, of the M. E. church. North Vernon, 
 Ind.. eloped with sister Stanton, carrying with them all the 
 church and Sabbath-school funds of which he was pos- 
 ficsf ed. He left a wife and four little children. 
 
 Rev. Mason Noble, of Sheffield, Mass., a popular Con- 
 greg*tion»il clergyman, was formally charged with seduction 
 Vy Miss Bella J. Clark, a former pupil of Westfield Normal 
 Bchool, and where she had been employed ai a seamstress in 
 the clergyman's family. 
 
 Rev. W. 8. Crow, Hinsdale, III., by his unlawful inter- 
 course with a deacon's family, succeeded in breaking it up 
 and getting himself deposed from the pulpit. 
 
 Rev. Dominck McCaffray. of the Church of our Savior, 
 Third avenue, this city, was accusf d by the pretty Mrs. 
 Leavitt of laying his hands upon her and kissing her 
 when she called upon him in his study. He denied it, of 
 
 course. 
 
 Rev. Martin Uoernlcin, of Buffalo, was convicted of 
 arson in the Eecond degre« for setting fire to his own house 
 
 1 
 
 nOE amamtKY'-BBsmwrv mscussiow. 
 
 2911 
 
 to obtain a largo insurance ha had placed upon the prop 
 erty. 
 
 ReT. R W. Pearson, Baptist clergyman in Pittsburgh, had 
 a sad time of it. Before a court of his own church he waa 
 proved guilty of lying, drunkenness and numerous adul- 
 teries. He had resided in various parts of the country and 
 had sinned in aU of them. He was emphatically what is 
 familiarly called a ** bad egg,** 
 
 The case of John D. Lee, Mormon bishop, who was en- 
 gaged in the Mountain Meadow massacre twenty years ago, 
 and who was shot by United Stotes authorities for hi^ 
 heinous crime, is fresh in the public memory. Although 
 his hands had long been red (metaphorically speaking) with 
 the blood of his helpless fellow-beings, he died full of con- 
 fidence and love of Jesus and felt sure of going straight to 
 hun as soon as his breath left his body. He boasted at the 
 hour of his death that he was not an Infidel, but died a good 
 Christian. 
 
 Abbe Beangard, vicar of an important post in Paris, waa 
 in 1877, sentenced to fifteen years transportation for crimi- 
 nally assaulting two little girls and communicatinij to ihem 
 a loathsome disease. 
 
 Rev. G. R Williams, while preaching in Griggstown, N. 
 Y., was engaged to marry a nice young lady of his congre- 
 gation, when a former wife very inopportunely put in aa 
 appearance and broke up the little arrangement. The cler- 
 gyman soon found he had business that called him else- 
 where. 
 
 Rev. Paul T. Valentine, Ph.D., and D.D., and LL.D. was 
 tried and sentenced to ten years' impiisonment by Re- 
 corder Hackett in General Sessions in this city, April, 1877, 
 for the most revolting and despicable crimes in the entire 
 criminal calendar— the corruption and vile use of liule 
 boys and girls under his charge in what he called a *' Col- 
 lege for Homeless Children," where he pretended to teach 
 them useful employment and to fit them for the actual 
 
 i 
 
TOB KUMPHEBY-BUafBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 datiea of life, when in realliy he practiced the grossost 
 Climes known to man. Nine witnesses testified in the most 
 pointed manner against him. Rtcorder Hackett said the 
 case was the most atrocious that had ever come to his 
 knowledge during his long service in the criminal courts of 
 this wicked city, and he was only sorry that the extreme pen- 
 ally for the crimes was not death. He gave the culprit the 
 full extent preacribed by the law-ten years' imprison- 
 ment at hard labor. 
 
 Rev. Joseph Jones, a Baltimore Methodist clergyman, 
 greatly gifted in revivals, got hold of a bequest of $50.. 
 000 which had been made to his church, and diverted 
 it to his own benefit. He got involved, and when the 
 crime was exposed he committed suicide. 
 
 Rev. E. J. Baird. a Richmond (Va.) Presbyterian clergy- 
 man, SecreUry of the Presbyterian Publishing Committee, 
 was tried for embezzling $23,000 of funds belonging to the 
 Committee, and which he wa* unable to replace, and of 
 course was iummarily deposed. 
 
 Rev. Leaven Fausette, of Port Huron, La., was hung for 
 
 murder. 
 
 U. 8. Senator Brownlow, of Tennesee. who was for many 
 years a clergyman, as well as an editor and afterwards 
 Governor of the State, in his book published some years 
 ago, uses this language in reference to clergymen in the 
 South: ••! have no hesitancy in saying, as I now do, that 
 the worst men who make tracks upon Southern soU are 
 Methodist. Presbyierian, Baptist, and Episcopal clergymen. 
 and at the head of them for mischief are the MethodisU " 
 (p 187). "A majority of the clergymen have acted upon 
 the principle that the kingdom of their divine master is of 
 this world, and as a consequence many of them have cm- 
 harked in fighting, lying/ and drinking mean whiskey " (p. 
 190) " Here, as in all parts of the South, the worst class 
 of men are preachers. They have done more to bring about 
 the deplorabk state of things exisUng in the country [refer- 
 
 im mmpaBXt-nmrnm discubsioh. 
 
 207 
 
 ring to the war of the Rebellion] than any other class of 
 men. And foremost in this work of mischief are the Meth- 
 odist preachers. Brave in anticipation of war. and prone 
 to denunciation on all occasions, even in the pulpit, they 
 have been amoiig the first to take to their heels" (p. 892). 
 
 To give some idea of the Catholic clergy, let me make 
 some quotations from one who had excellent opportunities 
 for knowing their habits and customs. Father John W. 
 Gerdermann, ez-Catholic priest of St. Bonifacius Church in 
 Philadelphia. After renouncing the hypocritical priest-life 
 which he had led for ten years, in a lecture delivered to an 
 immense audience in that city, in the summer of 1875, drew 
 this faithful picture of the false-hearted fraternity he had 
 forsaken: 
 
 " I come now to the last great blot on the character of 
 the Roman clergy, which you will allow me to treat in a 
 cursoiy manner out of respect to the audience I have the 
 honor to address. Priests are not allowed to marry; would 
 to God they were. They are called Fathers by the people, 
 and unfortunately, with many it is not only a name but a 
 sad reality; not the honored, hallowed napie of father, but 
 a name whispering of shame and a broken heart, if not a 
 ruined family. Undoubtedly the young men who are or- 
 dained priests are generally pure, sincere, and good; but 
 alas I the system of celibacy, at all times the bane of the 
 Catholic ministry, too often ruins them. I spoke to a 
 priest last year about this time, about getting married and 
 leaving the Church. He called me a fool, and advised me 
 not to leave the easy life of the priesthood, but to do liko 
 him and keep a mistress. I thanked him for his advice and 
 told him I was no dog. Bishop Wood told me of more than 
 one priest in his diocese whom he characterized as Immoral, 
 and thoroughly bad men, who to this day hold their offices. 
 Marry, forsooth, in an honorable way. the priest is not al- 
 lowed, but ruin a poor girl he may. It is better, the Pope 
 teaches, for a pricnt to hiTe two oonoabine^ thaa marry 
 
one woman lawfully, ffliamo upon snch morality! Shamr 
 vpon the Ghurch with Bueh teachingt 
 
 "I repeatedly have heard good and sincere piiests say it 
 was a blessing the American people did not know the true 
 character of the Roman priesthood, for if they dld^ they 
 woold sweep them out of the country, and 1 assure yoii if 
 you should know them as I do, you would not consider the 
 remark any too haish. Krstly, they ha^e an Inordinate 
 desire for money. The poor people are asked for money at 
 all times and occasions The more a man gives the beltef 
 ke is liked^ He must pay every time he comes to church, 
 and every time the priest comes to him. No matter how 
 poor the family may be, how hard the man may work, how 
 much the mother may slave, how poorly the children are 
 tlad, no matter whether tlie groeer is paid, the priest must 
 have kis dues. Baptisms, marriages, and funerals, must be 
 paid for, and woe to the poor Catholic who offers a priest 
 less than ftve dollars. Too much he can never give. Go 
 to any Catholia church in this cUy on Sunday, and you 
 hear something about money always^ The more a priest 
 returns to the bishop, for the seminary or other purposes, 
 the higher he rises in the bishop's esteem. Provided » 
 priest is sound on the money question his other qualities 
 are of minor importance. I know over five hundred priesta 
 and sixty bishops in this country ; I have frequently been 
 in priests* and bishops' company, and whenever the question 
 «ame on the congregations they never asked, 'How are 
 your people! are they temperatet faithful in attendance 
 at church? do they raise their children well f but always, 
 
 * How much pew-rents do you get V • What do your col- 
 lections amount tof *What do you get at Christmas f 
 
 • What are your fees for baptism and marriage V and if the 
 aums did not seem large enough, you would hear a 'Damn it, 
 that's little.* I know priests who have been scarce ten 
 years in the priesthood and who own from ^0,000 to 
 |(l0.OOa And the poor pe(4>le who glye are never told 
 
 where the money goes to. If o priest knows what the bishop 
 owns. No congregation hears what a priest receives nor 
 how it is spent And how is it spent ? A good deal of it 
 ta gambling, cigars, grand dinners, and good drinks. 
 Priests are, without doubt, the best livers in the country. 
 Whenever you meet a company of priests, be it on Sunday 
 or week day, night or day time, you nearly always find 
 them at a game of euchre, and not for mere pastime, but 
 for money. I often saw, especially Irish priests, play for 
 quarters, halves, and a dollar a game. The German priests 
 were generally content with a game for ten cents. Then 
 come the grand dinners, served in the most approved style, 
 for which the good people foot the bilL Those dinners are 
 not gotten up on a small scale, either, but cost from $500 to 
 $2,500. The bishop gives generally three or four grand 
 dinners a year, when the priests are invited, and God knows 
 how many on a smaller scale. Priests give their dinners 
 on stated occasions— at the funeral of a priest, and the day 
 of a corner-stone laying, or at the dedication of a new 
 church, and annually on the last day of the forty hours. 
 The poor people are in at their prayers, while the good 
 fathers are enjoying their terrapin, canvas-back, and cham- 
 pagne. 
 
 '•But the great curse of the priesthood in this country is 
 the vice of drunkenness. Of the extent of this vice I can 
 give you no adequate idea. When priests meet, the first 
 and the lasl thing is a drink; early in the morning and late 
 at night, the whiskey-bottle is their consolation. If you 
 would not offer whiskey and wine— and plenty of it, to your 
 visitors, you would soon be spotted and cried down as a 
 fool. Bishop Wood, who was a frequent visitor at my 
 house, said he did not want any • Teutonic acid,' meaning 
 good German wine, but insisted on having champagne. 
 And let me show you that his capacity is rather a large one. 
 I was traveling with him in Schuylkill county, three or 
 four weeks before I left the Ghurch, and I will now give 
 
nn smiFBKnp-nQniBTT msccmnnr. 
 
 TBB BUMPHBIT-BENNBTT DnOUSSION. 
 
 801 
 
 I- 
 
 
 i.' 
 
 you his da7*8 work. Early that morning he oonflrmed in 
 the German church at St Olair. After haying administered 
 confirmation, a good breakfast was spread before him. 
 He did not touch it but asked for a bottle of wine. 
 Good Father Froude was rather surprised, and said: 
 * Hallo I wine for breakfast V After the wine was finished 
 we went to the English church. There the bishop com- 
 plained of the poor wine of Father Froudf^, and asked for 
 and received a bottle of champagne. After he had given 
 confirmation there, a few glasses of lager beer were enjoyed. 
 Then came dinner, and a good one it was, and he partook 
 freely of beer, wine, champagne, and brandy to wash it 
 down. Before we left St. Glair for Mahony Plain, on the 
 Superintendent's ^>ecial car, a few more bottles of cham- 
 pagne were opened and dispatched by him and the priests 
 present Scarcely had we reached Father O^Connor's house 
 when he asked for goat-milk punch, of which he took two 
 or three glasses, afterward he followed it with a few glasses 
 of champagne. Still he got through with confirming about 
 two hundred people, only complaining of not being quite 
 well; the dinner of terrapin, pheasants, and other choice 
 things served afterward, he did not enjoy, and he went to 
 bed, where I brought to him the last glass of champagne 
 after eleven o'clock. When you hear that a bishop can do 
 so much in that line, and still be able to give confirmation, 
 you will not be surprised to hear that bills for liquors and 
 wines are large with a priest who often enjoys his visits. 
 To be serious, the greater part of the priests who have died 
 in this diocese since I was ordained died of too much drink, 
 and many priests are serving there now who more than 
 once suffered from delirium tremens. 
 
 " To see priests drunk in their houses is bad enough, but 
 how much worse, how much more disgraceful is it for them 
 to be drunk in the pulpit and at the altar 1 Even in Sep- 
 tember last, I heard a sermon preached at the close of the 
 forty hours* difvotioii, one of the moti aokmn occasions in 
 
 the Catholic Church, by a priest when under the influence 
 of liquor. That man arrived about two o'clock in the 
 afternoon, completely drunk. He slept off, it is true, partly 
 the effects of his debauch, still, when he preached at seven 
 o'clock, he was anything but sober. After the ceremonies 
 were over, he recommenced his potations, mixing whiskey, 
 beer, wine, and champagne, till he fell on the floor beastly 
 drunk. That man is in the mission to-day, pastor of « 
 large congregation, although it is well known that not a 
 week passes in which he is not drunk once or twice. On 
 another occasion, a priest— who now rests in a drunkard's 
 grave — was so completely drunk when carrying the wafer 
 in procession through his church, that I and another priest 
 who acted as deacons, had to support him to keep him from 
 falling. I might adduce many more instances of the fear- 
 ful intemperance as prevailing among the Roman clergy: 
 but I suppose enough has been said to convince you thai 
 temperance is a virtue almost unknown among them." 
 
 I will now give you a few paragraphs upon the American 
 clergy from the ex-reverend E. E. Guild, who was for many 
 years a Protestant clergyman, but who from honest investi- 
 gation and conviction was induced to abandon the profes- 
 sion he no longer believed it was right for him to follow. 
 He is now an old man, highly respected by those who know 
 him, and his testimony may be received with all confidence. 
 I quote from his " Pro and Con of Supernatural Religion''^ 
 
 " Undoubtedly the priesthood, like all other learned pro- 
 fessions, is composed of both good and bad men. But on 
 the score of merit, it cannot justly claim any superiority 
 over the others. Doubtless the clergy are no better, nor any 
 worse, than the average of men, only so far as the false 
 position which they occupy makes them so. With them 
 the business of theological and religious teaching is a pro- 
 fession and a means of obtaining a livelihood. Before they 
 enter upon their work, they must, before God and man^ 
 make solemn professions of faith in a certain creed to which 
 
 s. 
 
m 
 
 tin 
 
 '. 
 
 il 
 
 TBI H1«FHniT-BBim£TT DXdOITBSXOir. 
 
 they an expected to tdliere and defend during lift. Oa 
 tbeir doing this, their llTing depends. They haye a pecun- 
 iaiy interest at sUke. The creed must be maintained, mia- 
 aionary work must be done, contributions must be raised, 
 revival excitements must be gotten up, converts must be 
 made, for all this brings grist to their milL They are con- 
 servative in their tendencies, opposed to all innovation, 
 tenacious and bigoted in their opinions and blind to all 
 newly- discovered truth. They can seldom see the word 
 truth, because, with them, it is covered by a dollar. Their 
 occupation leads them Into the practice of conscious or un- 
 conscious hypocrisy. They assume a character before the 
 people that they by no means maintain in their families, or 
 when in company with each other. However grave, sancti- 
 monious, and circumspect they may appear in public, when 
 assembled in company by themselves, they are the most 
 jolly of men. They can crack their Jokes, tell funny sto- 
 ries, relate smutty anecdotes, and indulge in low gossip to 
 an extent unequaled by any except professional libertines. 
 They denounce human selflshneas, and are of all men the 
 most selfish; declaim against avarice, and are mercenary 
 and avaricious; preach against pride, fashion and love of 
 the world, and yet are as proud, as servile imitators of fash 
 ion, and manifest as much of the love of the world, as othei 
 men. They insist on the necessity of self-denial, but think 
 themselves entitled to the most comfortable places, the best 
 bits, the choicest dainties, the lion's share of all the good 
 things of life. They profess to be awfully concerned and 
 anxious for the welfare of poor sinners, but their sleek, 
 smooth, well-to-do appearance gives no indication of their 
 excessive anxiety. They claim that men in their natural 
 state are totally depraved, and yet, in this country at least, 
 they profess to believe In a free government, founded on the 
 principle that the people have a right to govern themselves, 
 an inconsistency so f lacifig tiiftl It makes us suspicious of 
 their sincerity 
 
 IBSa SUKrHRBT-<BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 303 
 
 ^ The art of proselyting they understand to perfectioa. 
 IThis is an Important part of their business. However 
 ignorant they may be on all other sul:]^ect8, this they per- 
 fectly well understand. They are in possession of all ihe 
 accumulated experience of a long line of predecessors ex- 
 tending through all of the past ages. They Itnow human 
 mature well, and how to take advantage of its weaknesses. 
 They make their appeals to the superstitious, selfish hopes 
 and f earsof ignorant men, and having what Arcliimedes only 
 wanted, another world on which to plant their machinery^ 
 It is no wonder that in almost all past time they have moved 
 this at their pleasure. They tax all their ingenuity and «lo- 
 <qaence in describing the beauties of a heaven about which 
 they knew nothing, and of a heU of which they are equally 
 ignorant— the one they promise as a reward to sdl who em- 
 brace their doctrines, the other they threaten as a punish- 
 ment to be inflicted on all who do not. In this way they 
 may succeed, perhaps, in luring some and entrancing others, 
 4>ut no man was ever made really any better by being actu- 
 ilted by such selfish considerations. They condemn human 
 eelflshness and yet cultivate and strengthen it by making 
 constant appeals to it They^re the greatest beggars in the 
 world. Their horseleech cry of give, give, oan he heard oa 
 4he mountains and in the valleys, in the public streets and 
 in the churches. At every public meeting ostensibly foi' 
 Ibe worship of God, the contribution-box is passed around 
 and the people are entreated in Qod*s name to give. The 
 people are assured that if they will give, God will restore 
 4o them four-fold, but not one of them wiU stand sponsor 
 lor the fulfillment of the promise or guarantee the refund- 
 ing of the gift in case it is not. In a thousand varieties of 
 ways vast sums of money are raised by these men which 
 £oes to help the warring sects to vie with each other in 
 l»uildihg costly churches and to support a class of useless 
 drones in the human hive. 
 
 The same envyings and jealousies that exist among the 
 
 «« 
 

 THE HVMPBRET-BSmiKTT USCVBSroif: 
 
 members of other learned professions exist among them. 
 They will unscrupidously resort to measures to supplant a 
 brother in an advantageous situation, or in the esteem and 
 affections of the people, which lawyers and physicians 
 ■corn to adopt, and have too great a sense of honor and 
 manhood to think of adopting. If one of their number 
 happens to become convinced of the erroneousness of his 
 creed, and has independence and moral courage enough to 
 •vow his honest opinions, the rest will pounce on him Jike 
 m hawk upon a chicken. They wiU pursue him with mis- 
 representations and slander, hurl at him the epithets of 
 • Infidel/ ' emissary of S«tan,' • enemy of religion, ' call him 
 a Juda8» a renegade, an apostate^ ostracise him from 
 •ociety if they can, and all to counteract his influence in 
 opposition to their sectarian views. On the other hand, if 
 wm of their profession is accused of any crime, the rest of 
 the fratCTnity will gather around him, form a solid phalanx^ 
 and shield him from exposure if they can. The peculiar 
 position occupied by these men brings them into close rela- 
 tion to the female sex. They, knowing that women are 
 more susceptible of reUgious as weU as superstitious influ- 
 tnee than men, regard them as their right-hand weapon of 
 offensive and defensive war. They rely mainly ou them 
 to further their designs. Women, educated to believe that 
 they must depend on men for support and protection,, will 
 inevitably be inclined to look up to the clergy for rel4iou» 
 guidance and instruction. This brings them into frequent 
 and famiUar intimacy with that class of men. What has 
 fteen the result t Not only are our sectarian churches 
 made up principally of women and children, but the history 
 of the priesthood in all ages and countries proves that by 
 no other class of professional men have ao many crimes 
 against female virtue been committed as by them. 
 
 "The clergy profess to look upon what they call Infidel- 
 ity and Materialism with the utmost horror and detestation. 
 Th^ repreaeat that the Matwriallstie doetxiaes are destmct. 
 
 THE HUICPHBBT-BBNNETT DlSCUSSIOir. 
 
 8QS 
 
 Ive of all Joy and peace on earth, and deprive us of all our 
 bright hopes and anticipations in regard to the future. 
 Apparently they are entirely unconscious of the fact that 
 they themselves are constantly promulgating a doctrine as 
 much more horrible than anything in Materialism as it is 
 in the power of the human imagination to conceive. At 
 the very worst, even, ultra-Materialism would do nothing 
 worse than consign us to the quiet sleep of non-existence 
 or annihilation, whereas the doctrine of the clergy would 
 involve a majority of our race in miseries untold, never- 
 ending and indescribable. All, therefore, who hope for a 
 future blissful existence, must desire it with the full knowl- 
 edge that if they have it, they enjoy it at the expense of the 
 endless and inconceivable sufferings of millions of their 
 fellow-men. Can a more monstrous exhibition of supreme 
 selfishness be conceived 7 * . 
 
 '* These men claim, too, that by some mysterious super- 
 natural process they have experienced such a change of 
 nature, such a regeneration of character, such a sanctifica- 
 tion of mind and heart as fits them to be the mouth-pieces 
 of God, and the leaders and instructors of mankind. But 
 of what use is it for them to pretend to any superiot 
 sanctity, when all intelligent men know, and all the world 
 ought to know, that they *'are men of like passions as 
 others,'* that they have the same appetites, passions, 
 desires, faults, and foibles that all men have. The criminal 
 records of the country prove that in proportion to their 
 numbers no class of educated men furnish a greater number 
 of the inmates of our jails and prisons than the clergy. 
 
 "There are in the United States over seventy thousand 
 clergymen. We would utilise this element of society. 
 That portion of them who, by their education, talents and 
 moral worth, are qualified for the work, we would have 
 converted into teachers in our schools and seminaries of 
 learning, public lecturers, and leaders of the people in the 
 great work of reform. We would have them teach their 
 
li 
 
 ) I 
 
 fellow-men on those rabjects about which they have some 
 positlTe knowledge, and in relation to which it is of the 
 utmost importance that they be informed. We would hare 
 them teach the people to know themselves, to do their own 
 thinking, to form their own opinions, to understand the 
 laws of their own nature, and the conditions on which the 
 prosperity and happiness of human beings depend. We 
 would place them on a level with the rest of mankind, 
 give them the same chances, the same opportunities, and 
 let them depend on themselves, instead of being merely 
 dependants upon others. As for the rest, we would have 
 them expend the force and energy, which they now spend 
 for naught, in some branch of trade or agriculture, and 
 thereby make themselves a blessing to the world. 
 
 **To this, or something like this, it must come at last 
 The people will not always suffer themselves to be led 
 hoodwinked to their own destruction. A revolt is sure to 
 come, and when it does eome, it is to be hoped that the 
 crimes of the priesthood against humanity will not be too 
 vividly remembered against them, and that the sins of their 
 predecessors who lived In the dead past will not be visited 
 upon those who exist in the living present." 
 
 The lesson to be learned from all this clerical sinfulness 
 and crime is, that the claim that the religion of Jesus is ft 
 protection or safeguard against licentiousness and corrup- 
 tion, is wholly untrue, for the proof is clear that there is no 
 class of men more liable to yield to the allurements of car- 
 nal pleasures than the clergy. So far from their religion 
 being a safeguard against the weaknesses of human nature, 
 it is the means of exposing them to the blandishments and 
 temptations which the good sisters so frequently lay in their 
 way. If they were working in the fields— plowing and 
 hoeing— or in the shops at planing and filing, they would 
 be far less liable to be overcome by temptations than by 
 visiting the sisters in the absence of their husbands, and 
 tonverslng with them on tli« lubject of " true inwardness." 
 
 YfiB mJUPHRBY'BSNNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 807 
 
 You are incorrect when you state that sinning clergymen 
 are always sought out by the Church and deposed as soon 
 as found to be engaged in wrong doing. The truth often is 
 t^e opposite of this. Their crimes are many times hushed 
 up and smothered, and concealed from the public gase as 
 long as possible, and very often after the '* guide '* has been 
 exposed, he has removed to another locality and resumed 
 preaching with increased fervency and mock-sanctity. 
 
 What if, as you would gladly show, Goethe was a little 
 wild in his younger days, and in mature life lived with a 
 woman—as he honestly bslleVed he had a right to do — 
 whom no priest had declared to be bone of his bone? 
 What if the love between Rousseau and Madame de Waiv 
 rens was not sanctioned by the Church t What if Chester- 
 ield was a man of the world ? What if somebody, in three 
 lines, has accused Voltaire of untruthfulness ? What if 
 Paine did act the part of friend toward Madame Bonneville? 
 What if John Stuart Mill was a sincere friend to a lady he 
 had reason to esteem ? What If Shelley, In the days of his 
 t^oyhood, did contract a union which he afterwards found 
 uncongenial and Impracticable ? These are events that are 
 occurring in the world every day of our lives, and though 
 you place the worst possible construction upon them that 
 your enmity can prompt, they are but *'a drop in the 
 bucket " when compared with the peccadilloes, adulteries, 
 and crimes of priests and preachers who profess to be sons 
 of God, and to have light and guidance superior to men 
 of the world. As Infidels, we have no saints ; we make no 
 boast of holiness or heavenly-mindedness. Our highest 
 object is to discharge our duties to our fellow-men, doing 
 naugbt to infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of 
 others. We have left to the priestly class the entire busi- 
 ness of saintship; yielded to them the monopoly of divine 
 favor and aid, and a pretty mess indeed they have made of 
 it They have made the terms " men of God " and *' fih«p- 
 herds of the flock " a reproach among mankind. 
 
 m 
 
in THS SmCPHBKT-BBIIirBTT mSClTMlOll. 
 
 Tott would fiin bmT© it that these •enwitl prieets in their 
 lewd practices have violated the instructions of the Bible. 
 Kot so. They have simply followed the example of the 
 favorites of the Bible God They have done nothing more 
 than follow the common practices with the old patriarchs 
 Mid favored kings of God's chosen people. 
 
 In passing, let me quote a passage from a tribute to John 
 Stuart Hill byMoncure D. Conway: "There was blended 
 in his intellectual worls other that required a yet higher 
 nature, work that needed preponderating sensibilities, a 
 deep human sympathy, a rich emotional nature. I have 
 said Mr. Mill always felt what he thought— and whenever 
 he spoke, the blood in his cheeks spoke toa But there 
 were two themes only upon which, as he spoke, his mind 
 caught flame and rose into passionate emotion. One of 
 them was when, before emancipation had taken place in 
 America, he saw humanity enslaved and a Republic fettered 
 by the same chain it had bound around the negro. The 
 other was when he saw women struggling to break the 
 galling political and social chains, inherited from ancienU, 
 from a barbarous past Into their cause he entered with 
 an enthusiasm which brought again the age of chivalry, 
 and the brave efforts he made to secure woman from heredi- 
 tary wrong made him in our prosaic time the figure of St. 
 George rescuing the maiden firom the dragon. The world 
 has felt a sUeut sympathy, as in the French town he sat, 
 studied, wrote, at a window overlooking the grave that 
 held that treasure of his soul, beside whom he now reposes; 
 but it has admired as it saw this personal devotion to one 
 noble woman consecrating him to the cause of all her sis- 
 ters. Ah, ye women, who amid many buffets and sneers 
 are striving to attain a truer position and larger Uf e, to help 
 ilian ri^ the suffering world to a higher plane — ye 
 women, what a friend have you loaf Daughters of 
 itngland, weep not for him, but weep for yourselves 
 |iid for yottf children*' (Memorial ]>isco>in»a« p^ ar, 21) 
 
 iks HUMPHEET-BBHKETT DISOUSSIOK. 
 
 Well would it be for our race if the world could produce 
 more men equal in virtue and intelligence to John Stuart 
 Mill If twenty-five per cent, of your seventy thousand 
 clergymen in the United States were equal to. him, what a 
 blessing it would be to our country I It is better to be one 
 such man than a thousand flash-in-the-Pan-Presbyterian 
 Councils of ministers, with their forty-nine modifications 
 and varieties. 
 
 In regard to Shelley, in justice to his memory, I will add 
 to what I have said, that he did not forsake his first wife. 
 He made a settlement upon her, corresponded with her 
 during his travels, called upon her on his return, and did 
 all in his power to render her condition comfortable. 
 Their separation was not the cause of her suicide. She 
 indulged in peculiar notions of love which her spinster sis- 
 ter and her father strongly condemned, and he turned her 
 from his door. In a fit of grief at her treatment, she threw 
 herself into the river. Shelley was greatly grieved in con- 
 sequence. His second marriage was considerably hastened 
 by the advice of Mr. Godwin, father of his second wife (see 
 Keegan Paul's Letters and Peacock on Shelley, as given in 
 the TTorW of July 15, 1877). 
 
 You claim to be unable to find anythiug in Thiers or 
 Chambers indicating that Robespierre was a Christian. I 
 am not particularly anxious to show him to have been a 
 Christian, but that while he was the head and front of 
 the Reign of Terror he assuredly was not an anti-relig- 
 ionist, but a wild political leader, who came to the sur- 
 face under a peculiar combination of circumstances, and 
 was not a man really so bad at heart as many of his harsh 
 and tyrannical acts would indicate. The French Revolu- 
 tion was brought about by the tyranny and corruptions of 
 the royal family, the nobles, and the clergy. Michelet states 
 the case clearly, thus : *'The clergy had so well kept and 
 augmented the property of the poor, that at length it com- 
 prised one-fifth of the lands of the Kingdom " (Lewes' Life 
 
tio 
 
 TXOB HU1CFIIEET>V£KN£TT DISCUSBIOH. 
 
 of llobespierre). The remainder was in the hands of the 
 nobles. It is not strange t>»at,, under this state of things, 
 all the land and wealth of the nation engrossed by the 
 nobles and the priesthood, the oppressed masses should 
 revolt It was but humai> nature. Even a worm, when trod 
 upon, will turn and show resentment We have recently 
 had in our own country sad proofs of this tendency. We 
 have seen the working classes uniting in mobs and reck- 
 lessly destroying millions of dollars* worth of property. It 
 was because they were without employment and were suffer* 
 ing for want of necessary food. It was not because they 
 are Infidels, or unbelievers in the prevailing system of re^ 
 ligion. It was the rebellion of human nature against 
 oppression. It was the same in the French Revolution, 
 and it is not strange in the consequent reaction that ensued 
 that excesses were committed. It was not because the 
 actors in the fearful tragedy were unbelievers or Free- 
 thinkers, and it is very unfair in you and your Christian 
 friends to be continually making that false charge. True, 
 the Goddess of Reason was set up by a clique to be wor* 
 shiped, but, in the ruling frenzy of the hour, Reason wae 
 worshiped and followed very indifferently. 
 
 As to Robespierre's political and theological character, 
 we can probably get as clear a view of it from his own 
 words as from any other source. *' It is true,** said he, 
 **that our most dangerous enemies are the impure rem- 
 uiuits of the race of our tyrants. I vote in my heart that 
 the race of tyrants disappear from the earth; but can I shut 
 my eyes to the state of my country so completely as to 
 believe that this event would suffice to extinguish the flames 
 of those conspiiacies that are consuming us. ... Is it 
 true another cause of our calamities is fanaticism T Fanat^ 
 icism; it is dying: nay, I may say it is dead. In directing, 
 for some days past, all our energies against it, are we not 
 diverting our attention from real dangers 7" Grappling at 
 onee with the q^-veition of Religion, Robespierre thus pro- 
 
 THS HUlfPHBBT-BBNNETT DISCUSIIOH. 
 
 811 
 
 ceeded: '* Let citizens, animated by a firm zeal, deposit on 
 the altar of the count.7 the useless and pompous monu- 
 ments of superstition, that they be rendered subservient to 
 the triumphs of liberty; the country and reason smile at 
 these offerings; but what right have aristocracy and hy- 
 pocrisy to mingle their influence with civism ? What right 
 have men hitherto unknown in the career of the Revolution 
 to seek amidst all these events the means of usurping a 
 false popularity, of hurrying the very patriots into false 
 measures, and of throwing disturbance and discord among 
 us f What right have they to violate the liberty of religion 
 in the name of liberty, and to attack fanaticism ? Wliat 
 right have they to make the solemn homage paid to pure 
 truth degenerate into wearisome and ridiculous farces f . 
 » . It has been supposed that in accepting the civic offer- 
 ings, the Convention has proscribed the Catholic worship. 
 No, the Convention has taken no such step, and never will 
 take it. Its intention is to uphold the liberty of worship 
 which it has proclaimed, and to suppress at the same time 
 all those who shall abuse it to disturb public order. It will 
 not allow the peaceful ministers of the diffierent religions to 
 be persecuted, and it will punish them severely whenever 
 ILey shall dare to avail themselves of their functions to 
 mislead the citizens, or to arm prejudice or royalism against 
 the republic. . . . There are men who would fain go 
 further, who upon the pretext of destroying superstition, 
 would fain make a sort of religion of Atheism itself. Every 
 philosopher, every individual, is at liberty to adopt on that 
 subject what opinion he pleases; whoever would make a 
 crime of this is a madman; but the public man, the legisla- 
 tor, would be a hundred times more insane who should 
 adopt such a system. The National Convention abhors 
 it The Convention is not a maker of books and of sys- 
 tems. It is a political and popular body. Atheism is arts- 
 iocratie. The idea of a great Being, who watches over op- 
 pressed innocence, and who punishes triumphant guiit is 
 
f 
 
 sit 
 
 TBS BXJMPHBET-BBNSfBTT DISCUaSIOir. 
 
 TBI SUMPHRBT-BBNNEIT DIBOUflSlOB. 
 
 818 
 
 qnfte popular. The people, the unfortiinate, applaud me. 
 If there are any who censure me, they must belong to the 
 rich and to the guilty. I have been from my college years 
 aTery indifferent Catholic} but shall ncTer be a cold friend, 
 or aa unfaithful defender of humanity. I am on that 
 account only the more attached to the moral and political 
 Ideas which I have here expounded to you. JfOod did not 
 exiH, a would iehaotfe man to invent him " (Thiers* French 
 Revolution, vol. ii, pp. 875. 876). I have thus quoted this 
 religious politician at some length toi give a fair presenta- 
 tion of his views and motives, deeming this fairer than 
 mezely to quote a line or two here and there as is your 
 style. 
 
 On page 880, vol. ii, Thiers thus speaks: "The policy of 
 Robespierre and the Government was well known. The 
 energy with which this policy had been manifested intimi- 
 dated the restless promoters of the new worship, and they 
 began to think of retracting and of retracing their steps. 
 . . . The Convention declared on its part that it had 
 never intended by its decrees to shackle religious liberty, 
 and it forbade the plate still remaining in the churches to b« 
 touclied, since the exchequer had no further need of that 
 kind of aid. Prom that day the indecent farces performed 
 by the people ceased in Paris, and the ceremonies of tha 
 worship of Reason, which had afforded them so much 
 amusement, were abolished." 
 
 Touching Robespierre's religious sentiments, I will quota 
 a few passages from Lewes' Life of that individual: •' I at- 
 tribute it to his sincere religious convictions, rather than 
 to any political foresight, such as Michelet discerns, that he 
 should have relied upon the lower clergy (a powerful body 
 of 80,000 priests) as well as the Jacobins for his support " (p. 
 148). '* On the 16th of June he asked the Assembly to pro- 
 vide for the subsistence of aged ecclesiastics who had no 
 benefices or pensions" (p. 148). He thus quotes Robes. 
 Pierre's words: "flow could I be equal to struggles which 
 
 are above human strength, if I had not elevated my soul to 
 God " (p. 237). French journalists of that period thus speak 
 of Robespierre: " He is a kind of priest who has his devo- 
 tees, his Marys and his Magdalens. " " He has all the char- 
 acteristics of a founder of religion ; he has a reputation for 
 sanctity." " Robespierre is a priest, and never will be any 
 thing else." ** He is a priest who wishes to become a God." 
 On the 7th of May, 1794, when in the height of his power, 
 Robespierre proposed the following decree: "Article L— The 
 French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Be- 
 ing and the immortality of the soul. Article IL— They 
 acknowledge that the worship of the Supreme Being is 
 one of the duties of man " (Thiers', vol. iii. p. 13). By these 
 extracts it is clear that Robespierre was no Freethinker or 
 Infidel. He was an ardent religionist, and almost a Chris- 
 tian. He acknowledged himself a Catholic, though an 
 "indifferent" one. 
 
 Had it been desirable on your part to claim Robespierre 
 as a Christian, you have far more reason for doing so than 
 for several whom you have claimed. He was far more 
 religious— far more a believer in the dogmas of Christianity 
 —than were Franklin, Washington, or Jefferson. 
 
 Of course, there were Freethinkers in those days, and 
 many of them were active in the measures that character- 
 ized the time, but they suffered quite as severely from the 
 work of the guillotine as any class, and Thomas Paine 
 escaped by the merest chance. In the National Con- 
 vention, which ordered and sanctioned so many executions, 
 a majority were believers in Christianity. By this it is easy 
 to see how unjust and untruthful is your effort to throw 
 the odium of the wild conduct of those in power upon the 
 unbelievers. To show the truth of the whole business I 
 have hardly occupied too much space. This dishonest 
 chai'ge against the opposers of the theological dogmas of 
 thai era has so often been made by your sort of people that 
 it AS ame the lie was nailed to the mast 
 
tii 
 
 vtl 
 
 tidl MmlPHRtT-BttNKVrT DMCtmiOV. 
 
 *CBB BUKFHfiST-BSMNXTT DZSCfUBSlOH. 
 
 815 
 
 I made iio special effort to conyfct the Jews of cannibal- 
 ism, but merely called attention to such texts in the Mhh 
 as went to show that they not only practiced hnman sacri- 
 llce bnt cannibalism also. I will also add that it has been 
 firged by writers more distinguished than either of ns that 
 the Bible does show that the Jews were cannibals. Moses 
 told them that unless they observed his ceremonies they 
 should not only have the itch, but that mothers should eat 
 their children. Eseklel makes a similar threat in chapter 
 zzxix. He tells them that Ood will not only ^use them 
 to eat the horses of their enemies, but the horsemen and 
 the lest of the warriors. Voltaire asked the question: 
 ** Why should not the Jews have been cannibals f It was 
 the only thing wanting to make the people of Qod the 
 most abominable people upon earth." That the Jews did 
 eat human bodies at the time of the siege of Jerusalem we 
 have the authority of Joaephus. I give, however, the facta 
 for what they are worth, and it must bo admitted that the 
 texts of Scripture quoted, and several others, squint very 
 strongly of Hebrew cannibalism. That they were a race of 
 aemibarbarians I have sufficiently shown, and that Herodo- 
 tus did not mention them when writing his history of Syria, 
 4ft which Palestine formed a part, is most clear. If he 
 mentioned it at all it would have been when he was writing 
 his account of what he saw when in that country. It is well 
 known that some of his histories have been lost, but his 
 history of Syria was not one of them. His writings relative 
 to Rome might have been among the lost books. 
 
 Your attempt to show that Infidels have died recantlnf 
 snd in terror is a complete failure. It requires but little 
 talent to repeat that stale slander about Voltaire's recanta- 
 tion. Why do you not prove it and thus get the thousand 
 dollars in gold which Col. logersoll has offered to any man 
 who will prove it The N. Y. OUener, the old war-horse 
 of Preabjrterianism, it is said, has accepted the challenge and 
 will attempt to prove that Voltaire did recant Perhaps you 
 
 can enter into partnership with the Observer and get at least 
 half the money. A similar amount was offered by the 
 same party if it is proved that Thomas Paine recanted on 
 his death-bed. Here is an excellent opportunity for you to 
 make another thousand dollars in gold. Col. Ingersoll is 
 good for the promises he makes, and two thousand dollars 
 would be a very comfortable sum to make these hard times, 
 especially if it can be done easily and in the interest of a 
 God who would be greatly relieved and glorified thereby. 
 Remember, though, the matter must be proved. The stale 
 slanders and falsehoods of Christian clergymen, which for 
 nearly fourscore years have been peddled out from the 
 pulpit for the delectation of the credulous faithful ones of 
 the flock will not answer the purpose. It must be truth 
 and not lies. 
 
 You do injustice to the memory of Hume by attempting 
 to show that he died ignobly and improperly. What a deck 
 of cards in his hand could amount to, more than any other 
 pasteboard, is not very clear. They might have served his 
 purpose equally as well as a prayer-book, a catechism, 
 a confession of faith, or even a Testament. The insinua- 
 tion which you throw out is what I object to. Perhaps he 
 should have had a copy of your *^ Hell and Damnation " in 
 his hand. No doubt the mind of the dying man would have 
 been wonderfully cheered by its soothing tone. Hume died 
 like a man and a philosopher. In the sequel to his Auto- 
 biography is a letter written by Br. Adam Smith, author of 
 ** The Wealth of Nations," addressed to William Strathan, 
 Esq., giving an account of the last moments of Hume. In 
 this letter Dr. Smith gives a copy of one which he received 
 from Dr. Blaci^ Hume^s physician and friend, the day after 
 Hume's death, as follows: "Edinburgh, Aug. 26, 1776. 
 DeofrBir: Yesterday, about four o'clock, Mr. Hume ex- 
 pired. The near approach of his death became evident in 
 the night between Thursday and Friday, when his disease 
 became excessive and soon weakened him so much that he 
 
 ^Xt. 
 
TBM HUXPOBST-BSHmTT DUCITflnOir. 
 
 THB mTMPHRET-BBNNETT DIfiC1T88I<»l. 
 
 817 
 
 \*I 
 
 ccmld not rise out of bed. He oontliiiied to the last per- 
 fectly eensible, and free from mncli pain or feelings of dis- 
 tress. He nerer dropped the smallest expression of impa- 
 tience, but when he had occasion to speak to the people 
 about him, he always did it with affection and tenderness. 
 • . When he became yery weak, it cost him a great effort 
 to speak, aod he died in such a happy composure of mind 
 that nothing could exceed it." Br. Adam Smith closed his 
 letter in these words: " Upon the whole, I have always con- 
 sidered him, both in his life-time, and since his death, as vp- 
 preaching as near to the ideal of the perfectly wise and virtu- 
 ous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will admit. " 
 In the face of such testimony as this, I will submit it to 
 yourself and to our numerous readers, whether insinuation 
 about the '* deck of cards " is not simply contemptible. 
 
 Tou do nearly equal injustice to the memory of Thomas 
 Hobbes, by attempting to show that he died an unhappy 
 death, by saying "he contemplated the ineyitable with 
 trepidation." Lord Clarendon describes the personal char- 
 acter of Hobbes as "one for whom he always had a great 
 esteem as a man, who besides his eminent parts of learning 
 and knowledge, hath always been looked upon as a man of 
 propriety, and a life free from scandal,'* and thus he died. 
 Collins, in his Biography of Hobbes, thus explains his nat- 
 ural timidity of character: " He was naturally of a timid 
 disposiiion; this was the result of an accident which caused 
 his premature birth, and being besides of a reserved char- 
 ter, he was ill-fitted to meet the physical rebuffs of the 
 world. It is said he was so afraid of his personal safety 
 that he objected to being left alone in an empty house; this 
 charge is to some extent true, but w« must look to the miti- 
 gating circumstances of the case. He was a feeble man, 
 turned the age of three score and ten, with all the clergy of 
 England hounding on their dupes to murder the old philos- 
 opher because he had exposed their dogmas. It was but a 
 few yean before that Protestants and Papists complimented 
 
 Moh other's religion by burning those which were the 
 weakest, and long after Hobbes* death, Protestants mur- 
 dered, ruined, disgraced and placed in the pillory Dissen- 
 ters and Catholics alike, and Thomas Hobbes had positive 
 proof that it was the intention of the Church of England 
 to bum Mm alive at the stake, a martyr for his opinions. 
 This, then, was a sufficient justification for Hobbes feeling 
 afraid, and instead of its being thrown out as a taunt at this 
 illustrious Freethinker, it is a standing stigma on those who 
 would reenact the tragedy of persecution, if public senti- 
 ment would allow it " (page 6). 
 
 It has little connection with the subject under discussion, 
 how Robespierre acted when he was arrested at the Hotel 
 de Yille, and whether he attempted suicide; whether Hen- 
 riot got drunk; whether Los Basas shot himself with a pis- 
 tol; whether Cauthon cut his bosom with a knife, and 
 whether Bt. Just begged his comrades to shoot him. These 
 were not known or distinguished as Freethinkers, and 
 neither of them acted in the way named because they re- 
 canted Infidelity. If you have not better proofs of Infidels 
 recanting their views upon their death-beds, your case is 
 weak indeed, and I would advise you as a friend to never 
 make the charge again. 
 
 Why did you not represent Edward Gibbon, who has 
 been classed as an Infidel, as having died carousing^ 
 gambling, cursing, or trembling with terror ? I should, 
 however, be inclined to take the statement of Lord Shaftes- 
 bury, the confidential friend of Gibbon, as given in the 
 sequel to the autobiography of the latter. He wrote as fol- 
 lows: "To the last he [Gibbon] preserved his senses, and 
 when he could no longer speak, his servant having asked 
 him a question, he made a sign to him that he understood him. 
 He was quiet, tranquil, and did not stir ; his eyes half shut. 
 About a quarter of an hour before one he ceased to breathe. 
 The volet de ehambre observed that he did not, at any time, 
 evince the least sign of alarm or apprehension of death.*' 
 
8ta 
 
 TSX IHmFH»«Y-BEra«TT DMCUMIOir. 
 
 fRB HUMFlUUnr* BBVNITT I>I8Ct788IOir. 
 
 Sit 
 
 -41 
 
 II - 
 1 1' 
 
 The untnithfulneas of Christian rcpiesentations rc3atiT« 
 to the death of Infidels may be instanced in the attempt to 
 oast insinuations upon the death of Mirabeau, the Atheist, 
 by the Key. J. P. Newman who put it in this way : *' The 
 dying words of Mirabeau must be the dying words of eyery 
 man who relies upon science rather than religion—* Cover 
 me with flowers, banquet me with music, delight me with 
 perfume, for to die is to take a leap in the dark.' " In the 
 American Cyclopedia it is narrated In this way: "After a 
 night of terrible soflering. at the dawn of day he addressd 
 Cabanis, his physician, *My friend, I shall die to-day. 
 When one has come to such a Juncture ther# '^mains only 
 one thing to do, that is to be perfumed, cro^med with flow- 
 ers, and surrounded with music, in order to enter sweetly 
 into that slumber from which there is no awakening.* 
 He ordered his bed to be brought near the window, and 
 looked with rapture on the brightness of the sun and the 
 freshness of the garden. His death was mourned by a 
 whole nation. Every one felt that the ruling Spirit of the 
 Revolution had passed away." The reverend gentleman's 
 version had just enough truth in it to enable one to deter- 
 mine positively the falsity of the very point he wished to 
 emphasize, namely, the *' leap in the dark." It is the dis- 
 honest eff'ort of Christian clergymen to make it appear that 
 unbelievers die terrible deaths; and you are do exception to 
 the rule. But if you fail to make out a caw, could these 
 unbelievers at the hour of death be induced to believe for 
 a moment your delightful doctrine of Hell and Damnation, 
 it might enable you to talk with more truth about the terror 
 in which you would gladly make it appear that they have 
 
 died. 
 
 Your quotation of the words of Paul as being his dying 
 words are hardly honestly quoted. Yon know very well 
 that he was not dying when he made those utterances, but 
 was simply writing a letter to his friend Timothy, and 
 might have been yean from the liour of death. Whea he 
 
 leally did breathe his last he may have been as full of 
 terror as was the founder of Christianity himself when he 
 was forced to face the King of Terrors. Many asealous Chris- 
 tians at the time of death might truthfully have said: *'I 
 have fought the bloody fight; I have finished my murder- 
 ous course; I have caused many poor heretics to bite the 
 dust. I have kept the faith that our Church proclaims, 
 and put to death scores of those who presumed to deny it. 
 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of unrighteous- 
 ness, or a garment of terrible damnation, which I liaye 
 Justly earned." 
 
 Brother Humphrey, you will have to try again before 
 you can make it appear that the deaths of Infidels will not 
 compare favorably with those of Christians. 
 
 You are courteous enough to speak of D'Holbach as having 
 ** gruTUsd \mdeT the burden of showing that Atheism fur- 
 nished the strongest motives for virtue and justice.** 
 Would you represent him as a hog, that he should " grunt** T 
 Let me quote from his works a few specimens of his 
 grunU, that it may be seen whether he grunted well or not: 
 " Be just, because equity is the support of human society. 
 Be good, because goodness connects all hearts in adamant- 
 ine bonds. Be indulgent, because, feeble thyself, thou 
 livest with beings who partake of thy weakness. Be gentle, 
 because mildness attracts attention. Be thankful, because 
 gratitude feeds benevolence, nourishes generosity. Be 
 modest, because haughtiness is disgusting to beings at all 
 times well with themselves. Forgive injuries, because 
 revenge perpetuates hatred. Do good to him who in^ureth 
 thee, in order to show thyself more noble than he is; to 
 make a friend of him who was once thine enemy. Be re- 
 served in thy demeanor, temperate in thy enjoyment, chaste 
 in thy pleasures, because voluptuousness begets we2»rlness, 
 intemperance engenders disease, f reward manners are 
 revolting; excess at all times relaxes the springs of thy 
 machwAe, will ultimately destroy thy being, and Teadet 
 
TBI OOIIFHSBT-BXIINBTT OI8Ct788ION. 
 
 TTttB HtTMPHREY-BKNNETT DISCrSSION. 
 
 831 
 
 thee hateful to thyself and coctemptible to othera. . • . 
 In short, be a man; be a sensible, ntkmal being; be a 
 faithful husband, a tender father, an equitable master, a 
 sealous ciliren. Labor to seire thy country by thy prow- 
 ess, by thy tolents, by thy industry; above all. by thy 
 virtues. Participate with thine associates those gifts which 
 nature has bestowed upon thee. Diffuse happiness among 
 thy fellow-mortals; inspire thy fellow-citizens with content 
 Spread joy over all those who approach thee, that the 
 •phere of their actions, enlivened by thy kindness, illum- 
 ined by benevolence, may react upon thyself. Be assured 
 that the man who makes others happy cannot himself be 
 miserable. ... A life so spent will each moment be 
 marked by the serenity of thine own mind, by the affections 
 of the beings who environ thee, will enable thee to rise, a 
 contented, satisfied guest, from the general feast, conduct 
 thee gently down the declivity of life, lead thee peuceably 
 to the period of thy days, for die thou must; but already 
 thou wUt survive thyself in thought; thou wilt always live 
 in the memory of thy frieodfl; in the grateful recollections 
 of those beings whose comforts have been augmented by 
 thy friendly attentions; the virtues will beforehand have 
 erected to thy form an imperishable monument If Heaven 
 occupied itself with thee, it would feel satisfied with thy 
 conduct when it shall thus have contented the earth '* (Sys- 
 tem of Nature, p. 884). I could continue ''grunts" as 
 good as those to fill hundreds of ordinary pages. It strikes 
 me that Jesus, Peter, or Paul never " grunted " out much 
 better or more sensible moral instructions than these. 
 Seriously, my friend, do you not think you belittle your- 
 idf and injure your cause by calling such beautiful senti- 
 ments "grunU"? 
 
 I perceive that you are anxious to extricate your patron 
 saint, Calvin, from the very unenviable repuUtion which 
 he enjoys. You ring the changes on " Calvin burned Ser- 
 vettts*' with consammite skUl, but lam sorry for you that 
 
 you are unable to relieve him from the disgraceful dilemma 
 in which history places him. I see that honesty forces you 
 to admit nearly all I claimed against him: 1. That Calvin 
 believed in burning heretics — that is, those who did not 
 square their theological lines according to his standard; 2. 
 That his followers and co-reformers entertained the same 
 views; 8. That Calvin instigated the arrest of Servetus. 
 Toa are quite right in confessing that the transaction was a 
 dark blot on the character of Calvin. The facts are, Calvin 
 not only caused the arrest of Servetus, but he urged on the 
 trial. The accusation was in his own handwriting. He 
 was at the head of the Theocracy, or Council, of two hun- 
 deed, and it is idle to claim that he could not have prevent- 
 ed the execution. Calvin and Servetus were enemies, and 
 when Calvin had the latter in his power he was the last 
 man to loosen his grasp. */ 
 
 IngersoU describes the character of Calvin so graphically 
 and forcibly, in connection with this affair and others, 
 that I cannot refrain from quoting him: *' This man [Cal- 
 vin] forged five fetters for the brain. These fetters he 
 called points. That is to say, predestination, particular 
 redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the per- 
 severance of the saints. About the neck of each follower 
 lie put a collar bristling with these five points. The pres- 
 ence of all these points on the collar is still the test of 
 orthodoxy in the Church he founded. This man when in 
 the flush of youth was elected to the office of preacher in 
 Geneva. He at once, in unison with Farel, drew up a con- 
 densed statement of the Presbyterian doctrine, and all citi- 
 zens of Geneva, on pain of banishment, were compelled to 
 take an oath that they belived this statement Of this pro- 
 ceeding Calvin very innocently remarked that it produced 
 great satisfaction. A man named Caroli had the audacity 
 to dispute with Calvin. For this outrage he was banished. 
 
 "To show you what great subjects occupied the attention 
 of Calvin, it is only necessaiy to state that he furiously dia- 
 
TBS aUHrflRKT-lllBMKKTT XHSCOBSIOII. 
 
 TRB HUMPHBBT-BBNNBTT DISGUaUON. 
 
 323 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 cussed the question as to whether the sacramental bread 
 should be leayened or unleayened. He drew up laws regur- 
 hiing the cut of the citizens' clothes and prescribing their 
 diet, and all tht>se whose garments were not in the Calvia 
 fashion were refused the sacrament. At last the people be- 
 coming tired of this petty theological tyranny^ banished 
 Calvin. In a few years, howoTer, he was recalled^ and re- 
 ceiTed with great enthusiasm. After this he was supreme,. 
 and the will of Calyin became the law of Geneva. Under 
 this benign administration James Gruet was beheaded be- 
 cause he had written some profane Terses. The slightest 
 word against Calvin or his absurd doctrines were punished 
 as a crime. 
 
 "In 1553 a man was tried at Vienne by the Catholic 
 Church for heresy. He was convicted and sentenced to 
 death by burning. It was apparently his good fortune to 
 escape. Pursued by the sleuth-hounds of intolerance, ha 
 fled to Geneva for protection. A dove flying from hawks 
 sought safety in the nest of a vulture. This fugitive from 
 the cruelty of Rome asked shelter from Calvin, who had 
 written a book in favor of religious toleration. Servetus 
 had forgotten that this book was written by Calvin when in 
 the minority ; that it was written in weakness to be forgot- 
 ten in power ; that it was produced by fear instead of prin- 
 ciple. He did not know that Calvin had caused his arrest 
 at Yienne, in France, and had sent a copy of his work, 
 which was claimed to be blasphemous, to the archbishop. 
 He did not then know that the Protestant Calvin was actiug 
 as one of the detectives of the Catholic Church, and had 
 beoa instrumental in proving his conviction for heresy. 
 Ignorant of this unspeakable infamy, he put himself in the 
 power of this very Calvin. The maker of the Presbyterian 
 creed caused the fugitive Servetus to be arrested for blas- 
 phemy. He was tried, Calvin was bis accuser. He was 
 convicted and condemned to death by fire. On the morn- 
 ing of the fatal day, Calvin saw him, and Servetus, the vio^ 
 
 tim asked forgiveness of Calvin, the murderer. Servetus 
 was bound to the stake and the fagots were lighted. The 
 wind carried the flames somewhat away from his body, eo 
 that he slowly roasted for hours. Vainly he. implored a 
 speedy death. At last the flames climbed around hia form ; 
 through smoke and fire his murderers saw a white, heroic 
 face. And then they watched until a man became a charred 
 and shriveled mass. 
 
 "Liberty was banished from (Jeneva, and nothing bat 
 Presbyterianism was left. Honor, justice, mercy, reason 
 and charity were all exiled; but the five points of predeaii-. 
 nation, particular redemption, irresistible grace, total de- 
 pravity and the certain perseverance of the saints renaained 
 instead. Calvin founded a little theocracy, modeled after 
 the Old Testament, and succeeded in erecting the mosi de- 
 testable government that ever existed, except the one from 
 which it was copied. 
 
 "Against all this intolerance one man, a minister, raised 
 his voice. The name of this man should never be forgot- 
 ten. It was Castellio. This brave man had the goodness 
 and the courage to declare the iauocence of honest error. 
 He was the first of the so called reformers to take this noble 
 ground. I wish I had the genius to pay a tribute to his 
 memory. Perhaps it would be impossible to pay him a 
 grander compliment than to say, Castellio was in ail things 
 the opposite of Calvin. To plead for the right of individ- 
 ual judgment was considered as a crime, and Castellio was 
 driven from Geneva by John Calvis. By him he was de- 
 nounced as a child of the Devil, as a dog of Satan, as a 
 beast from hell, and as one who, by this horrid blasphemy 
 of ihe innocence of honest error, crucified Christ afresh, 
 and by him he was pursued until rescued by the hand of 
 
 death. 
 
 " Upon the name of Castellio, Calvin heaped every epi- 
 thet, until his malice was satisfied and his imagination ex- 
 hausted. It is Impossible to conceive how human nature 
 

 ■* 
 
 4 J 
 
 ean beeome so frightfully perrerted as to pursue a fellow- 
 man with the malignity of a lleud, simply because he la 
 good, just and generous. 
 
 "GalTin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, 
 sickly, iiritable, gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, 
 heartless and infamoas. He was a strange compound of 
 reTCDgeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious char- 
 ity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice. In 
 other words, he was as near like the God of the Old Testa- 
 ment as his health permitted. 
 
 '* The best thing, howcTer, about the Presbyterians of 
 Geneva was, that they denied the power of the Pope, and 
 the best thing about the Pope was, that he was not a Pres* 
 byterian. 
 
 " The doctrines of Calvin spread rapidly and were eagerly 
 accepted by multitudes on the Continent; but Scotland in a 
 few years became the real fortress of Presbyterianism. The 
 Scotch succeeded in establishing the kind of theocracy that 
 flourished in Geneva. The clergy took possession and con- 
 trol of everybody and everything. It is impossible to exag- 
 gerate the mental degradation, the abject superstition of 
 the people of Scotland during the reign of Presbyterianism. 
 Heretics were hunted and devoured as though they had 
 been wild beasts. The gloomy insanity of Presbyterianism 
 took possession of a great majority of the people. They 
 regarded their ministers as the Jews did Hoses and Aaron. 
 They believed they were the f pecial agents of God, and 
 that whatever tbey bound in Scotland would be bound in 
 Heaven. There was not one particle of intellectual free- 
 dom. No man was allowed to differ with the Church or to 
 even contradict a priest. Had Presbyterianism maintained 
 its ascendency, Scotland would have been peopled by sav- 
 ages to-day." 
 
 It relieves Calvin of none of the odium resting upon his 
 name to say that the cantons of Berne, Zurich, Bale, and 
 Schaffenhaiisen concurred in th« action of Geneva, and that 
 
 THE HUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 825 
 
 Kelancthon, Beza. Farel, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Zuingli, 
 Viret, Peter Martyr, BuUinger, Turretin, and Co., ap- 
 proved of his damnable and murderous treatment of poor 
 Servetus. It is a terrible commentary on their improved 
 religion that they should be in favor of burning people to 
 death for opinion's sake. It will hardly do to attribute it 
 to their having recently left the Mother Church. The child 
 is no better than the parent, and it was not until the higher 
 and ennobling influences of civilization had time to produce 
 their better results that the desire to burn those who did 
 not graduate their belief according to the Calvinistic stand- 
 ard left the hearts of Protestants. 
 
 As your very scathing remarks about " callow striplings 
 that never saw a life of Calvin " evidently were not aimed 
 at myself, I will let them pass unnoticed. I presume you 
 will allow that I am not "callow." Your characteristic 
 observations also about "long hair, weird looks, spectacles, 
 funny clothes, and other eccentricities, all put on," etc., 
 may pass unnoticed. I presume you did not mean them as 
 personal insinuations. Wfiat you were driving at, however, 
 I am at a loss to decide. 
 
 You advertise the fact that I have presented a copy of 
 Paine's Works to the library of the Cooper Institute. Yes, 
 when you previously remarked that a copy of his works 
 was not in that noble institution, and when I saw that you 
 were endeavoring to argue from that fact that Mr. Cooper 
 did not believe in Paine's writings, I resolved to test the 
 correctness of your conclusions, and to remove the stigma 
 that the Cooper Institute Library did not contain a copy of 
 Paine*s Great Works. I accordingly presented it with a 
 copy of Paine*s Works and a copy of Lord Amberley's 
 ** Analysis of Religious Belief," a work equally as radical as 
 Paine's writings. I am pleased to say that the volumes 
 were kindly accepted, and I have in my possession a letter 
 which I prize very highly, acknowledging the receipt of the 
 |wo books, and bearing the signature of the venerable and 
 
THS HUHFHBET-BSNNETT DISCUBnOOI. 
 
 1?HS HT7MPHRET-BBNNETT DI»CU8SI9N. 
 
 837 
 
 lili 
 
 I!-' 
 
 excellent Peter Cooper himself. I doubt not that a cop> uf 
 the rerised and enlarged '* Sages, Thinkers, and Reform- 
 ers," which will sooD be issued, and a copy of the '* Cham- 
 pions of the Church *' will be as graciously accepted. I 
 here venture the prediction that Peter Cooper will value 
 both works more highly than you will. Let me ask you, 
 now, whether you are willing to accept the force of your 
 arguments. You strongly took the position that there was 
 not a copy of Paine*s Works in that library because Mr. 
 Cooper did not believe in Paine*s writings. Now that Mr. 
 Cooper has graciously accepted these works, with others 
 equally destructive to the dogmas upon which your Church 
 is founded, is it not proof positive that he believes them? (1) 
 If your arguments are worth a cent, this is the only conclu- 
 sion that can be reached. If you refuse to acknowledge the 
 com, it will be an additional proof of yoar sophistry and 
 want of candor. 
 
 You again refer to the disintegrating character of Infidel- 
 ity, and aim to make a point in your own favor in that di- 
 rection. #Now, I will humor you to this extent: so far as 
 Christianity is aggregating or unifying, binding a heteroge- 
 neous conglomeration of absurdities into a compact system 
 — so far as it is an idol or image which all its devotees, on 
 pain of excommunication, are required to bow down to, 
 acknowledge and worship— so far as this subserviency to a 
 creed or bundle of dogmas destroys the right of individual 
 judgment, sinks the individuality of its worshipers, and 
 makes them mere machines instead of free men and 
 women, free to think according to the dictates of reason 
 and common sense — so far, 1 say, I freely admit that Infi- 
 delity is disintegrating, and I rejoice that it is. It is far 
 nobler and grander than the slavish system which binds mill- 
 ions of human minds to accept a prescribed form of belief 
 nolms wtmt, instead of being left free to embrace truth 
 wherever presented. Oh, yes; disintegration and indiviau- 
 liity are far preferable to stereotyped bondage. The beauty 
 
 «f Infidelity in contrast with orthodoxy is, that it gives the 
 mind liberty and room to act ; every man and woman is 
 allowed to decide matters of belief for themselves. None 
 are obliged to accept what they cannot believe and under- 
 stand. Yes, indeed, for this reason Infidelity, with its dis- 
 integration, 'is vastly to be preferred to the iron mask which 
 orthodoxy wears and insists that all its devotees shall sub- 
 mit to. I rejjoice to see this work of disintegration going 
 on, even in the Churches. People are daring to think for 
 ihemselves. It is taking place in your own Church as well 
 as in the sister Churches. The Rev. Mr. Blauvelt has had 
 his trial and been deposed; the Rev. Mr. Miller has had his, 
 the Rev. Mr. Sagemen has had his, and now the Rev. 
 Mr. Ashenfelter is to have his, and will doubtless be made 
 40** walk the plank," and more and more will follow. 
 Active minds are emerging from darkness into light; the 
 4i>onds of Church and creed of centuries are being snapped, 
 and the right of opinion is being maintained. Infidelity, 
 ^ndiviauality, and disintegration, all hail t Spread over the 
 land 1 Take oJS the mental shackles and fetters which bind 
 human beings t Remove forever the oUigatory edict that 
 ^everybody must think just according to the prescribed 
 model or go to hell. Let freedom and mental liberty be 
 ^he rule, though all cannot think alike and contract their 
 minds into one narrow groove. Universal mental freedom 
 is the genius of the age. 
 
 I perceive you chafe at having Protestant clergymen 
 classed among priests, and your position strikes me as being 
 A ludicrous one. The clergymen of the Protestant churches 
 are as really priests as those of the Catholic Church, or 
 Ihe Mohammedan or Jewish religions, and all the pagan 
 religions of which the world has seen so much. All that 
 class of men who claim the right to perform the priestly 
 otlice, to make known the will of the gods to the people, to 
 pray to the gods to be merciful to their own children, and 
 to send blessings to their own creatures, and who takemonejf 
 
THE nUMFHKET-BENNSTT DISCUSSiaiT. 
 
 and other perquisites from the people for the performance 
 of these services, are priests; and Protestant priests come 
 within the category as really as any that have lired within 
 the last ten thousand years. All that other priests do, they 
 do. They claim that they have a freer intercourse with 
 God than the masses have; that God hearkens more 
 benignantly to their supplications, and that by their cries 
 and intercessions he softens his rule over his numerous 
 children. These preachers claim that they have the abil- 
 My to explain the mysteries of godlines?, and that they can 
 tell where God is, what he is» and what his tastes and wishes 
 are. They have grand institutions of learning which cost 
 many thousands of dollars per year to condact, and here 
 •tripKags and young men are sent, and by being pnt through 
 a course of Latin, Greek, the classics, etc., are taught to be 
 priests. It is a curious proeess, and the support of these 
 70,000 {Mriesta which you say this country contains, costs the 
 people of the nation, it is estimated, $200,000,000 per yearr 
 Thus, you see, learning God's will and pleasure is an expen- 
 sive business. To support this learned and trained priest> 
 hood the people are compelled to labor and toil in the 
 dirt, in the burning sun, the biting frosts, and the pelting 
 storms— all to feed and clothe the fat, sleek i)rie8ts who are 
 shrewd enough to get the best there is produced, and to de- 
 mand reverence and obedience from the people who wJll» 
 Ingly toil for them. The rule of this priestly class is being 
 greatly broken. Mani^ thousands of people are learning 
 that they can get along just as well without prints as with 
 them, and that they can do their own praying and thinking 
 Just as well and just as acceptably as the priest can do it for 
 them, and thereby make a great saving of money, food and 
 clothing. It has taken ages to learn this simple bit of infor- 
 mation, but at last the light is dawning upon the human 
 intellect The slavery of thousands of years of priestly 
 rule is being overthrown, and men and women are learninf^ 
 to be pm; to be their own priests and their own saviora. 
 
 THE HUMPURBSY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 82^ 
 
 Gods and devils and hells are losing their terrors, and the 
 office of the priest is fast being superseded. Glorious day of 
 light and liberty I I pray these may prevail, until not a sala- 
 ried priest to say prayers, to hear confessions; and to bestow 
 God's blessing upon his own offspring, will be employed 
 in the whole world. 
 
 Your "three articles" of the creed of Liberalists, which 
 appear to be an invention of your own fertile brain, and 
 by which possibly you might make a fortune could you 
 get them patented in time, deserve a passing notice. Art. 
 I. '* Every individual is the smartest fellow in the world." 
 Now, friend Humphrey, there is a depth of thought, a per- 
 fect originality in that which speaks for itself. Indeed! in- 
 deed I Is an Infidel more conceited, more egotistical, more 
 positive that he has the truth, than a Christian clergy- 
 man T It strikes rae in this respect they stand about on a 
 level. Art. II. does not amount to much, and is not worth 
 repeating. Art. III. *' It makes no difference what you be- 
 lieve or do— you'll fetch up all right." Really, friend Hum- 
 phrey, can it be possible that a man like you, who professes 
 to speak the truth, seriously asserts of Infidels that it 
 makes no difference what we do ? Why, there are no peo- 
 ple in the world who hold that actions are a factor in secur- 
 ing happiness so strongly as Infidels. We assert on all oc- 
 casions that it is our own conduct that decides our hap- 
 piness or unhappiness, and that it is not decided by the 
 merits or demerits of another. It is your own creed that 
 holds that it makes no difference what you do, "you'll fetch 
 up all right, if you only have faith in Jesus." Here is an- 
 other instance, my Christian brother, where you are entirely 
 wide of the truth. With us conduct is everything in mak- 
 ing up happiness, present or prospective. With yoxx^ faith 
 is the only necessary ingredient ; conduct, good or bad, 
 has very little to do with it. 
 
 You insinuate that in quoting two verses from St. Paul, 
 I took them from the Investigator, and that the quota- 
 
THX nUMPHRKT-BBNNETT DISCUSSlOir. 
 
 tlons are wrong. You are at faalt. You have no grouuds 
 for such an Insinuation. I do not remember ever haying 
 seen those quotations in that paper, and there is certainly 
 no difficulty in quoting them directly from the Testament 
 itself. I made the quotations accurately, and I have at least 
 an equal right with yourself to decide whether Paul was 
 advocating lying or not. 
 
 You carp again about Infidels not having founded insti- 
 tutions of learning, orphan asylums, etc. It would seem 
 that you had said enough upon that subject to let it rest 
 awhile. I have shown fairly and beyond contradiction 
 that heretics and unbelievers have been munificent in their 
 generosity towards institutions of learning, and that liberal 
 bequests have been made by them. Unbelievers have not 
 been organized into societies as Christians are, and havo 
 not anywhere been nearly as numerous. Organizations are, 
 however, now being extensively effected among Infidels in 
 Europe and America, and in a few years we shall become 
 sufficiently organized for all practical purposes. As I said In 
 my last reply, for many hundreds of years Christiana were ao 
 busy at murdering unbelievers and heretics that they got 
 them pretty well killed off. It will, of course, take aome 
 little time for Infidels to "pick up** enough to become aa 
 numerous and as rich aa Christians, and aa able to give 
 to collegea, asylums, etc There la no good reason why m 
 Liberal ahoold not be aa generous as a Christian, except that 
 the later gives his ill-gotten dollars with the insane idea 
 that he is buying a front seat in Paradise, and escaping that 
 terrible lake that burnetii with fire and brimstone, the idea 
 of which (for the benefit of others, and not yourself) you hug 
 so fondly to your boson. Tho notion that parting with 
 his filthy lucre may ho counted to him aa rtghteonsness, 
 knowing that he cannot take It with him across the river 
 Styx, and the selfish hope that it will make hia heavenly 
 crown brighter and heavier, has made many a aordid Chris- 
 tlang|vnptk«csshh>lia f cHB lr edhyo ppffwi^ tlislaboi*' 
 
 THB HUMPHRBT-BENNBrr DISCUSSION. 
 
 831 
 
 Ing man, and grinding the face of tiie poor. Infidels, I will- 
 ingly admit, do not give from any motive of this kind. 
 When they give, it is for the earthly benefit of their fellow- 
 beings — the noblest of human incentives. 
 
 There are numerous other sophistries and false positions 
 in your letter that ought to be exposed and corrected, but 
 for want of room I will be compelled to pass over for 
 tiie present. I iDdulge the hope that you will ultimately 
 come to take a more correct view of things, and will be 
 able to arrive at more correct conclusions. I hope at alt 
 events, you will cultivate a spirit of candor and fairness 
 which, pardon me, I fear you are now slightly deficient in* 
 It behoves you to be accurate and to fairly meet the issue 
 we have under discussion, and to make correct representa* 
 tions only. 
 
 The various topics touched upon by yourself and myself 
 possess more or less importance, but they are not the sub- 
 ject immediately before us. Let me remind yon that the 
 proposition that we should be discussing is, ** Is there a 
 stronger probability that the Bible is divine than that Infi- 
 delity is true V* So far the subject has not been touched. 
 It seems to me yos purposely avoid it I also made ia 
 my laat the assertion that the Christian religion is made up 
 of Judaism and Paganism, and called upon you to disprove 
 it if it is not so. I charged that every Christian rite, ob- 
 servance, symbol, sscrameot and dogma were directly bor- 
 rowed from the older systems of religion that had existed 
 in the world, and that not one oi them was really ori^dnal 
 with the Christian Church. If this is not so, I called upon 
 you to disprove it I stated aa a fact that Jesus was not the < 
 first demi-god said to have been begotten by a god upon the f 
 person of a virgin ; that smne forty persons of this cUms 
 were believed in before the time of Jesus, and I hoped you 
 would endeavor to refnte it if yon could. You took no no- 
 tice of it Am I to understand that yon acknowledge the 
 (nUh of the sUtement f If it Is tnie ; if the Psgaas for 
 
* 1 
 
 I 
 
 il] 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 ill 
 
 nUMPHRKT-BBKNSTT DISCUSSIOV. 
 
 lions are wrong. You are at fault. You have no grounds 
 for sucli an Insinuation. I do not remember ever having 
 seen those quotations in that paper, and there is certainly 
 no difficulty in quoting them directly from the Testament 
 itself. I made the quotations accurately, and I have at least 
 an equal right with yourself to decide whether Paul was 
 advocating lying or not. 
 
 You carp again about Infidels not having founded insti- 
 tutions of learning, orphan asylums, etc. It would seem 
 that you had said enough upon that subject to let it rest 
 awhile. I have shown fairly and beyond contradiction 
 that heretics and unbelievers have been munificent in their 
 generosity towards institutions of learning, and that liberal 
 bequests have been made by them. Unbelievers have not 
 been organized into societies as Christians are, and have 
 not anywhere been nearly as numerous. Organizations are, 
 however, now being extensively effected among Infidels in 
 Europe and America, and in a few years we shall become 
 sufficiently organized for all practical purposes. As I said in 
 my last reply, for many hundreds of years Christians were so 
 busy at murdering unbelievers and heretics that they got 
 them pretty well killed off. It will, of course, take some 
 little time for Infidels to *• pick up " enough to become as 
 numerous and as rich as Christians, and as able to give 
 to colleges, asylums, etc. There is no good reason why a 
 Liberal should not be as generous as a Christian, except that 
 the later gives his ill-gotten dollars with the insane idea 
 that he is buying a front seat in Paradise, and escaping that 
 terrible lake that burueth with fire and brimstone, the idea 
 of which (for the benefit of others, and not yourself) you hug 
 so fondly to your bosom. The notion that parting with 
 his filthy lucre may be counted to him as righteousness, 
 knowing that he cannot take it with bim across the river 
 Styx, and the selfish hope that it will make his heavenly 
 crown brighter and heavier, has made many a sordid Chris- 
 tian give up the cash he has acquired by oppressing the labor- 
 
 ^BtE HUMPHllKY-BENNErr DISCUSSION. 
 
 831 
 
 Ing man, and grinding the face of the poor. Infidels, I will- 
 ingly admit, do not give from any motive of this kind. 
 When they give, it is for the earthly benefit of their fellow- 
 beings— the noblest of human incentives. 
 
 There are nunaerous other sophistries and false positions 
 in your letter that ought to be exposed and <jorrected, but 
 for want of room I will be compelled to pass over for 
 the present. I indulge the hope that you will ultimately 
 come to take u more correct view of things, and will be 
 able to arrive at more correct conclusions. I hope at all 
 events, you will cultivate a spirit of candor and fairness 
 which, pardon me, I fear you are now slightly deficient in* 
 It behoves you to be accurate and to fairly meet the issue 
 we have under discussion, and to make correct representa^ 
 tions only. 
 
 The various topics touched upon by yourself and myself 
 possess more or less importance, but they are not the sub- 
 ject immediately before us. Let me remind you that the 
 proposition that we should be discussing i8> "Is there a 
 stronger probability that the Bible is divine than that Infi- 
 delity is true r* So far the subject has not been touched. 
 It seems to me you purposely avoid it. I also made ia 
 my last the assertion that the Christian religion is made up 
 of Judaism and Paganism, and called upon you to disprove 
 it if it is not so. I charged that every Christian rite, oh- 
 servance, symbol, sacrament and dogma were directly bor- 
 rowed from the older systems of religion that had existed 
 in the world, and that not one of them was really ori;;inal 
 with the Christian Church. If this is not so, I called upon 
 you to disprove it. I stated as a fact that Jesus was not the 
 first demigod said to have been begotten by a god upon the 
 person of a virgin ; that some forty persons of this class 
 wore believed in before the time of Jesus, and I hoped you 
 would endeavor to refute it if you could. You took no no- 
 tice of it. Am I to understand that you acknowledge tha 
 truth of the statement f If it is true ; if the Pagans for 
 
 ( 
 
fSTf" 
 
 f 
 
 fS^ 
 
 THE mntPHRKT-BENNETT DlSCUSfllOir. 
 
 Many Hundreds of years before the dawn of Christianity 
 believed that their gods cohabited with young virgins ; 
 that the progeny were beings half god and half man ; thai 
 they lived for a time, had little bands of disciples who fol- 
 lowed them around and listened to their teachings, and those 
 sons of gods were finally crucified or otherwise put to 
 death for the salvation and happiness of man, it robs Chris- 
 tianity of all its originality and of all its truth. You do not 
 try to refute this. I Judge it is because you cannot do so 
 successfully. These are lacts too well attested to be con- 
 troverted. And here, let me say, if the Christian religion 
 is of divine origin ; if the begetting, the birth, the life and 
 death of Jesus are facts, and were necessary for the salva- 
 tion of the world, it is very singular indeed that in getting 
 up such a stupendous system as the only possible means by 
 which God's lost children could be saved, he was com- 
 pelled to follow in every minutia and adopt in full the 
 myths and fables of pagan systems of religion. If he has 
 no more originality than that, and is under the necessity of 
 adopting old and worn-out legends and vagaries, it is ques- 
 tionable if he is fit to be considered Go(|> Almighty, and 
 whether he ought not to resigu the position in favor of some 
 god that has originality. Do you believe your God did, in 
 getting up his grand system of salvation, borrow it from 
 the pagans ? If not how did he come to pattern after 
 paganism so closely ? Will you please answer t 
 
 I charged you with defending and supporting a borrowed 
 system of myths and superstitions, handed down from the 
 past ages of darkness, ignorance, and supernaturalism, 
 which system you are pleased to call the Christian religion. 
 It is a serious charge, but you take no notice of it, you do 
 not deny it. I reiterate it now, and again call upon you to 
 disprove it if you are able to do so. If you do not, I and 
 our readers will be justified in deciding that you acknow- 
 ledge the truth of the charge. 
 * Tou, in common with your brethren of tli« "cloth," 
 
 THB HUliPHBSY-BSNNSTT DIBCUBaiON. 
 
 claim to act uniter a commission from the King of Heaven 
 to perform glorious deeds in his service. It is perhaps 
 most honorable to be engaged by so exalted a personsge; 
 and may I here ask you to bho w your credentials f If you act 
 by such high authority, you certainly can furnish the papers 
 under which you act. It will not be suflicient to hold up 
 the Bible to me. I have the copy of that antique volume 
 which my mother gave me nearly half a century ago. I 
 can concede no prerogative to you from that book which I 
 do not possess myself. If you can show no authority from 
 the king under whom you claim to serve, is it unjust that 
 you should be regarded as an impostor? I again ask for 
 your credentials. 
 ^ Again let us revert to the question under discussion: 1% 
 the Bibls divine f To answer this question in the affirma- 
 tive you have to assume the existence of supernaturalism. 
 That there is a power in existence greater that the entire 
 Universe, and that the Bible is a divine revelation from this 
 superior power. I hold that you cannot prove this to be 
 true. I hold that the Universe embraces all substances, all 
 forces, all powers, and all existences. That there is nothing 
 above it, nothing superior to it, nothing contrary to it, 
 and that there can be no supernaturalism. I call upon 
 you to prove the existence of the supernatural power. I 
 want other proof than Bible -prcof. Before that book 
 can be taken as evidence it must itself be proved— equally 
 as hopeless a task as to prove the existence of super- 
 naturalism. 
 
 If this supernatural power is proved, it will be next in 
 order to show that the compilation by diJDferent authors, 
 called the Bible, was written or dictated by that Supreme 
 Power. If that power is all-good, all-wise, and all perfect, 
 his productions must also be all-good, all-perfect, with- 
 out blemish, contradiction or fault. I call upon you, 
 then, to show why the Bible has hundreds of contradictions, 
 why it is full of absurdities and obscenity, and why it re- 
 
^"^^^-sssassssas 
 
 
 8S4 THE HUMPHBBY-BENKKTT DIBCU9SI0H. 
 
 lates the adventures of an obscure race of semi-barbarians 
 instead of giving the principles of science and knowledge, 
 most needed by men of all nations and all time. 
 
 I ask you to explain if the Bible was dictated by the 
 various writers, why Moses, Joshua. Solomon, and the 
 rest of them, did not do as much as to say so. and that the 
 divine power controlled them ? 
 
 If revelation from God is assumed to be a fact to the 
 person to whom it is made known, I ask you to show how 
 it is a revelation to all the world, to whom it is not re- 
 vealed, but to whom it comes second hand, and who have 
 no authority upon which to base a beUef in It save the naked 
 assertion or say-so of the first party, who claims to have 
 had a revelation. If God. in a secret manner, reveals a 
 certain piece of information to me. and I relate it to you, is 
 that a revelation from God to you, oris it simply a narrative 
 of mine, reliable or unreliable as my credibility may war- 
 rant ? Are you compelled to believe me under penalty of 
 burning in heU forever f Ought God to compel you to be- 
 lleve my assertion without any corroboration when be does 
 not give you the slightest proof that I state the truth T If 
 God wants to reveal anything to you. should he not do 
 it direct, and not by the roundabout way of telling me and 
 then having me tell you f 
 
 In order to enable me to beUeve that the Bible was writ- 
 ten or dictated by a being superior to man. I must be con- 
 vinced that it contains wisdom, knowledge, beauty and per 
 fection superior to the ability of man. As I do not believe 
 that the Bible contains anything that man has not been ca- 
 pable of writing, that the knowledge and llteraiy abUity in 
 it U not superior to the Bibles of the Hindoos, the Persians, 
 the Egyptians, and of other nations, and which were writ- 
 ten at an earlier date than the Jewish Bible, as well as the 
 productions oi Menu, Ossian. Homer and others, I specially 
 ask you to point out wherein that superiority consists, and 
 what there ii In the BlUe that man could ftot have written. 
 
 1 
 
 (J 
 
 TBB HUHPHUBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION 
 
 835 
 
 I hold that for every event that has ever occurred there 
 has been a natural cause sufficient to produce it, and lb at 
 there never has been a result without a natural cause. 
 If you are able to prove to the contrary of this, I 
 ask you to do so. 1 also ask you to show why I am any 
 more under obligations to accept as divinely inspired the 
 writings attributed to Moses or Paul, than those of 
 Mohammed or Joseph Smith. I ask you to show why I 
 am any more under obligation to believe that Jonah swal- 
 lowed the whale or that Joshua stopped the sun and moon 
 in their course, than the equally beautiful and intellectual 
 stories about Jack and his bean-stalk and Aladdin and 
 his wonderful lamp. 
 
 As the Infidelity we have under consideration is an un- 
 belief in the divinity of the Jewish Scriptures, I call upon 
 you to show how and wherein that Infidelity is more untrue 
 than that the Bible is divine. Before Infidelity can be 
 shown to be false, you must show that the Bible is divine. 
 
 Begging pardon for the lengthiness of my reply, which 
 seemed necessary to refute your errors, I remain sincerely 
 yours, D. M. Bennett. 
 
 MR. HUHPHRET. 
 
 Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: Owing either to my lack 
 of acumen, or to your paucity of arguments, the perusal of 
 your Reply brought to my mind those words of Shakspeare: 
 
 ** Gratiano speaks an infiaite deal of nothing, more than 
 any man in all Venice. His reasons are his two grains of 
 wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day 
 ere you find them; and when you htfve them, they are not 
 worth the search.'*— TAe Merchant of Venice. 
 
 You have scraped up another installment of men that 
 did not practically believe in the precepts and example 
 of Christ, who have crept into the pulpit under the 
 

 
 .1 . 
 
 
 THB mjMPHBEY-BENNBTT DlflOUSSIOH. 
 
 mask of hypocrisy. Go ahead ; you aw only showing 
 how that the predictions of Scripture are being fulfilled: 
 ••For I know this, that after my departure shall grievoua 
 wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 
 XX, 29). As I have no objection to helping you along in 
 this matter, let me suggest that you drag your muck-rake 
 through Dante's Inferno. You will there find quite a num- 
 ber of names which your cotemporaneous standards— 77i« 
 JWftOfl Nem, The Befcrmtr db JewUh Times, etc.,— know but 
 little about. What a lean, lank, gaunt, ghastly old spindle- 
 shanks Infidelity must be anyhow, that she is obliged to be 
 continually coloring her sunken cheeks with the blood of 
 papistic persecutions, and to be giving curvature to her 
 fleshless calves, and plumpness to her hollow bosom, with 
 pads made of the fleece that hypocritical wolves have worni 
 
 Tou have confirmed me in the conviction that Infidels 
 do not hold up the lapses of clergymen because they love 
 Morality, but because they hate the Church. It appears 
 from their journals that they regard Immorality as quite 
 excusable in anybody, provided he is not a Christian. In a 
 "Freethinker" a "peccadillo" is almost admired. As 
 it Is the envious and spiteful farmer that is continually 
 pointing out an occasional thistle or tare in his neighbor's 
 fields, never saying a word about his acres of waving grain, 
 so the malignant spirit of Infidelity is revealed by its gabble 
 about the imperfections of the Church, while it is as sUeni 
 as the grave about her many excellent qualities and innu- 
 merable services to mankind. 
 
 You will have it that the Jews were cannibals, because 
 they may have eaten human flesh in the desperation 
 of famine. Will you reason after the same fashion, and 
 say that the American people are mule-eaters, because some 
 of our soldiers had to eat mule-flesh in some of the priva- 
 tions of the late civil wart I am somewhat curious to 
 know who those "distinguished" writers are who say that 
 the ancient Jews were man-eaters. Names, please. 
 
 TBM aUMPHBBT-BBNHBTT DISOUBSIOir. 
 
 837 
 
 Neither did the Jews offer human sacriflces. Abraham 
 did not slay his son Isaac (Gen. xxii, 11-14). Even if Jeph- 
 thah did immolate his daughter, he was violating the Mosaic 
 Law (Deut. xii, 81). But there are many critics who be- 
 lieve that he fulfilled his vow by devoting her to perpetual 
 virginity (See Lange on Judges xi, 29-40). 
 
 You do not seem to know that Herodotus wrote a missing 
 "History of Assyria," or Syria, as the Greeks often called 
 that country. You will see that such was the fact by look- 
 ing into Rawlinson's Herodotus, London, 1858, vol. i, pp. 
 29, 249, 321, and vol iv, p. 63. 
 
 Your attempt to show that Robespierre was a Catholic is 
 futile and inconsistent. By your style of reasoning in 
 regard to him it could be shown that others, in whose Infi- 
 delity you boast, were Christians. If his belief in a God 
 made him a Christian, it also did as much for Thomas 
 Paine. If his talk about being an *' indifferent Catholic " 
 really made him a Catholic, then Voltaire, who talked 
 about reverently kissing the Pope's feet, was a better Cath- 
 olic stilL When you appeal to Robespierre's tolerance and 
 protection of the clergy as an evidence that he was a relig- 
 ious man, are you not reversing the everlasting boast of 
 Infidelity, that Infidels are far more " Uberal " than Chris- 
 tians ? 
 
 You quote rather profusely from Mr. IngersoU. Poor 
 IngersoUI His presentation of Paine to an occasional 
 audience will be a greater failure than his presentation of 
 Blaine at the Cincinnati Convention. His " Orations " are 
 mostly slashing tirades— frantic tongue-lashings— tissues of 
 delirious dogmatism— pills, coated with pretty rhetoric, but 
 filled with historical blunders and biographical caricatures. 
 The sickly suckling that swallows them will become sick- 
 lier still. Give me Bancroft's, or Fronde's, or even Bayle's 
 delineation of Calvin and Calvinsm, rather than the rav- 
 ings of a man who is apparently unable to distinguish 
 reasoning from betting and blustering. 
 
 I II 
 
 Mi 
 
 'if] 
 
THB HUMFHRBT-BENKBTT DISCUSMOK. 
 
 I repeat that Voltaire tried to make up with the priests 
 before his death. Speaking of a hemorrhage that had 
 leized him a short time bef oro the end of his life, the Ency- 
 aopedia Britannica says: "Voltaire, thinking himself in 
 danger, said he did not wish his body ' to be cast to the vul- 
 tures ' and bargained with the Abb§ Gauthier, to whom he 
 committed it for the rites of sepulture, if nothing else. The 
 preliminaries for duly receiving such a deposit were soon 
 settled ; Voltaire had no objection at all to the ceremonies 
 proper to the occasion. He made a declaration thai he wished 
 to die in the Catholic religion, in which he had leen bom, asked 
 pardon of Qod and the church for the offenses he had eommitted 
 against thm, and received absolution.'' As Longchamps and 
 Wagnilre, Maaure. and Condorcet— an Atheist, who died 
 by his own hand— all corroborate this statement, there is no 
 reason for disputing it. It is true that Voltaire recovered 
 somewhat from that attaisk of iickneas. But it is not on 
 record that he expressed any disapproval of the arrange- 
 ment with Abb6 Gauthier. His last hours are enveloped 
 In a cloud of uncertainty, owing to contradictory testimo- 
 Hies. The mqjorUy of authorities state that he approached 
 death with agony and remorse. The Infidel Strauss says 
 that Tronchin, his attendant physician, wrote a letter to 
 Bonnett in which he compared his death to a raging storm, 
 and to the mad ravings of Orestes. The same authority 
 tells us further that he was buried In consecrated ground, 
 and that the usual burial service was said over his grave. 
 It is true that some bishops and other ecclesiastics were dis- 
 pleased with this ; but the fact remains that Voltaii« was 
 buried as a Roman Catholic (Strauss' Voltaire, pp. 840- 
 «). Thus it is clear that Voltaire did not die an avowed 
 
 Infidel. 
 
 But I waive all claim to Mr. IngersolFi reward. Mine is 
 A labor of love— a chat with friend Bennett on points of 
 difference between us. As Col. IngersoU is presumably out 
 of debt, I would suggest that he send his superfluous change 
 
 THB HUMPHREY-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 to save Paine Hall from sheriff sale. If anything is left 
 after that, he might send a purse to each of the Infidel jour- 
 nals that have of late been lavishing their soft soap on him 
 —possibly with their eyes squinting toward his wallet. 
 
 I have already admitted that Thomas Paine died as ho 
 had lived, a Deist (Letter iv). But that he did so is surely 
 nothmg to boast of (Phil, iii, 18, 19). It would have been 
 far more creditable to him if he had recanted more and de- 
 canted less. 
 
 I will now take up some of the difficulties that will often 
 occur to thoughtful men as they study the Bible histori- 
 cally and hermeneutically. Infidels are not alone in know- 
 ing of these difficulties. Every minister, of average educa- 
 tion, is familiar with them. And they are not unfrequently 
 considered in the higher classes of the Sabbath-school. I 
 wish to treat them with every due respect. I only regret 
 that my time and abilities are not such as to enable me to 
 discuss them more thoroughly. 
 
 Let me, however, premise that it is not at all remarkable 
 that the Bible is made the subject of hypercriticisms and 
 objections. As long as men are as they are, such a code of 
 morals as would be exempt from their fault-finding is in- 
 conceivable and impossible. They would peek at absolute 
 Perfection itself. There is therefore no presumption in 
 the mere cavilings of men that the Bible is anything less 
 than it claims to be. But let us examine the objections : 
 
 1. The question of the Canon is perplexing to some minds. 
 The Bible was written by different men at different times. 
 Many centuries Intervened between Moses and St. John. 
 It mentions several documents of high authority which it 
 does not contain, and which are irreparably lost (Num. 
 xxi, 14; Josh, x, 13; 1 Kings xi, 41; 2 Chron. ix, 29; xxxii, 
 82, etc.). And then there are several books known as the 
 Apocrypha. The Church of Rome has declared those of 
 the Old Testament canonical. And considerable weight 
 has been attached now and then to some of the books com- 
 
 :r 
 

 HUICPHBET'BENNBTT DI8CU98ION. 
 
 podng the Apocryphal New Testament. The Canons of 
 the Old and of the New Testament were compiled and com- 
 pleted some time after their constituent parts had been 
 written. Such are the grounds of the difficulty under 
 consideration. 
 
 On this it may be observed (1) That th^ lost books men- 
 tioned in the Old Testament were not of vitt^l importance. 
 They are referred to only on points of history, biography, 
 or natural science. We have no intimation that they con- 
 tained any new light on moral and spiritual truth. While 
 Ihey might gratify curiosity and elucidate some points of 
 sacred history, they could add nothing to the central idea 
 of the Scriptures. 
 
 (») As to the Apocrypha, they ar« before us; and their 
 contents show that they would modify the doctrines of the 
 Scriptures in no perceptible degree, even if they should ba 
 receired as authoritatiye. Those writings serve to shofr 
 by contrast the supreme excellence of the Scriptures proper. 
 
 (B) It was well that the parts of the Old and New Testa< 
 ments were not compiled until tome time after they were 
 written. If undue haste had been exercised in this matter, 
 the objector would say that other prophecies and epistles 
 may have been thereby shut out. The compilation was 
 deferred only until the prophetic and apostolic writings 
 had indisputably ceased. 
 
 (4) The separate books of the Bible were Law and Qospel 
 before they were put together in one volume. They are not 
 authoritative because they are in the Canon, but they are in 
 the Canon because they are authoritative. 
 
 (5) We have the endorsement of Christ on the Canon of 
 the Old Testament (Mat. zxii, 29; Luke xxiv, 27; 
 John ▼, 39; x, 85). And the writers of the New were 
 men personally prepared and approved by Himself. The 
 Apostles spoke of each other*8 writings as Scriptures (3 Pet. 
 iii, 16). We have thus the ImprinuUur of ChrUt and the 
 Apostles on the Canon of both the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 .nSnT!l!?!*' "'^''° " ' '"""*• P"'*'"*" ^"^ « appear. 
 luZor'^r't '''''''''' "°° '""^ ^" doubt l>ut 
 1 nS^L lu ! T '^^ "P °' ""any Paru. it is maaiiostly 
 dar Thl",; "^ ""undant without being reduu 
 and falSr 1 . '"'"' * correspondence of predictions 
 
 pans ft^rwe ' """ '^' ^°"-'^P'' ""«« ""I «»»»'- 
 parts, ftat we may rererently say of it in tlie dying words 
 
 of Its Heart and Life, "It is flnislied.- 
 
 I in Z r "^ ""^^^ "" "•"«*'*"«« °° "^« matter. 
 A God that has a personal Being, and that loves his 
 
 ":n:: :t. ""t'^""*" ^-^^ k„own :: l^: 
 
 The thorough student will examine the works of Gaussen 
 Alexander. Cosin, Jones. Stuart. FUrst. Davidson W^^°' 
 Credner, and others on this subject. ' 
 
 8. It is sometimes objected that the Bible is no Rerela- 
 ^n to «. eren if it should be admitted that it was a W- 
 
 Ut.onto.u original writers. ThisobjectionisassophJtli 
 as It to old. Suppose a truth, unknown before, is made 
 know, to some Indiyidnal. and he records it ta wriTint 
 
 21 ^l '**""" ^ ""■""^^ "' '""««'«'' *°^o«« 
 g.ve testimony m regard to certain facts of which they 
 
 mony because those facts are not personally and immedi- 
 
 Tu wereTo^ ° '*^' ''° ^"^ '^'"'' «» ""'-y. "-use 
 you were not an eye- witness of its innumerable eventsf Do 
 
 yourse f can make no use of his observatory, nor comL- 
 
 Brence' T^'r ''"•-••"o-' Inart.histo;'and pbysf ca, 
 science the d.scovery of the Individual is the discovery of 
 the wo, d, , „ ,„ ,„ ,^^ ^ ^^^^ ^ mankind c7me L 
 
 exi! ^''^^''"^'^ «''»«S'> Columbus, and learned of the 
 existence of Keptune through Le Verrier, so it came to 
 
343 
 
 TBS H P H r gB BT HmUlgrT mOUBtlOH. 
 
 \ 
 
 undentand tlie mind of God tlirongh the inspired PropheU 
 and Apostles. 
 
 & It is frequenOy urged against tlie Bible that it contains 
 nothing new. Now, it is true that the Scriptures contain 
 those truths that are common to all mankind— the truths of 
 nature, instinct, and reason. In this the Word of God 
 coincides with many things contained in other sacred books, 
 so-called. And this is an argument for the Bible rather 
 than against it. We hereby see that it is a Book correspond- 
 ing to all the nobler instincts and sentiments of man, and 
 that it is adapted to all his conditions. As it is no dishonor 
 to American civilization that it has many things in common 
 with uncivilized races, so you cast no cloud on the grand 
 precepts of the Bible by showing that many of them are con- 
 tained in the Vedas and the Zend-Avesta. This only shows 
 that the Bible, like the Sabbath, was made for man ; and 
 that its principles are such as must commend themselves to 
 man's nobler nature everywhere. The Divinity of this 
 Book is shown by the perfection of its Ideal Humanity. 
 
 But it is not true that the Bible contains no new doctrines. 
 The Monotheism of Moses was new to polytheistic Egypt 
 at the time of its first announcement That a Jew should 
 beun-Jewish, and world-wide in the scope of his phllan- 
 thropy, was a new idea to the Pharisees, and unexpected by 
 the Gentiles, in the time of Christ and his Apostles. And^ 
 the sight of a dozen Jews that had thus overcome every 
 selfishness and prejudice, was indeed a novel spectacle to 
 the world. The rite of Baptism received a new significance^ 
 from the lips of Christ. The heathen conception of sancti- 
 fication by ablutions and expiations, is very different from 
 the New Testament doctrine of Holiness, which contem- 
 plates not only the spotless purity of the body, but also of 
 the desires, volitions, thoughts, and conscience (Heb. ix, 
 
 9, 14" X, 22). 
 ' There must be something peculiar and unique about the 
 Bible, since, wherever it goes, it remodels society, gives 
 
 THS RUIfPHBST-: 
 
 deflects the wry cnrrents of histwy. It would be w de of 
 the mark .0 reply that the Homieh Church has pLcuted 
 and done her part to bring on Europe the darkness of th; 
 
 Sbfe it rTt' '" '° *" -'y «"-«^e had taken 
 
 Wlf r„ . n """' °^ ""• """P'^' ^"'^"S abandoned it 
 herself, to follow traditions and commandments of men 
 
 Whereyer tte Bible is freely circulated, diligent^ rid 
 must coniri"°'T • ^°^ '^""•^'^ ""<=" » '"•"'-o 
 .rin« a. U mcnlcate. In common with other venerated 
 
 so%SZ.?""/"'° °°'' "°" ''"' ** 2™« >•«<"«•«'» it i» 
 so vanou,ly understood and interpreted. They would 
 
 thence mfer that U cannot be the Word of God. NoTit 
 
 must be admitted that the meaning of the Scriptr Juon 
 
 BuTth^'T If "°"^ "^^"-''"'^^'^ by dSZltir. 
 But U,w should not awaken a suspicion in regard to ita 
 
 dmn,ty. 1. could not be otherwise with anything Iched 
 
 m human anguage. lu our day. uo sooner fs aTfwTs^d 
 
 by the legislature than it is differently construed by law^rt 
 
 and judges. The Constitution had scarcely been raXd 
 
 oyer th?w*'.. ,"'""'' contending there is oftentimes 
 
 2w^.r^^ "' ''"''• "°'"~°"'' «"=• ^ this goes to 
 •how that words are inevitably Hable to be half understood 
 and misunderstood. ""uersiooa, 
 
 do^lr'r"',!""^*'''" ""''*"" "' '"« "^-^ <" the 
 thev^Id so ifi ^,''"'* *'"' ""^ "' «° "^iffo^-t that 
 nZ r„l ''■"'"-"y- ^ -"an's taste, training, and nat- 
 ural endowments cannot but influence his cooc'eption of 
 What he sees and hears. Articulate the word "souS^u a 
 m.«d company, and ««, doctor will think of a surgical L 
 
844 
 
 THS BUMPHBET-BlinnBTT DUCUaSIOH. 
 
 Btramcnl ; the siOlor's mind will run to a narrow passage of 
 water ; the ichthyologist will remember a species of fish ; 
 while the musician will be reminded of musical strains. 
 The cause of this difference is not so much in the word 
 •'sound'' itself as in the individuals who hear it. It is 
 on the same principle that men take different meanings 
 from the Scriptures. Like ventriloquists, they throw their 
 own voices into it, and then censure it if they do not 
 like its tone. In the study of Scripture it is necessary to 
 examine every word, sentence, and statement in the light 
 of its age, context, occasion, and aim. 
 
 But this objection may be urged against Nature as well as 
 against the Bible. From age to age man has been reform- 
 ing and changing hit theories of the Universe. Is the 
 Universe, therefore, of human origin t Is it to be rejected 
 as a fraud ? No. But why not treat the Scriptures— the 
 Christian's Bible— as fairly as Nature— the Deist's Bible ? 
 
 But, after all, the different interpretations of Scripture 
 bear mainly on unessential matters. They do not refer so 
 much to the faeU of Redemption as to the manner and 
 methods of those facts. All Christians are agreed in re- 
 gard to the Being of God ; Reaemption through Christ ; 
 and the necessity of Repentance, Faith, Love, Righteous- 
 ness, and Holiness. As men may differ in their notions 
 about the earth, and yet manage to get their sustenance 
 from its ample resources, so the students of the Bible may 
 vary in their theological views, and at the same time be all 
 Inheritors of Eternal Life from the riches of Divine Grace. 
 6. Considerable noise is sometimes made about the '* dis- 
 crepancies of the Scriptures." Some fool has collected and 
 collocated a lot of passages and called them "Self-contra- 
 dictions of the Bible." By following his method it could be 
 shown that Shakspeare was the greatest ass that ever lived ; 
 that Gibbon's History contains not **144i" but 144,000 
 " self-contradictions "; and that even EucUd'fl theorems and 
 demonstrations are not self -consistent. 
 
 MB TOMPHBBY-BBinnnT DttCUaaiOH. 841 
 
 .Jou, we confessedly difficult and obscure passages in 
 Ihe Bible. This obscurity k caueed by a combination of 
 circumstances : 
 
 (1) Different writers have sometimes used the same words 
 with different meanings. Poets took liberties with langua-e 
 that historians and prophets did not indulge in. Some 
 Hebrew words had acquired meanings in the time of Mala- 
 chi which they did not have in the age of Moses. The 
 translator had to study each writer's peculiar idioms, men- 
 tal chai»cteristics. and age. before he could understand 
 him. and clothe his thoughts in another language. In this 
 doubtless, the prof oundest scholar has occasionally failed! 
 or but partly succeeded. 
 
 (^) Our present version of the Bible is sometimes mis- 
 understood because the English language has passed through 
 vast changes since the age of King James. Some words 
 have changed their meanings, while others have become ob^ 
 
 Tv\ l^T '":: '''"^'^^""^ ^' ^^^^ ^^^^« throughout the 
 English Bible. For instance, it has " advertise - for i7iform 
 
 fr^."'l' ^^^' *'artUlery-for armor (1 Sam, xx, 40); 
 " bestead -forn^t^aferf (Is. viii, 21); -bonnets"for c^ps ol 
 ;ia^ CEx. xxviii,40); -by and by- for immsdiaiel^ (Mark 
 Ji.2^; -charity "for foe. (1 Cor. xiii, 13) ; -convenient" 
 for becoming (Eph. v, 4); "corn- for grain (Luke vi 1) • 
 • daysman - for umpire (Job ix. 83) ; "hardly" for mY/J 
 a.JUuUy (Mat xix 23); «Measing" for Iging (Ps. iv, 2); 
 
 /rih II 1 !" ^^''' ^""' ^^' "neesings" for sn^ 
 (Job xli, 18); -prevent" for antieipate (Ps. cxix 147) 
 
 ''provoke" for ^»^(Heb. x. 34); -usury" fo/intere^ 
 
 ^nt 'w L ^^' ""^'^ ^^ '^"^ ^^'^'^P^^^ ^ Swinton's 
 Bible Word-Book." Thus the Bible is liable to be misun- 
 
 derstood, or not understood at all, on some minor points, in 
 consequence of a circumstance-the changeableness of Ian- 
 guage-which is no fault of its own. The forthcoming 
 version will be free from this misfortune. 
 («) The language of the Bible is interwoven with cus- 
 
Ttn HUMPHBXT-BEinnRT maoouoRXf, 
 
 toms Mid modes of thought that tre well-nigh unknown t<y 
 modems, and cspeciaDy to BuropeMis and Americana. 
 This ia another source of occasional embarrassment. We- 
 must know all about those early times— the fashions of 
 iresa ; manner of salutation ; styles of furniture ; social 
 customs; political peculiarities; and religious ceremonies— 
 before we can understand the Bible to a nicety. 
 
 But it is certainly irrational to conclude that it is " sellf 
 contradictory " simply because it is not everywhere well 
 understood. Let us treat the Bible like any other book. 
 Ho one aflfects contempt for Shakspearc because his English 
 is antiquated. We feel that we have In Rawlinson's Herod • 
 olus, and Jowett's Plato the important ideas of those au- 
 thors, though some minute points may be blurred. We al- 
 ways decide that tho language of an ancient writer is to be 
 explained from the pecuHaritles of his own age, and not 
 from those of our own. Apply these principles to the 
 Scriptures, and the phantoms of *' self-contradictions" will 
 ▼anish. A good, scholarly commentator is a great assist* 
 ance in this matter. Anything that throws light on antiqr 
 uityla at once an explanation and a Tindication of Holy 
 Writ, which is understood only in the proportion that it i» 
 understood self-cocsistently. 
 
 & The remark is sometimes made that the Bible la 
 "coarse,*' " vulgar." •'indelicate," and "obscene." We 
 have already seen (Letter ix.) that Infidels cannot consist- 
 ently say anything about this. But let us consider the 
 objection for the sake of others that may not be in their 
 predicament. 
 
 The assertion thai the Bible is more '* objectionable " in 
 this respect than other venerated books, proves nothing but 
 the egregious Ignorance of those who make it. It is well 
 known that the ancient worship of Venus was nothing but 
 a bestial debauch. Neumann found the Thirteenth Article 
 of the "Catechism of the Shamans" too disgusting to 
 ' lianirtate (London, 16M. p. !»>. The "Asiatic Researches " 
 
 THE HUMTHRKY-BinwnBTT DISCDgHON. 847 
 
 wm Show you ad nauseam that the literature and rites of 
 the ancient and modern Hindiis and Persians have always 
 been tainted by impurities. The Koran contains many " in- 
 delicate" passages (Chapters ii, vii, xi. xii, xv, xxxvii etc 
 etc Sale's trans.). Of all venerated writinga the Bible is 
 the freest from what its enemies call " objectionable " plain- 
 ness. It has given but the minimum of such truth as might 
 pain genuine modesty. 
 
 Wantonvm is always a feature of vulgarity. There may 
 be plainness and undisguisedness, and yet no indelicacy 
 The family physician is not coarse because he asks ques- 
 tions and gives directions in his professional capacity, that 
 would be improper at an evening party. A witness may 
 narrate all he knows bearing on a case on trial in a crimi- 
 nal court, without being considered obscene. 
 
 The Bible is simply a narrative of facts. Such matters 
 as fell within its province it told clearly, and without eva- 
 sion. This was necessary in order to show all the aspects 
 of human nature. The Bible is a truthful witness giving 
 testimony as to the character of man. It Is also a good 
 physician, propounding plain inquiries and prescribing its 
 remedies without mincing its words. 
 
 •• Unto the pure all things are pure ; but unto them that 
 are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure" (Tit. i, 15). 
 The nasty-minded will find food for lascivious thoughts in' 
 a treatise on physiology. Even a glimpse of a lady's ankle 
 will turn the hearts of some human brutes into Sodoma 
 There are those whose vile passions will be inflamed by 
 reading Shakspeare. Such as these will, of course, wrest the 
 Scriptures unto their own destruction. But the manly and 
 pure-minded will find in them only a full and faithful nar- 
 ration of Truth. The Bible inculcates modesty on men and 
 women, as you will see by consulting such passages as Ex 
 XX. 20 ; xxviil, 43 ; 1 Tim. ii, 9, 10. 
 
 We should instruct children about the Bible as we teach 
 them about the human body. Whilst we talk less to them 
 
mbont some l«rts than others, and pennlt them to regard 
 gome parts as "less honorable" than others, we should 
 teach them to regard every portion as necessary to the 
 whole, and aH as the workmanship ot God (1 Cor. xii, 
 
 2^-35). 
 
 7. The charge is frequently made against the Bible, but 
 moro particularly against the Old Testament, that it sanc- 
 tions cruelty and inhumanity. Honest minds have been 
 puzzled over this apparent fact. It behooves us, then, to 
 pause and ponder over it. Perhaps we can best reach 
 the true solution of it by means of a few distinct con- 
 siderations: 
 
 (1) In regard to any given case of alleged atrocity, we 
 should, first of all. see whether it had the Divine sanction 
 or not. The Jews were sometimes guilty of taking ven- 
 geance into their own hands. In such an event they were 
 inexcusable criminals. 
 
 (2) It is never fair to pass Judgment on any seeming se- 
 verity until its circumstances and antecedents have all been 
 ascertained. You look over a field and see afar off a woman 
 whipping a diild. Tou only see the flogging. You hear 
 the shrill whix of the lithe switch as it falls thick and fast, 
 every stroke bringing out a more vigorous shriek from the 
 writhing victim. Your sympathies are at once with the little 
 boy. You are ready to pronounce the woman inhuman. But 
 suppose you draw near and inquire into the affair. Suppose 
 you discover that the woman is the boy's mother; that she 
 IB an intelligent lady; that her little son has been disobe- 
 dient, though frequently forewarned; that he has been 
 truant, untruthful, quarrelsome, incorrigible. You change 
 your mind about the matter. You regard the oastigation 
 not only as just but benevolent It is exactly so as we look 
 back at the slaughter of the Midianites and Canaanltes. If 
 we look only at their final destmcUon, we are apt to say 
 their doom was unmerited. But when we search sacred and 
 profane hiat<»y. and find that they were the most corrupt. 
 
 TMM BUMPHBST-BBinrKFT DIBOnSSIOV. 
 
 849 
 
 nnrighteous. villainous, crime-abandoned, and blood-thirsty 
 tribes in the whole world, we cannot but conclude that 
 their treatment was not so very inexcusable after all. If 
 ever desperate and murderous savages deserved summary 
 punishment, they were the Midianites and Canaanites. The 
 Bashi-bazouks, Modocs. and followers of Sittmg Bull are 
 almost gentlemen in comparison with them. 
 
 But granting that they deserved the penalty, does it fol- 
 low that the Israelites had a right to inflict it ? I answer 
 that they Tiad, if the Almighty is the Ruler of the Universe ; 
 if he has a right to authorize his rational creatures to apply 
 the penalties of his outraged laws; and if he did so authorize 
 Moses and his successors. If the Commonwealth may em- 
 power a sheriff to execute a murderer, and that without 
 bringing the least reproach upon his character, why might 
 not the Lord have made Moses and Joshua the executioners 
 of the Midianites and Canaanites? And if they were so 
 made, why charge them with inhumanity, any more than 
 a sheriff and his assistants at an executiont 
 
 Will you reply that such severity is unworthy of God? 
 that a Book which records a sanction of silch proceedings 
 cannot be superhuman? I will answer by asking. Is Nature 
 then, ahuman invention? Is she, too, unworthy of a Divine 
 Creator? She is exposed to this objection as much as the 
 Bible. Look at the ravages of her Floods, Droughts. Pes- 
 tilences. Thunderbolts. Earthquakes, and Volcanoes.' and 
 see if her annals are not fuUer of judgments and severities 
 than even the Old Testament It will pay you to read on 
 this subject the third Letter of Watson's Reply to Paine- 
 that book so unfamiliar to Infidels, though they talk a vast 
 deal about hearing both sides before deciding. 
 
 Instead of nursing a mawkish sentimentality over the 
 fate of the Midianites. let us rather learn to realize that "sin 
 is exceeding sinful." and that "the wages of sin is death." 
 And let us not lack candor to admit that the Divine Gov- 
 «rnmen^ like human governments to-day. may have vested 
 
f 
 
 gil THB HUMPSBET-BKIWETT DISCUBilOH. 
 
 men with authority to adminiflter the penalties of its capL 
 
 tal crimes. 
 
 a But the commonest ohjection of all in these days is, 
 that the Bible is at variance with Science. On this objec 
 tion it is proper to observe: 
 
 (1) That it is urged, for the most part, by second-class 
 scientists, and more vehemently still, by men who are no 
 scientists at alL Allusions to this " variance " are compar- 
 atively rare in Spencer's, Tyndall's, and Darwin's writiugs. 
 Such scientists as Bacon, Newton, Boyle. Herschel, Mur- 
 chison, Davy. Brewster, Faraday, Moree, Whewell, Agassiz, 
 were not, in their time, alarmed by this alleged "conflict." 
 And at the present day, it seems to arouse no apprehension 
 in the minds of men like Argyll, Gladstone, Sir William 
 Thomson, Guyot. Mivart, Dawson, Prof. Owens, Dana, 
 Henry, Peters, Winchell. So fearless of the result are such 
 Christian gentlemen as William E. Dodge, William Thaw, 
 Henry W. Sage, John 0. Green, George H. Stuart, that 
 they have made munificent bequests to promote Science 
 and education. There need be no scare or panic on ac- 
 count of a war of extermination between Science and the 
 
 Bible. 
 
 It should be remembered in this connection that some 
 scientists are at fault, as well as some theologians. They 
 are disqualified by their very position to be the best judges 
 of moral truth. What Tyndall said of Newton will apply 
 to physical scientists generally; "When the human mind 
 has achieved greatness and given evidence of extraordinary 
 power in any domain, there is a tendency to credit it with 
 similar power in all other domains. Thus theologians have 
 found comfort and assurance in the thought that Newton 
 dealt with the question of revelation, forgetful of the fact 
 that the very devotion of his powers, through all the best 
 years of his life, to a totally different class of ideas, not to 
 speak of any natural disqualification, tended to render him 
 lest Instead of more competent to deal with theological 
 
 ITHB HUKPHBET-BBNNBTT DISOUfiSIOM. 
 
 851 
 
 «nd historic questions " (Adv. of Seience). In addition to 
 this disqualifying influence of an exclusively scientific 
 etudy, some scientific men show a tendency to magnify the 
 ^discrepancy and widen the breach between Science and 
 Heligion. It is noteworthy that treatises on the " recon- 
 -ciliation ** of the two <!ome almost entirely from the relief- 
 ious side. 
 
 (2) It is unreasonable to speak of an antagonism betweea 
 the Bible and Science, where Science is not fixed and estab- 
 lished. Science, generally speaking, is in a transitions^ 
 state, subject to daily modifications and readjustments; and 
 this is especially true of those branches of Science that are 
 -said to contradict the Scriptures. Even astronomy is, ia 
 4nany respects, vacillating and fluctuating. It is an "exact" 
 science only in a limited sense. Mathematicians have de- 
 termined the distance of the sun from the earth variously, 
 ibetween five millions and ninety -five millions of miles (Dra- 
 per's Conflict bet. Bel. and BcL, pp. 173-4); and this ques- 
 tion is still unsettled. The ^reat prevalence of round 
 numbers in astronomical calculations is rather suspicious, 
 showing that they are at best but approximations to truth. 
 •Geology is more unsteady still. Take up the last edition of 
 «ny work on the subject, and you will find it to be '* re- 
 <vised," '* corrected," and **ohanged." One of Mr. Huxley's 
 Lay Sermons is on " Geological Meform," The Evolution 
 Theory doubtless contains some truth; but it is yet in Its 
 infancy. Prof. Tyndall "deems it indeed certain that 
 these views (of Darwin and Spencer) will undergo modifica- 
 tion " (Advancement of Science). Until Darwinism finds 
 Its** missing links," and stands demonstrated, we tare not 
 prepared to alter the Lord's Prayer, and say: **Our father, 
 which art in Africa." It is folly to talk of a disagreement 
 l)etween the Bible and such departments of Science as afo 
 continually changing. 
 
 (3) Such things as Science has finally settled corroborate 
 the Scriptures. You ha;re incredulously asked questions 
 
Tin smmniBT^-snnnBTT Doouuios. 
 
 about the Deluge. X will answer that Geology is » 
 witness for Ctenesis. The ahell on the mountain- to{> 
 eontains still the lingering roar of a former cataclysm. 
 You would do well to read Hugh Miller's ** Testimony of 
 the Bocks " on this subject. Layard's ezeavations in Nine- 
 Teh hare confirmed many points of Biblical archaology. 
 Modern chemistry has proTed that "all nations*' are, sei 
 entifically speaking, '* of one blood" (Acts xvii, 9C; comp. 
 1 Cor. XV, SS). Physiology has confirmed that much- 
 fought clause of the Decalogue: "Visiting the iniquity of 
 the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth gen- 
 eration.** And the law of natural generation, transmitting 
 physical defects and mental tortuosities, does not add the 
 important words, too often overlooked, " Cflhem that hate 
 flM^-v-of those who themselves repeat the sins of tb«ir 
 parents. Ctonuine Science has brought Its gold, and f rauc- 
 Incense, and myrrh, to the feet of the Bible. Herodotus 
 was formerly disbelieved, almost with hootings, on sccount 
 of the "incredibility'* of his narrativea But reeent inves- 
 tigations have changed that sneering ineredulity into enthu- 
 siastic admiration. It has been so with the Bible. Igno- 
 rance has scoffed at Its testimonies ; but modern delviogs 
 Into the remains of antiquity and the meanings of Nature, 
 are vindicating it most triumphantly. 
 
 (4) Whatever the state of the question maybe, it is clearly 
 Inaccurate to nay that Nature and the Bible are at variance 
 The exact truth is, that only the human inierpretation$ of 
 each occasionally clash. Grant the commentator the lib- 
 erty which the scientist claims, and we need hear no more 
 about a collision between Bcripture and Science. Let the 
 Biblical critic modify his interpretations, where demon- 
 strated truth requires It, Just as the natural philosopher 
 modifies his interpretations, in his department, when new 
 Uf ht demands it— let this be done, and all will be peace, 
 good-will, and cooperation. 
 
 Put these facts and eonsiderations together— that the best 
 
 T» TOMPHMMBinraw DMCUSSIOK. 858 
 
 «|dentlsts have not recogniEed a conflict between the Bible 
 
 S esUl rr'' "^' ^**"^' "«^"y undersTdftil; 
 the established truths of Science have corroborated tTe 
 Scnptures ; that theologians and scientists Zlm 
 theirjespective interpretations as new knowIedL is sJ 
 
 anTu X b ' "^' ^'"^ '^^^ '^' consideratronstg r 
 and It will become manifest that there is no cause Ldls! 
 
 CX7Z "^ ''''-''' '' "^^'^ ^-^ -^ ^ -^-^ 
 
 In my eighth letter I referred you to some excellent 
 works bearing on this subject Let o.e again cormeod 
 them to your attentive perusal. commend 
 
 aJT^T "^^ ^^^"^ '^^ subject a dispassionate can 
 
 did and thorough examination. Many of the purest C^ 
 and clearest heads of the world have pondered a^r^etS 
 over that singular Book-Tni. Bible. They became S!^ 
 .iuced that it was indeed the Word of God. ^Us To ^e 
 than fair for you to.welgh the reason, they have giverfor 
 
 d wth^biri^ '' '' ^T ^'^^ ^'^" ^ Perplexities^con'el: 
 ed with believing and accepting the Bible; but to everv 
 
 thoughtful man then, are far greater perplexities inTo7 
 
 nectionwith disbelieving and rejecting it. TheBibLwL 
 
 opened toward the morning twiiignt. 'prom the ve^fi"" 
 
 the capital letters composing the name of The Savioub 
 
 WHICH IS Chbist the Lobd could be easily read That 
 
 was the viUl matter. Like Simeon, mankin'd ^^d S..' 
 
 But'nth J'' ^^^ ''"'' *^^ salvation" (Luke ii, 30). 
 But other sublime truths have been becoming legible. Life 
 and Immortality are already brought to light. ' Dim tn 
 tence are appearing more and more distinctly. But there 
 
 llLf ,r'xf'"^' "^'^^ ^^ ''' ""^'y -^ ^^^ough a 
 g ws darkly. No lexicon has ever given aU the meanings 
 
 Chrft r,?°i^"« ^«^^' ETERNITY I O to know the 
 Christ of the Scnpturea a. our Redeemer and Example! 
 CUngi.^ to Mm, we shall penetrate the mysteries of Fan 
 
r-Bsmm uuoomiov* 
 
 rity only to diMover new bleasedness. " Now I know in 
 part; but then shall I know eTen as also I am known ''d 
 Oor. xil, 13X Yours sincerely, G. H. Humphbet. 
 
 MR. BBNNBTT* 
 
 Rkt. G. H. nxjMPHBBT, Dear <5?ir: I have thought the 
 arguments In some of your former letters were rather weak 
 and sophistical, but your last letter, in this respect, sur- 
 passes all the others. If you have no better arguments to 
 bring in support of your belief, I cannot see how, as a 
 seosible man, you can continue to give your allegiance to it. 
 You seem at length to be satisfied with the cases of 
 clerical licentiousness and fllthiness that I have presented 
 you, and would fain turn and asperse me for enumerating 
 them, when you must well know I did so in self-defense. 
 With a chuckle you paraded the licentiousness of a few 
 Infidels, and argued that because they had done those things 
 their doctrines must necessarily be false. To offset those 
 cbarges, many of which were untrue, I called your atten- 
 tion to some of the sins of your holy brethren, and I am 
 glad if I have succeeded in satisfying you. If, however, 
 you are not fully satisfied, or it you delight in magnifying 
 the mistakes of some unbelievers, I will try and get you up 
 another chapter of the sins of divine scoundrels who seduce 
 the young and inexperienced and blast their reputations for 
 life, because, under the guise of being shepherds of the 
 flock and servants of Jesus Christ, they have the power to 
 corrupt and despoil the ewe lambs placed under their pro- 
 tection. I assure you there are thousands of glaring cases 
 of this kind that I have not even hinted at. Friends are 
 neatly every day sending in accounts of ministerial lechery 
 and adultery that I have not mentioned. It Is in vain that 
 yon try to evade the odium of their conduct by calling 
 
 BUICPHBSr-BENKBTT DISCUSSION. 858 
 
 them wolves in sheep's clothing. There are a large number 
 of cases where clergymen far advanced in life, who have 
 broken the bread of life from twenty-flve to forty years 
 have been so weak as to fall an easy prey to their fleshly 
 lusts, and again, large numbers who have been guilty of the 
 gravest indiscretions are still allowed to serve in the temples 
 «s servants of the Most High, ft is hardly worth your 
 whUe to condemn them for the commission of adul^ry, 
 when your Master faUed to condemn it in the case o7a 
 person who was "caught in the very act." It Is not at all 
 mprobable that those sinning clergymen argued that if 
 Jesus d^ not see fit to condemn adulteiy when he was on 
 
 TsamroZi """ """^ """''"" *•"" ^-' *-»^«-«^ 
 
 the Church If they presume to allude to the numerous 
 cnmes committed by its priests, when the object is to show 
 that they are hypocrites, pretending to be better and holier 
 ^an they are. and that they are «, sensual and licentious a. 
 
 HaT """"t " ^°" ^^ ""' '•"' ""»« ••<"°o"» cases 
 alluded to. you should not have begun the game by harping 
 
 about the sins of unbelievers. I repeat that I am glad"? 
 
 at last your taste for that kind of literature Is satisfied 
 
 You seem rather to question my statement that distin- 
 guished writers have believed the Jews were cannibals, and 
 eal upon me to give names. I will mention the na,;, of 
 Voltaire. He is somewhat distinguished, and you will find 
 hm remarks upon the subject on page X59. voL i, of hi. 
 Philosophical Dictionary. 
 
 I do not wish to contend further with you about Robes- 
 Pierre. I showed clearly from his own words and from 
 theopmions of his contemporaries that he was a religious 
 .ealot who still retained a portion of his Christian faith and 
 education. He was not at heart so bad a man as his acts 
 would seem to show him. He ran wild in some of his ideas 
 of political reform; and when hU entire nation wa. in • 
 
THS HUJiFBB »T -BMH i * ' rf xmcvsnofff. 
 
 ftate of freniy, lie ftilcd to pre«erw that calmness and thai 
 high sense of hnman righu which, as a leader, he ought to 
 haTe maintained. If it gratifies your hatred of Infidels to 
 continue to call Robespierre an Infidel, I shall not attempt 
 to prevent y^u; hut he was not an Infidel in the sense that 
 Mirabeau, Voltaire, and Paine were. He was not regarded 
 as an Infidel, and did not fraternize with them. In a word, 
 he was a wild, religious, political adventurer, who cooper- 
 ated with Christians quite as much as with Infidels, and 
 whose severity was shown quite as much against Infidels 
 as against Christians. You well know he signed Thomas 
 Paine's death warrant, whose life was spared by a mere 
 fortuitous circumstance, and that he sent many Infidels to 
 Ihe guillotine during his mad career. 
 
 You show your venom at Ingersoll, and possibly may 
 think it argumentative and dignified to call him "Poor 
 Ingersoll." He evidently disturbs you as much as he did 
 your clerical brethren in San Francisco. Instead of answer- 
 ing his rhetoric and his logic, they called him hard names. 
 You do the same. Perhaps epithets and slander are the 
 natural weapons of a Christian when reason and argument 
 are not at hand. Despite your hatred of Ingersoll, you 
 eannoi successfully deny that his popularity was never so 
 great as at this moment, and that his heavy blows upon 
 this greatest sham which the world has ever known are 
 sending it, tottering and reeling, to the earth. Abuse him 
 as much as you will. Call him hard names if you wish to. 
 His utterances are wielding a powerful influence over the 
 entire land, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and you and 
 all the satellites of a false theology cannot prevent it. If 
 you can prove his assertions false, why do you not do so t 
 If he talsifies history, why do you not show it ? Probably 
 it is easier to call names and wield epithets and abuse. 
 Perhaps he ought to be grateful to you for telling him how 
 to use his money, but it it doubtful if he is. It is hardly 
 ifortli while for you to let the indebtedness of Paine Hall 
 
 TBM HUMPSBBT-BKrHXTT M8CU88I0K. S57 
 
 trouble you too much. The hundred millions of dollars 
 
 ati': ""uT r "'" '^-""^^ ^^^^ -- --<!! 
 
 P^„?TT I :"" """" ^'"^ '''''' ^^^ '"^ *^ "nanagement 
 
 lur. ; "^"''* '''' ^^'"^'"^^^ ^ ^^^^ ''^ seventy-five 
 housand dollars of indebtedness will be paid long befor! 
 
 Z^T^' mmions Of dollars of churc'h debts^Jl^:: 
 
 1 Jd?! Im"" ""'^^^ establish it as a fact that at least one 
 Jrl tw T"' ""^ ""'' ^'''''"'^^' ^^"^ y-^ <l«ote a letter 
 
 Tidual. There may be a species of cruelty iu removing tlii. 
 ast peg upon which you would be glad to hang youf '^ 
 lorn hope, but it is better that the truth be told, tLugh you 
 do fan to establish a single point in this discussion Lei 
 me give the whole truth about Voltaire which you but pa 
 
 changed his views or because he was afraid to die with 2 
 
 inlnt wA ''"^"" ""^'"'^ ^^^ connection with it. and 
 f trLSj H *«f «^«^P*^«titionhehad to so write that 
 
 hoi Z ?r"'"' '' ^^'''^' "^'^^ '' ^-P<>«-We for men to 
 Bhow that there really was heresy in his writings. In tho^ 
 
 S tL'T ^^'^«^-'^^*^-- to incur the risk of th" 
 rack the gallows or the fagot In this world, and an endless 
 hell ,0 the next. Voltaire was trained among the Jesuits 
 and he became a consummate master of their art for he 
 well knew that he wrote with the halter around hi It 
 and he had to launch his thunderbolts of sarcasm aS 
 the Church and the fathers with at least an appearand 
 outward respect for them and their dogmas 
 
 It was because of this mental tyranny that Voltaire was 
 compelled to die like a Jesuit. He wished to be Zt^Z 
 
 l^l'TtT "^ ^"'^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^""*^*i» -^^ -ot as 
 an outcast, which would have been the case had he persist- 
 
 entlyand eutwardly maintained his heretical view^ The 
 
 ij 
 
 i 
 
 i\ 
 
TMM ■UMPHBBT'BSNKXTT DISOUSBION. 
 
 ■ 
 
 Abb6 Gauthier confessed Voltaire and received from Lim 
 a profession of faith, by whicli he declared he would die in 
 the Catholic religion in which he was born. When this 
 circumstance became known, it offended enlightened men 
 more than it edified the devotees. The curate of St. Sup- 
 lice ran to his parishioner (Voltaire) who received him with 
 politeness and gave him, as was his custom, a handsume 
 offering for the poor. But mortified that the Abbe had 
 anticipated him, the curate pretended that he ought to have 
 required a particular profession of faith, and an ezpiess 
 disavowal of all the heretical doctrines which Voltaire had 
 maintained. The Abbe declared that by requiring an abjur- 
 ation of eyerything wrong all would be lost. During this 
 dispute Voltaire recovered. Irene was played and the pro- 
 fession of faith was forgotten. But at the moment of his 
 relapse the curate returned to Voltaire absolutely resolved 
 not to inter him if he could not obtain the desired recanta- 
 tion. The curate was one of those men who are a mixture 
 of hypocrisy and imbecility. He spoke with the obstinate 
 persuasivepess of a maniac and the flexibility of a Jesuit. 
 He wished to bring Voltaire to acknowledge at least the 
 diyine nature of Jesus Christ — a dogma he was more 
 attached to than any other-~and for this purpose he one 
 day aroused him from his lethargy by shouting in his ear: 
 **Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?*' where- 
 upon answered Voltaire: " In the name of Qod speak to me 
 no more of that good man, but let me die in peace.'* Vol- 
 taire died on the 80th of May, 1778. 
 
 The curate was dissatisfied with his recantation — if 
 recantation it can with any propriety be called — and de- 
 larcd that he was obliged to refuse him burial, but he was 
 not authorized in this refusal, for according to law it ought 
 to have been preceded by excommunication. He was 
 buried at Sec tiers and the priests agreed not to interfere 
 with the funeral. However, two pious ladies of distin. 
 gaiihed rank, and very great devotees, wrote to the bishop 
 
 f 
 
 >.l\ 
 
 TBM BUMPHBBT-BSirNBTT DZSCU8SI0N. 
 
 859 
 
 of Troyes to engage him in opposing the burial ; but fortu- 
 nately for the honor of the bishop, the letters did not reach 
 him till after the funeral, and he consequently made no 
 interference. It is no wonder that the Church hated Vol- 
 taire after his death as much as they had feared him while 
 living, for according to their own statement he is now a 
 saint in glory, and yet they admit that he died as he lived— 
 a friend of Reason and the enemy of Superstition; for his 
 last words were that he regarded Jesus— the man-god of the 
 Church — only as a man. 
 
 Condorcet concludes his admirable Life of Voltaire with 
 these words: **It ought not to be forgotten that Voltaire, 
 when in the height of his glory, exercised throughout 
 Europe a power over the minds of men hitherto unparal- 
 leled. The expressive words, * The little good I have done 
 is my best of works,* was the unaffected sentiment that held 
 possession of his soul." 
 
 Thus let it stand forever recorded that Voltaire did not 
 recant his anti-theological views, but that he made only a 
 formal general confession to Abbe Oauthier simply to Lave 
 an honorable burial The great anxiety of Christian ma- 
 ligners to make it appear that the Sage of Ferney died a 
 horrible death, imploring the pardon of God and Jesus, is 
 thus effectually thwarted. It would be a matter of general 
 congratulation could every Christian devotee from this time 
 henceforth desist from placing himself in the ridiculous 
 light of trying to show that Voltaire did what he certainly 
 did not do. Lamartine pays the following eloquent tribute 
 to Voltaire: " If we judge of men by what they have done, 
 then Voltaire is incontestably the greatest writer of Mod- 
 ern Europe. No one has caused through the power of 
 influence alone, and the perseverance of his will, so great a 
 commotion in the minds of men. His pen aroused a word, 
 and shook a far mightier empire than that of Charlemagne, 
 the European empire of a theocracy. His genius was not 
 farci but Ught, Heaven destined him not to destry but to 
 
fn SUMFHRET-BSinnTT Duoumoii. 
 
 'i 
 
 lllnmliiate, tnd wbereTer lie trod light followed him, for 
 Reason (which is light) had destined him to be first her 
 poet, then her apostle, and lastly her idoL" 
 
 I am glad you have the frankness to acknowledge that 
 Paine did not recant on his death-bed, but died a firm Infi- 
 del as he had lived. In this respect you are far more hon- 
 orable than your brethren of the clergy, who every year, 
 for more than seventy-five years, have declared that be died 
 denounciog his unbelief, and calling upon Jesus to save 
 him. More lying has been done by the clergy of America 
 in this one direction than they will ever be able to atone 
 for. The story, however, about Paine's recanting is no 
 more false than that about Yoltaire*s recanting. Your 
 closing fling about Paine*s decanting is rather characteristic 
 of you, but you had better have omitted it. It may show a 
 little wit, but it is devoid of truth. The calumnies that 
 Paine was a drunkard are equally as false as that he recant- 
 ed upon his death-bed. Both are the reiterated lies of 
 Christian clergymen. 
 
 We come now to the consideration of the divinity of the 
 Bible. Before it can justly be assumed to be divine, it 
 must be shown to be superhuman. If there is nothing in it 
 that man could not have written it is the height of absurd- 
 ity to say that it is so grand that God must have written it. 
 I asked you to give me some proofs of its being the work 
 of God. You have failed to do so. It is impossible for 
 you to give them. Like all other books in the world it is 
 of human origin, and of human origin alone, and of rather 
 low human origin at that. There is not a passage in it that 
 a man of fair literary ability could not have written. There 
 is nothing in it that proves a supernatural power. There is 
 nothing in it worthy of the Supreme Power of the Uni- 
 verse. 
 
 I asked yon to prove to me that there is a power aboTO, 
 outside of, or independent of the Universe. You did not 
 attempt it, and it is doubtless well you did not, for it if 
 
 
 fern tlr^ ^ * """^ » P*"'«' «'''"»• A» I said be- 
 
 you not gi,e your reason, for such belief , "^^e BM 
 
 "o morTrr "' '"' ""•• '^''« ">- -"<• wrote it Le" 
 L fit t'h ".^ ' ««Pe-atural power than wedo at thi'day 
 
 prewDce, wa. far less understood then than now. 
 
 the Kble w" '° "'""' "^ "^^^ ^ *•"> ''■"'°°'"' Write" of 
 fte Bible were controlled by God. they did not say so 
 
 There u scarcely a write, in the whole eighty bo^s Z 
 c^ud ng the apocorpha, who eren claims thaf he had d Wn. 
 
 rr-to-vss "1?^ -r "* --^ - "^ 
 
 weredoiLl .^ The writers did not claim that they 
 
 Tey were IT'*'""'^ ""'° """"'^ "•'""'»« ""« "o^el 
 iney were writing, employing their own laneusee and 
 stating it in their own wav Tf ti.«„ - """S^'Se and 
 their w«~ „ •.• - ° ^* " '"ey were conscious that 
 
 tS 27m T," *" ^'^- "' *•' "« ""^ "•""'o'l'-g them. 
 c?aTmT„?„ T """^'' '""* "* •»• I "«'« that i^^ 
 tenTh!! «^ ' '""^'""' ^'""' "^'^ »»"« books were writ- 
 
 ^z mttiTr":' r """•*"• "■ '"■""^ --«»- 
 
 T..I.H ' '^"'^ "' P"«^ "' of probability. 
 
 1 asked you to show how. if even an individual received 
 
 ".r.: couM^r ^' •"•^ "* ^"^^'^"^ ^' ^ --boS 
 
 «i8e. it could be a revelation to a third Derson Vn„ J 
 
 iTuZ^ I'j r "« ""«• ""i-irrsopi^ict 
 
 as t Is old. Whether old or not. it does not affect ito 
 ttdiffl/TK ^» '™t'"» o'-i Your efforts to get ovlr 
 
 ^ oSv mT* V ^°"'''''^'' '^° "<" ""-t the case nd 
 are only mere subterfuge. If God epoke to Moses in an 
 
 audible voice, or if he .bowed hi. face to him. or even h« 
 
m TSB HUMPHBET-BENNBTT WtOUflMOll. 
 
 htkSk pMts, it m%y have been very 8ati8factory to Moiei* 
 but tbe Btory that it was so is not worth a cent to you and 
 me. If God revealed his back parts to Moses and Moses 
 told of it, does that constitute a revelation to those he told 
 It to or to you and me T Moses may have known how those 
 back parts looked, but can you or I have the slightest idea 
 what Moses really saw? Quibble as you will, Bro. Hum- 
 phrey, a revelation to Moaes was a revelation to nobody 
 €lse in the world, and everybody has the right to believe 
 Moses or to di^elieve him. according to the nature of th« 
 story he tells and the character for veracity which he main- 
 tained. As there is not a scintilla of proof that Moses wrote 
 a word of all that is attributed to him, every individual hai 
 the right to form his own conclusion whether Moses wai 
 the writer or not This is unfortunately another great de- 
 feet in the Bible, the names of Oie writers even, are not 
 given except In a very few instances, and the reader only 
 bas the guess-work of persons who knew nothing about 
 who the writers were to guide him. A miserable founda- 
 tlon. truly, upon which to estebliah th« divinity of the 
 compilation. 
 
 While you take very little notice of the points to which I 
 called your attention and carefully avoid them, you array 
 numerically many imaginary objections, and it is amusing 
 to peruse your efforts to set them aside. Your renewed 
 attempt to show that the Bible is a scientific compilation, 
 or that the Bibte and science are in harmony, is simply 
 laughable. Why. those old writers knew but little moT« 
 About science than the Esquimaux or the Hottentots do. It 
 might as truthfully be said that tbe gibberish of these about 
 their gods and their devils is in harmony with science as 
 that the tales about the exploits of the Jewish God are. In 
 my sixtii reply I examined at some length the science of the 
 Bible, and it seems hardly necessary to repeat the argumenU 
 therein used. To me the assertion tiiat Uie moon is made 
 0f green cheese is about as scientific as the yarn about the 
 
 'i 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 TUB HUMPHRKT-BBKNETT DI8CU08IOH. 868 
 
 earth, sun moon and stars being gotten up in six days, 
 about the earth producing plants, herbs, grasses, shrubbery 
 and forests, with fruits and seeds of each in perfection, be- 
 fore the sun was brought into existence; about man being 
 fashioned out of the earth; about woman being made of a 
 rib-bone; about water enough falling out of the atmosphere 
 to raise the ocean all over the face of the earth five miles in 
 height; that all the animals and insects of the varied climes 
 of the earth, living on a great variety of food, could exist 
 together in a close box for over a year; that that vast body 
 of water, equaling nearly half the bulk of the earth, could 
 find a place to go to; that seas and rivers divided and the 
 waters piled up on either side like a wall; that a man was 
 able to arrest the sun and moon in their courses for nearly 
 the space of a day; of another man causing no rain or dew 
 to fall upon the earth for over three years, or that Ufe could 
 exist so long on earth without it, and that at the expiration 
 of that time he produced copious rains; that men were able 
 to reanimate dead bodies; that men were able to soar bodily 
 into the upper air, and survive there-all these and many 
 other equally silly stories have about as much of the ele- 
 ments of science in them as of truth and good sense. It is 
 only a marvel to me how a man of intelligence, like your- 
 self, can believe such idle, senseless talk, and can gain your 
 own consent to attempt to prove tiiem true and that God 
 busied himself in writing them. The only way I can ac- 
 count for it is that they belong to the system that your 
 career and success in life depend upon, and that reason, 
 truth, and common sense must be sacrificed to hold up 
 those old fables and cause the masses to still accept them as 
 truth. But your task is a laborious one. As intelligence 
 gains ground, and as the principles of science are more and 
 more understood, it wiU be more and more difficult for you 
 to make sensible people accept and swallow such childish 
 nursery tales. 
 
 In your every argument you seem to me to virtually 
 
TBS HmCPHRXT-BKHHaTr Disoussioir. 
 
 •€know1edg« thmt the Bible is a bmnin production. Tou 
 laeitlj admit that it cootaint contradictiona, and you apolo- 
 gtim for it by saying that Gibbon also contains apparent 
 contradictions. You do not deny that it contains coarse- 
 ness, indelicacy, vulgarity, and obscenity, but you try to 
 apologixe for it by saying that the pagan bibles, and even 
 Bhakspere, contain some obscenity. Indeed, are those the 
 beat arguments you are able to advance in favor of the silly 
 old Jew bookf Can you do no better for it than to show 
 that it ia not very much worse than acme othar books that 
 men have written? By such kind of argumenU do you not 
 practically acknowledge all that I have claimed— that it ia 
 a human production, and no more worthy the respect and 
 veneration of mankind than any other book of e^ual antiq- 
 uity f These arguments that the Bible compares with toler- 
 ftUe credit with other works proves to me that you really do 
 not bdieve in iu divinity, or that it deserves more consid- 
 eration than other books produced in various parU of the 
 world. Why should it f It do«i not treat upon any more 
 elevated aubjeota ; it teaches no better morals i It gives no 
 better nor truer history; it contains no more beautiful poe- 
 try; it shows no more sympathy with the world of man- 
 kind; it imparts no more information; it tells no more 
 about this world; it attempts to impart no more informa- 
 tion about the future world, than hundreds of books that 
 were written by people of very ordinary capacity. 
 
 Your effort to set aside the objection against the Bible 
 that it ia susceptible of a gwat variety of constructions and 
 interpretations strikes me as being, like the rest of your 
 arguments upon the same subjects, quite insufficient. A 
 reasonable person must certainly admit that if the Qtod of 
 heaven and earth, the source of all knowledge, wisdom, 
 power and love, should make up his mind to write a book 
 and dedicate it to the inhabitanU of the earth, he would 
 couch it in such plain, unmistakable, unambiguous Ian* 
 gnage thai thcsy could not by any possibility misunderstand 
 
 im HOTPHRKY-BEimKTT DISCUSSIOK. m 
 
 ^^ron,ZT^^^^^ ^f ^^ *>^--<^ priests 
 
 to explain it^itde^^^^^^^^ 
 
 contradictions and ita ^'*T'' '*' ^'^^"''^ meaning, its 
 
 so that iS^lmaT 1 Tk '"''^- ^' ^""^^ '^^^ -"^^ i' 
 
 ling and qua' IZ ndlht^^ "'" *'^ "^^^^"^^^ '' --«' 
 its diverse in e nret.?^ ^ '7 "'"'"''^ ^'^^ ^"^'^^r over 
 not be lireirto w^^^^^^^^ '"' commentaries. He would 
 change tt mil . * ^»°««age subject to mutation and 
 
 that the oriirinal sio^ninn.,- • . ^ "'^ '''* "'^"e" 
 o uiiBiusi gignlflcation is entirelv lout Tf n^ 
 
 that book for our use and benefit hlVT' ?^ ^** 
 
 to couch it in lanfl-u^ ,fc T i " "" «'*** '"i"""ce 
 
 When it com«, dowZ „^ "' k° """ ""''«««"<J. or that 
 
 ;n.'. 1. especialiy ^^^J": ^ ^ ZT" T 
 throughout eternifr- «, ^ , oeciaed to torment us 
 
 ^^^^. according to the wM. .TL^Z'.tZt^Z^ 
 ity'S'the'^ibtr' " r "" "^'"*°' "«»'-' '•>« <l'vin- 
 
 You have Peculiar iodrjd«wU"iIr "' '" T"^' 
 ing up your theories. I shouldTrrf.r.rHT """^ ""''''■ 
 •Ions from yourself If h^! r k? k '^'^""^^ •""■»'»- 
 
 found in othTSs i?!„!f '" T'"* ''"*''^'^'' 
 
 ;^^e tbat H was^a'^rrsiirtrtrrtrs 
 
 was not sunerinr fn ««!»«- j *^®» ^'^^^ ^t 
 
 would not r^n productions, and certainly that it ■ 
 
 would not require an omnipotent God to produce it There 
 
 this In fZ V " "* ""■" "produced works as 
 
 6^'« h .K "' " ""' » »"■«'« »•»"'»•''» in favor ^ 
 
 B^v w^rs r""" "' ""* '"'^'^ »"'« "»»t would no 
 -PPly with about equal force to almost any other book 
 
 %l 
 
8(9 THB HUMPHRET-BMroBTT DMCUflMOH. 
 
 You say " there must be something peculiar and unique 
 about the Bible, since, wherever it goes, it gives a new impe- 
 tus and direction to the human mind, and deflects the very 
 currents of history." You have no warrant for making 
 this assertion. The Bible has produced no such results. It 
 has never exerted any marvelous iufluence. There is no 
 proof that the Jewish Scriptures had an existence till a few 
 centuries before the Christian era, and it was not long after 
 they were adopted as a sacred canon before the Jewish 
 nation was broken in pieces and scattered to the four winds. 
 It was nearly three centuries after the origin of Christianity 
 before the books of the New Testament were even known, 
 and it was two or three centuries more before the canon 
 was settled, and even down to Luther's time it was not fully 
 settled. He did not accept the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
 Book of Jude. and the Book of Revelations. The influence 
 that has been shed abroad in the nations that have acknowL 
 edged the Bible, has resulted from the advance of civilixa- 
 tion and science far, far more than from any teachings the 
 Bible contains. If the Bible contains little that is new how 
 could it have an effect much more wonderful than the other 
 books that contain the same or similar matter? 
 
 The Institute? of Menu, the teachings of Zoroaster, the 
 Ztnd Avesta, the Vedas and Puranas. the Buddhisiic Sacred 
 Writings, the morals and teachings of Confucius, the Egyp- 
 tian Sacred Writings, the doctrines of Pythagoras, the 
 Philosophy of Socrates and Plato, the inculcations of Epi- 
 curus. Zeno. and Aristotle, as well as much other of the 
 wise and sage instructions of ancient times, have wielded 
 ten limes the influence in the world that the Jewish scrip- 
 tures have done, and you cannot truthfully deny it. After 
 thousands of years the Bible is accepted by hardly one- 
 tenth of the inhabitants of the earth, and that tenth part 
 has been doing more fighting, killing and persecuting than 
 all the rest of the world. Had you said that the Bibie had 
 resisted civiUiation, that it had been a source of contentiop 
 
 ■w-f 
 
 I 
 
 ^1 
 
 TM HDHFHBKT-BmanBri nnouwioir. uif 
 
 ««J Woodshed, and that it had. In fact, been a curae to the 
 world, you ..ould hare come much nearer the trutr 
 
 You are wrong in claiming that the Jewish Bible po.. 
 ^sses superiority over the sacred books of other nationt 
 Had I the space to spare, I could malte copious selectioni^ 
 from the Institutes of Menu, the Vedas. theTurln" "f th. 
 
 P™H , t""' "■" ^'"^''''""'' ««"«d Scriptures, tha 
 
 .S^eTclTne of'""' "" "°"' '"'*'"''"°-'' "^ ^onfu ius! 
 the teachings of numerous Grecian sages and philosophers 
 
 Ltnd^ II Mohammed, and much else that was written 
 Uiousands of years ago. which in point of morality snirit- 
 
 toat goes to make up a high order of literature, are fully 
 equal .f not superior, to the Jewish Scriptures, which «e 
 to rnany places so crude and objectionable. Some of the 
 .^perrr ba'° ''* ^■"•'"-'y «-. but by no mean: 
 
 whi«h w . r"" P"«'"««<"« of other nationalitie. 
 Which were wholly the work of human beings. 
 
 oZZr- '"T^* '°°' '° ^^PPosing that there is no more 
 ob^enuy .n the Jewish Bible than in the bible, of oth" 
 nafons. A much larger percentage of low, vulgar allu- 
 
 foZ T't ""*'"' •" '" " "^ <»''««''««»» extends, is 
 found in the Jewish Scriptures than in the sacred writing. 
 
 VK, !k "l" °'"*'°- ^^ ""« translations of no other 
 bible that I have looked over have 1 found such fiithy sS 
 as the incest committed by the drunken Lot and his daugh- 
 ters the low. unnatural crimes of the Sodomites, the details 
 
 stLv T« r°r'"°'"' """^ "^ "'•"• »•"! concubines, the 
 story of Schechem and Dinah, the amours of Reuben and 
 his fathers concubine, the whoring of Judah and Tamar 
 tne licentiousness of Mrs. Poliphar. the instructions aboui 
 
 ZilT'Tn k! '"^'"'^ "' y°""« Sirh. the adultery of 
 Zimri and Cozbi, the rules about who shall be admitted into 
 the congregation of the Lord, the story of the sodomy of 
 the Benjsmite.. the account of the Benjamite. ravishing 
 
 t 
 
 i < 
 < 
 

 MS TU HUllPHB*T-»Eini«rt ©BOiwnoH. 
 
 oyer four hundred young femries. the lustful itory of David 
 wd Bathsheba, the rape of Amnon upon hi. .later Tamar. 
 the story of Absalom holding connection with his father s 
 concubine on the housetop In the sight of all the people, 
 the story of Solomon and hi. thousand wives and concu- 
 bines, the amorous Song of Solomon, the threat about 
 Bpreading dung over the face and causing urine to be used 
 M drink, and the mixing of cowdung and human excre- 
 ment with bread, various storie. of fornications, whore- 
 doms, and fllthlness. and more and more ad nauseam. In 
 fact, there is not a book printed In the English language, 
 except, perhaps, a few. the sale of which U a crime punish- 
 •bl. with impriwment, that contain, w -""f «°«^°^'?; 
 indecency, and obscenity, a. thl. old JewUh Bible. It U 
 really a blot upon the civUHaUon of our time, that such an 
 objectionable publication .hould be offered fo'"^". »°* 
 more especially, that the children of the country should be 
 compelled to use It as a reading-book in schools. It help, 
 the ««e very little to say that there «e other books con- 
 toinlng something of a similar character. If God must be 
 M bad ss, or worse than other obscene writers. I wish to 
 CMt my vote against hU writings being recognized as 
 Mthoritlve, or even as worthy to be placed before the ru- 
 ing generation of our land. 
 
 Tou have the courtesy and mUdrea to «y " Some fool 
 IkM collected and collocated a lot of paswge. and (sailed 
 them • Self-contradiction, of the Bible.'" Thl. I. harsh 
 language to apply to a gentleman who has correctly quoted 
 certain passages of Scripture and arranged them side by 
 •ide without a word of comment, giving the reader the 
 choice to draw hU own inferences a. to whether they are 
 contradictory or not. U a man who faithfully quotes pa.- 
 Mge. from that book ctawWe. and granges them without 
 putting In any of hU own comment., Is a /«rf, what a con- 
 wimmate fool that man must be who .wallow, e^ery *ord 
 the book contains and nrear. H U the word of God, wd 
 
 TBB Hmrassr-SKraxn MKnsnoir. 
 
 was written out by hi, divine hand, and that all the absurd. 
 Impossible stories it contains are as true «i the eternal hiU. 
 •re Ann I This last fool i. much the most foolish, and by 
 far the most hopeless in his folly. According to your argu- 
 ment, any man who quotes Bible language as showing its 
 character and meaning is ^/ool. and come to think of it I 
 don t know but there is a shade of truth in your assertion, 
 ferhaps few things more fooli* are done than to quote 
 passages and texts from the old Jewish book with the least 
 
 Btemal Ruler of the Universe. 
 
 ,i.^°Rw "^^ r ■"'" °' " C°"t~«licti<»«'." sre the« none In 
 the Bible r Let us take up a few that that "fool" hw, 
 collected and coUocated." that our readers may Judge 
 Whether he i. whoUy.fool, and whether these contradic- 
 tions are real. 
 
 In Gen. 1. 81, It wys: "And God saw everything he had 
 made and behold it was very good." la Gen. vi, 6, it says : 
 
 And It repented the Lord that he had made man In the 
 earth, and It grieved him at his heart." Is there any con- 
 tradiction there » Was God In precisely the wme m<4d o. 
 both occasions T 
 
 In a Chrou. vii, 12, w. it gays the Lord came unto Solo- 
 mon by Bight, after the latter had built the temple. «,d 
 said : For now have I chosen and sancUoned this house, 
 that my name may be there forever; and mine eyes and 
 my heart shall be there perpetually." In Act. vu 48 it 
 
 !!L'' ".^7"^ *"" "•"" ='«•' """*"«* '^ '» t«Vle. 
 
 made with hands." Is there any contradiction in these p..- 
 
 In Ex. xrxiii, 23, it tell, how God showed his back part, 
 to Moses. In the eleventh verse of the same chapter It 
 dewribes how God and Moses talked together " face to face 
 a« a man speaking unto his friend." la Gen. xxiii 80 
 Jacob ssys : "I have seen God face to f«!e, and my life U 
 preserved." la fixodu. xxiv. ». 10. II. U describe, how 
 
gni IBM WSMFBBMT-'WEMnwn WWUiflWR 
 
 Hoses, Aaron. Ktdab and Abilm and serenty of tho dd^nr 
 of Itnusl went up to the Mount and saw the God of Israel. 
 . . . CNi the other hand, in John 1, 16, it says : "Ka 
 Lan hath seen God at any time." In John ▼, 87, it says: 
 *' Ye hath neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his 
 shape." In Exodus xxxiii, 20; it says; '^Thou canst not? 
 see my laee, for there shall no man see me and lire." and itt 
 1 Tim. vi. lei it says Expressly, in speaking of God, 
 •» Whom no man hath seen nor can see." Is there the 
 slightest shade of contradiction fai these passages t and i» 
 it only fools who can see it t 
 
 U Deut Kxii, 4 it says that God Is a God of truth and 
 without " iniquity. Just and right is he." In James i. ^ it 
 ■ays, '• God cannot be tempted with cTiU neither tempteth 
 he My man." But in Isaiah xIt, 7, it says, " I make peace 
 md create evil. I, the Lord do all these things." In Amos 
 m, ^ it says. " Shall there be evU in a city and the Lord- 
 hath not done it ?" and in E«ek. ». 2!^ it says. " Therefore, 
 I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judg- 
 ments whereby they should not live." Is there any wani 
 of harmony between these passages T Do they read pre- 
 
 dsely alike ? 
 
 In Mat. vii. Si It says, •* Every one that asketh, receiveth., 
 
 nnd he that seeketh flndeth." In Prov. viii. IT. it says.^ 
 
 *• Those that seek me early shall find me." In Prov. i, 28;r 
 
 it says, " Then shall they call upon me, but I will not 
 
 answer; they shall seek me early but shall not find me." 
 
 In Isaiah i. 15. it says, " When ye spread forth your handa 
 
 1 will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye shall make 
 
 many prayers, I will not hear." In Psalms xviii. 41. it says, 
 
 •»They cried, but there was none to save them; even unto 
 
 the Lord, but he answered them not." Is there not a woup 
 
 derf ul unison of sentiment and promise in these passages 7 
 
 Could anybody but a fool see any disagreement in them ? 
 
 In Rom. XV. 8S. and 1 Cor. xiv. 88. it says God is a God of 
 peace, and that he ia EOt the author of confusion but peace. 
 
 MB HtniFHBET-BBlWBTT DI8CU8SIOH. J7i 
 
 But in Ex. XV. 8 Is. II. 15; Psalms cxliv, 1, it says. -The 
 Lord is a man of war. He is called the Lord of Hosts * 
 and that he "teacheth my hands to war and my L/e 1 
 
 take' elt T' '''" '''''' '' ^'^ ^^^^^ ^« ^« -'^^ ^o 
 armies to a bloody conflict. Is it not curious to see how 
 completely these passages of the Word of God run togetbeT 
 in perfect accord f '"semer 
 
 In James y, H, Lam. Hi, 33 ; 1 Chron xvi 84 T^i, 
 
 xvlU. 82 P3^m» ex... 9; 1 John W. 16. and nnmerl S 
 P««ages. u ft said that God is lore, that his mercy eadae.h 
 Wer. that he doth not wiilin^Iy afflict and gr el The 
 
 S,n^ TV""' '• '"*'' °° Ple.™re in the death o 
 h.m that dieth, that he is good to all. and that hU tender 
 
 merc.es are o.er ail his works. .„d mnch more in LTame 
 line; wh.Ie m Jer. xiii, 14, Deut. yii. W; i Sam xy 2 8 
 1 Sam. ,i 19. Deut. i.. 34. Josh. x. 11. L, m^y Ml; 
 passages, it is said that God will not pity uor ,p. 1' 
 ha.e mercy but wil, destroy his people, that he s ToX 
 m^LTT !•!«''"'«»""'«» 'it'^oot P»y. that he com. 
 
 that God IS a consuming fire, and that he cast down stones 
 
 •nt of hearen and killed lots of hi. own oirspring. Canno! 
 • man who is not a fool see . beautiful agre^men in the« 
 diverse passages ? '"**' 
 
 In Psalms ciii, 8. and xxx. 6. doe. it not say that God is 
 
 Num xxi'" T.""^ "'"""*'" "»' ' '»°»»"" -^»« i^ 
 
 Ex ,T. 24. It State, how God's anger was fearfully ki-djed- 
 that he commanded that the heads of tlie people who bad 
 been beheaded be taken and hung up i„'he sun that the 
 flerce anger of the Lord might be turned away, that the fire 
 of hw fierce anger should burn forever, that he was anery 
 «w«7 day, that he Mught on m«,rooc«loii..to kill people 
 
fll THS HUMFinaT-BMHHMT DDOVIIIOV. 
 
 and mucb more of the same character. Is here not % mort 
 lovely and heavenly agreement ? 
 
 In Ex. x«x, 36 ; Lev. xxlii. 27 ; Ex. xxix, 18 ; Lev. i, 9, 
 God commands burnt offerings and delights in them, says 
 they are a sweet savor unto him, and all that, while m 
 Jer. vii, 22 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; Ps. i, 13. 14 ; Is. i, 13, 11, 12, he 
 says he did not command burnt offerings, that they were 
 not acceptable nor sweet to him, and that he was full of 
 burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts ; that he 
 delighted not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of 
 he-goats and he even coolly asked the people who had 
 required sacrifices at theh^ hands. Is not such harmony 
 perfectly delightful to the sainted clergy who despise the 
 
 TOOOT fools f J # u ^ 
 
 In Deut. xii, 80. 31, God discountenanced and forbade 
 human sacrifices, while in Lev. xxvii. 28, 29 ; 2 Sam. xxi, 
 a 9 14 • Gen. xxii. 2, and Judges xi, 80-39, is not the prac- 
 tice'approved and commanded ? More harmony and con- 
 
 sistencv 1 
 
 In James 1. 13, tt wyi God " tempts no mtn," wWle in 
 Gen. xxii, 1 : 1 Sam. xxir. 1 ; Job ii. S ; Jer. xx. 7, and 
 many other passages, it says God tempted Abraham, that 
 he tempted David, that he deceived Jeremiah and was him- 
 self tempted of Satan. Of course thU is perfect harmony 
 
 to aU but fools. 
 
 In Num. xxiii, 19. it says God cannot he, while in Jer. 
 It 10; xiT. 18; 3 Thes. ii. 11; 1 Kings xxii. 88; Judges ix. 83 ; 
 Eielc XiT, 9. and elsewhere, it declares that God deceived 
 the people, that he sent strong delusions that his people 
 should belieye a lie, that he put a lying spirit into the 
 mouths of his prophets, that be sent an eril spirit, that he 
 deceiTed the prophets, etc. etc How blessed it is to find 
 perfect harmony in the " Holy Scriptures "I 
 
 It U easy to show, by quoting confUcting psssages. that 
 God not only commanded robbery but forbade tt; that Tie 
 MDcUosed. approved and commanded lying, and also pio* 
 
 THB HVMFBSKT-BBKHaTT DnCDtSION. 87S 
 
 Wbited It ; that he commanded men to kill and not to kill • 
 that he said Wood-shedders should die and that blood-shed-' 
 
 r^lLr"!, rl ^''" """ *"* ""''"'« "' *•»•««» «<» com. 
 manded and forbidden; that he commanded and prohibited 
 
 slavery; that improvidence was enjoined and condemned- 
 
 that anger was approved and that anger was disapproved;' 
 
 that good works should be seen of men and that good 
 
 forhS-f °"."* °"' "' •""' "' """^ """ i'^^^S others was 
 forbidden In one place and commanded in another; that 
 
 non-resistance was both enjoined and disapproved ; that 
 public prayer was both sanctioned and condemned; thatim- 
 portumty in prayer is commanded in one part and forbid- 
 ded m another; that the wearing of long hair by men is 
 sanctioned in one place and condemned in another; that cir- 
 cumcision Is commanded in one place and condemned in 
 another ; that the Sabbath is instituted in one place and 
 repudiated in another; that baptism is commanded in one 
 instance and not commanded in others; that every kind of 
 animals is allowed for food in one place and many kind, 
 forbidden In others; that the taking of oaths is sanctioned 
 in one p ace and forbidden in others; that marriages are 
 approved in some instances and condemned in others; that 
 adultery is both sanctioned and condemned; that hatred of 
 Kindred is both enjoined and condemned ; that woman's 
 rights are both denied and affirmed} that obedience to 
 masters is both commanded and countermanded; that there 
 is an unpardonable and that there la no unpardonable sin 
 and much more in keeping. Now you wUl doubtless still 
 Insist that there is not the least contradicUon in all these 
 mstances, except in the minds of fools, and I insist that he 
 must be a fool who cannot resdly perceive them. 
 
 Among the historical statements of the Bible there is fre- 
 quently as much agreement as in the doctrinal which we - 
 have been glancing it. We wUl take a peep at a few of the 
 large number: In Gen. i. 35, 27 it says that man was cre- 
 ated after the other animals; whUe in tl;e next chapter. 
 
I 
 
 874 TH« WJMPmBST-BlHHKTT VUCXnUOV. 
 
 ▼erset 18. W. U wys he was creiled before the animals. 
 Could both ways be stated without a contradiction t 
 
 According to Gen. vlii. 22, seed-time and harvest were to 
 never cease, but according to Gen. xU, 54-56 and Gen. xIt, 
 6. seed-time and harvest did cease for seven years. This 
 would seem to be a contradiction, but only to fools. 
 
 In Ex. iv, 21, and Ex. ix. 12. it says God hardened Pha- 
 raoh's heart; but Ex. viii, 15. says Pharaoh hardened it 
 biuLself. Of course both are correct; no contradiction here. 
 In 2 Sam. xxiv, 1, it says the anger of the Lord was 
 kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to 
 say. Go number Israel and Judah. In 1 Chron. xxi, 1. in 
 narrating the same event, it says. "And Satan stood up 
 against Israal and provoked David to number Israel." Can 
 you see any signs of a contradiction hese ? Are both state- 
 ments true? Are, then. Satan and God the same individual? 
 
 In Mat. xi, 14, it says that John the BapUst was the Elias 
 which was to come; but in John i, 21, it says direcUy to the 
 contrary. A divine agreement. 
 
 According to Mat. i. 16. the father of Joseph. Mary's bus- 
 band, was Jacob; whUe in Luke Ui, 83, it says it was HeU. 
 It only needs a little faith and godliness to see the perfect 
 agreement iu these two statements. 
 
 In Matt. ii. 14-23, it says the infant Jesus was taken into 
 Egypt, while in Luke ii, 22, 39. it states that he was not 
 taken into Egypt. More agreement. 
 
 According to Mark i. 12. 13, Jesus was tempted in the 
 wilderness forty days and nights, but according to John ii, 
 1, a. nothing of the kind took place. How harmonious I 
 
 It must be divine I 
 
 According to Matt. v. 1. 2. Jesus preached his first ser- 
 mon on a mount, but according to Luke v, 17, 20. it was on 
 a plain. It must have been both ways. 
 
 By Mark i, 14. John was in prison when Jesus went to 
 Galilee, while by John i, 43, and John iii. 22-24. John was 
 not In prison at that time. Baautiful consistency I 
 
 TTHl HUMPHKET-BENNErr DISOIWSlWf. 87| 
 
 According to Matt, xx, SO, two blind men besought Jesus 
 to have mercy on them, and called him the eon of David, 
 while by Luke xviii, -35, 38, it was but one man. Of course 
 iboth statements are true. 
 
 In Matt viii, 28, it says two men coming out -of the tomb 
 «iet Jesus, while Mark v, 2, says it was but one man. Do 
 4)n« and two in Christian theology mean the same as one 
 and three do t 
 
 AccordiDg to Mark xv. 25, Jesus was crucified at tiie third 
 ^hour, but John xix. 14, 15, says it was the sixth hour. 
 Probably three hours is not much of a mistake for Deity to 
 4nake. 
 
 According to Mafl. the two thieves revfled Jesus, while 
 according to Luke it was but one. The exactness of the 
 divine author is reassuring indeed. 
 
 Matthew (xxvil. 84) says vinegar with gall was given 
 Jesus to drink on the cross; but Mark (xv, ^) says it was 
 wine mingled wUh myrrh. Both true of course. God un- 
 •doubtedly knew what he was Ulking about. 
 
 John (xiil, 27) says Satan entered into Judas whUe at 
 «upper, but Luke (xxii, 8-7) says it was before supper. 
 Which of them saw the entrance made f 
 
 Matthew says (xxvii, 5) that Judas returned the thirty 
 pieces of sUver. but m Acts i, 18, says he did not return the 
 money but invested it in real estate. Of course both were 
 •correct, 
 
 Matthew says Judas hanged himself, while in Acta it 
 ^ayshefell headlong and *urst asunder and all his bowels 
 pushed out. In an ordinary newspaper account of a similar 
 catastrophe a reporter would not be allowed to make such 
 a blunder; but God, in ^tting up statements, is not 
 governed by any ordinary rules of accuracgr. The etatemeut 
 in Acts is not credible. Judas might have fallen headlong, 
 but he would hardly burst asunder and all his bowels gush 
 tmt. When men fall from house-tops and other heighte 
 And suddenly kill themselves, th^ do not burst asunder' 
 
979 
 
 VWM W U M r H BBT- BKHyB TT JUWOOWKW. 
 
 
 nor do tbelr bowels nil gush otil. Still, God ought to know 
 bow to report the case, and both ways must be true. Per- 
 haps Judas hung bimself first, and the rope breaking sud- 
 denly, he fell very heaTily and burst asunder and all his 
 bowels gushed out It is probable he dSd not survive the 
 
 injury. 
 
 John (XX, 1) says but one woman came to the sepulchre; 
 but Matthew (xxviii, 1) says there were two; but Matthew 
 was liable to stretch things a little, and perhaps his state- 
 ment should be discounted about one Mary. But no, that 
 win not do. It is the Word of God, and it must be 
 correct. The heavenly harmonics ihust not be disturbed. 
 Mark (xvi, 1) says there were three of the women, while 
 Luke has it that there were five or six. This beats the 
 celebrated *'crow" story; but the correctness of the four 
 different statements can be doubted only by fools; a few 
 women more or less make but little difference. 
 
 Matthew says the women came at sunrise, but John says 
 it was before sunrise and while it was yet dark. As 
 neither of them were there, perhaps they should not expect 
 to agree to within hour or two. 
 
 Luke says two angels were seen at the sepulchre, but 
 Matthew shrinks the number and says it was but one an- 
 gel. John and Mark say the one angel, and the two angels 
 were seen within the sepulchre, but Matthew insists that it 
 was without the sepulchre, for he rolled back the stone and 
 sat upon it. These little discrepancies of course are not 
 essential They must all be accepted as the exact truth. 
 
 Matthew and Luke say the women went and told the dis- 
 ciples about the resurrection of Jesus, but Mark says they 
 said not a word about it to anybody. Of course you c«n 
 see nothing but perfect agreement here. 
 
 Mark and John say Jesus appeared first to Mary Magda* 
 lene only. Matthew says he appeared to the two Marys, 
 while Luke says he appeared to neither of the Marys. A 
 (odly man can see that all of these statenients must be trusw 
 
 THE BUliPHBBT BBNKXTT DISCUSSIOIT. S77 
 
 According to Mat. xii, 40, Jesus was to be three days and 
 three nights in the heart of the earth, but, according to 
 the testimony of the other evangelists, he was in the sep- 
 ulchre but two nights and one day. The agreement here is 
 again perfect. Possibly Jesus found the heart of the earth 
 so intensely hot that one hour counted for two, and thirty- 
 six were the same as seventy-two. It must all be correct, 
 by some process of reasoning. 
 
 In Acts i, 8. 6, and ii. 1,4, it says the Holy Ghost was be- 
 stowed at Pentecost, while John says it was bestowed 
 before Pentecost (xx, 22). As the Holy Ghost is rather an 
 uncertain quantity, perhaps we ought not to expect that aU 
 accounts of him will perfectly agree. 
 
 According to Matthew, the disciples were commanded, 
 immediately after the resurrection, to go into Galilee, while 
 according to Luke, they were at the same time commanded 
 to tarry at Jerusalem. But it is only fools that will mind 
 these apparent contradictions. 
 
 According to Luke and John, Jesus first appeared to the 
 eleven in a room in Jerusalem, while, according to Mat- 
 thew, it was on a mountain in Galilee. This discrepancy 
 is only apparent; the real harmony is deific. When a slight 
 allowance is made for Matthew, who sometimes told the 
 truth by accident, the agreement is truly wonderful. 
 
 According to Acts i. 0, 12, Jesus ascended from 3Iount 
 Olivet According to Luke (xxiv, 50, 51) he ascended from 
 Bethany. According to Mark (xvi, 14, 19) he went up in 
 the presence of his disciples as they sat at meat in a room ; 
 while Matthew does not say any thing about his going up 
 at all. It is almost a wonder he did not have the ascension 
 made feet foremost. Who can doubt that God wrote these 
 different accounts ? Probably if there had been a few 
 more " Evangelists " to write up the wonderful affair, not 
 only Jesus but all his disciples would have "gone up,**<ind 
 never been heard of more. Many evangelists are "going 
 up.*' even at the present day. 
 
/X'V 
 
 III Acti Ix, 7, we lewrn thAt "PmuVB attendants stood 
 Bpeechless. hearing a Toice, but seeing no man. In Acts 
 xxii, », it says they heard not the voice, and in chap, xxvi, 
 14, instead of saying they stood, it says they/«a to the earth. 
 Possibly the Great Being who instructed the writers forgot 
 just how it was. 
 
 It is generally understood that Abraham had two sons- 
 one by his wife Sarai. named Isaac, and one by his hand- 
 maid, or concubine, Hagar, named Ishmael— but in Heb. 
 xi, 17, it speaks of Isaac as Abraham*s ''ordy begotten son." 
 Perhaps Ishmael was not begotten. He might have been a 
 divine bastard, like Christ. 
 
 According to Gen. xxi. 2, and Rom. iv. 19, Abraham be- 
 got his son Isaac when a hundred years old. by the Msint- 
 ance of God, but after ''getting the hang of the business," 
 he was afterwards able to get six more children without 
 any particular help from the Divine Power, notwithstand- 
 ing his great age. '* Never to old to learn." 
 
 By Gen. xiii, 14, 15, and xvU. 8, and many other passages 
 we learn that God promised the land of Canaan to Abra- 
 ham and his seed forever, but according to Acts vii, 5, and 
 Heb, xi, 9, 13, Abraham never so much as set a foot on it, 
 and the' promise was never fulfilled. "A bad promise is 
 better broken than kept." 
 
 According to 2 Chron. xxil, 1, Ahaziah was the youngest 
 son of Jehoram, while by 2 Chron. xxi, 16, 17, we learn it 
 was not so. Those who pay their money (to the preachers) 
 can take their choice. 
 
 By 2 Kings, viii, 17, 24, 28, we leara that Ahaziah was 
 twenty-two years old when he began to reign, being eigh- 
 teen years younger than his father; but by 2 Chron. xxil. 
 1, 2, we learn still further that Ahaziah was forty-two years 
 old when he began to reign, two years older than his 
 father. Probably according to theological science a man 
 may be a few yeari older than hia lather. At »U events, 
 
 m 
 
 '€'111 
 
 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.' 
 
 4he little difficulties should not be questioned. •• All thloM 
 are possible with God." 
 
 When David numbered the people, according to 8 Sam. 
 xxiv. 9, there were 800.000 of Israel and 600,t)00 of Judah- 
 while according to 1 Chron. xxiv, 10, there were 1,100 000 
 of Israel and m.O&O of Judah-a differeace of only 300,000. 
 But God did not have the advantage of a common-school 
 education, hence these discrepancies^-apparent only to the 
 poor fools who have not studied divine mathematics in a 
 theological seminary. There is nothing like divine exact- 
 ness. We always know what to depend upon when w« 
 read a book that God wrote with his own finger. In point 
 of reliability and mystery it is on a par with boarding-house 
 hash. 
 
 According to 2 Sam. x, 18, David, on a certain occasion, 
 slew 700 Syrian charioteers; but according to 1 Chron. xixi 
 18. it was 7,000 Syrian charioteers. Probably the latter 
 arc David's own figures, but both must be true. There can 
 not be an error in that Great Book. 
 
 By 1 Sam. xxiv, 24, we learn that David paid fifty shekels 
 of silver for a certain threshing-floor; but 1 Chron. xxi, 25, 
 it says he paid six hundred shekels of gold. This was too 
 much-don't believe David paid it. Divinity must have 
 been mistaken. He ought to be reasonable, at any rate. 
 
 According to 1 Sam. xvii, 4, 60, we find that it was David 
 who slew Goliah; but by 2 Sam. xxi, 19, we further learn 
 that it was Elhanan who slew the giant. The words, "the 
 brother of," are not in the original, but were supplied by 
 the translators lo avoid a contradiction. They should have 
 played that card much oftener. if they meant to reconcile 
 all the discrepancies. 
 
 In the speculative doctrines there is little better agree- 
 ment between the various parts of the book. For instance, 
 Jesus said his mission was peace and he also said it was not 
 peace; that he was all-powerful and that he was not al^ 
 pow«f uh that he was equal with God and that he was n^ 
 
THB HUICPKIUST-BKHIIXTT DiaOUBStOlT. 
 
 •qual with God ; that he did receive testimony from men 
 and that he did not receive testimony from men; that hb 
 witness was true and that it was not true; that it was law- 
 ful for the Jews to put him to death and that it was not 
 lawful ; that children are punished for the sins of their 
 prsents and that they are not so punished; that man is jus- 
 tified hy faith alone and that he is not Justified by faith 
 alone; that it is possible to fall from grace and that it is not 
 possible to fall from grace; that no man is without sin, and 
 that Christians are not sinners; that there is to be a resur- 
 rection of the dead, and that there is to be no ressurrection 
 of the dead; that rewards and punishments are bestowed in 
 this world, and that they are not bestowed in this world; that 
 annihilation is the portion of all mankind, and that endless 
 misery is the fate of a large part of the race; that the earth 
 is to be destroyed, and that the earth is never to be de- 
 stroyed; that no evil shall happen to the godly, and that 
 evil shall happen to the godly; that worldly good and pros- 
 perity is the lot of the godly, and thst worldly misery and 
 destitution wthe lot of the godly; that worldly prosperity 
 and blessing is a reward for righteousness, and that worldly 
 prosperity is a curse and a bar to future rewards; that the 
 Christian's yoke is easy and that it is not easy; that the 
 fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness, and that the 
 fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury; that prosperity 
 and longevity are enjoyed by the wicked, and that they are 
 denied to the wicked; that poverty is a blessing, and that 
 riches are a blessing— also, that neither poverty nor riches 
 is a blessing ; that wisdom is a source of enjoyment, and 
 that it is a source of vexation, grief and sorrow; that a good 
 name is a blessing, and also that a good name is a curse; 
 that laughter is commanded and that it is condemned; that 
 the rod of correction is a remedy for foolishness, and that 
 there is no remedy for foolishness; that temptation is to b« 
 dMlred, and that it is im< to be desired ; that prophecy it 
 •ore and that it is Mi sure ; that inan's life was to be ont 
 
 TH« BUlfPHRBT-BUnnrrT MSCUillOH. 881 
 
 hundred and twenty years and that it was to be but seventy 
 years; that miracles are a proof of divine mission, and that 
 they are not a proof of divine mission ; that Moses was a 
 , ^efjmeek man. and that he was a very cruel man; that 
 Elijah went up bodily through the air into heaven, and that 
 Christ was the only one who had thus ascended into heaven- 
 that all the Scriptures are inspired, and that some Scripture 
 is not inspired (to which opinion I decidely incline); that 
 servants are taught to obey their masters, and also that they 
 are to be the servants of no man ; again, that they should 
 be subject to their masters with all fear-not the good and 
 gentle alone, but also to the froward-and that they should 
 worship the Lord God, and him only should they serve; that 
 those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost have never 
 forgiveness, and thst all that believe are justified from aU 
 things; that Jesus and his father were equal, or one, and 
 that the Father was greater than he. It is said that Jesus 
 was the Prince of Peace, and again, that he did not come 
 to bring peace but a sword; that God is a jealous God vis- 
 iting the iniquities of the fathers upon the third and fourth 
 generations, and that the son shall not bear the iniquity of 
 the father; that there is not a just man upon the earth that 
 doeth good and sinneth not, and that he that committeth 
 sin is of the Devil. 
 
 And thus that perfect divine book, direct from the man- 
 sions of bliss, goes on almost interminably on both sides of 
 almost every subject that may be named. I could cite 
 many more positive contradictions, but perhaps I have 
 named enough to satisfy our readers that the book is full 
 of palpable incongruities, if I cannot satisfy you of the 
 fact. They may see, too, that the man who arranged them 
 without a word of comment was not necessarily a fool, and 
 that the foolishness consists in believing that such a mass of 
 contradictions and absurdities are an emanation from the 
 great source of truth, harmony, and intelligence. The 
 ntrrel is how so intelligent a man as yourself can believe 
 
Il 
 
 i 
 
 TBM flUHPHIUIY'-BBNllXTT DI80U8BZON. 
 
 that tlw old book had any higher origin than the minds and 
 hands of men, and that you can so easily see the hand and 
 intellect of a God in it. I would repeat, that the absurdity 
 of ascribing to a superhuman power a book, or a collection 
 of books, that most assuredly are not superior to human 
 production almost transcends comprehension. If the Jew- 
 ish Scriptures, with all their foibles, contradictions, absurd- 
 ities, and senselessness, is the best their God can do in 
 getting up a book, he certainly is not a success in that line, 
 and had better give his attention to killing people, conduct- 
 ing wars, etc., and leave book-making to those who possess 
 a greater degree of skill in that direction than himself. 
 Can you possibly believe that a being who could speak into 
 existence the earth, the sun, the solar system, and the entire 
 Universe, with its constellations of suns and stars and its 
 vast congeries of constellations, causing all to move 
 together in wonderful beauty and harmony; who was also 
 able to organize and perfect the equally wonderful micro- 
 scopic world— the vast kingdom of minute, invisible anima- 
 tion—the infinitesimal leviathans that disport in a drop of 
 water, and the herds of inconceivably small animals that feed 
 upon a single leaf, all the systems and grades of life being 
 conducted with consummate skill— could not produce a 
 more perfect book than the Jewish Bible t If that is the 
 best that such a Deity can do in book-making, had I his 
 private ear I would say, ** Confine yourself to world-mak- 
 ing, to devising the various systems of vegetable and animal 
 life, but don't try again to write a book. It does you great 
 discredit." 
 
 As serious as the subject is, I can hardly help being 
 amused at your efforts in trying to extricate your Bible God 
 from .the odium connected with the villainous slaughter of 
 the Midianites, and I cannot understand how so amiable 
 and peaceable a man as yourself can apologize for and jus- 
 tify such a murderous, cruel and damnable transaction. 
 Can it be possible that you can think that the adultery of 
 
 TSB SUMTHHST-BSHinBTT DUCU88ION. 
 
 the Hebrew Zlmrl with the Midianitlsh woman Cozbi, or 
 even that a thousand such instances would justify the plun- 
 dering, despoiling, robbing, massacring and exterminaiing 
 an entire peaceful nation, or five nations rather, for they 
 had five kings? It would seem that the Midianites were 
 eminently a peaceful, agricultural people. They seemed 
 not to understand the arts of war, for they appeared to fall 
 an easy prey to the twelve thousand red-handed murderers 
 that Moses sent over to slaughter them, and they seemed so 
 incapable of self-defence that they killed few or none of 
 the brigands that despoiled them. That the Midianites 
 were an agricultural people is evident from their great herds 
 of sheep, cattle and assea. They were just such prey as 
 the Jews and their blood-thirsty God were partial to. 
 
 Of all the murderous details of which history informs 
 us, there is nothing so utterly monstrous and cruel as the 
 treatment of the Midianites by God's chosen people. The 
 males were all put to the sword, in the first place, and all 
 their wealth, their jewels, their wearing apparel, their 
 676,000 sheep, 72,000 beef cattle and 61,000 asses were 
 stolen They then burnt their cities, their goodly castles, 
 despoiling their homes and spreading devastation over the 
 entire country. The robbers, it seems, possessed a moiety 
 of humanity, and saved the women and children alive, but 
 when that man of God, Moses, learned this, he flew into a 
 rage, shrieking out in demoniac rage, *' Have ye saved all 
 the women alive ? Kill every male among the little ones, 
 and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with 
 him, but all the women-children that have not known man 
 by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Was ever 
 any order from any tyrant or murderer so merciless, so 
 cruel, so monstrous f And that devilish order was carried 
 out. From fifty thousand to one hundred thousand— as 
 near as can be estimated— of women and male babies were 
 murdered in cold blood in the sight of the young girls who 
 had ne^er laid with man, and thirty- two thousand of the 
 
TUB HUllPBBET-BIllimT DnOUMIOl^ 
 
 latter were turned oyer for th6 indulgence of the base, lust- 
 ful passions of the men who had murdered their fathers, 
 their mothers and their little brothers. O, was anything 
 ever so shocking, so villainous T Did devils ever do any- 
 thing 80 bad as this T Were Turks or savages ever so lost 
 to every fine feeling of the human heart ? And yet the 
 Rev. Q. H. Humphrey — a professed follower and teacher 
 of the meek and lowly Jesus— stands up in this day of cul- 
 ture, civilization and refinement and attempts to justify this 
 most abominable and damnable business I I am truly sorry 
 that he has espoused a religion that makes it necessary for 
 him to do a deed so abhorrent to every noble feeling and sym- 
 pathy of his nature. Good grounds had Theodore Parker 
 for saying to an orthodox clergyman, "My friend, your 
 God is my Devil." If there was nothing else vile and ab- 
 horrent in that old book, the thirty-first chapter of Num- 
 bers is alone sufficient to eternally damn the compilation in 
 the eyes of every kind-hearted, just and sympathizing man 
 in the world, and to cause him to contemplate with perfect 
 abhorrence a being capable of ordering and approving such 
 a bloody, diabolical piece of business. I never will love 
 nor worship such a monster, and it is only a wonder to me 
 how any good man or woman possibly can. 
 
 Among the great objections that the Hebrew Scriptures 
 should be accepted as the infallible word of God is tho 
 monstrous, unlovable character it gives to that being. By 
 the chapter just referred to (Num. xxxi,) we get a vivid 
 and, in fact, a lurid picture of him, and, as I remarked, it 
 constitutes him a fiend incarnate. There are other parts of 
 the Bible not much behind in painting him as a most gro- 
 tesque and horrible monster. Let me quote a few passages. 
 '* Smoke came out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth, 
 80 that coals were kindled by it" (3 Sam. xxii, 9). '* He 
 had horns coming out of his hands, and these were the 
 hiding of his power " (Hab. 11, 4). '* Out of his mouth went 
 a sharp two-edged sword " (Rev. i, 16). **Ottt of his mouth 
 
 TSM BUlfFHBBT-BBKNBTT DUOtlBSIOH. 
 
 goeth a sharp sword " (xix, 15). '« The Lord shall roar from 
 on high. He roareth from his habitation. He shall shout 
 as they that tread the grapes *' (Jer. xxv, 30). •' He awak- 
 ened as one out of sleep, and shouleth like a man drunken 
 with wine " (Ps. Ixxviii, 65). *' In his anger he persecuted 
 and slew without pity " (Lam. iii, 45). - His fury is poured 
 out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him " (Nah. 
 i, 6). •* He became angry and swore " (Ps. xcv. 11). •• He 
 burns with anger; his lips are full of indignation, and his 
 tongue as a devouring fire " (Is, xxx, 27). * * He is a jealous 
 God " (Ex. xxxiv, 14). '« He stirred up jealousy " (Is. xiii. 
 18). ' » He was jealous to fury " (Zach. viii. 2). " He rides 
 upon horses "(Hab. iii, 8). "He cried and roared "(Is. 
 xlii. 18). •• He laughs in scorn " (Ps. ii, 4). " The Lord is 
 a man of war " (Ex. xv, 8). »• His anger wiU be accom- 
 plished, and his fury rest upon them, and then he will be 
 comforted " (Ezek. v. 13). "His arrows shall be drunken 
 with blood" (Deut. xxxii, 42). "He is angry with the 
 wicked every day " (Ps. vii, 11). " They have moved me 
 to jealousy; I will provoke them to anger. . . A fire is 
 kindled in mine anger, and shall bum unto the lowest hell. 
 I will heap mischief upon them ; I will spend my arrows upon 
 them. . . They shall be burntwith hunger and devoured 
 with burning heat, and with bitter destruction. I will also 
 send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of the 
 serpents of the dust. The sword without and terror within, 
 shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suck* 
 ling also, and the man of gray hairs" (Deut. xxxii, 21-25). 
 "If I whet my glittering sword, and my hand take hold on 
 Judgment. I will render vengeance to mine enemies" 
 (Deut. xxxii, 41). " The Lord said I will be a lying spirit 
 in the mouths of all his prophets " (1 Kings, xxii, 22). " The 
 Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouths of all his proph- 
 ets"(l Kings, xxii, 23). "I frame evil against you, and 
 devise a device against you " (Jer. xviii, 11). «* I will laugh 
 St your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh " (Prov. 
 
i: 
 
 c 
 
 I 
 
 TBI HU MF HB»T »B1HMM CT DnomUOK. 
 
 latter were turned OTer for thd indulgence of the bwe, lust, 
 ful passiong of the men who had murdered their fathers, 
 their mothers and their little brothers. O, was anything 
 ever so shocking, so villainous T Did devils ever do any- 
 thing so bad as this ? Were Turks or savages ever so lost 
 to every fine feeling of the human heart f And yet the 
 Bev. G. H. Humphrey— a professed follower and teacher 
 of the meek and lowly Jesus—stands up in this day of cul- 
 ture, civilization and refinement and attempU to justify this 
 most abominable and damnable business I I am truly sorry 
 that be has espoused a religion that makes it necessary for 
 him to do a deed so abhorrent to every noble feeling and sym- 
 pathy of his nature. Good grounds had Theodore Parker 
 for saying to an orthodox clergyman, **My friend, your 
 God is my Devil." If there was nothing else vile and ab- 
 horrent in that old book, the thirty-first chapter of Num- 
 bers is alone sufficient to eternally damn the compilation in 
 the eyes of every kind-hearted, just and sympathizing man 
 In the world, and to cause him to contemplate with perfect 
 abhorrence a being capable of ordering and approving such 
 a bloody, diabolical piece of business. I never will love 
 nor worship such a monster, and it is only a wonder to hm 
 how any good man or woman possibly can. 
 
 Among the great objections that the Hebrew Scriptures 
 should be accepted as the infallible word of God is th© 
 monstrous, unlovable character it gives to that being. By 
 the chapter just referred to (Num. xxxi,) we get a vivid 
 and, in fact, a lurid picture of him, and, as I remarked, II 
 constitutes him a fiend incarnate. There are other parts of 
 the Bible not much behind in painting him as a most gro- 
 tesque and horrible monster. Let me quote a few passages, 
 *' Smoke came out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth, 
 ao that coals were kindled by it*' (2 Sam. xxii, f). '* He 
 had horns coming out of his hands, and these were the 
 hiding of his power " (Hab. ii, 4). " Out of his mouth went 
 A sharp two-edged tword " (Rev. i, 10). '*Oat of hit mouth 
 
 TH» BUMPHBIT-BKinrBTT DIBOtJSSIOV. 
 
 goeth a sharp sword " (xix, 15). '• The Lord shall roar from 
 on high. He roareth from his habitation. He shaU shout 
 as they that tread the grapes " (Jer. xxv, 30). •' He awak- 
 ened as one out of sleep, and shouieth like a man drunken 
 with wine " (Ps. Ixxviii, 65). " In his anger he persecuted 
 and slew without pity »' (Lam. iii, 45). - His fury is poured 
 out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him " (Nah. 
 i, 6), **He became angry and swore »* (Ps. xcv. 11). «» He 
 burns with anger; his lips are full of indignation, and his 
 tongue as a devouring fire " (Is, xxx, 37). » ' He is a jealous 
 God " (Ex. xxxiv, 14). '* He stirred up jealousy " (Is. xiii, 
 18). " He was jealous to fury '» (Zach. viii, 2). " He rides 
 upon horses "(Hab. iii. 8). "He cried and roared "(Is. 
 xlii. 18). •• He laughs in scorn " (Ps. ii, 4). " The Lord is 
 a man of war " (Ex. xv, 8). " His anger wiU be accom- 
 plished, and his fury rest upon them, and then he will be 
 comforted " (Ezek. v, 13). "His arrows shall be drunken 
 with blood" (Deut. xxxii, 42). "He is angry with the 
 wicked every day " (Ps. vii. 11). " They have moved me 
 to jealousy; I will provoke them to anger. . . A fire is 
 kindled in mine anger, and shall bum unto the lowest hell. 
 I will heap mischief upon them ; I will spend my arrows upon 
 them. . , They shall be burnt with hunger and devoured 
 with burning heat, and with bitter destruction. I will also 
 send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of the 
 serpents of the dust. The sword without and terror within, 
 shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suck- 
 ling also, and the man of gray hairs" (Deut. xxxii, 21-25). 
 "If I whet my glittering sword, and my hand take hold on 
 judgment I will render vengeance to mine enemies" 
 (Deut. xxxii, 41). « The Lord said I will be a lying spirit' 
 in the mouths of all his prophets " (1 Kings, xxii, 22). " The 
 Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouths of all his proph- 
 eU" (1 Kings, xxii, 28). "I frame evil against you, and 
 devise a device against you " (Jer. xviii, 11). " I wUl laugh 
 at your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh " (Prov. 
 
I 
 
 VHB KUMPBrniT-BXirirSTT dhovmiov. 
 
 i, M). " I myself will llgfat against yoa with an outBiretched 
 «nii« eren in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath " (Jer. 
 zzi, (Ql "He reserveth wrath for his enemies *' (Nah. i, 2). 
 Hundreds of similar passages from the Bible might be 
 •cited, were it necessary, to show the malicious, vindictiTe, 
 «nd merciless character of /ehovah, whom we are com- 
 manded to love as a being of transcendent excellence, 
 goodness, and love. Such an idea of God could only be 
 devised by cruel, barbarian minds, and it cannot be natural 
 and easy for reflned and intelligent people to love and wor- 
 ship such a monster. Truthfully did IngersoU exclaim: 
 *' Thtr€ mn he UUle Ubert^ an mtth whQe men w^rehip a tyraid 
 
 It is a oonsoling view in considering the Bible character 
 of Qod that the picture drawn of him there must not be 
 regarded as the true one. The civde and undeveloped race 
 of men have been making gods for many thousand years, 
 and they have all made their gods after their own models. 
 Warlike, fighting nations have devised warlike and fighting 
 gods. Peaceful and quiet nations have had peaceful and 
 quiet gods. As the Jews have been regarded as one of the 
 meanest nations of men, in some respects, that ever had am 
 existence, it is perhaps not strange that their God should be 
 one of tike meanest and most blood-thirsty that has been 
 heard of on the earth. This is strictly true. Take all the 
 gods of pagandom — horrible as many of them were — and 
 roll them all into one, and they would not, in point of 
 maliciousness, blood-thirstiness, vengeance, petulence, an- 
 ger, unreasonableness, vindictiveness, selfishness, injustice, 
 and all the attributes that are horrible and detestable equal 
 old Jehovah, the G^od of the Jews. Probably the mosi 
 unfortunate thing that ever befel the people of Christen* 
 dom was the adoption of Jehovah and the abhorrent sys- 
 tem of theology connected with him. 
 
 It Is becoming more and more evident that God— what- 
 ever the word may mean— is wholly a creation of tha 
 
 rmm bumfbbbt-bxnnbtt maouanov. 887 
 
 human brain. Every man gets hhn up according to his 
 own fancy. There are no two persons who have the same 
 conceptions of God; and it is amusing to Usten to the varied 
 and ever-varying, wild, crude, and incongruous conceits 
 about God that different persons will present you. Nobody 
 that lives knows anything about God. Kobody that ever 
 has lived knew anything about him. AJ that anybody 
 knows he imagines from what somebody else told him, and 
 the one who told him got it from somebody else who knew 
 less, if possible,, upon the subject than he knew himself. 
 This shadowy conception that such a God has ever written 
 a book, and embarked in the publishing business, is one of 
 the wildest vagaries that has ever seized the human mind. 
 
 I regard the belief in gods as wholly unfounded and 
 unwarranted. This belief dates back into man's crude and 
 unprogressed condition, when demons, satyrs, gnomes, 
 genii, hobgoblins, furies, fairies, naiads, byaderes, and all 
 the monstrosities of that class were supposed to walk the 
 earth, but not one of whom was ever seen or known, save 
 in the distempered minds of ignorant and superstitious men 
 and women. The belief in gods has. in fact, been the grand 
 central superstition of all the superstitions in the world. It 
 has dragged poor humanity down into the chilly damps and 
 mouldy fogs of mysticism and ignorant credulity more than 
 all the other beliefs man has hugged to his heart, and the 
 Jewish Bible has wielded a great and injurious influence in 
 this direction. The gods have done nothing for man save 
 make him a slave to a designing priesthood, who pretend 
 to interpret and declare his will. Had man depended lesa 
 upon gods, and more upon himself, it would have been 
 greatly to his advantage. 
 
 The following remarks from a sermon by Henry Ward 
 Beecher are to the point and worthy of attention: "No- 
 body can see God. He is to everybody but an idea. It is 
 an idea, too. which we fashion in our own mind and pro- 
 ject into some external form, for every man in this life 
 
TBM amfPEnXT-BXMlfSTT jiiBUumov. 
 
 mttst put into form anytbing which he distinctly conoeiTei 
 of. The mode ef forming that idea makes the difference 
 between barbarians, semi-civilized and civilized men all the 
 way up. AU fmn the Ood they tDorship; some by one 
 method and some by another. Some with higher materials, 
 representing the elements of thought and beauty— that is 
 the Greek ; Fome with moral qualities and dispositional 
 affections representing the true Christian conception of 
 Qod, not magisterial, but paternal, as if paternity itself was 
 the highest conception of which the human mind is capa- 
 ble, as if, under the element of divine paternity, justice, 
 power and law rank themselves as subordinate, love being 
 the highest, and parental love the noblest conception, and 
 all moral quality, inhering in the supreme, superlative idea 
 of love— an idea yet struggling for birth into human light, 
 not yet born or grown. If we could throw upon a screen, 
 as objects in science are thrown and magnified, the real 
 conception which a Christian man forms of Qod, it Is not 
 probable they would come nearer together than the generic. 
 Specifically they would differ firom one another, as one man 
 differs from another. This Being is represented to us as 
 compassing the Universe— as having scope that is simply 
 immeasurable. The element of time, as well as scope of 
 being, must needs belong, and does belong to our inherent 
 conception of God.*' 
 
 I must confess to you that the picture you draw of an 
 affectionate mother whipping her offspring with such un- 
 natural severity as to make it shriek and writhe with agony, 
 as an excuse for the still greater torment, which you fain 
 believe your God inflicts upon his offspring, almost shocks 
 my finer sensibilites. Can you for a moment see anything 
 in such cruelty and severity commendable in a parent ? Is 
 such a government your highest ideal of love and affec- 
 tion T Can you indeed respect a parent or a Heavenly 
 Father who finds an excuse for beating unmercifully or 
 torturing endlessly his own flesh and blood, the children 
 
 rSE HUMPHBBT-BBNNBTT DISCUSSIOir. 
 
 Of his own begetting f By far do I prefer the sentiments 
 of Ingersoll, whom you seem to so greatly dislike. In a 
 late lecture he said: "What right have you totyranize over 
 a child ? I have very little respect for a man that cannot 
 govern his child without brute force. Think of whipping 
 children I Why, they say that children tell lies. Suppose 
 a man who is as much larger than you are larger than a 
 five-year old child, should come to you with a pole in his 
 hand, * Who broke that plate V you would tremble, your 
 knees would knock together, and you would swear you 
 never saw it, or it was cracked when you got it. Think of 
 a member of the Exchange whipping one of his children 
 for prevaricating I Think of a lawyer beating his own 
 flesh and blood because he had evaded the truth I Thmk 
 of a Wall street gambler in stocks striking one of his 
 children for lying I What an inconsistency ! Think of it ; 
 and some of these men, some of these women, that whip 
 their children, that beat their own flesh and blood, I wish 
 they could have a photograph taken of themselv^ when 
 they are doing it, their brows corrugated with anger, 
 their cheeks red with wrath, and the little child shrinking, 
 trembling, crouching, begging I If this child should hap* 
 pen to die, wouldn't it be sweet in the autumn, when the 
 maple trees are turning to gold and when the scarlet vine 
 runs like a sad regret out of the earth— wouldn't it be de- 
 lightful to go and sit on the little grassy mound that cov- 
 eied the flesh they had beaten, and look at that photograph 
 of themselves in the act of whipping that child ? 
 
 " Kow. think of it, think of it ; and if all I say to-night will 
 save one blow from the tender flesh of infancy, I am more 
 than paid. I have known men to drive their own children 
 from their doors and then get down on their knees and ask 
 God to watch over them. I will never ask God to do a 
 favor to a child of mine while I can do it, never. There 
 are even some Christians who act as if they really believe 
 that when the Savior said, 'Suffer litUe chUdron to come 
 
TBB HTTKPBBST-SnmStT DnCUSlIOV. 
 
 HBto me.' tliat he had a whip under his mantle, and simply 
 •aid that to get them within striking distance. I will tell 
 you what I say to mine. I say to my children this: 'Go 
 where you may; do what you will; there is no crime you 
 can commit, there is no depth of infamy to which you can 
 sink, that will shut to you my door, my arms, or my heart.' " 
 Another thing. There is nothing in the world like being 
 honest with these little children. Do not pretend you are 
 perfection; you are not; and if one of them happens to tell 
 a story, do not let on as if the whole world was going ta 
 burst Tell them honestly you have told thousands of 
 them. Do like the man did in Maine when he said to his 
 boy, • John, Honesty is the best policy; I have tried 
 both.' Do not pretend you are perfecticm. You are not. 
 But tell them the best way is the right way. Make them 
 courageous, and, first of all, teach them not to fear you. 
 So raise your children that the meanest thing they do they 
 will tell you. And if you are honest with them they need 
 not be ashamed of it, because you will simply compare 
 experiences.*' 
 
 We see here the difference between the true conceptions 
 of parental love in an Infidel, who believes in no God that 
 siU above the clouds frowning and raving at his children 
 below, but does believe in improving the human race and 
 raising them up to the highest plane of human perfection, 
 and a pious Christian, who believes that the kind father of 
 all delights in torturing his little frail, helpless children 
 continually and hopelessly through all the endless years of 
 
 eternity. 
 
 I am happy to think that we agree upon one point. You 
 say: " Let us treat the Bible like any other book." Here I 
 join hands with you, and say Amen! Let us treat it pre- 
 cisely as we would any other book. Let us criticise ft ; 
 let us examine it ; let us apply to it the test of reason 
 and science; let us condemn Its defects, its errors, and 
 ito.al>aiir4illm, precisely a»ips weitld aoy^ other book that 
 
 TD HUMFRxn-nDnrsTT msommoir. nt 
 
 lew been written. Let us despise to cloak or cover 
 Its faUacies and ito ignorance. Let us give it due credit for 
 all It contains that is beautiful, commendable, and of value- 
 but let us not swear that it is a book sent from the throne of 
 God in heaven, when there is not a passage nor a sentence 
 m It that might not easily have been written by an ordinary 
 human being. Let us not try to make more of it than it 
 really is; let us not revere it. Let us not make a fetish of it- 
 let us not claim that it is from a supernatural source, when' 
 there are not the slightest grounds for setting up such a 
 claim. 
 
 I have already taken up too much space, and I must omit 
 several remarks which I would like to make, until my next 
 reply* I am sincerely yours, D. M. Bennett. 
 
 MR. UVnPHRBT. 
 
 Mb. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: I am neither satisfied nor 
 dissatisfied with your flaunting of soiled "cloth." Know- 
 ing that Infidels have a chronic weakness for this kind of 
 tiling, I rather expected it. I thought it probable that you 
 would compass sea and land to gather names, and come 
 out a graduate, with first honors, from the "School for 
 Scandal." But I confess you have gone ahead of my antic- 
 ipations. I did not suppose you would believe everything 
 you heard even about ministers. I thought you would 
 make some allowances for malicious charges. I did not 
 dream that you would include instances of notorious black- 
 mail, such as the case of Mr. McCaffrey of this city. I ex- 
 pected you would remember that there are still some 
 Potiphar's wives in the world. But in all this I was signally 
 mistaken. You can put very sweet and sentimental con- 
 structions on the more than questionable conduct of men 
 •Ike Voltaire, Shelley, Paine, and Pike. But ministers must 
 
w 
 
 7'- 
 
 u 
 
 M mm BUKPBBBTHiBMinnT macusaoK. 
 
 liATe no charity, no benefit of a doaK Ererything that 
 ©very old hag, blackmailer, qiiack, or prof essioial liar may 
 choose to say about any of them, must be accepted with 
 " blind credulity," and licked down like sorghum molasses. 
 This is the conduct of a gentieman who has so much to say 
 about being liberal, and hearing both sides before deciding ! 
 
 But inflate your list as you will, you cannot show that 
 more than a yery small percentage of the Miiistry is spu- 
 rious. I believe that there ia a larger proportion of it 
 genuine to-day than in the days of Christ In his time, 
 one out of twelve fell in three years. Putting the number of 
 the American clergy at seventy thousand, a triennial fall 
 of one twelfth of them would amount to almost two thou- 
 sand a year. But everybody knows that no such a number 
 is found unfaithful. That Jackal, ThsJiwith lYmes, after the 
 most diligent scratching, failed to dig up more than forty 
 for the year 187^ Tour list covers thousands of years, and 
 yet it does not aggregate three hundred. It is clear, there- 
 fore, that the percentage of faithful ministers is very high. 
 
 In your handling of this matter you are far less candid 
 than even IngersoU and Paine. The former says: " I most 
 cheerfully admit that most Christians are honest, and most 
 ministers sincere" (Oration on Paine). The latter declares : 
 " It is not because right principles have been violated, that 
 they are to be abandoned " (Age of Reason, p. 67). 
 
 We are not comparing Infidelity and hypocrites, bat Infi- 
 delity and the Bible. In order to see what the Bible 
 teaches we have only to search it. But as Infidelity has 
 adopted no set of principles, or standard of right and wron^r* 
 we have no resort but to determine its chaiacter from the 
 writings and lives of individual Infidels. We have found 
 that many of the ** Champions" of Infidelity were men of 
 corrupt lives. It would not be logical to mention these 
 shortcomings as arguments, were it not for the fact that 
 tliey have been defended, justified, and even eulogized, by 
 eminent ' * Freethinkers. " This brings ua right back to the 
 
 m HTmPHEET-BBNNOTT DMCUSKOH. 893 
 
 postulate that Injldda, and InmaraZity a^ con^^ r, 
 final confirmation of this i«f «,^ • «"»*w«e»f. in 
 
 aente«=e fro. Z^T^l^Z^Zr "", '°"°''"'« 
 
 Warner continued Msdef^e of the Commune LT^Lr^\ 
 some of the bloody scenes of whi^h ,. "*' *°'' "lescnbed 
 
 «nd the retaking of plri/ Iv ^t '""" '"' «^''-''""«««. 
 
 • Ti.„„-i, "y *« government troon.. 
 
 Though we may not. future generations will dare ToM 
 
 the*, men (the Communists) brave '"-N ^"' ^'^^'° "» 
 
 1. 1877. Thus you see that youTbrethren L ^' vT *"• 
 
 to preach (he holiness of vice anTtu? If * ""'"» 
 
 -ime. You had better hrtSf^lSTT- "' 
 
 -Wherefore come out from am»gSm a^ h ""' 
 
 arate. saitu the Lord, and toar?„ ,r" , '^^ '^P* 
 
 •in.1 T»,.n "*" "»e unclean thine* 
 
 and I will receive you "(8 Cor vi 17) '" 
 
 Tou doubt that the Bible has prod"uced a marked effect 
 Where » has been freely cireulated and diligenT.yt arcf^ 
 In evidence of my assertion let me refer you to fhl p 
 pamyof WaU^s. Perhaps the Bcr^rJ: Z JZl 
 
 LraKetr K': ''^ '"-yotherclntrr^ 
 fewer in^r*^?' *""" " '''* "^'' ' That there are 
 
 Tho„ Jh ^ , *" ^ "^ *"••«' P*" of the world 
 
 Though t has Its shortcomings, that little nook of rock, 
 •nd rills .s a model of Frugality, Industry. Honesty 72/ 
 
 You intimate th« tl» ftw, fc^ W vUue l«««e U i. 
 

 TBK HOlCFHSKT-BXinnRT HIBCtTBBfdll. 
 
 old. Kow, will you try to realize what the world would Be 
 without its ancient books 7 What would history be with- 
 out Herodotus, Thucydides, Siculus, Xenophou, Suetonius, 
 Livy, and Tacitus ? Where would poetry be in the absence 
 of Horaer, Euripides, Sophocles, Virgil, and Horace ? 
 Who can estimate the suryiving influences of Socrates, 
 Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, on philosophy 7 Archimedes, 
 Holemy, Galen, Euclid, must all be classed with the an- 
 eient scientists. May modern Science therefore despise 
 them, and claim that it is under no obligations to them f 
 Ton will answer in the negative. Why, then, make mere 
 tUdnesi an objection to the Bible 7 We possess every facility 
 to get at its meaning that we have to obtain an understand- 
 ing of the Greek and Roman classics, which we profess to 
 appreciate and admire. The long caravan of the successive 
 centuries only serve to show how that the inculcated prin- 
 eiplea of the Scriptures ever commend themselves to human 
 Reason and Conscience, and how that they have come out 
 of a thousand conflicts only more polished and irrefragable. 
 
 Tou endeavor to show that the God of the Bible is a 
 ''monstrous, unlovable Being." Tour quotations are 
 mostly figurative expressions, designed to set forth the 
 Lord's great abhorrence of Sin, and the terrible conse- 
 quences of it. Could God be a perfect Being, and look 
 upon iniquity with anything less than infinite displeasure 7 
 And is it not an omnipresent fact that vice and crime do 
 continually plunge men into unutterable woes 7 
 
 The jumble you quote to " satisfy our readers" that the 
 Bible is "self-contradictory" is unworthy of a serious refuta- 
 tion. I was astonished to see you spreading out such, such, 
 such— well, I had rather not name it. It must be attributed 
 to the desperation of your cause. You would not think of 
 treating any other book in so uncritical a manner. The 
 helter-skelter, hit-ormiss "Justice" of a police-court is 
 much more equitable and considerate than the trial you 
 five the Bible. After I had ihowB you that the Jews did 
 
 Wn HtJMPHBBT-BEOTBTT DISOUSaiOW. 395 
 
 tlLI ^''^' '^ '^** '^"^ *^o expressions "God 
 
 o^is: nt" r " ^""i " ^^' '^' ^^-"^^ ^^-^-'" - ^- 
 
 consistent. Bo you, then, not know that the word "tempt" 
 sometimes means "to entice to what is wrong," aldlt 
 
 to "^ z;:/^ ''-': r ^^^^^ " ^^^^^^->^ ^« ^' -tL; 
 
 to liberal principles to exercise a little reason «nH 
 ^now,e.g ,p,,,,,^^ ,, ,,, interpretatiofof r^^^^^^^^ 
 Y u say "Jesus did not see fit to condemn adultery.^' T 
 Mr. Bennet I How could you so shut your eyes" againi; 
 
 Neither do I condemn thee," clearly means that he did 
 no condemn the woman to be stoned^o death, according 
 
 rTefar-or f .'^^-^-^ ^^ adultery as a Sxk! 
 
 Lk ' If tt , i"' ''^ ^ "^^ " ^'^"^'^ ^"i' 3-11). YoJ 
 
 Ty God wh vTTr ''"''" "' ^^^ ^"^'^ ^^^« ^-^t^olled 
 by God, why they did not say ao r 1 answer that they did 
 
 say so The prophets generally introduced their messages 
 With some such phrase as, ^'Thus saith the Loid." pfu 
 dec ared that the Holy Ghost spake by Esaias the prophet " 
 Acts xxviii, 25); and .hat " all Scripture is given b? insp ra- 
 tion^God"(2Tim.iii,16, Peter wrote Lt "hjry men 
 
 trlw' t\ ?"" '"P'^^^^^y ^-"Pl^y the word " but " in a 
 ^Z:::::::::!' ^-ePointoHtsomespedmensof 
 
 " By Luke xviii, 35, it was but one man " (D M B ) 
 
 (Lu'kt).''""'" """^ ""^ •** "^ "»* '"'y^'Jo '"^es'-K" 
 
 "Mark v, 2, says it was but one man " (D M. R 
 
 Jm,^^Z T. ^^ °"* °' '•"* '°°"'' » ""» ''•"' " -""^le" 
 spirit (Mark). 
 
 " -A-ccording to Luke it was but one** (D. M. B.) 
 "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed 
 on him " {Luke xxiii. SOV 
 
\i 
 
 n 
 
 ''Matthew slurinks the ntimber and Bays it was but one 
 angel " (D. M. B.). 
 
 *'The angel of the Lord descended from heaven and 
 came and rolled back the stone " (Mat. zxTiil, 2). 
 
 "John says but one woman came to the sepulchre "(D. 
 
 M. B.y. 
 
 *' The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene 
 (John XX, ly 
 
 The reader will notice that yon tack on the Scripture a 
 limitation and exclusion which its language does not ex- 
 press. Baying that one person did a certain thing is not in 
 itself saying that nobody else did it. How you InUt against 
 the truth t 
 
 Did space permit, I would love to go oyer your "pelf- 
 contradictions" one by one, and show that they are no 
 contradictions at all. You follow hostile " critics :" sup- 
 pose you show at least 80fM candor, and read such works 
 as Bame8**Notes, and Clarke's or Lange's Commentaries on 
 the passages you have quoted. They were fully as honest, 
 and infinitely better Biblical scholars than Voltaire. Vol- 
 ney, Paine, and the entire cortege of the Boston Investi* 
 gaioT, 
 
 But this kind of a weapon has another edge with which 
 we may clip off the head of your god, more effectuallf 
 than it has even bruised the Bible. Let me give you some 
 samples of "self-contradictions" taken from the writings of 
 Thomas Paine. I will give them with Infidel f<nmeae^ 
 • • without comment. " Here they are : 
 
 " I will endeavor that my future conduct shall as much 
 engage your honors' approbation, at my former ka» merited 
 §(mr diipleaevre*' (Petition to the Board of Excise. 1766). 
 
 ** I have lived an Aa7i«85 and useful life to mankind; my 
 time has been spent in doing good ** (Will, 1809). 
 
 •• The memorial before you, met with so much approba- 
 tion while in manuscript, that I was advised to print 4,001^ 
 
 THE HUMPHBBY-MWKBTT DISCUBSIOIT. 897 
 
 Jopies. . It is my first and only attempt " (Letter to 
 Dr. Goldsmith, 1772). ^ ^ 
 
 m'\ ^^J«^ Published a syllable in England in my life" 
 (Crisis, No. 2. 1777). ^ 
 
 tvZZT^o^'' ^'f '''''' temptation,' is the prayer of divif^ 
 ty Itself (Case of the Excise Officer). 
 
 " ?h? M "" "'"TT "-""^ *^ ^"^^^^^^ '^'^" (^Se of Reason). 
 
 The Idea of his concealment, not only agreee eery m 
 
 with h,8 reputed divinity, but associates with it som^i^g 
 
 of pusiUanimiiy " (Ibid). * 
 
 "I have furnished myself with a Bible " (Ibid) 
 " I keep no Bible '» (Ibid). 
 
 oZ^'m"^ ^''''' '^^ ^"^' ""^ '^"^ schools to teach astron. 
 omy (Discourse to the Theophilanthropists) 
 
 "All believe in a God " (Ibid). 
 
 •' The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools 
 
 ^f ^zAi^^m '"' '^''* ""' generating, in the pupils a species 
 Of athernn (Discourse to the Theophilanthropists). 
 
 •* As individuals we profess ourselves Ohrieiiane '» (Crisis. 
 
 "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish. 
 Chrutmn, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human 
 inventions " (Age of Reason). 
 
 "Any system of religion that has anything in it that 
 shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true system " (Ibid) 
 
 "Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others 
 must be ehocked into it " (Letter to Elihu Palmer). 
 
 •• I hope for happiness beyond this life" (Age of Reason). 
 
 " I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article 
 of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter" 
 (Tboughto on a Future State). 
 
TSB BnKFHBXT-BBimBn dhouiiiov* 
 
 •* Come, we sliall be friends again, f of all thifl •* (Common 
 
 Sense). 
 " 'Tis time to part " (Lhid), 
 
 " KotMng is criminal " (Ibid). 
 
 "What wickedness tliere is in this pretended word of 
 God " (Age of Reason). 
 "There shall be no laws but such as I like** (Common 
 
 Sense). 
 " I have always strenuously supported the right of every 
 
 man to his opinion" (Age of Reason). 
 
 •*King William never appeared to full advantage but in 
 diflacultiea and in action ; the same remark may be made on 
 General Washington, for the character fits him" (Crisis, 
 
 No. 1). 
 "The commencement of his (Washington's) command 
 
 was the commencement of inactivity. ... No wonder 
 we see so much pusillanimity in the President, when we 
 see so little enterprise in the GeMral *' (Letter to Wash- 
 ington). 
 
 " Let it be brought forth, placed on the divine law, the 
 word of God" (Common Sense). 
 
 "As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call 
 it the word of God " (Letter to Mr. Dean). 
 
 " I have an established fame in the literary world '* (Let- 
 ter L to the Citizens of the U. S.). 
 
 "ir*» unknown humble servant and admirer, Thomas 
 Painb " (Letter to Dr. Goldsmith). 
 
 " It is my fate to be always plagued with fools" (Letter 
 IL to the Citizens of the U. S.). 
 
 "I attended the philosophical lectures of Martin and 
 Ferguson, and became afterwards acquainted with Dr. 
 Bevis, of the society, called the Royal Society " (Age of 
 Reason). 
 
 THE mnrPHRET-BBNNSTT DISCUSSIdJT. 
 
 S09 
 
 "•The root of the word is the Latin verb Zi^o" (Of the 
 Word Religion). 
 *'I did not learn Latin " (Age of Reason). 
 
 It would be very easy thus to arrange '• 144 self-contradUs- 
 tions of Thomas Paine." But I am afraid Uiat Infidel 
 ^•critics" do not always go by the Golden Rule, "Do unto 
 others as ye would that they should do unto you." 
 
 Having exposed the common objections to the Bible, I 
 will now offer some positive evidences of itssuperhumanity, 
 or Divinity. Lest we may seem to assume anything unwar 
 #antably, let us begin at the beginning. 
 
 I. You will hardly deny that the material IJniverse exists. 
 t will suppose that you have confidence in the testimony of 
 -consciousness and of the senses. You believe in the real- 
 ity of the Human Mind. You admit that that Mind is ^ov- 
 «rned by cerUin inherent laws of thought. In short, it ia 
 taken for granted that Man has an actual, personal, com- 
 «cious, and rational existence. 
 
 IL it is further self-evident that eomeVdng must havo 
 existed from eternity— either Matter, or Mind, or both. It 
 is true that the unbcgotten being of either is an unwieldy 
 idea. But from the very nature of the case, it must be 
 admitted and entertoined. €t is an axiom that nothing can 
 •come of nothing. 
 
 To assume the beginningless self existence of Matter, and 
 of Matter alone, is to accept the most difficult of two sup- 
 positions. 
 
 1. By adopting this view we do not escape the Mysteri- 
 ous, the Unknowable, and the Incomprehensible. Even^he 
 building-lots of the Universe— Space and Duration- are too 
 "Vast for the mind's survey. Force is in itself inscrutable. The 
 immensity of the Creation eludes the grasp of the bumaa 
 intellect. Our own little sphere is a Sphinx, whose ultimate 
 wcrets no one can coax out. Yea, we are lost in the laby- 
 rinths of our own personal being. Nature has written over 
 
4oa 
 
 THE IIUllPnRET-BB»lfKTT l>ISCXJS»IOir, 
 
 THK SUlCPHRXT-BaNNXTT BOOUUSOX, 
 
 mi 
 
 t'i" 
 
 
 many of her gates: "Positively no Admittance.** We mu8t 
 •• Inquire at the Office "—we oust consult the DiTine Scrip- 
 tures, if we would be admitted into the inner courts of her 
 significance. And eyen there we are often refused aa 
 entrance. Mystery t Mystery I Mystery! is inscribed all 
 over the Universe ; and this Mystery is multiplied a thou- 
 sandfold by the hypothesis that Matter is self-existent ancl 
 self evolving. 
 
 2. This supposition is discountenanced by the familiar 
 law. That nothing can rise higher than its source. If man 
 were entirely of the earth, he would be entirely earthy. 
 But we know that such is not his character. He has ideas 
 and desires that soar above and beyond all material things. 
 His thoughts wander through Eternity. He has longings 
 after Immortality, and aspirations after the Infinite. 
 Kow, if the artesian well of the human mind cannot eject 
 thoughts higher than its own source; and if that mind sends 
 up longings and conceptions that terminate on the Super- 
 mundane and Extramundane, it follows that it Is itself the 
 emanation of a supernatuial Power. 
 
 8. If nothing exists but Matter and its properties, we have 
 then the incredible and unthinkable phenomenon of 
 thought without a thinker; law without a law-giver; fore- 
 sight without a foreseer ; and design without a designer. 
 The Creation exhibits innumerable indications of plan, 
 ingenuity, arrangement, beneficence, and wisdom. The 
 hypothesis that all this has taken place Independently of 
 Mind violates at once our experience and necessary con- 
 viction. 
 
 4. II atheistic Materialism is true, nothing can have a 
 moral character. Right and Wrong are mere figments. 
 There can be no virtue or crime where everything is ground 
 out from between the whirling millstones of Fate and 
 Chance. The assassin's and the thunderbolts stroke are 
 equally irresponsible. Man is not a free agent. Yolition 
 and gravitation an alike unmoral. Thought, desire, lovc^ 
 
 malice, charity, envy, are as really matter as* the rock, 
 tide, volcano, or Dismal Swamp. This excludes Respond 
 sibility and Morality from existence. 
 
 But man is conscious of mental liberty. He is bom with 
 a judgment that certain acts are commendable, while others 
 are culpable. He feels that he is to blame for being foolish 
 or mean. There are Responsibility, Right, Wrong, and 
 Free Agency in the Universe : therefore Materialism is 
 untrue. 
 
 III. A God exists. This supposition is not only the most 
 reasonable, but it also involves the fewest difliculties. We 
 have here indeed the overwhelming thought of eternal self- 
 existence; but it is the self -existence of Life and Mind. 
 This is a more genial and probable necessity than the oppo- 
 site one. 
 
 But if the eternity of God is inscrutable, the fact of his 
 existence is not hard to prove: 
 
 1. Suppose we apply the Darwinian Theory to this ques- 
 tion. We find that the stages of man's ascent are from Athe- 
 ism, through P0I3 theism, up to Monotheism. The Ape is an 
 Atheist. So are the races of men next to him (Lubbock's 
 Origin of CiviliBation, N. Y., 1873, pp. 244, 253-6; Dar- 
 win's Descent of Man, N. Y., 1873, vol. i, pp. 62-66). As 
 man advances in knowledge, culture, and morality, he 
 leaves Atheism behind, and passes through a region where 
 the gods are many, but all finite, until at last he reaches the 
 ultimate conception of One God, who is a spirit, infinite, 
 eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, 
 holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Theism is the point 
 of man's highest development. 
 
 2. The most learned and intelligent Infidels have been 
 believers in the existence of God. We may include in 
 this list Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Tindal, Toland, 
 Collins, Shaftesbury, Herbert, Hobbes, Bolingbroke, 
 Hume, Gibbon, Woolston, Blount, Voltaire, Cabanis, Bar- 
 low, Yolney, Allen, Strauss, and Robert Dala Owen. Dar- 
 
lot TBB KUMFHBST-BBiniSTT DltflflBIOV. 
 
 win, Tyiidall, Huxley, Draper, and Spencer deny that they 
 are Atheists. It is the stinted conclusion of the specula- 
 tions of J. Stuart Mill that an Intelligent Mind has fash- 
 ioned the present order of things (Three Essays on 
 Religion, pp. 242-3). Goethe called D'Holbach's •* System 
 of Nature*' a " cadaverous spectre. '* All these men denied 
 the authority of the Scriptures, and professed to follow only 
 the light of Reason. But in that light they learned to shuni 
 Atheism. Some of them attacked it with vehemence. 
 Paine pronounced it a *' scandal to human nature.*' They 
 held that the being of God is *' undeniable/' '* self-evident,*' 
 " reasonable,'* *' demonstrable.** This admission from men 
 who denied so much is weighty in favor of Theism. 
 
 3. It is not dogmatism to say that there is something in 
 human nature which must assume and recognize the being 
 of God. It is true that (he intensity of this something may 
 vary in different individuals. The brutality of some 
 natures is so rank that its effluvia absorbs and corrupts the 
 aroma of the heart's noblest promptings. It is possible too 
 for a man to read and speculate in such a way aa to greatly 
 modify, if not reverse, the spontaneous workings of his 
 mind. But we are now talking of natural human nature. 
 I say that there is an innate recognition of a Supreme Being 
 in Buch a nature. If we analyze consciousness carefully, 
 we will find in ourselves, as Schleiermacher said, a constant 
 feeling of dependence. We may not be always conscious 
 of it But let a tornado sweep the ocean, or a thunder- 
 storm shake the firmament, and this dormant feeling will 
 become a vivid reality. 
 
 This native disposition is sometimes brought out by some 
 special circumstance. Even a godless man, when over- 
 whelmed by some great agony, will ejaculate an appeal to 
 an unseen Power. He does not mean Nature, Force, or 
 Fate. He addresses Personality. But how did he come to 
 shriek that appeal! Was it automatic? No; he had never 
 Irained Uis lips to pray. Was it the result of deliberation f 
 
 THB HDIIPHRKY-BENNETT DI»CU88IOW. 
 
 ^ot at all for it sprung from his soul unawares to himself 
 Was It the result of a religious education f Not necessa- 
 nly. He may have lacked such an advantage. Possibly he 
 lived only to despise it. That ejaculatory prayer-for a 
 SI i- ""^.^/^^^^-^-^ nothing less than the soul's 
 
 7TT '''"' " "" ^"'' ^^"""« '^ ^ncrustments 
 under the pressure of distress. 
 
 How, on any other theory, are we to account for the uni^ 
 
 .^^y of this belief? We find that man, in every age a^d 
 
 sten from TT'"""'"' "'^'^ ^^ ^*« ^^^^ bu7aicond 
 step from the brute, ceases to be an Atheist. There must 
 
 be a cause as universal as this effect. Tradition, imitation, 
 and education are all inadequate to account for it Whv 
 m^'^^l^ '' as we would some of the other universal 
 ^aitsof human nature. We find that mothers love their 
 c^spnng the world over. There is a conviction as exten- 
 sive as the race that marital fidelity is a virtue and that 
 rlt InT '" T"""' """ ^'^*^^«^*-«- of these facts is cor- 
 
 human heart. Though mothers manifest their love very 
 ^erenUy, in manner and degree, and though the laws Z 
 
 ZZ^Z""^ "'"*' '''^'^'''^' '"^ ^''^' underlying instinct 
 ZZlT f '*°^'- ^* ^ *" ^'^^ ^^« i'^'^itive conviction 
 
 the one great fundamental feeling that there is such a being 
 
 of^M? ^' ^« *d°^]rably supported by Phrenology-^ system 
 of philosophy adopted by many Infidels. According to 
 
 Supreme Being as their object. They are called the Moral 
 and Religious Faculties (Fowler's Phrenology pp ^ im 
 They terminate on God. Their function is%L';;Je^^^ 
 
 r^iol'T' "' """^''*- ^^^^ ^ ^ -'i^-- Of tT; 
 
 'aiiglous sentiments. 
 
I 
 
 THE HITMFirRET-BBTfNETT DISCVBSIOV. 
 
 Bat if man is constituted with faculties whose object is 
 0od, does it not follow that a God exists T We find the 
 world full of such correspondences. A full udder answers 
 to the Iambus instinctive craving and seekiing for nourish- 
 ment. The ten«irils of the vine do not stretch out their fin- 
 gers into vacuity. Throughout Nature, an instinct or a 
 faculty indicates the reality of iu object. According to 
 Phrenology, the being of God is as certain as the ozistence 
 of the crowns of our heads. 
 
 4 The argument from Design is absolutely conclusive. 
 I am aware that this argument has been attacked of late. 
 Two or three famous writers have made some belittling 
 criticisms on it, and the thousand and one parrot-Infidels 
 have learned to repeat their words. The gist of their denial 
 is, that Nature contains evidences of design, as such. 
 
 To be convinced of the contrary, we have only to open 
 our eyes. The Universe is full of arrangements. The stars 
 in the firmament are not pitched together pell-mell. The 
 solar system is systematic. In our own world we find in- 
 numerable instances and varieties of contrivance. Guyot 
 has shown that the very positions of the earth*s mountain- 
 ranges are indicative of a far-seeing and beneficent plan 
 (Earth and Man). The vegetable kingdom exhibits myri- 
 ads of most delicate/ ingenious, and admirable adaptations 
 of means to ends. It is no lees so in the animal kingdom. 
 The study of physiology, anatomy, gestation, incubation, 
 and instinct ushers us into an immense museum of marveL. 
 ous wisdom, foresight, and purpose. 
 
 There are doubtless many things whose utility we cannot 
 always perceive. Nature seems to contain some Instances 
 of failure. But we ought to remember that we are not om- 
 niscient. An apparent fizzle may be in fact a splendid suc- 
 cess. The flower in the desert does not really waste its fra- 
 grance. It throws its mite of perfume into the circumam- 
 bient treasury of the air. The city swell, visiting a country 
 <;ousin, may say that the dunghill behind the stable answers 
 
 TBI HmfPHSxT-BBinnm uisouaaioir. 
 
 M 
 
 BO purpose. The country courin knows better. Let mate- 
 rialistic swells keep in mind that there may be— as there 
 certainly is— adaptation, contrivance, and success even 
 where they are utterly unable to detect them. 
 
 I know of nothing so well worth reading on this subject 
 as Paley's "Natural Theology.'* Let no Infidel turn up his 
 nose at it, and say that it is old. It is not near so old as Vol- 
 taire's Works; nor is it quite so antique as Paine's **Age of 
 Reason." It is unfair to sneer at it before it is read. I am 
 confident that if you will give it a thorough study you will 
 admire it and receive immense benefit from it. 
 
 There are other arguments for the being of God ; but 
 they are mostly of a metaphysical character. The curious 
 reader will find an excellent summary of them in Hodge's 
 Systematic Theology, N. Y., 1872, vol. i, pp. 204-215. They 
 need not be given here. The foregoing consideration^-the 
 insurmountable difficulty of conceiving of the eternal self- 
 existence and self-arrangement of Matter; the fact that only 
 the very lowest races, «he quasi-apes, are atheistic; the 
 admission of the most distinguished Infidels ; the universal 
 conviction of mankind; the testimony of Phrenology; and 
 the plans, designs, previsions, and contrivances so strikingly 
 manifest in the world-all attest and, together, demonstrate 
 the existence of God. 
 
 IV. We are now prepared to assert the supernatural. 
 God is Himself the Great Supernatural. His existence 
 being established, Miracles are possibilities and probabili- 
 ties. Since there is a Revealer, a Revelation is to be ex- 
 pected. If a Creator exists, is it not credible that he would 
 pay attention to his creatures, and especially to his rational 
 creatures? Is it not likely that he would make his Chara.> 
 ter and Will known to them ? In looking over the world 
 we find that the condition of man is such that he needs such 
 assistance. By contemplating the beneficence of his works, 
 we must infer that his Maker is dUpoted to give it. Will yon 
 ttply that his works are a sufficient revelation of his Being, 
 
406 
 
 THE HUMPHRET-BSNNBTT DlflCUiaiOM* 
 
 Attributes, and Bequirements? I deny it. The twUight of 
 Nature has never satisfied the human soul. This is shown 
 by the sad, unsatisfactory guess-works of the Qreek and 
 Roman philosophers, and by the alleged communications 
 from aboye clung to by nearly every nation and tribe. 
 Even Spiritualism is an undesigned testimony to this fact 
 There is aji indestructible belief in the unsophisticated mind 
 that the material creation is but the first volume of the 
 Divine Revelation. Every eye turns to look for a Volume 
 Second, wherein is contained the sum and conclusion of 
 the whole matter. Man is dissatisfied and uncertain with- 
 out it Under such circumstances it is presumable that a 
 benevolent God would bestow on his creatures and children 
 that which they so much need and desire. 
 
 V. The claim of the Bible to be such'a Revelation, is 
 stronger than that of any other book or set of books. This 
 I shall endeavor to show by reference to a few palpable 
 facts: 
 
 1. The $im of the Bible is an argument in favor of its pre- 
 tensions. It is neither so small as to be contemptible, not 
 so large as to be impracticable. The "sacred books " of 
 the Chinese and Hindus are ponderous and almost count- 
 less. A life time would be insufficient to read them over. 
 It is highly improbable that the Most High would reveal 
 his Will, and then practically conceal it in immense and 
 innumerable folios. It is reasonable to expect that a 
 book given for his guidance would be tractabU, Now the 
 Bible bears this characteristic more plainly than any other 
 venerated writings. The Koran is of a similar size ; bal 
 In this, as In many other respects, it is only an imlation of 
 the Bible. 
 
 2. The nmpUdty of the Scriptures is extraordinary. It is 
 very natural to authors occasionally to put on airs, and 
 make some flourishes of style. But there is nothing of this 
 kind in the Bible. As we read it we never feel that iU 
 writers are WMimg an tgorU It is free from pedantry. It 
 
 TH« HUMPEBBT-BBVITBTT DZ8CU88I0H. 407 
 
 has steered clear of the dry formaUties of legal documents. 
 There is no affectation about it It narrates its histories 
 and states its doctrines with the grand plainness of a hale 
 old sage that has outgrown the pomposity, sophomority, 
 vanity, and aflfectedness of his younger years. This would 
 be remarkable in a volume composed by a single author. 
 How much more remarkable must it be in a book written 
 by about forty different men I 
 
 8. Another striking feature of the Bible is its tandm. It 
 is common for a nation to magnify the virtues and to pal- 
 hate or conceal the imperfections of its heroes. But the 
 sacred writers did not seem to be even inclined in that 
 direction. They told of the faults, sins, and crimes of the 
 Hebrew patriarchs, prophets, and kings, as undisguisedly 
 as if they had been recounting the deeds of their enemies. 
 Where did the Inffdel find out so much about the iniquities 
 of the ancient Jews ? Strange to say, it was from the Jew- 
 ish annalists. Never did a nation's official historian draw 
 such a dark picture of it, as the Bible has given of the 
 Israelites. It is a marvel that Jews should write such a 
 history, and a greater marvel still that the Jewish people 
 should adopt it Was not aU this inhuman, to say the 
 least r 
 
 4. StiU another unique characteristic of the Bible is its 
 incuHosUy. Man is prone to follow up incidental thoughts 
 and events. He is apt to forget his main theme and become 
 absorbed in side-issues. He is fond of episodes. Hints 
 and peeps have a strong tendency to lead him away from 
 his central pursuit. But a little observation will show that 
 the Bible is uraike human nature in this respect It starts 
 out to give an account of the origin, development, trials, 
 and fulfillment of a certain scheme called Redemption! 
 Nothing has distracted its attention from this one object 
 The lightnings, thunders, and earthquakes of cotempora- 
 neous events, did not even turn its eye from the mark set 
 before it It does not say anything mtrdyXo graUfy curi- 
 
p 
 
 > 
 
 408 
 
 VBB HmPHSBT-Bnnritt tt tto ttm o i. 
 
 I 
 
 oiity. It throws no light on the dettiny of the tea tribes 
 It does not tell us how the ship got along after Jonah had 
 been hurled from it. It gives no account of Mary»s closing 
 years. It contains no pen-pictures of the Apostles. It 
 never indulges in guessing, theorizing, or speculation. It 
 ignores man's curwiity, and regards only his needs. It is 
 like a father carrying his sick child to the doctor. He does 
 not linger by the way to tell the little one all about every- 
 thing it may chance to point its finger at. He hastens to 
 his destination. In its unbroken self-possession and unin- 
 terrupted mindfulness of its one aim. the Bible is consist- 
 ent with all that is claimed for it 
 
 5. The Bible makes God the all-important idea. He is 
 King of kings and Lotd of lords. Men are only his crea- 
 tures, children, and servants. Viewed in one aspect, they 
 are very insignificant beings. They are but of yesterday, 
 and know nothing. They are carried away as with a flood. 
 Their lives are but a sleep— a mere nap. Only the Almighty 
 is great. It is the eternal duty of man to love him with all 
 his heart, soul, strength, and mind (Luke x, 27). Now all 
 this is reasonable— nothing else would be reasonable— on the 
 supposition that there is an everlasting and infinite God, who 
 Is our Creator, Preserver, and most bountiful Benefactor. 
 
 0. To me there is an evidence of the superhuman in the 
 Bible in its immenm thoughtfulnm and infinite euggestiffeneae. 
 It is not a large volume. But there never was a man that 
 could place his hand on it and say, " I know and understand 
 all it contains." The most diligent student closes his inves- 
 tigations of it, feeling, liKe Newton in the presence of the 
 Universe, that he was but a gatherer of shells on the shores 
 of the unfathomable sea. Men can master other books. Il 
 does not require much application to comprehend all that 
 Arisloile, Plato, Cicero, or any other philosopher, ever 
 wrote. Whatever proceeds from man can be grasped and 
 mastered by man. But the Bible cannot be so grasped and 
 maatertd. Henot it must be mora than kuaalt 
 
 THl ttmc^fiBBT-BIimBTT DISCtJSUOH. 
 
 ^nRi 
 
 7. The Bible is exposed to the same objections, and de- 
 fensible by the same arguments, as Nature. Is the Bible 
 old ? The world is older. Have men quarreled over the 
 Bible T They have waged fierce wars for the possession of 
 disputed tracts of the earth s surface. Is it said that the 
 Bible is self-contradictory? Polytheistic nations have 
 brought and still bring the same charge against the physical 
 forces. Does the Old Testament seem to approve of heart- 
 less severity, under some cireumstances ? It is not equal in 
 this respect to the remorseless elements. Even the genial 
 sun strikes men dead. Has the Bible been differently under- 
 stood on some minor points ? The Creation has shared the 
 same misfortune for thousands of years. Is the Bible ex- 
 posed to human blundering and tampering f So is Nature. 
 The original channels of rivers have been changed. The 
 white man»s cities are built on the Indian's hunting grounds. 
 The woodman clears the forest, and thereby lessens the 
 average quantity of rain and diminishes the mean depth of 
 streams. Hills are made low and valleys are filled up by the 
 picks and shovels of civUization. Does the Bible seem to 
 contain dry and worthless portions? They are neither more 
 dry than the Sahara desert, nor more worthless than Nova 
 Zembla. Are there some things in the Bible " that would 
 shock the mind of a child •'? The mind of a child would be 
 shocked by a big dog, a thunderclap, or a corpse. Does 
 somebody say the Bible is generally a very defective book? 
 J. Stuart Mill pronounced Nature generally a very imper- 
 fect concern. Thus we might go through the whole list 
 of cavils and objections, and show that every one of them 
 presses as hard against the constitution and course of Na- 
 ture as against the Old and New Testaments. Now, does 
 this exposedness to the very same criticisms not show that 
 Nature and the Bible emanated from the same Mind, and 
 that they were constructed on the same plan? But no 
 one contends that Nature Is of human origin. Why, then, 
 not admit that the Book that is made on the same gen« 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 4m 
 
 nn ■uxPBBBT-BSHinm onouaaioH. 
 
 end principle, that Is open to the same otjectione, end 
 defensible by the seme arguments as Nature, is of super- 
 human origin f 
 
 8. An argument may he based on the eBi^tuiioeMm of the 
 Bible. It embraces every moral duty. While some of its 
 regulations were expressly local, national, and temporary, 
 the great bulk of its precepts are adapted to all times, 
 places, and conditions of man. It may not have an explicit 
 rale for every possible emergency; but it has a principle 
 out of which a rule can be made impromptu. It will be 
 extremely embarrassing to account for this feature of it, 
 and claim that it is all of man, and especially $ueh men as 
 the Hebrews were. How could an ancient people compile 
 a system of morals adapted to the varying conditions of all 
 coming ages f Above all things, how could a secluded and 
 narrow-minded people like the Jews give being to a set of 
 principles suitable to the whole world no less than to them- 
 selves? We find that all human ordinances, laws, and 
 constitutions become impracticable with time. But Chris- 
 tendom has never felt that the Bible needs a codicil or 
 amendment. The occasional revisions of versions are 
 made expressly ta keep U from changing with the constant 
 mutations of language. Who but an All-wise God could 
 thus prepare a Book of universal and permanent adapta- 
 tion? 
 
 9. This brings us to another kindred argument, viz: That 
 the cardinal principles of the Bible were far in advance of 
 the ages when they were first announced. Its pronounced 
 Monotheism came forth from a country notorious for its 
 Polytheism. The credit for this can be hardly given to the 
 Jews, for Monotheism continued among them more in spite 
 of them than with their favor. Nor can this be accounted 
 for by attributing it all to Moses, for he was raised and edu- 
 cated for forty years under polytheistic influences. The 
 Idea of an abtotutety holy Ood was new to the world at the 
 time of its first promulgation (Ex. xv, U; Lev. xix, 2). The 
 
 TaS HUMPH&BT-BEKNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 411 
 
 conception of a spiritual Being originated in an age of uni- 
 versal idolatry. The Messiah, the Son of Man, or Human- 
 ity, came forth from among the Jews when they were the 
 most clannish and bigoted. That great doctrine, peculiar to 
 Christianity— Justification bt Faith— was expounded 
 most thoroughly, and advocated most heartily by a man 
 who had been a life-long Pharisee I 
 
 How could all this be, on the principle that like begets 
 like ? How could such lofty ideas spring up from ths low 
 level of Polytheism, Idolatry, Carnality, Bigotry and Self- 
 righteousness ? The phenomenon has no parallel in his- 
 tory. Mahomet borrowed his best ** revelations** from the 
 Bible. Buddha was only the apex of the mountain of co- 
 temporaneous sentiment. But the leading doctrines of 
 Scripture were, at the time of their first announcement, 
 above, ahead of, different from, and uncongenial to, the 
 people through whom they were given. The most rational 
 explanation of this anomaly is found in the words of the 
 Apostle : " God, who at sundry times and in divers man- 
 ners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets " 
 (Heb. i. 1). 
 
 10. I have concluded long ago that the teachings of the 
 Bible are reasonable and practicable, if for no other reason 
 than that ihey mmt be caricatured before tJtjey can be attacked. 
 The doctrines of Christianity are not the monstrosities they 
 are declared to be by Infidels. Let me make a few specifi 
 cations. 
 
 It is not meant by the doctrine of Total Depravity that 
 unregenerate men have no conscience ; or that they do not 
 admire virtue ; or that they are incapable of noble actions; 
 or that they are as corrupt as they can possibly be. By it 
 is only meant that man is by nature alienated from God ; 
 that that alienation tends to increase ; and that there is no 
 recuperative power in the soul independently of Divine aid 
 (Hodge's Outlines of Theology, p. 251). Now. is it not 
 true that human nature is more disposed to evil than to 
 
118 
 
 THB BUKPHRKT-BENHXTT DI80UB8IOK. 
 
 ( 
 
 good f Ib it not true that the majority of mankind Ioyo 
 and indulge in sin f Is it not true that the average boy will 
 remember a dirty couplet much more readily than a noble 
 •entiment ? Does the deep depravity of the natural heart 
 not reveal itself in a special lust for defiling Purity and de- 
 flouring Virtue ? The facts of daily life establish the doc- 
 trine of Total Depravity, in its authorized sense. 
 
 Eepenianee is a most reasonable requirement. If a man 
 has sinned, «hould he not be sorry for it ? Should he not 
 determine to sin no more ? Should he not confess his sin— 
 or, in the language of Society, opofo^g*— to him whom he 
 has wronged ? Should he not do his utmost to repair the 
 injuries of his misdeeds T You will answer. Yes. Well, 
 that is Scriptural Repentance (2 Cor. vii, 10 ; Prov. zxviii, 
 18 ; James v, 16 ; 1 John i, 9 , Luke xix, 8). 
 
 You have repeatedly sneered at Faith, By doing so you 
 attack the foundation of everything. The child, like the 
 just, lives by Faith. The value of civil tribunals is only 
 proportional to Faith in testimony. Withhold Faith from 
 human veracity, and all history is worthless. People 
 would not travel if they did not have Faith in engineers, 
 conductors, and sea>captalns. The whole superstructure of 
 mathematics is founded on Faith in unproved axioms and 
 postulates. Science is based on Faith in the uniformity of 
 natural laws. How can Faith be preposterous in Religion, 
 when it is indispensable, practical, and scientific every- 
 where else ? 
 
 The Faith expounded and inculcated by the New Testa- 
 met, is not the silly thing that Infidelity would make it. 
 It rests on knowledge, reason, and argument (2 Tim. i, 13 ; 
 1 Peter iil, 15). It is confidence in the Being, Veracity, and 
 Goodness of God (Heb xi, 6 ; Rom. iv, 3). It is a firm 
 reliance on his Wisdom and Love (Rom. viii, 28). It in- 
 cludes in its character and manifestations all the duties and 
 privileges of life: ** Faith without works is dead" (James 
 ii. 90X "Add ttiyour faith virtue ; and to virtue, knowl- 
 
 IBB BUKFHBSY-BBNNETT DISCU88IOV. 418 
 
 edge ; and to knowledge, temperance ; and to temperance 
 patience ; and to patience, godliness ; and to godliness 
 brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness, charity " (2 
 Peter i, 4-10). " If ye love me, keep my commandments " 
 (John XIV, 15). Thus, we find on examining the New Tes- 
 tament that Faith is indeed a " reasonable service " (Rom. 
 xii. 1). 
 
 Belief in a personal DeoU is not absurd. Absurd uses 
 have doubtless been made of it. But the existence of evil 
 spirits is made highly probable by experience and observa- 
 tiOD. Wicked thoughts often spring up in our minds inde- 
 pendently of our volitions and excogitations. And they 
 come at times when we least invite or desire them. They 
 cannot come from God ; for nothing but good can proceed 
 from him. Nor are they the fruit of our own thinking • 
 for they often come so unexpectedly that they surprise and 
 shock us. They Mt forced upon us. It is not irrational to 
 suppose that those evil thoughts are the suggestions of a 
 personal tempter, coming, in some undiscovered way in 
 contact with our minds. We know that the nearness' of 
 some persons occasionally affects our minds in a peculiar 
 way, before we are aware of their presence. Why may the 
 proximity of Satan not act on our thoughts in a similar 
 manner, operating both as a suggesting and catalytic force f 
 
 How IS It that you frown so indignantly over the notion 
 of a personal Devil, while you can bestow such pretty 
 smiles on Spiritualism ? 
 
 The everlasting misery of the wicked is a doctrine you affect 
 to abhor. In order that you may afchor it the more, you 
 deform it. Such words as *» seething." " roasting " '' fry. 
 ing " belong exclusively to the Infidel's vocabulary They 
 are not lound in the Bible, in connection with this subject 
 It would be no more than just for you to confine yourself 
 to the language and ideas of the Scriptures when you speak' 
 of it. '' *^ 
 
 Thif matter ia too vaat to be dificufised hew. aofflceitto 
 
iU 
 
 VSm BUMPHBET-BEmrXTT DI80X7MIOS. 
 
 i 
 
 mj that Kature and the Bible agree in regard to it Society 
 never forgives where there is sin and no penitence. End- 
 less punishment is often the penalty of violating physical 
 law. We see continually that it is the tendency of a bad 
 character to solidify and become permanent This fact 
 alone places the doctrine of eternal punishment on the ba- 
 sis of probability. Where there is continued sin there must 
 be continued wretchedness. Observation teaches us fur- 
 ther that there is no efficacy in mere svffering to regenerate 
 the sufferer. There will be nothing in the inner character 
 of the wicked, and there will be still less in iheir surroucd- 
 ings, to inspire a hope that they will ever become good, 
 and consequently, happy. For a fuller discussion of this 
 subject let me refer you to the iizth chapter of my little 
 work on " Hell and Damnation/^ 
 
 You will scarcely deny that such Scriptural requirements 
 as Humility, Patience, Contentment. Industry, Frugality, 
 Benevolence, Charity, Forgiveness, Forbearance, Peace- 
 ableness. Gentleness, in short, the precepts of the twelfth 
 chapter of Romans, are all well and good. 
 
 I have enumerated some considerations which, to my 
 mind, show that the Bible is of superhuman origin. If you 
 take these considerations separately, you may be able to 
 dispose of them on some other theory ; but when you unite 
 them, they become a ten-stranded cable that cannot be 
 broken. When I take up the Bible and find that it is tract- 
 able ; that it is as simple as Wisdom ; that it is a marvel of 
 candor ; that it is strangely incurious ; that it is absolutely 
 and permanently exhaustive as a code of morals ; that it is 
 of immense thoughtfulness and suggestivcness ; that it 
 subordinates everythiog to the one idea of Ckid ; that it is 
 open to the same objections and defensible by the same ar- 
 guments as Nature ; that ito characteristic doctrines were 
 In advance of, and uncongenial to the times when they were 
 first proclaimed ; and that its teachings, when correctly 
 apprehended, correspond to tl|e realities of lite and the die 
 
 TSM BI«FHBIT-BEHHJETT UnOITSfllOir. 4]5 
 
 titea of reaaon—when I ponder over this nexue of facts I 
 cannot but conclude that the Bible is superhuman, and con- 
 sequently Divine. 
 
 I do not think that I am given to visionariness, mysti- 
 €ism, or transcendentalism. I can hardly bear such things 
 as Dr. Cummings' writings. But I am nevertheless satis- 
 fled that the Old Testament contains such a thing as 
 Proplu^, that is, definite predictions of future events, given 
 prior to any foreshadowings of their character. I refer 
 only to such predictions as stand fulfilled in our presence 
 to-day, namely, the destinies of certain cities, governments, 
 and nations. When this argument is examined critically, 
 minutely and cumulatively, it will be found overwhelming 
 and invincible. I cannot too highly recommend to you 
 Keith s great work on thi. subject It is even a demonstra- 
 Uon. But the reality of Prophecy involves the actuality of 
 Revelation. '' 
 
 The character of the Apostles will bear the closest scm- 
 tiny. They were sensible, unsophisticated men, coming 
 neither from the murky miasma of degraded ignorance on 
 the one hand, nor from the mystic haze of scholasticism on 
 the other. They were in the prime of manhood when 
 called to be disciples. They could read and write. They 
 were familiar with the Scriptures. Whilst they were docile 
 they were not credulous. Thomas would not believe in the 
 Resurrection of Christ until he had had the evidence of 
 sight and touch. They went forth to preach only that 
 which they had seen and heard. They warned the churches 
 against credulity, admonishing them to try the spirits 
 whether they were of God. They were certainly sincere 
 and conscientious, for they yielded up their lives rather 
 than their convictions. They consecrated their time and 
 energies to proclaim a risen Lord. Their ministry was an 
 amazing success. And their success was not owing to the 
 emoluments they oflfered. as in the case of Julian; or to the 
 •word they wielded, as in the case of Mahomet ; or to the 
 
ittt 
 
 wanmnwr^wanxwn DtscussKm. 
 
 pieftii^ of a noble anoMtTy, ■« la the cases of Buddha and 
 Confucias ; but to the simple story of a Crucified Christ. 
 They would not have undertaken such a work if they had 
 not themselves believed, clear down iu the deeper depths of 
 their souls, the message they had to deliver ; and they could 
 not have succeeded, under the existing circumstances, if God 
 had not been with them. The words of Robert Dale Owen 
 will apply to their case : '* The longer I live, the more I set- 
 tle down to the conviction that (he one Great Mibaclb of 
 history is, that a system of ethics so far in advance as was 
 the Ohiistian system, not only of the semi-barbarism of 
 Jewish life eighteen hundred years ago, but what we term 
 the civilisation of our own day» should have taken root, and 
 lived, and spread, where every opinion seemed adverse, and 
 every influence hostile *' (Greeley's Recollections of a Busy 
 Life, p. 582). 
 
 Perhaps you will allow a word of personal experience. 
 It will at least show that the Bible does not strike every- 
 body who studies it in the same way that it does you. The 
 more I acquaint myself with it, the more am I astonished 
 at its contents. It is a perennial fountain to my soul. I 
 rise from it ready to say, like Jacob at Bethel, *'How 
 dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of 
 God, and this is the gate of heaven.'* I find in it a feast 
 both for the intellect and for tho heart. It is as full of 
 wisdom as a father's counsel, and as full of affection as a 
 mother's bosom. 
 
 **How preoioufl Is the Book divine. 
 By inspiration siveni 
 Bright as a lamp Its doctrines shine* 
 To Kulde our souls to heaven." 
 
 There are many masterly treatises on this subject Ko 
 Infidel is eanntteni, not to say just, until he has given them 
 a thorough examination. In addition to the works men* 
 Honed already, hero and there, I will specify Butler's "An^ 
 
 WB HUMPHBET-BINKETT DiSCUBBIOK. #17 
 
 •logy"; Paley»s, Chalmers*, Addison's, Alexander's, and 
 Barnes' "Evidences of Chrfstianity "; Lardner's Works; 
 Pascal's "Thoughts"; Walker's - Philosophy of the Plan 
 
 1 t^^k!'? "L"""^ ^'"^ ^^«'"' " Superhuman Origin of 
 the Bjble." These were remarkably clear-headed men. 
 
 ^u n^I 'r'''"' '^' ^"'^^ *° «^^^y *^«i^ Writings. 
 
 .' I ?r! ^ , ' *^''*^' ^*^ "' ^^^^^'^^^^ P«'h«P« the tac 
 tics of the defenders have sometimes been injudicious; but 
 the fortress has never been taken. The cry has repeatedly 
 gone up, -Mem U! RazeUr The criers have become fir^ 
 
 r^*"' r^^ *^''' ''*"''* ' **"* ^^^^ ^^^ ^i^'^^l ^*« always 
 stood. The new armor and new attacks of the enemy have 
 
 been promptly met by new equipments and renewed valor 
 
 Weapons that have served their time are honorably laid 
 
 aside. The ancient castles of England are useless tOKiay 
 
 except as objects of curiosity to an occasional traveler or 
 
 antiquarian ; but formerly they were the salvation of the 
 
 realm. Bo some of the former arguments for Christianity 
 
 have fallen into disuse, the implements of the foe having 
 
 changed. But castles are changed only for Gibralters. 
 
 The Gospel was never so unconquerable as it is to-day. It 
 
 is only suicide to attack it. " God is in the midst of her • 
 
 she shall not be moved : God shall help her, and that righi 
 
 «arly. The heathen raged : the kingdoms were moved : he 
 
 uttered his voice, the earth melted. The Lord of hosts it 
 
 with us ; the God of Jacob is our refuge " (Ps. xlvi, 5-7). 
 
 Your well-wisher, G. H. Huimbby. 
 
 HR. BEirirBTT. 
 
 Rev. G. H. Humphbey, Dear bir: Miss Ophelia, in Har- 
 riet Beecher Stowe's " Uncle Tom's Cabin," when brought 
 in contact with the improvidence and thriftlessneJs in the 
 South, used often to exclaim, "How shiftless. O, how 
 shiftless." Upon reading over your last letter, and perua- 
 
4m 
 
 TBK mjMPHKBT-BENNBTT MflCOWiai^ 
 
 i 
 
 •r 
 . if 
 
 if 
 
 4- 
 
 ing your arguments in favor of the divinity of the Bible, I 
 am impelled in a similar manner to exclaim. Sow weak, 0^ 
 hovsJUmgyf Is this the beat that can be done to hold up 
 the heavenly origin of that Jewish book ? With all the 
 works before you of learned professors,, bishops, and 
 clergymen of all grades and denominations, who have 
 spent their lives in the cause of theology and ecclesiasti- 
 clsm, and with whose arguments you are famiUar, are your 
 lucubrations all that can bo said in favor of the superhuman 
 character of that antique volume t I must confess myself 
 not a little disappointed. I certainly expected you would 
 jwesent some arguments that possessed weight and po- 
 tency, but you have not done so. They show ingenuity 
 and shrewdness, but 1 think there is not a solid, convincing 
 argument in all you have said. In giving your reasons why 
 we should regard the Bible as superhuman, that it is supe- 
 rior to human effort and ability in a single particular, the 
 question arises, upon reading your defense of the book, 
 can it be possible that Mr. Humphrey has succeeded in 
 convincing himself ? Have you assuredly found proofs thai 
 that melange of legends, big stories, narratives, tales,, 
 accounts of wars, rapine, and murder, poems, wild songs» 
 incantations, collected maxims and proverbs, amorous- 
 ness, crudity, obscenity, and vulgarity, is something 
 higher, purer, and grander than man has been able to 
 produce T I cannot believe that you have, and I am half 
 inclined to think that even you need fuller proofs of the 
 workmanship of the Ood of the Universe in that promiscu- 
 ous volume. I cannot think you find in it such evidencea 
 of divinity as to entirely satisfy your own mind. There is n 
 question, too, whether you are fully sincere in your alle- 
 giance to it. It seems to me you have too much intelligence 
 to llJmly believe that man has not been able to produce 
 such a book, and that God must needs descend from heaven 
 and write it, superintend its countless transcriptions, its 
 changev, iU additions, its translations, its printing, its bind- 
 
 THE HUHPHBEY-BENKSTT DISCUSSIOK. 419 
 
 ing, and all the rest of it. No, I believe you comprehend 
 that everything that has ever been done towards that com- 
 pilation has been the work of human hands and human 
 minds-and minds, too, of not an extraordinary and ex- 
 alted character. 
 
 Before examining your cable of ten strands or divisions, I 
 will briefly notice some of your other points. You are 
 yet hardly able to get over the exhibit of your brethren of 
 the cloth. Well, perhaps it was a little rough and a little 
 unkind to show them up in that wholesale manner, but 
 while you were striving so hard to establish that Infi- 
 delttyiscomUUnt with immorality, and worked so laboriously 
 to show that certain unbelievers were sensual, I deemed it 
 quite in order to enquire whether Christianity is not also 
 consistent with immorality, and whether many of its 
 brightest teachers have not shown special fondness for that 
 which is regarded as low and sensual. It seemed proper to 
 enquire whether the Christian religion keeps all its adto- 
 cates strictly in the paths of purity and self-denial. It may 
 perhaps be unpleasant to find that the followers of Jesus 
 who have a divine religion to aid them, have been much 
 more inclined to stray into by and forbidden paths of sin 
 than unbelievers are who lay no claim to guidance from on 
 high. L mentioned only such cases as were at hand and 
 hardly thought you would complain because I did not make 
 out a fuller report, but let me assure you the subject is not 
 exhausted. I gave not one case in twenty of clerical sin- 
 fulness that has come to the light, and probably not one 
 case in twenty is ever suffered to come to the eyes of the 
 public. I promised you that for every case of a prominent 
 Freethinker whom you could show had led an immoral or 
 sensual life. I would point out twenty or fifty shepherds of 
 tbe flock who had despoiled the lambs of their folds, and 
 have been more governed by the influence of fleshly *lusts 
 than the spirit of heavenly purity. I still adhere to that 
 promise. 
 
r^t 
 
 
 I liafdif ejqMcted yoa would endeaTor to Justify the con- 
 duct of lecherous clergymen bj the apostles. If the 
 clergy are better now than when Jesus was upon earth, be 
 must have gathered a gay and festire set around him. 1' 
 think I never before heard Judas cited as an excuse for the 
 frailties of modern divines. I had been more inclined td 
 suppose that he was one of the actors in the great scliemt 
 of salvation that had been devised from the beginning of 
 eternity. That in the foreknowledge of Ck>d. the necessai^^^ 
 work of Judas was laid out and apportioned to him, ani 
 that he helped in acting his part to make the salvation ol* 
 one in a hundred of the human race a matter of possP 
 Mlity. Was not the betrayal of Christ a necessary link Ivi^ 
 the chain of the divine plan of salvation ? Did he nof 
 have to be betrayed to the authorities before he could ^e 
 arrested, tried and put to death, and thus be made an atone*; 
 ment for the sins of the world, or rather one hundredth 
 part of it f Credit Judas, then, with having faithfully 
 acted his part in the grand divine drama and not constitute 
 him a scapegoat for the filthy sins of the modem clergy. 
 
 Tou must be '* hard up ** for arguments to bring in the 
 lectures that have been delivered before tlie Liberal Clubs. 
 They have nothing whatever to do with the questions we 
 have under discussion, i will use no more space than to 
 say that nothing immoral has been rendered before either 
 Club| and that the Herald did not comprehend the lecture 
 it undertook to criticise, was clearly shown* in the Oraphio 
 on the following day. It is a part of the constitutions of 
 the Liberal Clubs of this city that they do not endorse and 
 do not hold themselves responsible for any sentiments that 
 may be uttered on their platforms. They simply allow free 
 speech. Any lecturer may avow what he believes to be 
 right, subject to the free discussion of the members which 
 follows. Is this system so shocking to you that you fetl 
 impelled to specially denounce it ? 
 
 You introduce Wales and Scotland with their high degree 
 
 THE mmPBRBT-BBNllBTT DISCUSMON. :|2l 
 
 Of morality and inteUigence. where the Bible is most read 
 and best understood, as an evidence of its divine character 
 
 but'^hrfrt" '^l^''^' ^'^^"^"^^ in those countries; 
 but the facts brought out in the recent Bradlaugh-Besan; 
 tna in London and which too are weU-known truths, 
 s^e that m one of your Bible countries at least, Scotland 
 there are more illegitimate children than in any other 
 portion of Great Britain, and is exceeded by no other coun. 
 try of Europe. In the use of ardent spirits, in propor- 
 tion to population, it has long been known that Scot- 
 land leads all the nations of the earth. Do yx)u mean, 
 then, that those come from Bible influences? Let me 
 call your attention to a general truth connected with this 
 question. The Bible is distinctively a book of the Protest- 
 ants. Catholics attach but little importance to it. and 
 read it very little, while their opponents, the Protestants, 
 look upon It as an emanation from heaven, read it with the 
 greatest reverence, and absolutely make a fetish of it as 
 really as any old f etish-worshipers ever did of their crude 
 idols. Well, in Protestant countries there are nearly double 
 the number of children born out of wedlock that are bora 
 m Catholic countries. It is possible the examples of Abra- 
 ham, Jacob, David. Solomon & Co., may have their effects. 
 So much for Bible influences I 
 
 You represent me unfairly; you say I intimate that the 
 Bible 18 of no value because it is old. I used no such argu- 
 ment I have never disapproved of the Bible on account 
 of Its age. I will rather concede that its antiquity entitles 
 It to some consideration. 1 have a natural veneration for 
 everything that has great age. The Universe is old, truth 
 Is old, matter and force have existed for a very long time— 
 I have great respect for them, but because a book is old, it 
 does not necessarily follow that God wrote it. Men were 
 able to write thousands of years ago, and God was under no 
 necessity to write their books for them. Unfortunately, 
 the Bible is not so old as many suppose. There is not m 
 
.1 
 
 I 
 
 : 11 
 
 I 
 
 TUX HUUPHBSY-BENNETT Z^IBOUMIOir. 
 
 particle of proof that any part of it (save, perliaps, tlie 
 Gentile Book of Job) had an existence seyen centuries 
 before the Christian era. In the reign of Josiah (630 
 B. a) Hilkiah the priest claimed to have found the Book of 
 the Law in the temple, and it was read before the king. It 
 produced great consternation, and it was very evident that 
 they had never heard it before. During the Jewish cap- 
 tivity it is said that their sacred writings were lost, and 
 that Esdras and his scribes reproduced them. Tliis was 
 about five centuries & c. Others strenuously claim that 
 much of the Old Testament was not written until the time 
 of the Maccabees (250 b. c.) There are in several of the 
 books idioms and expressions which show that they 
 were written at a comparatively modern date. One thing 
 is painfully certain — the 2>y vihom written^ and vBihsn written^ 
 of those books are very little known 
 
 You donH seem to like the Bible picture I gave you of 
 Jehovah. Tou say they are mostly figurative expressions 
 designed to set forth the Lord's great abhorrence of sin. I 
 call that a priestly dodge, and It fails entirely to meet the 
 case. These positive assertions that Ood has horns in his 
 hands, that smoke comes out of his nostrils, and a sword 
 out of his mouth ; that he roars and shouts like a drunken 
 man; that his fury is poured out like fire; th»t he throws 
 rocks from heaven upon his children; that he gtts angry 
 every day ; that he swears ;^that he is full of indignation ; 
 that he is stirred with jealousy; that he delights in war and 
 bloodshed ; that his arrows are drunken with blood ; 
 that he whets his glittering sword, and does a great deal 
 more in the same line, seem hardly the happiest method of 
 representing the character of a being who is all love, kind- 
 ness, sympathy and mercy t The picture is brutal and 
 repulsive. I could not love a being answering that descrip- 
 tion. 
 
 Tou appear desirous to dismiss the subject of the Bible 
 contradictions which I mentioned, by saying they are *'a 
 
 TBM mrXPHBET-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 W 
 
 Jumble ** and unworthy of refutation. If a defense of that 
 kind explains the hundreds of self-contradictions whi«h 
 the Bible contains, the most damning proof on any subject 
 <jan be rebutted. If a man is arraigjied for murder, and 
 hundreds of witnesses swear that they saw him do the 
 deed, he would only need to eay, with a sanctimonious 
 drawl, " Such evidence is a mere jumble, and is unworthy 
 of a serious refutation "—and he would be acquitted. It 
 has been noticed that in several instances you have adopted 
 4.he tactics of the small boy who, when reading, could not 
 pronounce the hard words, and so skipped them whenever 
 he met them. And, like him, you have found it conven- 
 lent to " skip " several difficult words. Among other things 
 I stated emphatically that Christianity is a system <rf relig- 
 ion made up of the rites, oeremonies and dogmas of pagan 
 systems that existed before it. I charged that there is noth- 
 ing new nor original in the Christian religion, and called 
 4ipon you to disprove it if it is not so. I charged you with 
 upholding a borrowed system of myths and superstitions 
 purloined from the old pagan religions that had existed at 
 an earlier date. I«verxed that the world had believed in 
 some forty saviors, mostly born of virgins, and a large por- 
 4ion of whom had been cvucified for the salvation of the 
 world. These you very prudently skipped over without 
 a word. Your style of defense may explain, to your own 
 eatisfaction, why Qod in some places is said to have beea 
 seen and talked with face to face, that Moses, Aaron, 
 l^adab, Abihu, and seventy elders saw the God of Israel, 
 and in other places that no man had seen him at any 
 time, or could see him and live; why in one place it 
 is said that God moved David to number the people of 
 Israel, and in another place that it was Satan who caused 
 him to number them; why the Important matter of Christ's 
 bodily ascension into heaven is stated in three or four dif- 
 ferent ways— to wit ! in Acts, that he asoended irom Mount 
 Olivet ; in Luke, that it was from Bethany; and, in Mark, 
 
nn BmmmsT-BBNNXTT dibcubbkiii. 
 
 that it was from a room in which the eleTen sat at meat» 
 while Matthew and John did not deem the affair of 
 Bttfficieiit moment to mention it at all— and himdreds of 
 other contradictions positire and palpable — but to me it 
 is no explanation at all. Nor can you, or any other the- 
 ologian, explain these things to the satisfaction of honest, 
 sensible people. You may call a selection of quotations 
 lilie these a '^Jumble *^~and that term is correct enough 
 when applied to the book as a whole— but it does not sat- 
 isfactorily reconcile the contradictions. 
 
 I see that, as a kind of excuse for the blunders of your 
 6od and his scribes, you undertake to show that contradic- 
 tions may be found in the writings of Thomas Paine t Tou 
 present one or two that appear to be sueh, but the others 
 l»ear no resem^lanee thereto. But what of it allt Thomas 
 Paine was only a man. He claimed nothing more. He 
 wrote his own thoughts, and made no pretensions to guid- 
 ance from OB high. No one claims that his works are 
 divine, unless truth adds divinity to a man's writings. If 
 his productions were full of contradictions, it would be no 
 excuse for tlie conflicting statements and blunders made by 
 your Ck>d. A single self-contradiction or imperfection in a 
 work which is claimed to be divine completely overthrows 
 its claims to divinity. God must be too perfect to make 
 mistakes or to contradict himself. 
 
 As a specimen of your fairness in showing up Paine's 
 self-contradictions, you quote these two passages from his 
 ^* Age of Reason": "I have furnished myself with aBible/^ 
 and, "I keep no Bible." Now, you must know that the 
 latter passage is found in the first part of the "Age of Rea- 
 son," which was written when he had no Bible at hand» 
 and the other passage is in the second part, written after ho 
 had provided himself with a copy. Is there the slightest 
 tontradietioB in a person^s saying, '* I keep no Bible," when 
 he liad none, and, '* I have furnished myself with a Bible, ** 
 alter he had procured onet You liavtt thus reversed ths 
 
 order of the quotations, putting the one first written when he 
 had a Bible, and setting the one from the first part, when he 
 had not yet obtained one to contradict it I la that a strictly 
 honest presentation of Palne's words? Is it indeed the best 
 excuse you have to offer for the positive and oft recurrinir 
 contradictions of your Bible God, or his writers? Is God 
 not better than Paine ? Cannot you afford to be just to- 
 ward Thomas Paine? * 
 
 In your eleventh letter you attempt to prove the truth of 
 the absurd flood story, that the ocean was raised to the 
 tops of the highest mountains, by showing that some sea- 
 shells and marine deposits have been found on elevated 
 portions of the earth This does not prove that the 
 surface of the ocean was once raised up to where the 
 tops of the mountains now are. Had this been the case the 
 sea sheUs and other marine deposits would not have been 
 taken up there, because shells do not float on the surface 
 of the water; but it is another proof that the mountains of 
 the earth, sometime in the long ages of the past, have been 
 raised up from the bed of the ocean, and of course taken 
 marine debris along with them. Sir Charles Lyell thus 
 ppeaks of the remains of ancient corals which he found at 
 the falls of the Ohio, near Louisville: "Although the water 
 was not at its lowest, I saw a grand display of what may be 
 termed an ancient coral reef formed by zoophytes which 
 flourished in a sea of earlier date than the carboniferous 
 period. The Alps and their related mountains, and even 
 the Himalayas, were not yet born, for they have on their 
 high summits deep sea beds of the cretaceous and even of 
 later dales" (Story of Earth and Man, p. 89). Your scien- 
 ti»i$ who wrote the Bible knew nothing of this fact, nor • 
 that this continent presents indisputable proofs that'uis 
 older than the Himalayas of Asia, and that the higiiest 
 mountains of the earth have been forced up from the sea 
 level. But I would give more for the testimony of one 
 such man as LyeU than for the word of the combined forty 
 
126 
 
 CTB HUMPHBST-BBNNBTT DiaOUSffiOV. 
 
 or fifty writers who got up your wonderful Bible, with all 
 the divine aid they bad to help them, included. 
 
 You attempt to prove, too, that excavations at Nineveh 
 confirm Biblical archaeology. They do nothing of the kind; 
 but they do prove that the Jews, during their captivity, 
 borrowed from the Babylonians and Ninevites their views 
 of cosmogony and incorporated them into their Bible 
 stories which were written after their return to their own 
 
 country. 
 
 Let me next examine your ten-stranded cable in favor of 
 the superhuman origin of the Bible, and which you say can- 
 not be broken. The proper way to become acquainted with 
 any cable or rope and with the material of which it is com- 
 posed, is to examine it closely, strand by strand. If the 
 individual strands, as you almost confess with regard to 
 your cable, are weak or rotten, or are composed of bad 
 materials, it is impossible to have a good cable, that cannot 
 be broken. It will be little better than a rope of sand, that 
 must part at the first heavy strain that is brought to bear 
 upon it. To prove the Bible is superhuman you ought to 
 understand that it is incumbent on you to show that at least 
 portions of It are above the power of man to produce. If 
 there is nothing in it but what man can write, it is perfectly 
 proper to relegate it to human minds and not to an unseen, 
 unknown power outside of the Universe. Before it can be 
 admitted to be divine, 1 repeat, it must be shown that it ia 
 not in the power of man to produce it. This you have 
 
 failed to do. 
 
 The first strand of your cable is that the Bible is Just 
 about the right iww. Who has the authority to say what is 
 the exact size of divinity ? Who shall say it is not larger 
 or that it is not smaller than the Bible T If a certain siie 
 must be attained before a piece of manuscript can be divine, 
 how Is it with the parts that were written first, the Penta- 
 teuch, which is popularly supposed to be the oldest book 
 In the collection— though it is not f If size la an essential 
 
 THB HUMPHBEY-BENNETT MSCUflfllON. 437 
 
 lo divinity, the first books could not have been divine 
 because of this defect. If the New Testament is essential 
 in making up the right size, the Old Testament could not 
 have been divine without it. If the book is just the right 
 Bize to be divine, it is perhaps fortunate that several books 
 were lost, among whicA may be named *'The Wars of 
 Jehovah," ** Joshua's Division of the Holy Land " - Solo- 
 mon's Natural History," - The Annals of Solomo'n," - The 
 Annals of Nathan," "The Annals of Gad," " The Life of 
 Solomon by Ahijah," '«The Life of Solomon by Iddo " 
 •• The Acts of Rehoboam." " The Chronicles of Judah «r 
 Israel," "The Book of Jashar," •« The Life of Hezekiah," 
 '*The Life of Manasseh," "The Prophecy of Ahijah " 
 ^•The Book of Shemaiah," "The Sayings of Hosea," etci. 
 •etc. ; if these had all been preserved they would doubtless 
 have increased the size to such an extent as to destroy its 
 divinity. What if the councils which decided which books 
 ehould constitute the sacred canon had voted in or voted 
 out a few more, would not the effect upon the divinity of 
 the whole been most disastrous T How came you to know 
 Just how much it takes to equal divinity ? How can you 
 decide that, inasmuch as Deity is infinite, that his book 
 also must not be infinite, and therefore the Hindoo 
 Scriptures, which are so volummous as to be almost infinite, 
 are not more divine than the Jewish Scriptures ? Your first 
 strand wUl certainly not bear much of a strain. - 
 
 Tour second strand is simpUcUy, Now, I am disposed to 
 concede the simplicity of any one who would present such 
 an argument in favor of the divinity of the Bible, but is it 
 any simpler than the story of Blue Beard, Cinderella, the 
 Cow jumping over the Moon, and the whole catalogue of 
 Mother Goose's Nursery Rhymes ? If simplicity proves 
 the divinity of the Bible, may it not be used as a criterion 
 by which to determine the divinity of these other and 
 similar works. Js all that is simple necessarily divine? 
 Bad yoB the Book of Daniel or the Book of Revelationa in 
 
/r 
 
 ▼iew when yon were so struck wttli the irfmplieity of 
 tlie Tolume T I hate known men to spend almost a life* 
 time poring orer those two hooks, and they knew as little 
 ahout their meaning at last as they did at first. If the 
 Bihle possesses such extraordinary simplicity, why Is it 
 that legions of priests, at an expense of many millions of 
 dollars per year, are necessary to explain its meaning to 
 the people f and why is it, if its simplicity is so marked, 
 that the seTeral branches of the Christian Church spend 
 generations in bitter contention orer its language? Finally, 
 kow does your admiration for its perfect simplicity agree 
 with your sixth strand, where you say "There nerer was a 
 man who could place his hand on it and say, ' I know and 
 understand all it contains.* The most diligent student 
 doses his inTestigaticas of it, feeling, like Newton in the 
 presence of the Uniyerse, that he was but a gatherer of 
 ■hells on the shores of the unfathomable sea. Men can 
 master other books. It does not require much application 
 to comprehend all that Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, or any 
 other philosopher eve? wrote. Whateyer proceeds from 
 man can be grasped and mastered by man. But the Bible 
 cannot be so grasped and mastered by man. Hence, it 
 must be more than human.*' Here is a striking case of 
 blowing hot and cold at the same breath. Your second 
 strand is that the Bible is so simple that it can be easily 
 understood— no •* pomposity," or " sophomority " about it, 
 eyerybody can understand it — hence it must be diyine; but 
 in your sixth strand you say it i? so complex and hidden 
 that no man can understand it — hence, it must be diyine. 
 These strands certainly will not unite in making a strong 
 cable. I must confess that I do not think much of either 
 of them. 
 
 Tour third strand, candor^ does not haye much strength. 
 The Bible has no more candor than thousands of other 
 books that n^en hay^ written. This strand adds nothing to 
 your cable. 
 
 Tn SUMPHBBT-BBHirXTT DnOUmOBT. 
 
 Your fourth strand, ineurioHiy, I can make yery little of. 
 How you make ineuriotity a proof of diyinity is a puzzler to 
 me. Was not God a little curious when he came down in the 
 cool of the day and walked in the garden to see what Adam 
 and Eve had been doing f Was he not a trifle curious when he 
 descended from heaven to see what the Sodomites had 
 done, and whether their conduct was in keeping with the 
 cry that had gone up to him ? Was he not a little curious 
 when he put Abraham to the severe test of proving if he 
 would put his own child to death and oflfer him as a burnt 
 offering ? Did he not show commendable curiosity on 
 many other occasions t No, no ; incuriosity is not a proof 
 of divinity. Try again, Brother Humphrey. 
 
 Your fifth strand I cannot comprehend sufllciently to get 
 iU full meaning. I believe you mean that the Bible is 
 divine because God is King of kings and Lord of lords. 
 I fall to see the connection. This is a very weak strand. 
 
 Your sixth I have quoted and found it completely neu- 
 tralized by your second. They utterly contradict and de- 
 stroy each other. 
 
 Your seventh strand, the close resemblance between the 
 BibU and nature, is decidedly far-fetched. The Bible beara 
 no more resemblance to nature than any other book does. 
 In fact it bears less. It tells many impossible stories that 
 are in utter variance with every principle of nature. There 
 is very little harmony between nature and that queer old 
 book. No. 7 is very weak. 
 
 Your eighth, exhav^tiveness^ has no more strength than 
 the preceding. With all its exliaustiveness^ what great truth, 
 what science, whatfiel(J^of knowledge or philosophy has it 
 exhausted ? Did it exhaust cosmogony, astronomy, geol- 
 ogy, chemistry, archseclogy, mathematics, geography, biol- 
 ogy, physiology, zoology, the nature of force and matter, 
 the character of mind or intellect, philology, meterology, 
 pneumatics, hydrostatics, and all the numerous arts that 
 exist in the world ? No, it exhausts none of these, and 
 
430 
 
 THE HUMPHHET-BBHlWrT DISOUMIOH. 
 
 acarcely touches them. It exhausts nothing except It be 
 the stories of wars, bloodshed and the sexual relations of a 
 erode, semi-barbarous people. No. 8 might as well have 
 
 been omitted. 
 
 Your ninth, that the Bible was far in advance of the ages 
 in which it was announced or written, has little more 
 strength than its fellow strands. It is impossible to see 
 that the Bible had this peculiarity. We have Just seen that 
 in none of the sciences which afterward came to be well 
 understood in the world did the Bible advance beyond its 
 age and time. You aim to make a good deal of MonoiheUm, 
 The Jews, like their brothers, the Arabs, seemed more 
 inclined to Monotheism than many of the ancient nations, 
 but whether this quality possesses much f^pecial excellence 
 is a debatable question. If Monotheism has proved mors 
 advantageous to the world than Polytheism or ^(^theism it 
 is hardly yet ascertained. There is as much proof of the 
 existence of a hundred gods as there is of one, and it is 
 hard to be discovered how the belief in a pingle god is 
 more conducive to virtue than the belief in numerous 
 gods. Besides the Jews were not confined to one God. In 
 the first chapter of Genesis the word translated Ood—EXo- 
 him is plural and means Godt, Further along in the orig- 
 inal Hebrew we have El, ElrShadai, Adonai, Yahveh, Jah, 
 Jehovah and others. The greater part of these were sepa- 
 rate characters, but the translators rendered them all Lord 
 «Qd God— another exemplification of the dishonesty which 
 the Scriptures cover. No. 9 contains no strength. 
 
 Your tenth and last strand I judge was thrown in for 
 ••good count," or as a makeweight. You wish to establish 
 the fact that the Bible is the most reasonable Knd praeticabU 
 of books. You could hardly set up a more absurd claim. 
 A great portion of it is opposed to reason, and its practica. 
 bility is of a very thin quality. In this respect it certainly 
 does not surpass great numbers of other books. Who goes 
 to the Bible when he wishes to learn the dictates of reason 
 
 TBB HUMPHBEY-BENKBTT DISCUSSIOH. 
 
 481 
 
 and gidn practicable information? It Is only pious souls 
 who imagine that the book is a voice from the throne of 
 God and go to its pages for anything of a practicable char- 
 acter. 
 
 I have thus examined your '• ten-stranded cable,*' and I 
 cannot find that the strands amount to anything separate or 
 that they possess any more strength when united. It seems 
 very strange that you and the Christian world should 
 depend upon such an imperfect cable to hold the ship of 
 truth to her moorings. I must again express my surprise 
 that you are able to present no stronger arguments in proof 
 of the divinity of the book you so ardently revere. I can- 
 not see how you were yourself won by such weak and inad- 
 equate reasoning. It is strange, too, that the world of 
 Christendom is led along year after year and generation 
 after generation by such deficient arguments. Millions, 
 like yourself, give their assent to the divine origin of the 
 Bible, when, as now, if the actual proofs of its divinity 
 are called for, they turn out like the strands of your cable, 
 possessing neither tenacity when alone, nor the ability to 
 give strength to one another when combined. 
 
 I think I can give better reasons why the Bible is not 
 divine than your ten are in favor of its divinity. In doing 
 so I may repeat some that have already been used, but will 
 arrange them in numerical order, similar to yours; and you 
 may, if you please, call them strands in the great anti-bibli- 
 cal cable which is impossible to be broken. 
 
 1. There is no assertion from the writers themselves that 
 they were directed or influenced by God. 
 
 2. It is wholly unknown, iu nearly every instance, who 
 the writers of the various books were, or whether they 
 were men of credibility. 
 
 8. The time is not known when many of the books were 
 written. A discrepancy of one thousand years, or more, 
 exists between the time when it is claimed that they were 
 written and the time when they really were written. 
 
MUMPKBar-BlllinRT DlBOUBIlOlf, 
 
 4 The matter contained in the book is largely emde aad 
 tioarse, and is principally a mere narrative of events that 
 were supposed to have occurred within the limits of an 
 obscure nation occupying an area, in a hilly country, 
 smaller than many of the small States in this Republio. 
 
 ff. As everything the Bible contains could have been 
 written without aid from any god, it is utter folly to 
 assume that £uch a party had anything to do with it. There 
 is not a chapter nor a verse in the whole compilation supe- 
 rior to human ability, and it is the height of absurdity to 
 accord to divinity that which is wholly within the scope of 
 humanity. 
 
 0. It is largely historical in character, and contains mat- 
 ter in the narration of which no divine aid would be necM* 
 aary. It presents no more proofs of divinity than thou- 
 turnds of histories and detailed descriptions of that with 
 which the world has been filled. 
 
 7. The coarseness and indecency of large portions of the 
 book repudiate the idea of ito being the wo^ of the tape* 
 rior spirit of the Universe. 
 
 8. It is full of errors and contradictitinfl, stating many 
 points and incidents in language bearing two or more con* 
 structions. 
 
 9. It has many errors in chronology and In fact, making 
 mistakes in some instances of hundreds of years. 
 
 10. The writers of the book were ignorant of the simplest 
 truths of Nature which the merest schoolboy now clearly 
 comprehends, such as the rotundity of the earth, the sun 
 being the centre of the solar system, the phenomena of 
 rain, rainbows, eclipses, the recurrence of day and night, 
 the seasons, etc. 
 
 11. It contains many absurd and impossible statements 
 which are opposed to the system of Kature and the laws 
 which govern the Universe, as the story of creation, the 
 snake story, the story of the Hood, of the parting of seas 
 and rivers, of Joshua stopping the heavenly bodies, of 
 
 HUIIPHBBT* BUI A VIT DIBOUMIOir. 
 
 * 
 
 Jonah three days in the belly of a fish, of three men being 
 thrown unharmed into a superheated furnace, etc. Its talk 
 about the "ends," "pillars" and " foundations" of the earth, 
 and of the stars falling to the earth, is simply ridiculous. 
 
 13. Its writers were unscientific and mostly unlearned 
 men who were entirely ignorant of hundreds of things in sci- 
 ence and general knowledge that are familiar in the world 
 to-day. The Bible writers had no knowledge imparted to 
 them beyond what had been attained by the nations then 
 existing upon the earth. 
 
 13. It contains no greater literary ability, no finer lan- 
 guage, no more elevated thought, no purer morals, than 
 are contained in other writings and books written as. early 
 or earlier and which are not supposed to have been written 
 by gods. 
 
 14. It imparts very crude ideas of Deity, the Supreme 
 Power of the Universe, giving it the form of man, with all 
 the passions, impulses, whims, and foibles that pertain to 
 an unprogressed, passionate, ungorernable human being. 
 The description which it gives of his form and appearance 
 is revolting even to a child. 
 
 15. It imparts very little practical, useful information 
 touching the affairs of life, and gives imperfect instructioni 
 upon such subjects as man most needs to know. 
 
 16. It is largely made up of accounts of savage wars, car- 
 nage, and bloodshed, with plentiful details of marrying, 
 concubinage, of the begetting and bearing of children, of 
 experiments in cattle-raising, rapes, adulteries, etc., etc., 
 disgusting to the refined mind. 
 
 17. If it was of any value to the people of the earth at 
 the times in which it was written, and if it was the highest 
 form of literature and science which the world then pos« 
 sessed, it has ceased to be of any vital importance to man- 
 kind save as a work of antiquity, and in this view it is 
 worthy of preservation and respect but not as a book 
 written by God. 
 
T9B HUMFHBKr-BIVHKTT DUCUMIOir, 
 
 18. The Bible tescbes that God made the eartb, and all 
 <he stars and worlds that compose the Universe less than 
 «iz thousand years ago, while science teaches us with uner- 
 ring truth that some of the far away suns and stars whose 
 light meets our eyes on a clear night are so far distant that 
 At the Telocity at which light travels it would require hun- 
 dreds of thousands and even millions of years for their 
 light to reach our globe. Geology and its students have 
 made it positive that this earth has existed as a globe for 
 millions of years, and innumerable proofs can be brought 
 to confirm it How idle then to talk about this world and 
 those distant orbs being less than six thousand years old. 
 
 19. The Bible teaches that vegetation of all kinds, includ- 
 ing herbs, grasses, shrubbery, trees, etc., flourished and 
 perfected their flowers, seeds and fruits before the sun came 
 Into existence, and before rain had ever fallen upon the 
 «arth. Every sensible person knows that this cannot be 
 true. 
 
 20. The Bible teaches that the first created organic exist- 
 ences were grass, herbs and fruit trees, but geologists have 
 found imbedded in the primitive rocks of the earth fossils 
 of low forms of animal life found only in water which 
 existed on the planet. It is established beyond a doubt that 
 the^^', the moUusca and the polyparia and other low forma 
 of animal life existed ages before there was a spear of grass, 
 ft plant, a shrub or a tree upon the face of the whole 
 earth. 
 
 31. The Bible teaches that the raee of man has existed 
 less than 6,000 years, while numerous discoveries have 
 been made of the bones of men which have been excavated 
 from deposits in caves and caverns, and other localities 
 where they are found side by side with the bones of cave- 
 lions, cave-bears, cave-hyenas, mastodons and various other 
 animals which passed from the earth many thousand years 
 «go. Crude implements, belonging to a primitive period 
 called *'the 8tone Age.** when man only knew how to 
 
 TBI SnKFHBBT-BBNKBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 486 
 
 form his knives, his axes, his spears, his arrowheads, etc., 
 of stone and flakes of flint, have been found in such quanti- 
 ties and in so many localities, as to entirely set Bible chro- 
 nology aside and prove positively that man has existed on 
 the earth at the very least one hundred thousand years, and 
 probably much longer. — 
 
 23. The errors of omission on the part of the Bible 
 writers were as great as those of commission. They never 
 alluded to the original fiery condition of the earth when its 
 heat was so great for incomputable ages that organized 
 life of any kind was utterly impossible on the earth. 
 
 23 Nothing is said in the Bible about the Olacial Period, 
 which scientists have positive proofs existed for a long 
 time on the earth, when vast bodies of ice were moved by 
 the water a little as icebergs are now, when immense rocks 
 were frozen in the ice and thus transported great dis- 
 tances. If it was the intention of the Bible writers to 
 give information of what had taken place on the earth, 
 the glacial period should not have been omitted. 
 
 24. The Bible teaches nothing of the topographical 
 changes that have from time to time taken place upon the 
 earth. It says nothing of islands and continents and 
 mountains emerging from the ocean, while the plainest 
 teachings of science give the positive information that the 
 Alps, the Appenines, the Himalayas, the Ural Mountains, 
 the Rocky Mountains of our own continent, the Andes, 
 the Alleghanies. the Gatskills, and all the other mountains 
 on the face of the globe have either emerged from the bed 
 of the ocean, or by internal fires and forces, have been up- 
 heaved from comparatively low ground. This was not all 
 done at one time, nor within the same period. On the tops 
 of some mountains are found remains of the devonian age; 
 on others, of the carboniferous period; on others again, of 
 the cretaceous period, showing that the several mountains 
 of the globe were elevated at different periodSi and at long 
 eoni of time apart 
 
JW raa mnawBMt'Waaafn nnomnov. 
 
 8S. The Bible neither contains a hint abodt the rotund' 
 Itgr of the earth, nor does it contain a iisp of the existence 
 of the vast Continent of America extending from the North 
 Pole, or near it, to the 60th degree of south latitude, a dis- 
 tauce of nearly ten thousand miles, and embracing ever^ 
 variety of climate, soil and topography, though it an;©. 
 dates, in existence as a continent, Europe, Asia and Africa, 
 It was not because the Bible writers did not regard 
 this older part of the world as worthy of mention, but be- 
 cause they were so ignorant of the facts of geography that 
 they knew nothing about its existence, that made them 
 neglect to speak of it ; and the source of their information 
 and inspiration was as ignorant as themselves. 
 
 28. While the most important truths of the Universe 
 were entirely omitted and ignored, rambling tales, stories 
 of blood and carnage, sketches of the lives of worthless 
 priests and prophets, heartless tyrants, shameless women, 
 stories filthy enough to cause the boldest man or woman to 
 blush at their recital, genealogical descents, unpronounc- 
 mble names, enigmatical and meaningless passages, and 
 repetitions of semi-historical events make up the great bulk 
 of what you reverently call the " Holy Bible," the ** Book 
 Divine," the "greatest gift of God to man." etc., all of 
 which is hallucination-^a fallacy of the strongest kind. 
 
 27. Many parts of the Bible are so farfetched, obscure 
 and unintelligible that they are totally worthless to every- 
 body. How much good has the Book of Daniel, the Book 
 of Revelations, and many other parts of the Bible, ever 
 doue to the world T None at all; but have been a cause for 
 Interminable puzzling, disputing, speculating and cox^ec* 
 turing. 
 
 28. Scarcely any book ever published has contained 
 BO many errors and inaccuracies. King James' trans- 
 lation was published in 1611 ; in 1711 it was corrected 
 by bishops Tenison and Lloyds, thousands of errors having 
 crept into it In 1669 Dr. Blayney corrected a multitude of 
 
 THE HUHFHBBT-BEHKBTT DISCUBSIOV. 
 
 487 
 
 new errors, reformed the text in many places and rectified 
 some material errors in chronology. More recently •* the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, after having circulated 
 millions of copies of it, have declared that a faithful exam- 
 ination of it gives rise to seriotia doubU wMJier it can he truth- 
 fuUyeatted theimdof Ood.'* The American Bible Society 
 in 1847 appointed a committee of its members to prepare a 
 standard edition of King James' version, free from typo- 
 graphical errors. They accordingly prepared such an 
 edition, correcting, as they stated, twenty-four thousand 
 errors, but so alarmed were they at the attacks made upon 
 it, that it was withdrawn, and the American Bible Society 
 continues to this day to circulate a book, for the word of God, 
 containing— according to their own confession— twenty-four 
 thousand errors. The Bible Revision Committee at present 
 remodeling and improving the Word of God, in England, 
 are said to have reported one hundred and fifty thousand 
 errors of one kind and another in the present version. 
 When they bring out their new version it will be so changed 
 from the one in use that it is questionable whether the mos^ 
 ardent Bible-worshipers will be disposed to accept it as tneir 
 revered toord of God. 
 
 28. The leveral books of the Bible are all of them mere 
 transcripts of transcripts, not one of the original manuscripts 
 being now in existence and has not been for the last thousand 
 years. It is easy to understand that copies from copies 
 must become very full of errors. Of the New Testament 
 books alone there are said to be thirty-two thousand 
 different versions. God would hardly be likely to trust an 
 important word of his to such possibilities of mutation and 
 corruption. 
 
 80. The Bible misleads men by inducing them to believe 
 that God can be placated and gratified by spending one day 
 in seven in idleness; by slaying and burning bulls, rams, 
 he-goats and other animals; and by praise, adulation, and 
 prayer. It is not reasonable to suppose that the God of the 
 
TBB HVMFHRET-BKimKTT DIBOinMrOtf. 
 
 Universe la in any way affected by any snch frivolous pet- 
 
 formances. 
 
 81. The Bible leads people to believe that sin can be 
 forgiven by certain ceremonies or penances being per- 
 fonned, while Nature teaches that there can be no 
 forgiveness for a law once violated or a wrong act once 
 
 committed. 
 
 83. The Bible has made millions of human beings 
 miserable by the inculcation of a belief In hell and in a 
 devil to torment them through the endless ages of eternity. 
 There is nothing in Nature that gives the least foundation 
 for such a horrible belief. 
 
 83. The Bible has done more towards degrading woman 
 and towards keeping her in subjection to the masculine 
 gender than any other influence in the world. Prom the 
 passage, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall 
 rule over thee," unto "Wives, submit yoursrives unto 
 your own husbands as unto the Lord,** woman has been 
 made a mere slave to tyrant man, and it is only when the 
 spirit of the Bible, in this respect, has been disregarded that 
 woman has assumed her true position in life, an equal of 
 man in all respects. 
 
 84. The Bible sanctions slavery. From its earliest chro- 
 nology, when the oldest books were written, down to the 
 close of the Book of Revelations, the Bible has justified 
 aod enjoined human slavery. It established it in many 
 instances, and haraly ever has condemned it. The influ- 
 ence which the Bible shed in favor of slavery cost this 
 country a protracted, bloody, and expensive war, costing 
 hundreds of millions In treasure and at 1< ast a million of 
 the best lives in tne iano. Mrs. Annie Besant, thecour- 
 ageous Freethinker and eloqnent orator of England, uses this 
 lauguagc: ** 'Cursed is Canaan; a servant of servants shall ho 
 be unto his brethren,' said the Bible from ten thousand pul- 
 pits, but man arose and swore that, Bible or no Bible, the 
 slave should go free. The Bible has bolstered up every in jua- 
 
 TT DISCnSSlOlT. 
 
 439 
 
 tioe— it has bulwarked every tyranny— it has defended every 
 wrong. With toil and pain and bloodshed have the sol- 
 diers of Liberty wrung from the reluctant hands of priests 
 and Bible-worshipers every charter of our freedom and 
 every triumph of our cause." 
 
 85. The Bible has retarded the progress of science. The 
 Jewish Scriptures have been brought forward to knock 
 down and strangle every new thought and every effort to 
 reach something higher. The priests have stood like high- 
 waymen on the road to progress, and to every passerby 
 have shouted : *' Your reason or your lifer* Prof. Denton 
 says, "Science has flourished not because it has bad the 
 Bible to help it, but in spite of its direst opposition. As- 
 tronomy discovered that the earth is round and revolves, 
 but the Bible taught something else, and hence the astron- 
 omer was an Infidel and astronomy a dangerous science. 
 Geology proved the world to be millions of years old, and 
 the wail over its infidelity has not yet subsided. It is well 
 known that man was on earth ages before the time of. the 
 the creation of Adam, according to the Bible, but how cau- 
 tious men are in saying sot and how theologians denounce 
 those who dare to do so; for it is not in agreement with the 
 unknown writer of Genesis. It will be generally acknowl- 
 edged that universal man is not descended from one pair, 
 and that man had a natural origin; but our scientific men, 
 especially Americans, have a padlock on their lips, and 
 orthodoxy keeps the key." 
 
 86. The Bible approves Polygamy— one of the twin-relics 
 of barbarism. In the cases of Abraham, Jacob, David and 
 Solomon we have abundant proof that the Bible did not 
 condemn the multiplicity of wives and concubines which 
 these patriarchs and saints indulged in. 
 
 37. The Bible sanctions murder and the reckless taking 
 of human life. This was carried to such excess that some 
 days as many as five hundred thousand are reported killed ia 
 a single day, and of God's own people. There is nothing in 
 
 / 
 

 I 
 
 I 
 
 VSB BUlCFHBKT-BIHlfSTT DIBCinaiON. 
 
 the Bible that represents Ck>d as being opposed to tlie efti^ 
 sion of human blood. On the other hand, there are many 
 places showing that he delighted in it. He is often styled 
 the God of battles, the Lord of Hosts, etc. In fact ho 
 seems to have a special fondness for blood, both of men and 
 animals. 
 
 88. The Bible recognizes the right and Justice of putting 
 people to death for very trivial offenses ; for instance for 
 picking up sticks on the Sabbath, the refractoriness of 
 children, committing adultery and other offenses no greater 
 than these. 
 
 89. The Bible discriminatei in favor of the Jews and 
 against other nations, making the Qod of the Bible to be 
 partial and deficient in Justice. Meat unfit for the use of 
 the Jews was allowed to be sold to aliens and strangers, and 
 these were submitted to many exactions and indignities not 
 visited upon the Jews. 
 
 40 According to some passages in the Bible, it approves 
 of human sacrifices, as in the case of Jephtha, the hanging 
 of two sons and five grandsons of Saul to stop a famine, 
 and the law given in Leviticus zxvii, 29, which required 
 that everything, whether man or beast, dewied to the Lort^ 
 6hall surely be put to death. 
 
 41. The severity of the Bible against witches has been 
 the apology for a great amount of cruelty and taking of 
 human life. The Bible injunction, '* Thou shalt not suffer 
 a witch to live," has indirectly caused the torture and death 
 of probably hundreds of thousands of persons entirely 
 innocent of witchcraft. The inhuman zealots who in 
 Europe and in this country so cruelly persecuted, tortured 
 and put to death the thousands of unfortunate wretches who 
 were stupidly supposed to be witches or to be bewitched 
 got their warrant, their authority, their impetus from th« 
 Bible. They were persistent admirers and worshipers of 
 that book. 
 
 43. Tlie Bible teaches that belief it a merif worthy o.< 
 
 »HB mjMPHBKT-BBWNBTT DISCUSSIOK. i41 
 
 ^rl'^:^^^^^^^^ ^ ^"'"^ ^-^^-^ ot eternal pun- 
 ishment This doctrine which seems to me totally absurd. 
 
 has been the cause of incalculable mischief irtl wor d 
 As belief and disbelief are arbitrarv nn„Hf i. 7 
 
 not anhipnf t^ «i • aroiirary qualities or conditions 
 
 act subject to choice or whim, but to evidence and reasons 
 presened-a person being unable to believe anythirana 
 everythingthat maybe required of him, the injustice oHhU 
 doctrmo is most apparent. 
 
 .hf T ^"'f *'""° sentiment of the Bible that God selecled 
 the Jews from among aU the nations of the earth to be lu 
 chosen, peeuu„ peop,e_the only nation to be loved ^ml 
 all others were hated-does great injustice to theUniv"^^ 
 
 ^t^anT au'r^T"''' '"^ ^**"« '^"^'^ "^ •"<="- 
 world ' ""' """ ^"^"^ "'"«»' «-« i" the / 
 
 44 The Bible inculcates the absurd idea that labor is a 
 punishment .nd was inflicted upon man in consequence 
 of h.s disobedience in eating a certain fruit. It .e!che^ 
 that but for this disobedience man could have lived •' 
 perpetual ease and idleness, eve^hing he needed g^wi; 
 spontaneously for him. This pernicious belief has worked 
 
 holulh" '": r''- '' ^"^ P'"-'' " <l-6-e upon 
 honest labor, and kept man back in the night and indolence 
 
 salvation. It has raised him from the low estate of the 
 itiaf ' ''^. f "' ''■" *"^"'"^- '^" planet to hteu^^^ 
 aJs .r/ "" '" '"''''•'*' '^"""-'''^ ^- --ties 
 c!ll. m""°'"' '° •'""^ '="'<'«• «°»«t™<=t highways, 
 shar oT r^' ""^ '° °""''' " •^^"«'^'^"1 Sarden of a laj; 
 
 worn ? i "■^■l!^«ion and progress that exist in the 
 world to-day. and without It man would have remained a 
 
 inl^, ,T» ' ""* "■" '° "P"" "^ ""« ^""damental teach- 
 ha! h! 1 "■ ^'^'' """"^"^ beingacurse. a stigma, 
 has been the greatest blessing that has befallen mankind 
 «6. Tl»e doctrine the Bible teaches, that the end of the 
 
 - f 
 
world is near at hand, has been a source of immense dam^ 
 age. It has caused thousands upon thousands to neglect 
 their business and the rccessary cares of life, to abandon 
 and give away their property; to become hopelessly insane. 
 to wander OTcr the country like Tagabonds until, miserable 
 mendicants, they become the most pitiable objects in the 
 
 world. 
 
 46. The doctrine that it is the height of excellence and 
 firtuo to liTe abject lires here, to take no thought for the 
 morrow, to^eourt Ignominy, to practice painful self-denial^ 
 to live in want and penury, to neglect the common duties 
 of life for the sake of riches in the future world, for the 
 sake of crowns of gold to wear upon the head, for the sak© 
 of living in a city with gates of pearl and with streets paverf 
 with gold, has worked incalculable mischief with thi, 
 simple dupes who have believed this syren song. Povertf 
 and degradation here, for the sake of riches and splendor 
 hereafter, has been a source of great evil, retarding enter- 
 prise, encouraging indolence and mendicancy. Ito influ- 
 ence has been most pernicious. 
 
 47. The Bible is inferior to many works which men 
 have perfected. It has been produced since the pyramids 
 of Egypt were builded, since the Sphinx was executed, 
 since the Obelisk was erected— which is cut from a single 
 ftone, weighs three hundred tons, and is still standing— 
 since the colossus of Bamses IL, which weighs nine bun- 
 dred tons, was constructed: long since the construction of 
 the monolithic temple weighing five thousand tons de- 
 scribed by Herodotus, the one immense stone of which it is 
 made having been transported, no one knows how, the 
 wh«>le length of the valley of the Nile to its delta; since 
 the sculpture, bas-reliefs, obelisks, monuments, and tern- 
 pies with the most elaborate inscriptions, which were ex- 
 ecuted more than thirty-five centuries ago. These works 
 were performed by men, and they certainly were far more 
 difficult of accomplishment, and would teem to need the 
 
 ftid of the gods far more than the writing of the tedious 
 details, the filtny stories, and the questionable history of 
 the Bible. Why not as well insist that the gods or a god 
 helped them to perform those stupendous works as to force 
 us to acknowledge that a god must have assisted the writers 
 of the Jewish Scriptures f 
 
 48. The greater portions of the Bible were undoubtedly 
 written since the Institutes of Menu were penned, since the 
 voluminous Vedas and Puranas were written, since the 
 grand teachings of Zoroaster and the Avesta were committed 
 to parchment; long since the cuneiform inscriptions of 
 Nineveh and Assyria were executed; since many of the 
 sacred writings and inscriptions of Egypt were produced; 
 about the time, perhaps, of the Indian saint, Buddha, 
 and the wonderful sayings he uttered, and the grand old 
 Chinese philosopher, Confucius, with his eminently practi- 
 cal and useful precepts and morals. All these were written 
 by men, and you will hardly claim that Jehovah had 
 anything to do with them; and as they are, in point of 
 ability, purity, and grandeur, equal, and more than equal, 
 to the Jehovistic sacred writings, it is preposterous to insibt 
 that these could not have also have been written by men. 
 49. The Bible is an advocate and supporter of kings and 
 tyrants. It recognizes the divine right of kings to rule over 
 the masses of the people, who are required to render im- 
 plicit obedience and to be nothing more nor less than slaves. 
 It does not introduce nor advocate the republican and 
 higher forms of government, which, as civilization and 
 intelligence advance in the world, are found to be vastly 
 better for the masses of men than monarchy and tyranny. 
 The God of the Bible was little more than a big king or 
 despot who, with an arbitrary power, led his hosts,1md 
 proudly tyrannized over a nation of slaves. 
 
 60. The Bible establishes and sustains a privileged class, 
 a divine aristocracy which has ever been a most oppressive 
 burden to mankind. I mean the priesthood. One twelfth 
 
W9t 
 
 VBB H i m FHBT -JMU I lOT T mMHHtlOH. 
 
 2 
 
 of tlM men of Israel were set apart to be priests to tli# 
 other eleven parts. They performed do manual labor, hut 
 served In the sanctuary or temple, and performed divine 
 ceremonies, such as slaying the bullocks, rams, and he- 
 goats used for sacrifice (very likely thev helped to eat them, 
 too), together with making peace offerings, offerings of 
 prayer and praise, and attending to the various celestial 
 affairs of like character. For these very important services 
 they were granted an immunity from toil, and were sup- 
 ported in an easy, idle life. One tenth of the products of 
 the labor of the enUre people had to be paid in to support 
 this privileged class, and the masses were required to look 
 up to them and revere them almost as though they were 
 little gods. Priestcraft has ever been an onerous burden 
 upon the backs of the people. Prieste have ever been an 
 unproducing, idle class of ecclesiastical aristocrats for 
 whom the laboring people have been compelled to toil 
 The priests, in all systems of religion, have claimed tiiat 
 they knew more about the gods, the devils, and their wills 
 and purposes, than all the world beside, and have claimed 
 to be able to act as mediators between the gods and the 
 people, that they had great influence at the courts of the 
 gods, that they could influence them with their prayers and 
 placate them by their adoration, their praise and their offer- 
 ings* The people have for thousands of years been fools 
 enough to believe these representations, and to think they 
 must have priests to perform their business with the god| 
 for them, to tell the gods what the people wanted, and to tell 
 the people the will of the gods toward them and whut thef 
 required of them. For performing this heavenly broker- 
 age business, for thus acting as go betweens to and from Ihi 
 gods and their vassals, the priests have made an extremely 
 good thing of it. They have lived upon the fat of the land, 
 they have dressed in the finest of linen, broadcloth and 
 costly furs, they have received a great amount of reverence^ 
 •nd thousands of exquisite tefors have been granted them 
 
 «HB HUMPHBBT-BBNIYBTT DISOTJSSION. 445 
 
 by the female portion of their flocks which you prefer I 
 should not allude to, and all this without blistering their 
 hands, without soiling their fine garments, or without caus- 
 ing the perspiration to start from their brows. They have 
 been par excellence, the celestial ari&tocracy here below, and 
 to prove that they were entitled to all the honors bestowed 
 upon them they claim they have a commission from the 
 throne above the clouds. Though they have been liberally 
 rewarded for their very valuable services, they have not 
 proved to be always useful or always harmless. They 
 have been extremely busy and extremely officious. They 
 have instigated many theological dissensions among men ; 
 they have raised many ecclesiastical points and formulated 
 many new creeds which they have required the people to 
 accept. Nor have they been willing to keep out of the 
 political field. They have instigated countless quarrels, 
 embroglios, contests, wars and caused incalculable blood- 
 shed. O yes, they have been a very costly luxury to poor 
 credulous mankind, and I cannot think a kind, heavenly 
 Father, full of kindness, love and compassion, whom you 
 tell U8 sits upon his throne a little way above the clouds, 
 keeping his loving and benignant eye always upon us,* 
 would ever have devised or countenanced such an institu- 
 tion as the priesthood. It is wholly of human origin. 
 
 I have thus given you my fifty-stranded cable of reasons 
 why the Bible should not be regarded as the production of 
 the Supreme Power of the Universe in place of your ten- 
 Btranded cable. I modestly think my strands are at least 
 five times as strong, individually, as yours, and as there are 
 five times as many of them, my cable, mathematically 
 speaking, must be two hundred and fifty times as stroug 
 as yours! The relative difference between the two.isua- 
 doubtedly as great as that— as thousands are daily coming 
 to see. Ttie book which so many have made a fetish of 
 and worshiped almost precisely as fetish worshipers used 
 lo worship their idols, is being daUy more and more under- 
 
 
4118 
 
 TBB BUXPHRST-BSimXTT DIBCTTIKON. 
 
 Stood in ito true character. It is becoming widely compre- 
 bended that it is a book entirely of human production, and 
 manufactured, as all other books aro» and that it exhibits no 
 more marks of divinity than any other book. Let me here 
 gire one more somewhat extended quotation from Col. R 
 G. Ingersoll, whom, I am sorry to notice, you regard with 
 little favor: 
 
 ** According to theologiais, God, the father of us all, 
 wrote a letter to his children. The children hare always 
 differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. In con- 
 sequence of these honest differences, these brothers began 
 to cut out each other*8 hearts. In every land where this 
 letter from God has been read the children to whom and 
 for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and 
 malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other, 
 and the wives and children of each other. In the name of 
 God every possible crime has been committed, every con- 
 ceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender 
 and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes 
 have been exterminated In the name of Jesus Christ. For 
 more than fifty generations the Church has carried the black 
 flag. Her veniseance has been measured only by her power. 
 During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been 
 forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated ; with 
 the clutch of avarice she has grasped ; with the jaws of a 
 dragon she has devoured ; pitiless as famine, merciless as 
 fire, with the conscience of a serpent. Such is the history 
 of the Church of God. 
 
 *' I do not say, and I do not believe, that Christians are as 
 bad as their creeds. In spite of church and dogma, there 
 have been millions and millions of men and women true 
 to the loftiest and most generous promptings of the human 
 heart. They have been true to their convictions, and with 
 a self-denial and fortitude excelled by none, have labored 
 and suffered for the salvation of men. Imbued with the 
 spirit of self-sacrifice, believing that by personal effort they 
 
 TttB mJMPHBST-BENNKTT IHSCUSfllOV. #|7 
 
 could rescue at least a few souls from the Infinite shadow 
 of hell, they have cheerfully endured every hardship and 
 eoorned every danger. And yet, notwitbetandlng aH 
 this, they believed that honest error was a crin^. Th^ 
 knew that the Bible so declared, and they believed that all 
 unbelievers would be eternally lost They believed that re- 
 ligion was of God and all heresy of the Devil. They killed 
 heretics in defense of their own souls and the souls of their 
 children. They killed them because, according to their 
 idea, they were the enemies of God, and because the Bible 
 teaches that the blood of the unbeliever is a mosi accept- 
 able sacrifice to heaven. 
 
 "Nature never prompted a loving mother to throw her 
 ■child into the Ganges. Nature never prompted men to ex- 
 terminate each other for a difference of opinion conceming 
 the baptism of infants. These crimes have been produced 
 by religions filled with all that Is illogical, cruel and hide- 
 ous. These religions were produced for the most part by 
 ignorance, tyranny and hypocrisy. ITnder the impression 
 that the infinite ruler and creator of the TJniverse had com- 
 ■manded the destruction of heretics and Infidels, the Church 
 perpetrated all these crimes. 
 
 •'Men and women have been burned for thinking there 
 Is but one God ; that there was none ; that the Holy Ghost 
 Is younger than God 4 that God was somewhat older tham 
 ills Son ; for insisting that good works will save a man 
 without faith ; that faith will do without good works ; for 
 declaring that a sweet babe will not be burned eternaUy 
 because its parents failed to have its head wet by a priest^ • 
 ioT speaking of God as though he had a nose ; for denying 
 that Christ was his own father ; for contending that three 
 persons, rightly added together, make more than one ; for 
 believing in purgatory; for denying the reality of hell ;' for 
 pretending that priests can forgive sins ; for preaching that 
 God is an essence ; for denying that witches rode through 
 ^ air on sticks ; for doubting Ihe toUl d^ravity of the 
 

 418 
 
 THB HUMFflBST-BENNSTT ]>I8CU8810V. 
 
 hamaii heart ; for laughing at imsisUble grace, predestina- 
 tion and particular redemption; for denying that good 
 bread could be made of the body of a dead man ; for pre- 
 tending that the Pope was not managing this world for 
 God. and in place of God ; for disputing the efficacy of a 
 vicarious atonement ; for thinking that the Virgin Mary 
 was born like other people ; for thinking that a man's rib 
 was hardly sufficient to make a good sized woman ; for 
 denying that God used his finger for a pen ; for asserting 
 that prayers are not answered, that diseases are not sent to 
 punish unbelief ; for denying the authority of the Bible • 
 for having a Bible in their possession ; for attending mass' 
 and for refusing to attend ; for wearing a surplice ; for car'- 
 ryiag a cross, and for refusing ; for being a Catholic, and 
 for bemg a Protestant, for being an EpiscopaUan, a Presby- 
 tcrian, a Baptist, and for being a Quaker. In short, every 
 virtue has been a crime, and every crime a virtue. The 
 Church has burned honesty and rewarded hypocrisy, and 
 «U this, because it was commanded by a book— a book 
 that men had been taught implicitly to believe, long be- 
 fore they knew one word that was in it. They had been 
 taught that to doubt the truth of this book, to examine it 
 even, was a crime of such enormity that it could not be 
 forgiven, cither in this world or in the next. 
 
 " The Bible was the real persecutor. The Bible burned 
 heretics, built dungeons, founded the Inquisition, and tram- 
 pled upon all the liberties of men. 
 
 •'How long, O how long will mankind worship a book f 
 How long Will they grovel in the dust before the ignorant 
 legends of the barbaric past f How long, O how long 
 will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper than 
 death f** 
 
 With your usual accuracy you say: "Such words as 
 teething, roagting, lina frying belong exclusively to the Infidel 
 vocabulary." Allow me once more to correct you. They 
 legitimately belong to the theory of countless millions of 
 
 THB HUMPHHBY-BiamBTT DIBCUSSIOir. 4|8 
 
 srneln'whf T"""'^'^ '" ''^^*^^^' ^'^'^-^ ^^^ -^^ brim- 
 stone in which you so fondly believe. If the unfortunaTe 
 wretches cast in the burning lake will r,«f . « ^^^^ortunate 
 
 Jhf. prav what U fh« ^°^ *^^^' ^^^ ^^ 
 
 jry. pray what is the reason, and where is the wronir in 
 
 using he terms. But. to show you that these words do 
 
 not belong exclusively to the "Infidel vocabulary ^Lit 
 
 me to make a few quotations from strictly orthodoi source 
 
 upon your favorite theme. "Hell and Damnation- 
 
 In Baxter>s " Saint's Rest " he thus rapturously addresses 
 
 himself to sinners: ^^ Your torment shall be uMvers" 
 
 Thl Jut 'J t°^ '"' body shall each have its torments 
 The guilt of their sins shall be to damned souls hke 
 
 ;«- ;..u .,.J „'?i;„„; J^'JT.^Sz 
 
 damned souls. The ears shall be tortured with t^ bowf 
 Zn H TT" "' ''^'' companions in torments. Thiir 
 emel shall be tortured with the fumes of brimstone, and 
 the hquid massof eternal fire shall prey upon every pa t 
 . Ko drop of water shall be allowed to cool theiMCes: 
 no moment , respite peimitted to relieve their agonTes." ' 
 thJ H 'r"^^^"'^^*'^ gi^es this delectable picture: "All 
 he devils in hell will be with thee howling and roaring 
 
 lip unH f,.„ I . *«"«"t. . . . iiere thou must 
 
 .wt;.;?C ^'^ '""'^« "'•' ««^ -'»-. tan. 
 
 Clattering of Iron, and the olank of ohalns : 
 The clane o laahlne whips, shrill shrieks and «o«n«. 
 loud. ceaseless howUnes. cries, and plerclnemo^ 
 Wfeanwb„e as If but li«ht were all their rain 
 legions Of devils, bound themselves in chains. 
 Tormented and tormentors, o'er them shake. 
 Thon«» and forked Iron In the burning lake. 
 
! 
 
 Beloblnff eternal flameB. and wreathed wltli sptWi 
 Of curling serpents, ronse the brimstone «"•. 
 With whips of fiery scorpions econrBe their siavea. 
 And in their faces dash the livid wavea.* 
 
 The Kev. Mr. Benson, a prominent Methodist cominen. 
 tator of England, uses this language : 
 
 "Infinite justice arrests their guilty souls and confines 
 them in the dark prisons of hell, till they hare satisfied all 
 the demands by their personal sufferings, which a as I they 
 never can do. . • . God is present in bell In his infinite 
 justice and almighty wrath as an unquenchable sea of 
 Uquid fire, where the wicked must drink in everlastmg tor- 
 ture His fiery indignation kindles and his incensed fury 
 feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful pres- 
 eace and operation maintain their being and render all 
 their powers most acutely sensible, thus setting the keenest 
 edge upon their pain, and making it mtmoit intoUrably deep. 
 He wUl exert aU his divine attributes to make them as 
 wretched as the capacity of their natures will admit, . . 
 Number the stars in the firmament, the drops of rain, the 
 sands on tbe sea shore, and when thou hast finished the 
 calculation, sit down and number aU the ages of woe. Let 
 every star, every drop, every grain of sand, represent an4 
 mmm af tormenting ag€$ ; and know that as many more 
 millions sliU remain behind them, and so on without end." 
 The Rev. Mr. Ambrose, in a sermon on Dooms-day, drew 
 
 tbis picture : 
 
 - When the damned have drunken down whole draughU 
 of brimstone one day, they must do the same another day, 
 The eye shall be tormented with the sight of devils ; the 
 ears with the hideous yelllngs and outcries of ihe damnsd 
 inflames; the nostrils shall be smothered, as it were, witb 
 brimstone ; the tongue, the hand, the foot and every pari 
 BhAW fry in flamet:* 
 
 This delicate delineation of the loveliness of beU is from 
 the pen of theKw. X Furniss, C. a R. E.. and was pub- 
 
 reat hitmfhbbt-bibnnbtt dzbcussiok. 
 
 451 
 
 llshed by authority in England, and was part of the 
 instruction designed for the young: 
 
 •• We know how far it is to the middle of the earth; it is 
 Just four thousand miles; so if hell is in the middle of the 
 earth, it is four thousand miles to the horrible prison of 
 heU. Down in this place is a terrific noise. Listen to the 
 tremendous, the horrible uproar of millions and millions 
 and mUlions of tormented creatures, mad with the fury 
 of hell! Oh, the screams of fear, the groanings of horror, 
 ihj yells of rage, the cries of pain, the shouts of agony] 
 tho shrieks of despair, from millions on millions 1 There 
 you hear them roaring like lions, hissing like serpents, 
 hciwling like dogs, and wailing like dragons. There you 
 hear the gnashing of teeth and the fearful blasphemies 
 of the devils. Above all, you hear the roaring of the 
 thunder*' of God's anger, which shakes hell to its founda- 
 dons. But there is another sound. There is in hell a 
 sound like that of many waters. It is as if all the rivers 
 and oceans of the world were pouring themselves with a 
 great splash down on the floor of hell. Is it, then, really 
 the sound of waters ! It is. Are the rivers and oceans of 
 the earth pouring themselves into hell ? No. What is 
 it, then ? It is the sound of oceans of tears runninir down 
 from countless millions of eyes. They cry forever and 
 ever. They cry because the sulphurous smoke torments 
 their eyes. They cry because they are in darkness. 
 They cry because they have lost the beautiful heaven. 
 They cry because the sharp fire burns them. . . . The 
 roof is red hot; the walls arc red hot; the floor as like a 
 thick sheet of red hot iron. See. on the middle of that red 
 het iron floor stands a girl. She looks about sixteen 
 years of agei She has neither shoes nor stockings on 
 her feet. I'he door of this room has never been opened 
 since she first set her feet on this red hot floor. Now she 
 sees the door opening. She rushes forward. She has 
 gone down upon her knees upon the red hot floor. Listen, 
 
<M vat OmiPBItKT-BSNNBTT DISCUSSIOIT. 
 
 She speaks. She says: '1 hare been atanding with my 
 bare feet on this red floor for years. Day and night my 
 only standing place has been this rod hot floor. Sleep 
 nerer came to me for a moment, that I might forget this 
 horrible burning floor. Look at my burnt and bleeding 
 feet. Let me go r.ff this burning floor for one moment- 
 only for a short moment. Oh, that in this endlesss eternity 
 of years, I might forget the pain only for one single mo- 
 mcnt.' The Devil answers her question. 'Do you ask 
 for a moment-f or one moment to forget your pain t No 
 not for one single moment during the neverending eter- " 
 nity of years shall you ever leave this red hot floor " 
 
 I am aware. Bro. Humphrey, of your fondness for this 
 kmd of hterature. and I would gladly favor you with many 
 other choice extracts of the same kind which 1 have in 
 my possession, but a feeling of mercy for oor readers 
 prompts me to desist. I will furnish you much more of the 
 same kind of interesting reading matter at any time you 
 wish It. It U a beautiful picture, is it not 1 How can any- 
 body help loving a religion which has such a hell and loving 
 a God capable of getting it all upf I trust I have convinced 
 you that the words uething, roasting and frying do not be- 
 lonff exclusively to the '• Infldel vocabnlaiy " 
 
 In alluding to your personal experience, you say that the 
 more you make yourself acquainted with the contents of 
 the Bible, the more astonished ycu become at the same; 
 that U ,s a perennial fountain to your soul; that you rise 
 from ,t ready to say, like Jacob at Bethel, "How dreadful 
 is this place. This is none other than the house of God 
 and this is the gate of heaven "; that you " find It a feast 
 both for the intellect and for the heart. It is as full of wis- 
 dom as a father's counsel, and as full of affection as a 
 motners bosom." I cannot but be struck with the differ- 
 ent effecU that it produces upon you and myself. It does 
 not make me feel that way at all. It awakens no special 
 fervor in my breast, and does not enthuse me •• worth i 
 
 THl HUKPHBET-BENKBrr DnCUBSlOlT. 
 
 458 
 
 eent." Looking upon it vis I would upon any other book, 
 wholly man-made, it fails to arouse my religious feelings! 
 I presume you feel very much the same, when you 
 read that old book, as does the Brahmin when he reads 
 his Vedas, the Buddhist when he pores over the sacred 
 inculcations of Sayka-Muni, the Parsee when he peruses 
 the maxims and precepts of Zoroaster, the Chinese when 
 he reads the excellent sayings of Confucius, the Moham- 
 medan when he rises from the Koran, and the Mormon 
 when -he has filled his soul from the fountain of the 
 Mormon Bible, the plates of which the prophet, Joe Smith, 
 asserted that he obtained in a miraculous manner, but 
 which were really an unpublished romance written in Bible 
 style by an ex-Methodist preacher named Spaulding. I 
 look upon you as occupying the same mental plane as they, 
 and I regard you all as being equally in error concerning 
 the divine afflatus which you severally imagine you draw 
 from your sacred bibles. I only hope that you may all 
 learn to look to the truths of Nature for guidance, and dls- 
 card all superstitions and antiquated myths. 
 
 I am a trifle amused at your efforts to prove the existence 
 of God from the '* bumps " on a man's head. If the cen- 
 tral portion of the head being high proves a God, does not 
 being full over and back of the ears also prove a Devil f 
 Is it not rather a weak conception that the shape of men'g 
 skulls make the slightest difference with the existence or 
 non existence of a divine being ? If there are more men 
 with low heads than high ones, would not the majority be 
 against your God, and would he not be ruled out ? If God 
 has no place to exist except in men's skulls, is it not about 
 time that he stepped down and out? Possibly God exists 
 only to those with large organs of veneration, while to 
 those who are small in that region he does not exist at all, ' 
 or rather that the only existence that imaginary being has 
 Is In the whims and fancies of men and women. 
 The question of the existence of a God does not legiti- 
 
Yt 
 
 
 11, 
 
 THB BTJltPHBBT-BftMinBTT P M COTPOK. 
 
 mately belong in this discussion, but as it lias been intro- 
 duced, and you doTote considerable space to the subject, 1 
 will consider it for a few moments. Tou say, '* let us begin 
 at tbe beginning." That is very well ; but where is the 
 beginning t When was it T Before we begin at the begins 
 ninff, is it not well to be sure there was a beginning ? You 
 say, too, " It is self-eyident that Bomeihing must haye ex- 
 isted from eternity." How about the beginning of that 
 iomdhing that has ever existed r Did it have a beginning t 
 Did eternity have a beginning T Did space have a begin- 
 ning r Of course not, and it will be impossible to find tbeir 
 beginning to begin at. 
 
 I accept it as a self-evident proposition that tomeOting can- 
 not eomefrom nothing. All the gods that men ever dreamed 
 of could not make something of nothing. As IngersoU 
 ■ays, " Nothing, considered in the light of a raw material, is 
 a most decided failure.*' By no process that has ever been 
 discovered, can nothing be converted into iomething. By 
 ail the skill which the world has possessed not one grain of 
 matter has ever been destroyed, not one grain has ever 
 been created. From these premises it is very easy to arrive 
 it the conclusion that whatever exists to-day ever did exist 
 in some form, for it is, we see, totally impossible to speak 
 or create or evolve something from nothing. Matter may 
 pass through interminable changes and transformations, 
 but it can neither be increased nor lessened. 
 
 Tou speak of Mrto and make an effort to conneist it 
 somehow, mysteriously, with your Deity. F&ree is a con- 
 comitant, an integral part, an eternal attendant upon Mat- 
 tor. There can be no Foreo without Matter^ and equally no 
 Maittr without fcrco. These are in certain degrees con- 
 vertible one into the other. We well know that matter 
 contains latent force, and that the forces in the Universe 
 unite in organizing matter in comparatively solid form. 
 All matter by the agency of force is susceptible of taking 
 the etherial forms, and all etherial forms, by the idd 
 
 vox HDMPHRXT-BSimBTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 iOfS 
 
 of force and chemical affinity, are capable of taking solid 
 forms. All matter is charged with force or life. There 
 is no inert matter, there is no dead matter. Life and 
 force exist everywhere where matter is, and matter in some 
 form exists everywhere where space is. Matter or sub- 
 stance is as infinite as space or eternity, and had a beginning 
 just as much and no more. Force is as beginningless as 
 matter. Neither could have begun ; neither can end. 
 
 These being accepted as truths, and truths I verily 
 believe them to be, there is little chance of your supernat- 
 ural, personal, anthropomorphic, Jewish God with parts 
 and organs—necessarily occupying but a single point in the 
 Universe at a given time — ever coming into existence ; and 
 there is absolutely no office for him to fill, no place for him 
 to occupy, nothing for him to do. All the forces that 
 now exist in the Universe ever did exist, and they acted as 
 perfectly decillions of ages ago as they do to-day. In view 
 of these grand conceptions, how crude, how weak and 
 puerile is the idea that the Jewish Jehovah is superior to 
 them all, and, six thousand years ago, spoke the boundless 
 Universe into existence from nothing I This is undoubtedly 
 one of the most baseless vagaries ever indulged in by the 
 human mind. To my conception it is vastly grander and 
 vastly truer to accept the great fact that the glorious Uni- 
 verse, with all its intricacies, all its potencies, all its possi- 
 bilities, all its ever-changing forms and forces, ever existed 
 in perfection as it exists to-day, than the childish belief that 
 a few thousand years ago it was somehow brought into exist- 
 ence by a deity in the form of a big man who had passed 
 countless eons tomewhere or nowhere, surrounded hyTWthing^ 
 and reposing in perfect idleness. For me, I repeat, it is much 
 easier to accept the fact that the Universe ever existed, with 
 all its substance and all its force, than to admit the eternal ex- 
 istence of a god capable of devising and speaking it all into 
 existence, or bringing it from non-existence If we admit 
 that substance idways existed, we may as well go a little f ar« 
 
I 
 
 a 
 •I 
 
 ri 
 t 
 
 If 
 
 f'. 
 
 w» BUMPHitaT-BKinnrrT DiacuBnov. 
 
 tlwr and admit that force and iu immutable laws also 
 always existed. 
 
 V You epeak of Mind, of its inherent laws, etc, and seem 
 to think it has a domain and an existence apart from the 
 Universe. Nothing, to my view, can be more erroneous. 
 Mmd belongs to the Universe, and is simply a function of 
 organized matter, the same as any other faculty or function 
 of the body. It has no domain by itself, no separate ex- 
 istence. There is not a particle of proof that mind or 
 intellect has ever existed except as produced by an organ- 
 iaation adapted to its production. Mind or thought is only 
 generated through the medium of the brain and nervous 
 aystem, the same as the sight is produced by the eye and 
 optic nerves, hearing by the mechanism of the ear and ihe 
 auricular nerves, and muscular strength by the muscles, 
 tendons, etc. These are all equally sustained by the food 
 taken into the stomach, and when digested and assimilated 
 pass into chyme and chyle, and by means of the circula- 
 tory apparatus are carried over the entire system. When a 
 man recuperates his stomach with a healthy meal, digestion 
 at once begins, and the latent force in the food is assimilated 
 and imparted to physical functions, and whether he walka 
 twenty miles, chops a cord of wood, carries three tons of 
 eoal up as many flights of stairs, or works ten hours at writ- 
 ing or other menial labor, the process that goes on in his 
 organization is much the same; the food that has been 
 eaten and digested goes to supply the waste that is 
 produced by the effort made, be it physical or mental, and 
 if this effort is continued and the waste is kept up, addi- 
 tional food from time to time must be taken. If the 
 food is shut off the man cannot continue to walk, he can- 
 not continue to chop wood nor carry up coal, and equally 
 impossible will it be for him to continue his mental labor 
 Our thoughts are just as much the result of the food we eat 
 as is our muscular strength or any other function of ouf 
 organization. Truly haa it been said that the finest poema 
 
 '^ HUMPHRBT-BENinrrT maonstKMr. 4S7 
 
 and dramas that have ever been written are simply well- 
 digested and well-assimilated meat, bread, and potatoes. 
 With a good organization and proper food, good thoughts 
 can be produced, and without them they cannot be. There 
 is no existing proof. I repeat, of any thoughts, any mind, 
 any intellect, unless it is produced by an organization 
 adapted to the purpose. A Great Central Intellect, a vast 
 fountain of mind, is equally absurd as to talk about a great 
 
 vo r of taste, or a general storehouse of muscular strength. 
 All are alike the production of organization, and can exist 
 in no other way. 
 
 Intelligence is found In lesser or greater degree in every 
 form of animal life, and always in proportion to the organl- 
 zaUon wh.ch produces it; and possibly in a still more lim- 
 /ted degree in vegetable life. The Jelly-flsU is a very low 
 form of life, and it has a very low grade of Intellect, but it is 
 sufficient to serve its purpose in taking its food and in fill- 
 ing lU humble sphere of existence. The oyster leads a 
 very secluded life. It has little brain or nervous system 
 and consequently has but little intellect, but it has some' 
 and it is exactly In keeping with its organization, and as i[ 
 18 sufficient to lead it to take the food necessary to its tub- 
 sisteuce and to close its castle-gate when danger approaches. 
 It .s sufficient to subserve its purpose. As we rise in the 
 scale of animal Me through the articulate,, the tertebrata 
 the quadrupeds, the mammals, up to man, we find that the 
 intellect increases as the organization is more perfect, and 
 th«t the mind of the animal is always in exact proportion 
 to the character of organization. We notice that bees 
 ants, rata, foxes, dogs, horses, elephants and many other 
 animals have minds much better developed than have the 
 cruder animals, and it is wholly because they have better 
 brains and nervous organizations. They would all reason 
 as well as men if their mental organizations were as per- 
 Xoct TWe is great difference in the intellect of different 
 
 ifl 
 
488' 
 
 BinfPBBtT-BBNKBTT DI8CUMI0K. 
 
 •il* 
 
 * . 
 
 men ai|d women, but apart from culture and training, it ia 
 wholly the difference in organization that madee the differ- 
 ence in the mind. As there are no two organizations just 
 alike, so no two minds are ever found to be alike. If the 
 mind is a mere spark from the great fountain of eternal 
 mind, as the theologian supposes, it is probable there would 
 be far more similarity in the minds of men than we find to 
 be the case. The organizations perpetually vaiy, and 
 equally the minds must ever be unlike. 
 
 I will also assume the responsibility of saying there is no 
 proof in existence of any deity, god, power or force out- 
 side of the Universe, and until such proof is found it ap- 
 pears to be the height of absurdity for theologians to per- 
 sist in asserting that there is such force or deity. It may 
 be very true, that **the fool hath said in his heart, there is 
 no Qod" but h^ is equally a fool when he asserts dograatic- 
 ally, with his lips or with his pen, that there U a God. All 
 the substance, the powers and forces, I again repeat, that 
 have an existence belong to the Universe and are parts of 
 it, and there is not the first particle of proof of any supei- 
 natural power or of any force superior to, or outside of 
 the Universe. All the powers and forces, I said, that exist 
 to-day have ever existed in some form, and there is no 
 possibility of matter or force being spoken into existence 
 by a power or a person outside of it, there is nothing above 
 It, there is nothing below it. It embraces all substance, aU 
 force, all space and all existence, it is the aU in aU. A 
 beginning of the Universe is utterly incomprehensible. The 
 beginning of a god is far less absurd, for we know thou- 
 sands of them have had beginnings and ends. 
 
 You say, **It is self-evident that somethirhg must have 
 existed from eternity;" and I regard that as one of the most 
 sensible utterances in your entire letter. It seems the most 
 rational conclusion an intelligent being can come to. If it 
 is true that something cannot come from nothing^ it is the 
 «nly conclusion that can be arrived at If, then, we have 
 
 •raa ttUlfPHRST BENNETT DlSCCSSlOir. 
 
 4o3 
 
 got 80 far along as to understand that something must have 
 existed from eternity, it is equally easy to comprehend 
 that aU matter or all something has existed from eternity 
 If you admit that anything has existed from eternity, it is 
 but a step further—and a very reasonable one to take— to 
 conclude that everything has existed from eternity. It is 
 far easier for the mind to admit that everything has ever 
 existed than to think that but a part of it, called Chd, has 
 ever existed, and he or it made the remainder from nothing. 
 You, as other theologians do, attach great importance to 
 the design argument in proof of the existence of a God, and 
 perhaps it is the best proof you have; but it really amounts 
 to nothing, for, you know. The proposition that proves too 
 mueh proves nothing. If the design that is shown, or is ap- 
 parent, in the Universe proves that it was designed and 
 created, it also proves that the designer, necessarily supe- 
 rior to the Universe in every particular, and much fuller of 
 design and wonderful adaptability— must likewise have 
 had a designer ; and then you may imagine designers of 
 designers and creators of creators, until your mind is bewil- 
 dered and perfectly lost. Do you not see that when you 
 start out with the proposition that whatever possesses 
 adaptability, fitness, design, potency and power must have 
 had a creator having all these qualities in a superior degree 
 to the thing created, that that creator must also have had a 
 creator? And, reasoning in this way, where will you 
 stop? You may go on forever g^etting up gods, creators of 
 universes, and gods, creators of gods I 
 
 There are some things, or qualities, which, as you can 
 easily imagine, were never designed, were never invent- 
 ed, never had a beginning. Among these may be men- 
 tioned time, space, the fact that two units are twice as 
 many as one, that between two hills there must be a valley, 
 that a straight rod four feet long must have two ends, that 
 a three-year-old child cannot become three years old in a 
 minute. There are thousands of other similar truisms. 
 
THB MUMFHRKT-BBNinCTT MSOUiSIOV. 
 
 which, you will readily admit, were never " designed. " 
 They necessarily have an eternal existence. So, in fact, 
 it is with every truth, every principle, every fact in the 
 Universe; they were never designed, they were never in- 
 vented, they ever existed. You say, "the argument from 
 design is absolutely conclusive.** Kothing of the kind. It 
 just proves nothing at all ; and the more the operations of 
 the Universe are investigated, the more it will be under- 
 fitood, that the Universe works to no design, and operations 
 and events are as they are, because they can be no other 
 way. You flippantly use the word ehanee^ and insinuate 
 that tlie Universe is a chance affair. Nothing is more ab- 
 surd, and you ought to fully understand it. There is no 
 chance in the operations of the Universe. .Causes and 
 effects are inevitable and unalterable. There is no ehanee 
 about it. It is your God who is a chanee-Qod, By chance 
 he took a notion to make the Universe after he had spent 
 an eternity in inactivity; by chance he made man and 
 woman so that they fell and spoiled his Job at the very first 
 temptation ; by chance he made a devil that has ever since 
 circumvented him ; by chance he selected a race of people 
 as his special favorites whom he could not control ; by 
 chance he made men so sinful that he had to drown out the 
 world ; by chance the world got so full of sin that he was 
 obliged to to come down himself to earth and bo crucified 
 to appease his own anger, and by chance he has miserably 
 managed all his complicated affairs ever since. Talk no 
 more about eliance, unless it is in connection with your 
 own chance-God. 
 
 If you can comprehend the truth that there are natural 
 causes only, and that every event that has ever taken place 
 was the result of a natural cause sufficient to produce it» 
 you will be able to understand not only that no supernat- 
 ural cause or causes are necessary, but that a design waa 
 also out of the question. 
 
 Tou imagine you see in every form of life mn intrieate 
 
 THE U UMFHBBT-BBKXETT DISCUSSION. 451 
 
 design, but it is in imagination only. Every production of 
 the Universe, as I said, has been the result of natural causes 
 and not of supernatural causes. Every organ and function 
 of the animal kingdom has resulted from the forces of 
 nature and the environments of the animal. Take the 
 organ of the eye for instance. It is an intricate piece of 
 machinery, and probably shows as great a degree of design 
 
 1 ?w^r^ "'' '^''''°''- ^"* distinguished biologists tell 
 us that the eye is wholly the result of natural causes, and 
 ^B produced by the rays of the sun in connection with a 
 per^e nervous system. All animals with comparatively 
 pe ect nervous systems and who live in the sunshine havl 
 tyes more or less perfectly developed. Such animals as 
 
 tZZZT '^'''" " '''' permanently Where there 
 
 no sunhght have no eyes. In the lower forms of animal 
 
 life the eye was preceded by prehensiles or feelers which 
 
 acted m part as eyes. In the evolution of animal life, and by 
 
 shortened and perfected until a perfect eye was produced 
 It was the natural forces which produced this change and 
 not the #M;wnatural. ^"»"ge, ana 
 
 fromlZtr""": ^'*' '' *°'°^''^ ^^^ ^^P* permanently 
 come atrophied, paralyzed, or useless, and the eve is 
 mothT' ' W' "" ^' ^'^ '«^^« '^^'^ ^-- the Mam. 
 
 ei'Td" ^^^^^^^^^ ^™^- ^^^y ^«d 
 
 lont J 1-r "*'^°^"- T''«y ^^ spots OD the head that 
 ll nd J ''"; '"' """^ "*"' "°* '''^■' '•"> «»•> -- a 
 
 «posed to".." " "l *'" """• ^'"'° "-" «* -- 
 eve WH, . r* °' "" '"" ^°^«° "tended time the 
 
 TUerrw.f ' ''""'""'^ ""'' "''' "'^"^^ "Produced, 
 
 the o iZr '"r""'""'' P"''''^ "ere, no God; neither in 
 
 .3 tt^e other. *' ^"" "" ""'"• '° '*° ''"> '' '» -« -«« 
 Tou doubtleM haye read of tho ca^es of the unfortunate 
 
4^3 
 
 THB nuia*nRST-DfiNXBTT OlSCViShiWh 
 
 «• 
 
 ▼ictims of religious persecution which Napoleon's army set 
 At liberty from the Roman Inquisition* Some of them had 
 been kept in dungeons and dark prisons for thirty or forty 
 years, during which their organizations had slowly adapted 
 themselves to surrounding conditions, and they could see a 
 little in the darkness of their confinement, but when 
 brought into the full light of the sun the rays were too 
 powerful and they were made utterly blind. Now, God 
 had just as much to do with destroying their tight as he 
 had with immuring them in the dungeons of the Inquisi- 
 tion, and he had as much to do with that as he bad with 
 desip;niQg their eyes. Very much is laid to his charge that 
 he is just as innocent of as are you and I. 
 
 Nearly a century ago James Button of Scotland, a gen- 
 tleman of deep reasoning, and a member, by the by, of the 
 Presbyterian Church, gave much thought and attention to 
 the secondary rocks. He was the first to advance the the- 
 ory that rocks were formed ander the ocean where the great 
 weight of the water prevented the volatile portions from 
 escaping from the effects of the great heat which prevailed 
 there, and that from the combined igneous and aqueous 
 agencies the secondary rocks were produced, long before 
 man existed on the earth. The theory startled Europe and 
 it was soon discovered that Button had unwittingly dis- 
 posed of Qod and made the Universe perform what had 
 been attributed to God. The theory was so damaging to 
 theology that Button was thrown into disgrace. His wife 
 left him because he was an Atheist. The Church and his 
 friends discarded him. Like a hero, however, he retained 
 his views, but undoubtedly the severe frigidity with which 
 he was treated shortened his days. But after his death, 
 James Ball, a chemist, made a series of experiments with 
 his crucible and retort anti demonstrated beyond doubt 
 that Button was correct. Though the rocks were subject- 
 ed to ever so high a heat, If the gaseous parts were by 
 pressure prevented, frooi .escaping, a new. union would take 
 
 M» HTDMFHBKY-BKJUnfTT DUICUSSJOK. 
 
 488. 
 
 place, with marble and other rocks as the result. Button's 
 speculations have ripened into a settled scientific theory, and 
 his views are accepted by all the learned scientists of the 
 day, though they entirely dispense with the services of a 
 god informing the rocks which compose the crust of the 
 earth. The more scientists' investigate these subjects, the 
 more do they find natural causes equal to all emergencies 
 and that there is no room for a God in the Universe, and 
 krothing for him to do. 
 
 With Tyndall I believe the Unlverse-or matter-pos- 
 sesses all the power and potencies to perform all the results 
 that take place, and that no outside agency is necessary or 
 possible. In this regard you wrong Tyndall and others. 
 Be behevec in no supernatural God that is in opposition to 
 the laws of the Universe, and operates outside of or above 
 them. There is hardly a first-class scientist of the day 
 who believes in a power, force or deity without the Uni- 
 verse. They believe that the Universe contains all the 
 substance and all the forces that have an existence. ^ 
 
 You speak some three different times about the ape being 
 an Atheist, and assume that the nearer a man is to an ape 
 the more likely he is to be an Atheist. As usual, you are 
 entirely wrc^ug. You know nothing about the ape being an 
 Atheist. Be probably neither believes in a God nor disbe- 
 lieves in one. But this we do know, the farther back we 
 trace man to his primitive condition, but a remove from 
 the animal kingdom, the more we find he believed in gods. 
 Be located bad gods and good gods in every department of 
 Natare-in the storm, in the lightning, in the winds, in the 
 heat, in the cold, in light and in darkness, and in every 
 clement and condition, but as he has advanced in civiliza- 
 t'on and intelligence, his gods have grown fewer and thin- 
 nor, and at length his God has become so attenuated and 
 etherial that he is wholly intangible and impalpable, and 
 the nearer he comes to nothing ataUand nowhere the better 
 H is for all concerned. When a superstitious man becomes 
 
 4 I 
 
 ^■-i-. 
 
404 
 
 TH» HUMPHRKT-BBimETT DlSCUSaiOlT. 
 
 I 
 
 Wholly emancipated from supernatural gods, he wUl liave 
 more time and freedom to study the laws of the Uciverse 
 and to learn vastly more from real facts than he can ever 
 know from all the myths aud invented gods that the world 
 has ever been cursed with. Your talk about *• inquiring at 
 the office." aud the necessity of " consulting the Divine 
 Scriptures " if we would be admitted into the inner courts 
 of nature, is mere theological twaddle. There is nothing 
 in it whatever. 
 
 It makes but little diflfetence what men who have pre- 
 ceded us have believed upon the subject of deity. Their light 
 upon this subject was in proportion to their degree of Intel- 
 lectual development. Those who lived fifty and one hun- 
 dred years ago were no guides for you and me to be gov- 
 erned by. We must investigate and decide for ourselves, 
 draw our own conclusions, and be guided by our own con- 
 ▼ictions. Of one thing I feel fully assured; and that is, 
 .that no man who has lived in years that are passed, or is 
 alive at the present time, has ever been able to find a sub- 
 stance, a power or force outside or Independent of the 
 Universe, and when they have thought that they believed in 
 a god, amorphous or anthropomorphic, they have entered 
 entirely into the field of conjecture and speculation. 
 
 I am well aware that men have devised Brahma, Or- 
 muzd. Fohi, Osiris. Milhra. Indra. Baal, Zeus. Jupiter, 
 Odin. Thor. Jehovah, Allah, Mumbo Jumbo, and countless 
 other gods of more or less reputation, but I believe them 
 all to be figments of the human brain, having no existence 
 in any other locality. I have about the same respect for 
 any one as I have for the others and as much fear of one as 
 of the others. There is just as much proof that the African 
 Mumbo Jumbo was the author of the Universe as that the 
 Asiatic Jehovah was. Every nation and every man has a 
 light to get up a god of his own. and this right has been 
 very extensively exercised ; and. as I said in my last reply 
 no two gods thus i^nufactured agree in all particulars, ' 
 
 tBE mWFHBET-BBNKKTT MSCUSSIOH. 4g$ 
 
 In closing let me say, I revere the glorious Universe, 
 with all Its powers, potencies, and possibilities, some parts 
 of which we can all see, (and of which we are infiniresimal 
 fractions.) far more than an ideal something or nothing 
 which no man has ever seen, never can see, knows nothing 
 •bout and never can know anything about. Yes, I venerate 
 the grand, infinite, powerful, ever-prevalent Universe far 
 more than I do the old Jewish divinity who. as has been 
 quHintly described, was -one who raised up enemies that 
 he nyght conquer them-made promises that he might 
 break them-caused moral diseases that he might cure them 
 --who permitted his favorite people to go after other gods 
 that he might butcher them. A God who i^ before time 
 ^as; cogitated before there was anything to cogitate about- 
 who made the Universe before there was anything to make 
 it of and did before there was anything to do. A God 
 who formed man in his own image, though his own image 
 had n. form; created an author of evil, though not himself 
 the author of any evil; who caused his children to commit 
 the most abominable crimes, and suffer the intensest ago- 
 nies, though not himself the cause of either criminalit/or 
 agony. A God who saw the work he had performed was 
 jery good, yet presently discovered that it was very bad- 
 foreknew that man would sin. yet was indignantly aston- 
 ished that he did sin; foreknew that the forbidden fruit 
 would be eaten, yet damned the whole human race because 
 i'^ was eaten. A God who, though always in all places, 
 occasionally came down from heaven just to see how the 
 world wagged; though always of the same opinion, occa- 
 sions ly changed his mind ; though in good temper fre- 
 CI moiIy got into a towering passion; though always merci. 
 ul to perfection, yet often murdered millions of innocent 
 bunmn beings; and though without parts, upon a particular 
 mori showed his back parts, and on another occasion 
 hi> full figure to some seventy-five men. 
 "A God 80 deceptive as to send upon his people "strong 
 
I 
 
 » 
 
 f«l 
 
 4H WB ■raFHRXT'-BXllR KTT oWOWSUfM, 
 
 delnrioBi ** tbat tliej migrbt believe a lie, so rerj silly as ta 
 niffer himself to be checkmated by the Devil, and so fero- 
 ciously cruel tliat no human tyrant could ever equal hfm lir 
 monstrous severity and vengeance. A Qod whose presence 
 would make a hell of heaven ; whose virtues are vices (Ex, 
 XX. 5), whose reason would disgrace on idiot (Ex. xxi, 21 )r 
 whose laws would shock a savage (Num. xv, 81-35), whose 
 fickleness provokes derision (Jer. xv, 6), and whose whole 
 character is a horrible compound, an •* intense concentra- 
 tion " of tlie worst vices which have stained the worst 
 human natures (Ex. xxxii, 27 ; Eaek. xiv, 9-; 1 Kings, xxii, 
 21, 22). •* He is the all- wise being who made man upright, 
 bat could not keep him so ; made the Devil, but could not 
 control him ; made all things pure, yet could not preserve 
 them from corruption ; who doomed countless millions fov 
 the innocent error of an individual ; destroyed by the Del- 
 uge every living soul because of their wickedness, except 
 three pair, who begat a second race as wicked as the first ; 
 provided an eternal heaven for the fools who accept, and an 
 eternal hell for the wise who reject his • holy Gospel'; wha 
 after begetting himself upon somebody else, sent himself 
 to be mediator between himself and everybody else ; after 
 being derided, spurned, cursed, hated, laughed at, scourged^ 
 •nd nailed to the eross, got himself decently buried as pre* 
 liminary to mounting once more to the right hand of him- 
 self, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the 
 dead, when there shall be neither quick nor dead. Whose 
 history should be written in blood, for indeed it is a bloody 
 history; whole name inspires disgust, for it is the name of 
 an imaginary fiend, and whose religion should be univeri- 
 ally execrated, for it is the religion of horror." 
 
 I have thus given a dim picture of the Qod of the Jews, 
 the CM of the Christians, the €k>d of the Rev. G. H. Dum- 
 phrey; but not the Ck>d of I>. M. Bennett. You deem it ft 
 great virtue to believe in your god and a great sin to believe 
 ift mine, ^ke thousaadi of oUmf theologians, you heaf 
 
 4m 
 
 odium upon me because I cannot believe in your vengeful 
 personal God, a personal devil, a burning hell, and all the 
 other miserable theological rubbish of which your system 
 is composed, but I cannot help it. I must believe in that 
 which seems roasonable and truthful to me, and can only 
 wonder how you can accept that old Jewish monstrosity 
 whose portrait is feebly portrayed above. I esteem my god 
 tiie Universe, as much superior, in every sense of the word* 
 to the fickle tutelary god of the Jews as the glorious sun 
 that Illuminates the entire solar system is brighter that 
 the tiny lightning-bug. You go on, if you choose, in still be- 
 heving your absurd superstitions, myths and fables. 1 can 
 afford to wait patiently for the steady advance of truth 
 and the further appreciation of the operations of the grand 
 Universe. I am satisfied the time is surely coming when 
 few sensible men will entertain the crude opinions you 
 still persistently hug to your bosom, and when the truths 
 of nature and reason will far transcend all belief in gods 
 devils, holy ghosts, virgin-mothers, fatherless sons, and 
 every fable and myth of which theology is composed. 
 Begging pardon for detaining you so long, I remain^ 
 
 Sincerely yours, D. M. Bbmnbtt. 
 
 MR. HVMPHAST. 
 
 D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: Your disquisition on Athe- 
 Ism IS a mixed mixture of theoretical errors with his- 
 torical blunders. You have epitomized Bttchner pretty 
 well ; but do you not know that Dr. Bttchner is only 
 a second rate man among the thinkers of Germany? 
 He has done but little more for philosophy in that coun- 
 try than Ingersoll has done for jurisprudence, science, 
 emancipation, and Union in this. Perhaps -Dr." is as 
 becoming a title fot one who has added 4M)thing to the sum- 
 
total of Bcientiflc knowledge, as "Colonel** is for a maa 
 who was not heard of until mfter the War. You go out of 
 your way to expatiate on Chanu. Of course, you did not 
 remember that this word was first introduced into phi- 
 losophy by the atheistic Democritus, the father of the atom- 
 istic theory. You must have been speaking at random when 
 you said that I ** wronged Tyodall and others.'* I am pre- 
 pared to S|ky that the " first-class scientists of the day" do 
 ** believe in a power, force, or deity without the Universe," 
 
 The late Agassli was a religious man. Perhaps yoa 
 remember that he opened his iSchool of natural history, on 
 Penikese Island, with prayer. 
 
 Principal Dawson, the leading geologist of Canada, 
 believes in the Bible as firmly as in the white marble layers 
 of the earth's crust. He has written several books to rec- 
 oncile Scripture and science. 
 
 Prof. James D. Dana, of Yale, accepts the records of 
 Genesis as implicitly as those of Oeology. 
 
 Dr. Asa Gray, the great botanist, concludes his Address 
 l>efore "The American Association for the Advancement 
 of Science," 1872, as follows: *' Iiet us hope, and I confi- 
 dently expect, that it is not to last ; that the religious faith 
 which survived without a shock the notion of the fixedness 
 of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the 
 absolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it ; that in 
 the future, even more than in the past, faith in order^ which 
 is the basis of science, will not — as it cannot reasonably — 
 be dissevered from faith in an Ordainer, which is the basis 
 of religion.** 
 
 Daniel Kirkwood, the eminent mathematical discoverer, 
 believes in a personal Qod and in an exalted Christ. 
 
 Prof. Marsh, whom Huxley complimented in his Chick- 
 ering Hall Lectures, is a very firm believer in a living Ood. 
 
 The Doke of Argyll, who is no mean scientist, is mn 
 orthodox Christian (See his Reign of Law). 
 
 Janet stands among the first philosophers of France; but 
 
 THE HUMFHBBT-BBNNBTT DISCUBSIOir. 
 
 he has written a book expressly to combat Bilchner's teach- 
 ings. 
 
 Prof. Owen is perhaps the first comparative anatomist of 
 the age; but it is well known that he has no sympathy 
 with atiieistic materialism. -^ i- j 
 
 Mivart is a thorough Theist, as his late work on Evolution 
 shows. 
 
 Sir Wm. Thomson says: "Overpowering proof of intel- 
 ligence and I)enevolent design lie all around us, and if ever 
 perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us 
 away from them for a time, they come back to us with 
 irresutible force, showing to us through nature the influ- 
 ence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beines 
 depend upon one ever-acting Creator and Ruler" (Addr^s 
 More the British Association at Ito meeting in Edinburgh, 
 
 Dr. \Vm. B. Carpenter has penned such sentiments as Qie 
 fMlowiDg: " The Immutability of the Divine Nature is no- 
 where more clearly manifested than in the continuance of th« 
 *amemodt<,faeCion-not merely tbrongh the limited period 
 of Human experience, but. ae we have now strong reason 
 to bel,eve(on Scientific grounds alone), from the commence- 
 ment of the present system of the Universe-which enables 
 US to discern somewhat of the Plan on which the Creator 
 has acted, and is sUU acting." "A deeper scrutiny has 
 shown us that the Man of Science cannot dispense with the 
 notion ot a Power always working throughout the Mechan- 
 sm oahe Universe; and that on scientific grounds alone, 
 this Power may be regarded as the expression of Mind" 
 (Mental Physiology, N. Y., 1875, pp. 4S8, 691-708). 
 
 R. A. Proctor is certainly no Atheist. His first scries of 
 Astronomical Lectures in this country was delivered under 
 the auspices of the Young Men's Christian Association of 
 «ew York. I find his works full of recognition of an 
 Almighty God (See his Our Place among Infinities, N. 
 Y., 1875, pp. 84. 88. 39. 48, 44. 818, etc.). In his last Lee- 
 
«ro 
 
 
 tan in A-ssociation Hall, New York, delivered Oct. 22, 
 1873, he said: «*Inasmach as the work is a study of sci- 
 ence — that is to say, a knowledge of the works and 
 ways of God— it cannot but lead to higher ideas of the 
 wisdom and omniscience of the Almighty.'* 
 
 If Tyndall is not a professed Theist, in the accepted 
 sense of that word, neither is he an Atheist. His works 
 betray a deeper belief in God than he is willing to avow in 
 words. He nowhere asserts that Matter and only Matter 
 exists, or that mere Force is sufficient to account for the 
 existence and condition of the Universe. In answer to 
 Napoleon's question, "Who made all these ?*• he says: 
 '•That question remains unanswered, and science makes 
 no attempt to answer it. . . Science is mute in reply to 
 these questions. But if the materialist is confounded and 
 science rendered dumb, who else is prepared with a solu- 
 tion? To whom has this arm of the Lord been revealed f 
 Let us lower our heads and acknowledge our ignorance, 
 priest and philosopher, one and all. . . Tou never hear the 
 really philosophical defenders of the doctrine of Uniformity 
 speaking of impossibilities in Nature. They never say, what 
 they are so constantly charged with saying, that it is impos- 
 sible for the Builder of the universe to alter His work. . 
 . . They have as little fellowship with the atheist who 
 says there is no God, as with 'the theist who professes to 
 know the will of God" (Fragments of Science, N. Y., 
 1672, pp. 93, 121, 162). In his famous Belfast Address he 
 implies that Matter had '*a Creator**; asserts that " physi- 
 cal science cannot cover all the demands of his (man*s) 
 nature "; and declares that ** the whole process of evolution 
 is the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to 
 the intellect of man. As little in our day as in the days 
 of Job can man. by searching, find this Power ouf* 
 
 J. Stuart Mill said in the ** general result*' of his discus- 
 sion of Theism, that *' the indication given by such evi* 
 dence as there is, poinU to the creation, not indeed of Uf 
 
 WKM HUMPHRBT-BISNKBTT DISOUSBIOir. 
 
 411 
 
 universe, but of the present order of it, t^ on InUHligeni 
 Mindf whose power over the materials was not absolute, 
 whose love for his creatures was not his sole actuating in- 
 ducement, but who nevertheless desired their good** 
 (Three Essays on Religion. N. Y., 1874, p. 242). 
 
 Like Tyndall, Herbert Spencer stoutly contends that he 
 is neither a Pantheist nor an Atheist. True, he would not 
 ^all himself a Theist ; but he attributes the origin of the 
 CTniverse to an ^'Unknown Reality." He says that *'if 
 science and religion are to be reconciled, the basis of reo- 
 -onciliation must be this deepest, widest and most certidA 
 •of all facts,— that the Power which the universe manifests 
 Is utterly inscrutable *' (First Princioles of a New System 
 of Philosophy, N. Y., 1869, p. 46). 
 
 Mr. Darwin is not so vague or ** inscrutable.** He is in 
 410 sense an Atheist. He admits the agency of a First 
 Oause in a personal Creator. In the conclusion of hit 
 ^*' Origin of Species** he says : ** I see no good reason why 
 the views given in this volume should shock the religious 
 *f eelings of any one. . . . Authors of the highest eminence 
 ^seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species 
 iias been independently «r«ifo({. To my mind it accords 
 Ixitter with what we know of the laioe impressed on matter 
 ity the CresXoT^ that the production and extinction of the 
 past and present inhabitants of the world should have been 
 ••due to secondary causes, like those determining the birtk 
 «nd death of the individual. . . . There is grandeur ia 
 this view of life, with its several powers, having been orig» 
 indUy breatfied by tlie Creator into a few forme or into one ** 
 <N.Y., 1873, pp. 421428-9). 
 
 I trust you will not misunderstand me. I do not say that 
 these men all believe in God in the same sense that a 
 Christian does. I only hold that none of them deny Hie 
 existence of God; hence, they we not Aiheists. 
 
 It is true that little imitators have tried to deduce Athe- 
 ism from their philosophy, and some Christians have 
 
eharged it with that tendency. How prone men are to take 
 an ell where they get an incli ! In the same way Calvin- 
 ism has been confounded with Fatalism, and Liberty with 
 License. We are to judge of the opinions of these men 
 only from their own words. 
 
 Tour notion of the Universe rests on an assumption, 
 which, as the preceding extracts show, the ** first-class sci- 
 entists of the day" regard as utterly inadmissible. No theory 
 that exclndes contrivance and design from the world can 
 possibly account for all its phenomena. Blind force 
 could never contrive such wonderful wmperiMtioni and eor- 
 re9pand$ne$8 as Nature exhibits. Mindless matter could 
 not produce axmh proapecHve arrangements as often meet 
 our eyes. There is nothing in the condition of an unborn 
 infant calculated to provide milk for it when bora. There 
 is nothing in the life-germ of an egg that could conceivably 
 furnith itself beforehand with the yolk-food necessary to its 
 nourishment previously to hatching. The same remark 
 will apply to the seeds of plants. There is a propJietie ele- 
 ment in Nature that can not be explained without refer- 
 ence to a designing Mind. The words of the psalmist and 
 the prophet are at once more sublime and more true than 
 the dogmatic deliverances of atheistic Materialists : '* The 
 heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament 
 showeth bis handiwork. Day unto day uttered speech^ 
 and night unto night showeth knowledge '* (Ps, xix, 1, 2). 
 *'Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created 
 these things, that bringeth out their hoot by number: he 
 ealleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, 
 for that he is strong in power; not one failcth *' (Is. xl, 26). 
 
 Your last Reply bristles with distortions, garblings, half- 
 truth;<, and untruths. No Christian believes the Bible ia 
 the sense you attribute to it 
 
 Tou speak of all the Biblical writers as ** unknown.** 
 They were not more unknown than other classic authors. 
 This species of " criticism " has been applied to other than 
 
 THE HUMPSRBT-BB^NETT DISCUSSIOH. 
 
 478 
 
 Scriptural writers. It has been maintained that there 
 never was such a man as Homer, and that the Diad is only 
 a compilation of floating rhapsodies. It has been held that 
 the histories of Herodotus are the work of a later hantl. It 
 has been argued that **Shakspeare" was none other than 
 Lord Bacon. Some Catholic "critics" have ascribed the 
 Roman classics to the monks of the Middle Ages. These 
 notions are generally regarded only as erudite absurdities. 
 li is the conviction of mankind that the ancient classics are 
 really the compositions of the men to whom they have 
 always been ascribed. On the same principle, it is believed 
 that the books of the Bible were written by those whose 
 names they have ever borne. 
 
 As to those books that are anonymous, they are trust- 
 worthy, because the Jewish nation, from the very first, 
 received them as authentic, and because their historical 
 contents are attested by collateral records, while their 
 didactic portions carry their own recommendation. Such 
 pastorals as Ruth and Esther, and such lyrics as the name- 
 less Psalms could have no more intrinsic value from the 
 names of their authors. Like Junius* Letters, or the 
 "Nebular Hypothesis," they rest entirely on their own 
 internal character. Legal documents that have been ap- 
 proved by the court, and duly filed, continue authentic 
 forever, though the names of the clerks who wrote them 
 may not be known. The tune of *' Old Hundred " is not a 
 whit less precious because its composer cannot be ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 You put the formation of the Canon entirely too late. 
 Dr. Samuel Davidson is certainly Rationalistic and scbol- 
 arly enough to suit you. Some of his statements are 
 extravagant, and, like all his later writings, Germanolatroua. 
 But he was compelled to admit that t?ie ten toords proceeded 
 from Moses himself; that the song of Deborah, the Psalmi 
 of David, and the odea of Solomon, were genuine; that 
 Eara edited the Pentateuch; that the prophets were included 
 
'i74 
 
 SmfFHBBT-BBSMVR 
 
 in tbe completed Canon; and that the New Tettament was 
 received as an infallible gnide before the close of the second 
 centary (The Canon of the Bible, London, 1877, pp. 5, 0-11, 
 85. etc.). The Greek translation of the Old Testament, 
 known as the Sepiuofjini, was made in the latter half of the 
 third centary before Christ From this we see that the 
 Jewish Scriptures were at that time already compiled and 
 received by the nation. That the Kew Testament Canon 
 was collected at an early date is proved by the fact that it 
 contains no rudiments of the Bomish corruptions that began 
 to develop so soon, and are so manifest in the Apocryphal 
 Kew Testament, such as Mariolatry, transubstantiation, 
 pontifical supremacy, etc. When we remember that the 
 books constituting the Canon were included in it because 
 IA<y fuMd alwaif8 been authoritative, we feel at once that there 
 is no real difficulty in this matter (See art " Canon," in 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible). 
 
 You seem to be possessed by the "strong delusion** that 
 the ancient Jews offered human sacrifices. Tou mis* 
 understand Lev. zzvii, 29. That verse only says that 
 everything devoted of men shall not be redeemed; but shall 
 surely be put to death. Hoses certainly would not so stul- 
 tify himself as to make a thing lawful in one place that he 
 had prohibited elsewhere. Kitto says on this subject : * It is 
 under these circumstances (the prevalence of human sacri- 
 fices) a striking fact that the Hebrew religion, even in ita 
 most rudimental condition, should be free from the con- 
 tamination of human sacrifices. The case of Isaac and that 
 of Jephthah's daughter cannot impair the general truth, that 
 the offering of human beings is neither enjoined, allowed, 
 nor practiced in the Biblical records. On the contrary, 
 such an offering is strictly prohibited by Moses, as adverse 
 to the will of God, and an abomination of the heathen** 
 (Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, article ''Sacrifice, 
 Human *')• 
 
 The Bible is n4d *' an advoeala ^n^ ttwtttMW't^r '* of tMrnniM, 
 
 TBS mJMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSilDV. 
 
 It is not its fault if interested men have so misconstrued it 
 The Hebrews were taught to rebel against the inhuman 
 Pharaoh. They were forbidden to " rule one over another 
 with rigor** (Lev. xxv, 43, 46. 53). The Jewish kings 
 were reproved for oppressing the people (2 Chron. xvi, 10). 
 The Old Testament is so far from advocatiog the cause of 
 monarchs— to say nothing of tyrants— that ihe Israelites 
 were censured for demanding a king (1 Sam. viii.). Jahn 
 describes the character of the Jewish Commonwealth as 
 f<^lows: *' From the circumstance, that the people possessed 
 so much influence, as to render it necessary to submit laws 
 to them for ratification, and that they even took it on them- 
 selves sometimes to propose laws, or to resist those which 
 were enacted^ from the circumstance also, that the legis- 
 lature of the nation had not the power of laying taxes, and 
 that the civil code was regulated and enforced by God him- 
 self, independently of the legislature, Lowman and John 
 David Michaelis are in favor of considering the Hebrew 
 government a Democracy, . . The Hebrew government, 
 putting out of view its theocratic features, was of a mixed 
 form, in some respects approaching to a democracy, in 
 others assuming more of an aristocratical character'* 
 <ArcbeoIogy. Sect 219). Thus, the Bible gives no color 
 of sanction to tyranny. It enjoins submission to kings as 
 the best course to pursue where those kings "rule in right- 
 eousness.'* It says we had better sometimes bear the ills 
 we have tban fly to others that we know not of. It dis- 
 courages riotousness and seditiousness. But it recognizes 
 distinctly the right of the people in the affairs of govern- 
 ment (See Ex. xix, 7-0; Num. xxxvi, 1-9; Sam. xi, 14, 15). 
 The Bible has not done more toward degrading woman 
 tban any other influence in the world. What are the 
 facts ? Is the Bible surrounded by more feminine abase- 
 ment than any other *' influence *'? Are the Chinese, Hin- 
 doo, Mohammedan, Hottentot, or the Indian women in a 
 better condition than tliose where the Word of God is 
 
 t - 1 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 h 
 
 .•fj 
 
 
'*■ 
 
 THB HUMFSBBT-BBinffBTT DIlCITfltlOV. 
 
 known and respected T Was woman dishonored among a 
 people where a Miriam conducted the chorus of praise, and 
 where a Deborah judged the nation and led its armies to yic- 
 tory ? Is the doctrine— whether it be true or not is imma- 
 terial to this point — that she was made the vehicle of the In- 
 carnation degrading to woman f Where is the book that 
 reflects such honor on female purity and beauty as the 
 Bible ? Are not the female seminaries and colleges of our 
 land almost all under the auspices of religious denomina- 
 tions ? Of course, the husband is the head of the wife. 
 This is no less a dictum of nature and reason than 
 of the Scriptures. Does Infidelity mean that a hen-pecked 
 husband is the finishing-stroke of a perfected civilization f 
 The late M. Thiers was not '* influenced " by the Bible. He 
 ** was always a skeptic." When a young man he seduced 
 a stock-broker's wife, lived on terms of criminal intimacy 
 with her until her death, and subsequently made his own 
 bastard daughter bis wife.— JV^. F. Herald^ Sept. 4, 1877. 
 Would such be your ideal method of exalting the fair sex 7 
 Is the " Free-Love" doctrine that woman is to be "kept" 
 only until Lust is tired of her, more ennobling than the in- 
 spired maxim, " So ought men to love their wives as their 
 own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For 
 no man ever yet hated his own flesh : but nourisheth and 
 cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church" (£ph. v, 28, 29)? 
 Neither did the Bible approve of polygamy. God created 
 but one wife for one man. The bigamy of Lamech is men- 
 tioned as a monstrosity. The Deluge swept these primeval 
 Hormons from the earth. Noah and his family were 
 monogamists. The Mosaic law did not commend, far less 
 command polygamy. That law bore a relation to it simi- 
 lar to that of the Constitution of the UDited States to 
 Hormonism. Plural marriages were regulated where tbey 
 could not be prevented. Their numerous wives were a 
 reproach and a snare to those who had them. The Apos- 
 tles were mionogamistB. Jesus says that only tftQ are madt 
 
 THE HUMFHBBT BBNNBTT DnOUmOir. 
 
 177 
 
 •ne flesh by marriage (Mat. xix, 6). According to the New 
 Testament, the husband is the head of the voife, not of 
 wives (Eph. v, 23). Monogamy, then, is the Christian 
 Law. 
 
 The "various readings" of original copies, and the 
 defects of translations do not modify the meaning of the 
 Bible in any perceptible degree. Are Shakspeare*s plays 
 less magnificent because editions differ in some of theii 
 words and phrases? Is the Crystal Palace ruined by a 
 flaw, or a particle of sand here and there in its mate- 
 rials ? Do a few typographical errors materially affect any 
 book? Certainly not. So the slight inaccuracies of manu- 
 scripts and versions do not substantially change the doc- 
 trines of the Bible. 
 
 As has been said already, the Bible was not intended to 
 be a text-book of natural philosophy. Its allusions to sci- 
 ence are incidental, but always respectful. It was designed 
 from the Tery first to be a teacher of moral and spiritual 
 truth. We are to expect only that from it. It has nothing 
 to do with such disputed matters as the Glacial Period. 
 When will men begin to realize that it is not a treatise on 
 astronomy, geology, mathematics, navigation, fashion, den- 
 tistry, or cookery ? When will they learn that it was only 
 given to answer those questions. Whence am I ? What am 
 I ? Whither am I going ? How may I be prepared to go ? 
 You say there could be no vegetation before light. Very 
 well ; Genesis says Light was about the first thing that was 
 called forth (Gen. i, 3). We cannot know all about the 
 order of the creation. Possibly the Light was at first dif- 
 fused and illocal, and that the mention of the sun on the 
 fourth day signified only the collection of the Light Into 
 that central orb. In that case, the sun was not made ex- 
 clusively the light-bearer until late in the evolution of the 
 Universe (See Lange on Genesis, ch. i). 
 
 The wonderful events recorded in the Bible do not nec- 
 essarily make it suspicious. A book on geology will teli 
 
 ^t J 
 
nB KUXFaBBT-BBimiTT DI8CUMIOV. 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 111 of things quite as startliog and unusual. DinotheriA» 
 megatheria, mastodons, hairy elephants, bats bigger than 
 eagles, and forests of inconceivable luxuriance and density 
 were miracles compared with the present products of the 
 earth. If marvels that have ceased to be make the Bible 
 incredible, they do fully as much in the same direction for 
 geology. 
 
 I had two objects in view when I arranged those self- 
 contradictions of Thomas Paine: Ist. To show that you 
 can half -worship some writings, thongh they contain dis- 
 crepancies, which shows that the alleged * 'self-contradictions 
 of the Bible " are not the real reasons of your enmity against 
 It. All would be well had you such charity for the fail- 
 ings of the patriarchs as you have shown to corrupt but im- 
 penitent Infidels. All would be peaceable, if you came to the 
 Bible with a tenth of the indulgence that you give to the 
 blundering, outgrown writings of scoffers and doubters. 
 Your prejadices are as Inveterate against Christianity as they 
 are blind in favor of Infidelity. 2nd. I wanted to show that 
 tbc ideas of any man could be made to appear self -contra- 
 dictory, with a little garbling, disjointing, collocation, and 
 then leaving them '* without comment" Ton say I quoted 
 Paine unfairly. I know I did in some instances ; but I did 
 it in ierupulaut imitation of your treatment of the Bible. 
 
 The Bible does nat exactly "teach that belief is a merit 
 worthy of eternal life and disbelief a crime deserving of 
 eternal punishment.'* It is not the mere abstract belief or 
 disbelief, that saves or condemns, but the inevitable out- 
 come of those states of the soul. These words are used in 
 the Scriptures in a sense that comprehends man's entire 
 character, inwardly and outwardly. Besides, the Bible 
 does not say that there is saving merit even in Faith. Faith 
 is only a wndUian of salvation. The Merit, on the ground 
 of which the Divine Acceptance is accorded to the sinneTi 
 Is vested in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Tou fall to perceive that the Bible contaist aay doo- 
 
 trinet peculiar to itself. I have specified several of them, 
 which, it seems, you did not notice. Let me then recapit- 
 ulate, and give you some of theuL They will show the 
 originality of the Bible, and its superiority over all other 
 venerated books. 
 
 1. It teaches Monotheism. The Zend Avesta " contains 
 prayers to a multitude of deities" (Clarke's Ten Great Relig- 
 ions p. 187). " The religion of the Veda is Polytheism " 
 (Mailer's Chips from a German Workshop vol. i, p. 27). 
 Even Renan admits **that tfie Jewish race was the first ofaU 
 the nations of the ijoorld to arrite at the knowledge of one God " 
 (Ibid p. 844). The Monotheism of the Koran was borrowed 
 from the Bible. 
 
 " Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lobd*' (DeuU 
 vi, 14). Such was the Jew's confession of faith. El Shad- 
 dai, Adonai, Jah, and Jehovah, were only different names 
 for the same Being. It is true that the word Elohlm is in 
 the plural number; but it is what Hebrew grammarians call 
 the plural of majesty. It is always used with singular 
 verbs. 
 
 I repeat, then, that Monotheism distinguished the Jewi 
 from all ancient nations, and the Bible from all "sacred 
 books.*' 
 
 3. That Chd is eternal and infinite was a conception pecul- 
 iar to the Jews. The Gentiles did not regard even the 
 greatest of their gods aathe ** everlasting Father," and as 
 " the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity" (Is. ix, 6; 
 
 ivii. isy. 
 
 8. BpirituaMty in worship is a requirement of the Bible 
 alone. The rites of Bacchus, Venus, and all other heathen 
 gods and goddesses were at best but sensual orgies. 
 
 4. The doctrine of Jastificaiion by Faith is not taught la 
 any book but the Bible. 
 
 «. The Idea of a divine Comforter is unknown outside of 
 the New Testament. *' I will pray the Father, and he shall 
 five you another Comforter, that he may abide with you 
 
 Hi 
 
 I 
 
 111 
 
 

 lao 
 
 THB SUMFHRXT-BIHMBTT DUCUMIOIV. 
 
 iH^' 
 
 forerer, eTon the spirit of truth ** (John ziy, 18, 17, 28)^ 
 The Gentiles had their succoring and ayenging gods ; but 
 they conceited of none whose specific office it was to con- 
 sole and soothe the sorrowful children of men. It has 
 never been said of but One: ** God shall wipe away all tears 
 from their eyes ** (Rev. xxi, 4). 
 
 I am not now contending for the truth of these doctrines. 
 I only claim that they are peculiar to the Bible. I might add 
 many to their number ; but this will be sufficient for our 
 purpose. 
 
 We have touched on the slavery question under the first 
 proposition. Instead of repeating, I will refer you to Let- 
 ter V. 
 
 The Bible does not encourage idleness. On the contrary, 
 it says: "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack 
 hand ; but the hand of the diligent maketh rich '' (Prov. x, 
 4). "If any would not work, neither should he eat" (3 
 Thea. iii, 10). ** If any provide not for his own, and espe- 
 cially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, 
 aod is worse than an infidel " (1 Tim. v, 8). 
 
 You say *'the Bible has retarded the progress of sci- 
 ence." That is farther from the truth than the East Is 
 from the West. The grandest works of art, such as 
 BaphaeFs, Da Yinci^s, and Angelo's, are traceable to its 
 influence. Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssthn and Handel 
 founded their master-pieces on its sublime conceptions. It 
 was the suggester of Milton's Paradise Lost. The plays 
 of Shakspeare are spangled with its words and expres- 
 sions. The English version of it has done more than any 
 other agency to establish the uniformity and preserve the 
 purity of the English language. Christendom knows of 
 no University where it was not read at its dedication. We 
 have seen under the second proposition that believers in it 
 have doue incomparably more than unbelievers to promote 
 learning and science. There is even at the Vatican — that 
 Capitol of Roman Catholicism— such an immense collec- 
 
 THB miMFHBBT-BBNKBTT DISOUBSXOH. 
 
 481 
 
 tlon of art, science, and literature as would elicit an ever* 
 lasting boast from Infidels if— yes, z/- they had anything 
 like it anywhere on the face of the earth. While the 
 •'Liberals'* of New York are scolding everything, "de- 
 fending Communism," •* apologizing for murder and invit- 
 ing to adultery," that good old Presbyterian elder, Mr. Jas. 
 Lenox, is puttiDg some of his finishing touches on one of 
 the finest Public Libraries in America. And so it has 
 always been. The Christian, deriving his motive from the 
 Bible, has done the work, while the peevish Infidel, inhal- 
 ing his inspiration from " immortal hate," has stood by, 
 with a maguifying and multiplying glass in his hand, to 
 find faults. 
 
 You say that any man of average intelligence could write 
 another such a book as the Bible. How then has it hap- 
 pened that no one has done it f Why does somebody not 
 try it ? There is plenty of ink and paper in the world. 
 Let us see some one attempting it. Ah I I am mocking the 
 inability of man. He cannot state a moral principle, or 
 lay down a moral precept, that was not anticipated by that 
 Book. There is no room for another Bible, because the one 
 that we have covers all the earthly duties of man. 
 
 Your wholesale condemnation of the Bible is an insult to 
 the intelligence of all Christendom. If it is the absurd, 
 indecent, inconsistent, barbarous, injurious conglomerate 
 that you represent it to be, the millions who read it must be 
 either knaves or fools. They are fools, if all its alleged 
 imperfections really exist, and they fail to see them. They 
 are knaves, if they see them, and then decline to speak of 
 them. You imply that only the few who are Infidels are 
 acute and honest in regard to this matter. It would be dif- 
 ficult to decide which is the greater in this case, the esteem 
 of these few for their own intelligence and frankness, or 
 their insulting disesteem of the intelligence and frankness 
 of everybody else. 
 
 Well, I must pass many of your misstatements by, and 
 
 . k ' 
 
iplj' 
 
 li 
 
 I' 
 
 draw the dUcussion to « close. I will say bat little in gem- 
 eral review, and will give no recapitulation. The reader wiH 
 •do his own retrospecting and summing up. I wish, however, 
 to mention McQuire's *' Religious Opinions and Character 
 of Washington," New York, 1836. It is a solid work, dem- 
 onstrating the correctness of my position. Paulding's 
 "Life of Washington^' is also worth reading. I have 
 recently seen a volume with the title *' The Domestic Life 
 of Thomas Jefferson,*' by his great-grand-daughter, Sarah 
 K. Bandolph. It pronounces Randall the "most faith- 
 ful '* of Jefferson's biographers. This Implies the great- 
 grand- daughter's endorsement of what lir. Randall says 
 about Jefferson's religious views. Let me also refer 
 you to Carpenter's ^* Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln** 
 <pp. 18{Ih-196), for more light on Lincoln's religious char- 
 acter. 
 
 This discussion has been pleasant to me. Tou have made 
 ao personal remarks calculated to wound my feelings. Ton 
 liave met me with uniform politeness. I can say the same 
 of all the attaches of the office. Mr. Eugene Macdona'.d, 
 4he foreman of the printers, has always been kind, good- 
 natured and obliging. I will remember you all not only 
 with interest but esteem. The heat of the controversy may 
 liave made us at times a little tart, but our f riendbhip, I 
 trust, has not failed to grow. 
 
 I am not unconscious of my deficienciei. I have omitted 
 many strong points. I have given but hints, which I hope 
 the reader will follow up. The '* Evidences of Christi- 
 anity *' fill volumes. I have scarcely given the alphabet of 
 them. Tour Replies have been about twice as long as my 
 Letters.. But your task was twice as difficult A mass 
 of words, boiled up, and containing endless repetitions* 
 was probably better calculated than anything else, to give 
 jour cause some slight appearance of strength. It ia 
 when the advocate has a bad or doubtful client that he 
 speaka longest to the Jury. For my part, I have endeavored 
 
 Tm HUMPBiisiHiiNirm MMimntH. 
 
 to avoid the cuttle-fish's style of conducting a combat. It 
 has been my aim to be clear, and to the point. 
 
 I wish to protest against the common insinuation that 
 preachers are hampered. There are doubtless many instan- 
 ces where the pew exerts too much influence over the pul- 
 pit But I do not think that there is a class of men more 
 free to give expression to their minds than ministers. 
 We all know how largely the press is given to time-serving. 
 Politicians are always trying servilely to strike the vein of 
 the popular humor. ** Business is business ;" and policy has 
 usurped the place of principle in trade and commerce. 
 Should a clergyman become an Infidel, and begin to preach 
 Infidelity, he would not miss his hearers much sooner than 
 an Infidel editor would lose his subscribers, should he be- 
 come a Christian. Look at the position of an Infidel pub- 
 lisher and bookseller : it is not natural for him to encour- 
 age a change of opinion, and, like the ancient sorcerers, 
 (Acts xix, 190 forfeit his stock. There are no men in the 
 world that are trying to u$6 and manipulate their patrons so 
 as to make money out of them, more persistently than 
 *' Liberal " publishers and lecturers. " Freethinkers " are 
 restrained thinkers, as much as anybody. 
 
 Permit me again to warn the reader that Infidel writers 
 are not always reliable. John Adams was correct when he 
 said that Bolingbroke was a '* superficial, haughty, arro- 
 gant, supercilious dogmatist." The American Cyclopedia 
 says truly that Voltaire " was not a great thinker, not a 
 great poet, not a great historian . . . not authentic." 
 Chadwick, a "liberal" Unitarian, says Paine made *• ap- 
 palling blunders " (Lecture on Paine, p. 24). Bro. Bennett 
 says on the strength of hearsay — which to the reader is 
 '•hearsay upon hearsay"— that Bismarck is a ** decided skep- 
 tic," if not an Atheist (Sages p. 876), whereas Hesekifcl, in 
 his authentic "Life of Bismarck," says he is not only a 
 theist but a communicant (p. 453). Mr. Mendum, of Boston 
 publishes a volume of Hume's Essays, without intimating 
 
 r 
 
484 
 
 THE HUMFSRST-BXRHXTT DUOUMIOV. 
 
 that they are abridged and mutilated. He also continues to 
 circulate Macnaught on Inspiration, after the author baa 
 reconsidered and repudiated the position maintained in that 
 book. My authority for saying Mr. Macnaught has given 
 up those views are Dr. H. E, Thomas, Pittsburgh, Pa., 
 and Dr. Wm. M. Taylor, of New York— both formerly of 
 Liverpool, near Everton, where Mr. Macnaught resided for 
 many years. 
 
 The Infidel, as well as the Christian, should go himself, 
 as far as possible, to the original sources of knowledge. 
 This is the world's great need. But, unfortunately. Infidels 
 are very deficient in this respect. They read a skeptical 
 work with implicit, or blind faith, while they do not read 
 the other side at all- Paine*8 "Age of Reason " is issued 
 again and again ; but Watson's Reply is out of print This 
 is a reproach, not to Christians, who do not need it, but to 
 Infidels, who point so often to the motto, *' Hear both sides, 
 and then decide." I have attended a great many "Liberal 
 Club " meetings. I know exactly what they are. They pre- 
 tend to be very generous. But nothing seems ever to be left 
 unsaid that might hurt a Christian's feelings. Malignancy 
 and flippancy are nearly always shown in the discussion of 
 a religious subject. The speakers are given to going out of 
 their way to make thrusts at Christianity. It is generally ob- 
 servable that, while a really good argument may be quietly 
 appreciated by a few, it is the coarse joke, the silly pun, or 
 the mean insinuation that '* brings down the house." It ia 
 very seldom that there are present any indications of sober 
 thought, wide-ranging reading, or accurate iuvestig»tlon of 
 any kind. Herein lies the danger of Infidelity: it k^eps its 
 victims ignorant of tJte facts and truth* of Christian ity. Where 
 Infidels liave gone to the trouble to examine thorouf hly its 
 'many infallible proofs" (Acts i, 8). a revolution of opin- 
 ion has generally followed. When Thomas drew nefx, and 
 touched the risen Lord, his doubts disappeared. When 
 Atbenagoras proceeded to make careful inquiries Isto th« 
 
 TH8 BUXPHBST-BSHKKrr DnOTTSStOir. 
 
 485 
 
 nature and support of the Gospel system, he ceased to 
 doubt it, and became a defender of it. When the young 
 Chalmers gave Butler's "Analogy" a serious consideration, 
 he was compelled to conclude that the balance of probabili- 
 ties was in favor of the Christian Religion. When Gilbert 
 West proceeded to examine the proofs of the Resurrection 
 of Christ, in order that he might the more completely dis- 
 believe and disprove it, unexpectedly to himself, he was 
 made to see that that Fact was more undeniable and cer- 
 tain than anything in history. Lord Littleton started out 
 to show the absurdity of Christianity, from the conversion 
 of St. Paul ; but after studying that event in all its rela- 
 tions, he came to the conclusion that it was an absolute 
 demonstration of the truth of what he had intended to 
 prove false. David Nelson has written a book on •* The 
 Cause and Cure of Infidelity." Every Infidel in the 
 world ought to read it. Mr. Nelson was himself a skeptic 
 for many years. He had a wfde experience with that class 
 of men. He found them, as a rule, ignorant of the Bible. 
 He observed that almost every one of them who gave the 
 evidences of Religion a dispassionate and thorough exami- 
 nation, ended by believing in it. Would to God that every 
 skeptic would make the experiment I I am confident that 
 if the Infidel would give the works that I have mentioned 
 in Letters vin and xii an unprejudiced, thorough, and 
 thoughtful reading, he would give up his Infidelity. 
 
 Many are deluded into the belief that Christianity is los- 
 ing ground. It is a vain fear for the Christian, and a vain 
 hope for the Infidel. The last five years have been remark- 
 able for accessions to the churches. The world never had 
 BO many Bibles, churches, ministers, and genuine believers, 
 AS it has to-day. The Gospel is not losing its hold on the 
 people. There are no churches so well attended in New 
 York and vicinity, as those in which the simple Gospel is 
 preached. The churches of Dr. Hall, Dr. Taylor, Dr. 
 Bevan, Dr. Cuyler, Dr. Duryea, Dr. ArmiUge, Dr. Storrs, 
 
Ttat BUMFERBT-BSNKBTT BIB€ B8I< IBI» 
 
 4g$ 
 
 Dr. Hepworth, Dr. Deems, Dr. Tjng, Jr., etc, etc., «ro 
 full every Sunday, while the coogregationB of FrotliiDg- 
 ham, Alger, Adler, etc., mre neTer immense, after all the 
 coaxing, beckoning, and drumming up of Bensational ad- 
 -vertisements. The Bible Society is not bankrupt yet. Last 
 year it issued 881,056 Testaments and Bibles. The songs 
 of Sankcy and the preaching of Moody have charms for 
 Ihe masses that Infidelity can never emulate. 
 
 It has always been the wishful cry of its enemies that the 
 Christian Religion is " dying out.** They thought so when 
 Christ was crucified and buried ; but he arose, leading 
 captivity captive They thought so when the Apostles 
 were dispersed from Jerusalem ; but that only spread it the 
 faster. They thought so when the Roman Emperors put 
 thousands of Christians to death ; but the blood of the 
 martyrs was the seed of the Church. They thought so 
 when Julian apostatized, and turned all his influence 
 against it ; but Julian died exclaiming, " Galilean, thou 
 hast conquered 1'* They thought so when the English Deists 
 made their big boasts ; but Deism is out of fashion, and 
 the Word of God is as quick and powerful as ever. They 
 thought so when the French Atheists set up a Goddess of 
 Reason, offered human taerijlest to her, and declared Death 
 to l>e an eternal sleep. But those Atheists have passed 
 away ; and their memory is the r0d light danger-signal of 
 history, warning the world away from their footsteps. 
 They thought so when the German Rationalists flooded the 
 Fatherland with their ** destructive criticisms**; but Ra- 
 tionalism is on the wane, and giving place to Evangelical 
 truth. Some think so now, when Materialism is vaunting 
 it elf ; but Christianity has overcome that foe before, and 
 it will vanquish him again. The gates of Hell shall not 
 prevail against the Church of Christ I 
 
 I am about to lay my pen aside. Let us. Friend Bennett 
 and dear readers, take a serious view of life. We all know 
 that the #orl4 is iwH just as il ovi^i to be. There is weep* 
 
 llig and walling and gnashing of teeth all around us. O 
 the Niagara of souls that is plunging over the precipice of 
 ruin, in our tight eoery day / 
 
 O the havoc of sin I How shall we banish it from bur own 
 hearts and from the world ? is the question of questions. 
 The possibilities of human nature are at once appalling and 
 pleasing to contemplate. How much man is capable of 
 suflfering or enjoying I How a bad chracter keeps petrify- 
 ing and becoming more and more unchangeable r How vast 
 is the vista of immortality, opening out before us I Eter- 
 nity should be the motive power in our lives. The fashion 
 of this world passelh away. The earth itself will run its 
 course and die. The old clock of Time, whose ticlta are 
 centuries, will stop at last. Time shall be no more. Human 
 schemes and theories will sink successively into oblivion, 
 like a baby*8 dreams. But the Word of our God shall stand 
 forever. Let us take unto ourselves the whole armor of God^ 
 that we may be able to withstand in the evil day, and hav- 
 ing done all to stand (Eph. vi, 10-18). Let us run no riskf 
 about everlasting things. Good bye, and God bless you, 
 lor Christ's sake. Yours in the bonds of friendship, 
 
 G. H. HUXPHBKT. 
 
 MB. BBMVBTT* 
 
 Ret. G. H. Huhfhbbt, Dear Sir: Once more, and for 
 ihe last time, at present, it devolves upon me to correct some 
 of the errors you seem so disposed to fall into, and to set 
 you aright where you so easily get wrong. I have hoped 
 you would come to see the truth as it is in Nature, and 
 cease to be led aside by the myths and fallacies that have 
 led so many millions astray. I still indulge the hope that 
 your native good sense, with the information you have 
 acquired by study, will ultimately lead you to discard the 
 
i 
 
 'I 
 
 f 
 
 THK HimPHRBT-BBNNSTT DI8CTT88I0ir. 
 
 errors of ecclesiasticism and superstition wbich still hoyei 
 over you. This hope I will continue to indulge. Many 
 men with faith in the supernatural as strong as your own, 
 who for a large portion of their lives saw dimly and as 
 through a heavy fog. have lived to sec the mists cleared 
 away, the clouds dispelled by the breezes of Nature, and the 
 sun of truth and reason shine forth with permanent bright- 
 ness and splendor. 
 
 It is very easy for you to say that my "disquisition on 
 Atheism is a mixed mixture of theoretical errors aod hiE- 
 torical blunders.'* Instead of tryinji: to set aside my 
 remarks thus with a single effort, would it not have been 
 better in you to have shown up the errors and pointed out the 
 blunders ? Probably you took the course easiest for you. 
 How easy, indeed, it is for you to be mistaken. You say I 
 epitomized Bttchner. To show how wildly you strike I must 
 inform you— though I do it with a degree of shame — that 
 I have uever read Bdchner, but I know enough of him to 
 be satisfied that you wrong him by denouncing him as a 
 second-rate mau. He was a profound thinker, and Ger- 
 many has produced few clearer and more penetrating 
 minds. 
 
 Your last vindictive fling at Ingersoll I will try to par- 
 don ; and while it is not an Indication of greatness of 
 mind, it is to be hoped your gratuitous aspersions of him 
 do you a certain amount of good and afford you a degree 
 of secret pleasure. 
 
 I will admit that Agassiz retained considerable con- 
 nection with orthodox dogmas ; that Prof. Dawson, of 
 Montreal, does the same ; that Mivart is a theologian, and 
 that he would denounce you as a heretic ; but mobt of the 
 others you named are very far from holding the belief in a 
 personal God, a personal Devil, or a literal hell, with the 
 many absurdities growing out of that belief. It is much 
 like your trying to make a Christian of Jefferson to under- 
 take to show that Ddtwin, Spencer, Tyndall, JTohn Stuart 
 
 THE HUKPHRBT BBNNBTT DIB01788I0K. 
 
 MUl, Proctor, Carpenter, Sir Wm. Thomson, etc., enter- 
 tain the faintest belief in a personal God in the shape of 
 a man with violent passions and impulses, with the ability 
 to fly into a rage upon the most trivial provocation and to 
 Bend dire judgments and fierce destruction upon his own 
 offspring. There is a great difference between being in- 
 fluenced with the grandeur of the Universe and the myste- 
 ries connected with its actual existences and accepting the 
 very imperfect and childish views of deity as the source 
 of all things as portrayed in the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 I am aware there are many shades of belief, and that 
 men of learning and science do not yet all arrive at the 
 fiame conclusion respecting the Infinite, the eternal 
 source of life and being. As for myself, I comprehend that 
 it is contained within the Universe, and it is clear to my 
 mind that the leading scientists and thinkers of our day 
 know nothing of, and believe nothing of, a force, a power, 
 outside of the Universe or disconnected from it. Early 
 teachings and early impressions are very difficult to throw 
 off, and the theological bias we receive in our childhood 
 remains with us, to a certain degree, through life. 
 
 I am aware, too, of the fact that certain minds, however 
 intelligent and learned, have a strong tendency to hedffe, 
 to cater to and sustain, to a certain extent, the popular 
 religious theories; and they feel a strong dislike to oppose 
 the theological notions which still prevail in this country 
 and in Europe. It is even painful to witness the incentive 
 there is offered to some scholars to bow to the supremacy 
 of antique faiths and mysticisms which for many centuries 
 have dominated the world. It will require, however, a 
 greater amount of ingenuity than even you possess to make 
 it appear to intelligent^minds that Darwin, Spencer, Hux- 
 ley, Tyndall, Proctor, Helmholtz, Haeckel, Schmidt, and 
 others of the brilliant and studious scientists of our time, 
 have the least affiliation with the very imperfect theories 
 founded upon the Jewish and Christian Bible. 
 
4i-' 
 
 UPP*" 
 
 THB mnavBMt^BWxsEm Diae^WBom^ 
 
 THB HUMFHBET-BENNBTT DISCUBUOlf. 
 
 491 
 
 You would have it appear that Tyndall is not an Alheistv 
 ©r that he believes in some kind of a God. I certainly do 
 not wish to formulate a belief for him, but will rather give 
 his own words bearing upon the subject. In reply to his. 
 critics he fearlessly said: ** 1 do not fear the charge of Athe- 
 ism. Nor should I ever disavow it in reference to any 
 definition of the Supreme which he or his order would be 
 likely to frame." While he may not be an Atheist in the 
 definition you give the term, he certainly recognizes no 
 personal being or God who devised, builded, and governs 
 the Universe. Upon this point he says: "As far as the 
 eye of science has hitherto ranged through Nature, no in- 
 trusion of purely creative power into any series of phe- 
 nomena has ever bt^n observed. The assumption of such 
 a power to account for special phenomena has always 
 proved a failure. It is opposed to the very spirit of 
 science, and I therefore assumed the responsibility of hold- 
 ing up in contrast with it that method of nature which it 
 has been the vocation and triumph of science to disclose^ 
 and in the application of which he can alone hope for 
 further light. Holding, then, that the nebular and aU 
 subsequent lif« stand to each other in the relation of the 
 germ to the finished organism,. I re-affirm here, not arro- 
 gantly or defiantly, but wUhout a shad© of indistinctness^ 
 the position laid down in Belfast.** 
 
 The gist of that address, after reviewing the various 
 theories and philosophies that had existed in the world, 
 and after quoting and virtually accepting the position of 
 Lucretius, that " Nature is seen to do all things sponta- 
 neously of herself without the assistance of the gods," and 
 Bruno, that "Matter is not that mere empty capacity 
 which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the Uni- 
 versal Mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of 
 her own womb," Tyndall boldly asserts that "the ques- 
 tions here raised are inevitable. They are approaching ut 
 with accelerated speed, and it is not a matter of indi&r 
 
 ence whether they are introduced with reverence or irrev- 
 erence. Abandoning all disguise, the confession I feel 
 bound to make before you is that I prolong the vision 
 backward across the boundary of experimental evidence, 
 and discern in that matter which we in our ignorance, and 
 notwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator, 
 have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and 
 potency of every form of life." It was this quotation, you 
 will doubtless remember, which especially brought down 
 upon Tyndairs head the fiery and frantic denunciations of 
 theologians all over Christendom. 
 
 Herbert Spencer, as I understand, is no more a believer 
 In a personal God as described in the Bible than is Tyndall. 
 What he calls the "Unknowable" is nothing more than 
 the " intricate powers of the Universe, too deep, too vast 
 for man's comprehension." He does not believe the Uni- 
 verse had a designer, or that it is so imperfect as to be un- 
 able to run without a superintendent. The same of Dar- 
 win. While he does not dogmatically or offensively wish to 
 oppose the theoretical views of the majority of mankind, his 
 entire philosophy and theories, based upon thousands of 
 minute observations, show that he has never found a per- 
 sonal God, and that he sees no place for or need of one in 
 the operations of the Universe. 
 
 You say my •' notion of the Universe rests upon assump- 
 tion." Indeed I What does the existence of your God rest 
 upon but assumption ? The great difference between the 
 two is that the Universe is a reality. We constantly come 
 in contact with it and are parts of it. We can subject it 
 to numerous tests which convince us that it is real and 
 palpable. We can see it, feel it, weigh it, measure it, and 
 prove thousands of times over that not an atom of it can 
 be forced out of existence. But your God is wholly an 
 assumption. No one has ever seen him. No man knows 
 aught about hhn, and all they have who think they know is 
 What one has told to another, and he to another, and so on 
 
for thousands of years. There is not the first particle of 
 proof that he has an existence sare in the imaginations of 
 men like yourself, whose position in society, whose success 
 in life, whose standing in the estimation of Mrs. Grundy & 
 Co., whose aWlity to procure fine, fashionable garments, 
 tnd whose very bread and butter depend upon holding up 
 and sustaining the God or gods which were devised 
 thousands of years ago, when man was more ignorant 
 than now. The system of mythology, of which theology 
 is a branch, is in the view of its supporters and defenders 
 a great system. It has proved a rich mine to the millions 
 who have assiduously worked it for several millenniums. 
 It is, perhaps, not strange that a lode which has turned out 
 kuch rich nuggets of wealth, comforts, reputation, venera- 
 tion, with immunity from toil and hardship, should be 
 retained with the utmost tenacity. We could not expect 
 that men who are fond of a distinguished position in life, 
 who like to secure all the good things of the world without 
 toiling to produce them, who like to be venerated as almost 
 gods themselves, or at least the immediate agents for the 
 gods, would voluntarily tear down the idols they have 
 built and which support them so munificently, and will- 
 ingly throw away the myths and fallacies which have 
 served them so good a turn. No ; they may be expected 
 to cling to the gods and the myths so long as their service 
 pa^fs. Not until the people become better informed and are 
 able from increased intelligence to discard all the old myths 
 and superstitions, thus impelling them to discontinue the 
 support of the priests who make it their business to 
 talk about the gods and dimly reveal their hidden attri- 
 butes, can they be expected to discontinue the profitable 
 calling ? There are, of course, some honorable exceptions. 
 Considerable numbers of the clergy are coming to take an 
 entirely different view of the theological field from that 
 which they have hitherto held. The revelations of science 
 are showing them the crude fallacies of the old system, and 
 
 TBB HDMFHBXT-BBNineTT DI0OU8tKnit 
 
 488 
 
 tiiey have the honesty to follow where truth leads. May 
 many more do likewise. 
 
 Of course there is much in the Universe that is wonder- 
 ful, much that man is not fully able to comprehend. The 
 process of reproduction in vegetable and animal life is a 
 marvel; the intricacies of life are full of wonder. The 
 mysteries of crystalization are not fully understood. The 
 solution of a given substance when passing through the 
 process of crystal ization always produces precisely the 
 same character of crystals, while the solution of another 
 substance will form crystals of an entirely different con- 
 struction — always following unvarying laws. An expert 
 can always determine the name of a substance by examin- 
 ing its crystals. The formation of crystals in hundreds of 
 forms and angles is nearly as curious as the various phases 
 of life. Chemical aflSnity and the numerous chemical 
 combinations are equally marvelous. The motions of the 
 heavenly bodies, the rotation and revolutions of suns and 
 worlds, the balancing and commingling of the forces of 
 the Universe, all, all are wonderful to comprehend; but 
 everything moves in obedience to Nature's laws, and 
 nothing by supernatural law; and those laws were never 
 made, ftnd there was never a time when they did not exist. 
 It requires no supervision of a God to cause the germina- 
 tion of a kernel of corn in the warm soil in the spring of 
 the year, nor for the trees to put on their foliage, nor for 
 the earth to perform its daily revolutions, causing day and 
 niglit, nor to send it on its annual course around the sun, 
 causing summer and winter. It is the same with the mill- 
 ions of operations and changes that are constantly taking 
 place in every part of the Universe. Every effect has a 
 natural cause sufllcient to produce it, and It has ever been 
 so. No result has ever taken place that was not the pro- 
 duct of natural causes and forces. This being so, the 
 supernatural is never needed and is never present. The 
 Universe is sufficient for every emergency, and the services 
 
k 
 
 vIRB 
 
 TFB HUMPHBET-BENNKTT DISCUS8I0N. 
 
 of a God are not required, either in the simplest operations 
 that take place around us or in the most grand and gigan- 
 tic that are constanily occurring throughout the vast ex- 
 panse of the Universe, the millions of suns and worlds, 
 countless billions of miles apart, and at distances from us 
 too vast for the mind to comprehend. The Universe, I 
 repeat, is sufficient for all necessities, in all localities, and 
 at the greatest distances; while a personal or anthropomor- 
 phic or Bible God could not possibly be present in millions 
 of spheres and constellations at the same time and at the 
 immense distances we know they are apart. 
 
 It is only natural for the ignorant mind, in taking a dim 
 view of the Universe— all that we can see from our planet 
 being a mere point in the vast and boundless whole— to 
 exclaim, "All this must have had a designer, an architect, 
 a governor and controller," but, in my opinion, the 
 Universe is far greater and grander, more omnipresent and 
 omniscient, than all the gods that men have ever devised. 
 By the side of the vast Universe, Brahma, Ormuzd, Fohi, 
 Osiris, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, Mumbo- 
 Jumbo, and the hundreds of other gods conceived by man, 
 pale into utter insigniacance. One is a vast, grand reality, 
 and the others have no existence save in the imagination* 
 of superstitious men. 
 
 I cannot help observing how easy it is for you and other 
 theologians to speak slightly of *' blind forces," "dead 
 matter," "mindless matter," and of their inability to pro- 
 duce the million of results that every moment are taking 
 place, when in the same breath you claim that they are the 
 handiwork of your God, produced by him after spending 
 countless ages in cogitating and designing how to get them 
 all up. If you believe them to be the handiwork of your 
 God, you should at least speak respectfully of them. If you 
 will sot aside the reality and revere a chimera in Its place, 
 if you believe the chimera devised the reality, you should 
 ri least treat the reality with proper respect. 
 
 ?rHB HUHPHRXT-BKNNSrT DIBCUSStON. 
 
 %9S 
 
 1 am struck with the facility with which you and others 
 like you disregard and set aside the reality, build up an 
 imaginary something or nothing in its place. It is easy for 
 me to believe in the existence of every form of substance 
 that can be demonstrated, whether it is in the solid, liquid, 
 fluid or gaseous form, and in all the forces that are insepar- 
 ably connected with them, whether shown as light, heat, 
 magnetism, electricity, attraction, gravitation, or any other 
 and ail other forces the existence of which can be proven, 
 "but this unknown, unreal nondescript that you call God, 
 which has never been seen, analyzed, tested nor demonstra- 
 ted — at the same time possessing personality, form and lo- 
 tjality — is hard for me to comprehend or believe. I have 
 never seen a person who knows anything about this marvel- 
 lous existence. All that any one knows about him is what 
 somebody has told him. But hearsay and rumor are not 
 satisfactory to me. When the existence of this marvelous 
 personality can be proven to me, I will readily believe, but 
 tmtil that is done I must beg to be allowed to doubt. 
 
 It matters little who first used the word chance in philos 
 ophy, but it has thousands of times been throwji at un- 
 telievers in a personal Xjtod and a special providence, and 
 "has been tauntingly applied as though we believed in a 
 Universe which runs hy chance and which has no fixed law 
 or government. Nothing can be more untrue or unfair. As 
 ^very event must necessarily have a producing cause there 
 K'an be no chance in the matter. 
 
 As you make Design the great argument, and prove that 
 the existence of a God mainly rests upon this one support, I 
 will quote a few paragraphs from B. P. Underwood, used 
 t}y him in his debate with the Eev. John Marples, at Kap- 
 anee, 0nt. , in 1875. They embody my views and are better 
 expressed than I could express them. 
 
 " Let us view this famous argument for a moment. God 
 is something or nothing. To say he is nothing, is to say 
 ihere is bo God. If iie is something, he is not merely a 
 
TBB HUMPHBXT-BKl^KTT DIBCUSeZOfl. 
 
 property or quality, bat an existence per a»— an entity, a 
 •ubstancey whether material or immaterial is unimportant. 
 If he is a substance, alnaterial or spiritual being, tkeie 
 must be order, harmony, and adaptation or fitness in bis 
 divine nature to enable him to perceiye, reflect, design and 
 execute his plans* II deity does not reason, does not cogi- 
 tate, but perceiYes truth without the labor of inyestigatioD 
 and contriyance, he must still possess an adaptation or 
 fitness thus to perceiye, as well as to execute his designs. 
 
 ^' To say €k>d is without order, harmony, and adaptation 
 or fitness, is to say he is a mere chaos— worse than that im- 
 aginary chaos that theologians tell us would result if divin* 
 agency were withdrawn from the Universe. If a being 
 withottt order, harmony and adaptation, or a divine chaos» 
 can create an orderly Universe, then there is bo consistency 
 in saying that unintelligent matter could not have pro- 
 duced the objects that we behold. If order, harmony and 
 adaptation do exist in the divine mind (or in the substance 
 which produces thought, power and purpose in the divine 
 mind) they must be eternal, for that which constitutes the 
 essential nature of a god must be the eternal basis of his 
 being. If the order, harmony and adaptation in God are 
 coexistent with him, are eternal, they must be independent 
 of design ; for that which never began to exist could not 
 have been produced, and does not therefore admit of 
 design. If order, harmony and adaptation are independent 
 of design in the divine mind, it is certain that order, har- 
 mony and adaptation exist and are no evidence of a pre- 
 existent, designing intelligence. 
 
 '* If order, harmony and adaptation exist which were not 
 produced by design — and which are, therefore, no evidence 
 of design — it is unreasonable and illogical to infer designing 
 intelligence from the fact aloae that order, harmony and 
 adaptation exist in Nature. Therefore, an intelligent deity 
 cannot be inferred from the order, harmony and adaptation 
 IB Katore. If the order» harmony and adaptation in deity 
 
 THE HUlfPHKKY-BlBNir«TT DISCUSSION. 
 
 m 
 
 to produce his thoughts and to execute his plans are eter- 
 nal, why may not the formation of matter into worlds, and 
 the evolutions of the various forms of vegetable and animal 
 life on this globe be the result of the ceaseless action of self- 
 existent matier in accordance with an inherent eternal prin- 
 ciple of adaptation? Is it more reasonable to suppose the 
 Universe was created, or constructed, by a beiDg in ^hom 
 exists the most wonderful order and harmony, and the 
 most admirable adaptation to construct a Universe (which 
 order, harmony and adaptation could have had no design- 
 ing cause), than to suppose that the Universe itself, in its 
 entirety, is eternal and the self.producing cause of all the 
 manifestations we behold ? 
 
 "Is a God uncaused— and who made everything from 
 nothing— more easy of belief than a Universe uncaused and 
 existing according to its own inherent nature? Is it won- 
 derful that matter should be self -existent ; that it should 
 possess the power to form suns, planets, and construct that 
 beautiful ladder of life that reaches from the lowest forms 
 of the vegetable kingdom up to man ? How much more 
 wonderful that a great being should exist, without any 
 cause, who had no beginning, and who is infinitely more 
 admirable than the Universe itself I 
 
 "Again, the plan of a work is as much evidence of Intel- 
 ligence and design as the work which embodies the plan. 
 The plan of a steam-engine in the mind of Fitch, the plan 
 of the locomotive in the mind of Stephenson, was as much 
 evidence of design as the piece of machinery after its me- 
 chanical construction. If God be an omniscient being— a 
 being who knows everything; to whose knowledge no addi- 
 tion can be made— his plans must be eternal, without 
 beginning, and therefore uncaused. If God's plans are not 
 eternal, if from time to time new plans originate in his 
 mind, there must be an addition to his knowledge, and if 
 his knowledge admits of addition, it must be finite. But if 
 his plans had no beginning ; if, like himself, they arc tter- 
 
THB HUMPHBIT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 nal, they must, like him, be independent of design. Now, 
 the plan of a thing, we have already seen, is as much 
 evidence of design as the object which embodies the plan. 
 Since the pluns of deity are no proof of design that pro- 
 duced them (for they are supposed to be eternal), the plan 
 of this Universe, of course, was no evidence of a designing 
 hilelligence that produced it. But, since the plan of the 
 Universe is as much evidence of design as the Universe 
 itself, and since the former is no evidence of design, it fol- 
 lows that design cannot be inferred from the existence of 
 
 the Universe. 
 
 "The absurdity of the a posteriori argument for a God 
 consists in the assumption that what we call order and 
 adaptation in Nature are evidence of design, when it is evi- 
 dent that whether there be a God or not, order and adap- 
 tation must have existed from eternity, and are not there- 
 fore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The reason- 
 ing of the theologian is like that of the Hindoo in account- 
 ing for the position of the earth. " Whatever exists must 
 have some support." said he; "the earth exists, and is 
 therefore supported." He imagined it resting on the back 
 of an elephant. The elephant needing some support, he 
 supposed it rested on the back of a huge tortoise. He for- 
 got that according to his own premise, that whatever exists 
 must have some support, required that the tortoise should 
 rest on something. The Inconcluslveness of his reasoning 
 is apparent to a child. Whatever exists is supported. The 
 earth exists. Therefore, the earth is supported ; it rests on 
 an elephant ; the elephant rests on a tortoise \ the tortoise 
 exists, but nothing is said about its support. 
 
 ** The theologian says order, harmony, and adaptation are 
 evidence of a designing intelligence that produced them. 
 Tlie earth and its productions show order, harmony, and 
 adaptation. Therefore, the earth and its productions have 
 been produced by an intelligent designer. Just as the 
 Hiudoo stopped reasoning when he imagined the earth on 
 
 •^HE HT7MFHRBT-BENNSTT DISCtJSSlOST. 
 
 4^ 
 
 «n elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, so the theolo- 
 gian stops reasoning when he says, God made the world. 
 But as surely as from the premise that whatever exists 
 must have some support follows the conclusion that the 
 tortoise rests on something, as it rests on the elephant, 
 does it follow from the propsition that order, harmony and 
 adaptation are proof of an intelligent designer, that the or- 
 der, harmony, and adaptation in the Deity to produce the ef- 
 fects ascribed to him are evidence of an intelligent designer 
 who made him, as the various parts of Nature, adapted to on« 
 another, are evidence of an intelligent designer that produced 
 them. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that there has 
 been an infinite succession of creative and created Gods, 
 which is inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause, the cre- 
 ator of the Universe. Then why attempt to explain the mys- 
 teries of the Universe by imagining a God who produced 
 everything but himself, and why argue from the order and 
 fitness in the world the existence of a designer. It re- 
 minds me of the ostrich, that, having buried its head 
 in the sand so as to render invisible its pursuers, fancies 
 there is no further need of exertion to escape from the 
 dangers and dlfllcuUies which surround it. 
 
 " * Design represented as a search after final cause, until 
 we come to a first cause, and then stop,* says P. W. New- 
 man, *is an argument, I confess, which in itself brings me 
 no satisfaction. ' * The attempt,' says Buckle, 'which Paley 
 and others have made to solve this mystery by rising from 
 the laws to the cause, are evidently futile, because to the 
 eye of reason the solution is as incomprehensible as the 
 problem, and the arguments of the natural theologian, in 
 so far as they are arguments, must depend on reason.' 
 
 " Design implies the use of means for the attainment of 
 ends. Man designs, plans, contrives, and uses secondary 
 agencies to accomplish his purposes, because unable to at- 
 tain his ends directly. But how absurd to speak of con- 
 trivance and design in a being of infinite power and 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 I," 
 
 I 
 
600 
 
 TH2 HXTMPHSXT-BBIINKTT OXtOUBSiaK 
 
 knowledge. Han, to baild a steamship, has to fell trees, 
 and hew them into various shapes, get iron from the earth, 
 and smelt it in furnaces, and work it into bolts, braces, 
 nails, etc.; hundreds of workmen, carpenters, joiners, 
 blacksmiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers, riggers, 
 etc, labor for months before the vessel can be launched. 
 If man possessed the power to speak into existence a 
 steamship, would he contrive, plan, and use means to con« 
 struct it ? On the contrary, would it not come instantly 
 into existence as a complete, perfect whole ? 
 
 *'But the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means 
 to an end, would be inconsistent with imlimited power in 
 man. If he were able to effect his purposes, why should 
 he construct a vessel with which to visit far-oif lands f 
 Infinite power would enable him to cross the ocean by the 
 mere exercise of his will. It is evident at a glance that the 
 use of means is incompatible with infinite knowledge aod 
 infinite power. This argument of my friend, in proving too 
 much, proves nothing, and demonstrates its own worth- 
 lessness, and therefore we cast it aside. Design implies 
 finiteness; man designs and has to calculate and use means 
 to accomplish his end. If he were all-powerful, would he 
 use that power to construct ships to cross the ocean, or 
 armies to win battles, when he could accomplish his ecd 
 without, and by those means demonstrate that he is infinite 
 in power ? An infinite being would not have to employ 
 means to complete his works; he would not have to doubt 
 and cogitate before he accomplished his design; that would 
 be the method of man. It is absurd to suppose that a God 
 did all those things. He supposed God infinite in every- 
 thing, in his power, in his love and kindness. He bas 
 power to do everything. And yet the world is so constructed 
 that at every step we take, we crush to death creatures 
 as minutely and curiously formed as ourselves. They kill 
 one another in numerous struggles, nnd life has been such 
 ^ series of bloody battles, resulting in destruction of life. 
 
 THE HUICPHBST-BBNNBTT DISCUflUOK. 
 
 501 
 
 that the Waterloos and Solferinos of history are nothing in 
 comparison. Where is the design in the volcano that 
 belches forth its fiery billows and buries in ruins a Pom- 
 peii and a Herculaneum? Where is the design in the 
 tornado that sends a fleet with its precious freight of hu- 
 manity beneath the remorseless waves ? Where is the 
 design in the suffering and torture that thousands feel this 
 very moment in the chambers of sickness, and in the hos- 
 pitals full of diseases ? Where is the evidence of a great 
 Being who has the power to make men happy, and yet 
 allows the world to go on in all its misery— such misery as 
 it makes one*s heart ache to see, and which we, imperfect 
 creatures as we are, would gladly stop if we could ? 
 
 "And where is the design in the thousands of facts which 
 science has brought to light, showing that there are organs 
 and parts that serve no purpose at all, but on the contrary, 
 are injurious to their possessors f Why do some animals, 
 like the dugong, have tusks that never cut through tbe 
 gums ? Why has the guinea-pig teeth that are shed before 
 it is born ? Science tells us these rudimentary structures 
 are the remnants of a former state, in which these parts 
 were of service ; but theology which requires us to believe 
 that a God made all these animals as we now see them, 
 cannot possibly reconcile these facts with infinite wisdom 
 and goodness. 
 
 "Adaptation in organisms instead of having been pru- 
 duced by a Deity, we hold is largely the result of natural 
 selection. Adaptation must exist as the adjust u.ent of 
 objects to their environments. If a flock of sheep be ex- 
 posed to the weather of a severe climate, those of them 
 having the thinnest wool affording the least protection from 
 the cold, will perish. Those with the thickest wool and 
 hardiest nature will survive every year, and by the law of 
 heredity, transmit their favorable variations. By this pro- 
 cess those best adapted to the climate live, and the others 
 perish. Thus in the struggle for life we have the " 8U|-- 
 
 '^l 
 
 -I' 
 
 i 
 X 
 
f 
 
 THE flUMPHBBT'BBNNBTT DISCUBSrOlT. 
 
 THB humpbbbt-bennbtt Disoussidir. 
 
 603 
 
 ▼Ival of the fittest," without any design whatever. But 
 the theologian comes along and looking at the sheep, sayss 
 ** See how God has adapted these sheep to the climate." 
 He forgets the thousands that have shivered and perished 
 in winter's cold as the condition of this adaptation. So 
 animals change the color of their coverings in accordanc© 
 with their environments. The bears among the icebergs of 
 the North are white, because in the struggie for life every 
 light variation has been favorable to the animal— has facili- 
 tated its escape from the hunter and its preying upon the 
 living things on which it subsists. Those with darker cov- 
 erings have gradually become extinct, leaving in undis- 
 puted possesion of the snow banks and icebergs this species, 
 which in color resemble the general aspect of its surround- 
 ings. Look at the rabbits. Some change their color every 
 year ; some are brown in the summer and white like the 
 snow in winter. Those with this tendency to change their 
 color during the year, having the most favorable variation, 
 have persisted, and this tendency, by heredity, has been 
 accumulated, until it has become a part of the nature of the 
 animal. These are but illustrations of a principle discov- 
 ered by Darwin and Wallace, and which explains largely 
 how, not only color and thickness of coverings, but 
 speed, strength and suppleness of body, keenness of sight 
 and hearing, and all other parts and powers of organism 
 have been developed in adaptation to their environment, 
 without any special design whatever. 
 
 "My friend says, we have no evidence of the eternal 
 existence of the Universe, because we have no personal 
 observation of it. But has he any personal observation to 
 prove the existence of an eternal God ? Yet he believes in 
 it. We believe the Universe always has existed in the 
 past, because we see no trace of a beginning ; we believe 
 It always will exist in the future, because we see no pros- 
 pect or possibility of an end. Worlds have their formation 
 and dissolution, but the substance is neither augmented 
 
 nor diminished. Matter is indestructible and eternal. We 
 are not therefore in need of a creator." 
 
 Thus I have quoted Mr. Underwood at considerable 
 length, but he so effectually uses up the great "design 
 argument " which you and your brethren insist upon is the 
 one great proof of the existence of a God, that it seemed 
 best to give it pretty full. 
 
 Let us recur again to the Bible. I gave you in my last 
 what seemed to me fifty good reasons why that compilation 
 should not be regarded as divine, and you have not refuted 
 one of them. They stand impregnable and must so continue 
 to stand. Tour greatest effort seems to be to show that the 
 Bible has no greater imperfections than other books; that 
 it contains no more contradictions than the books written by 
 men. You are constantly comparing your, book with the 
 writings of Gibbon, Shakspere, Paine, Herodotus, Homer, 
 etc., with a view of showing that it contains no more imper- 
 fections than they. But that will not do. I am surprised that 
 you should use such arguments. If the Bible is not supe- 
 rior to all the works that men have written, we have no 
 grounds for accepting it as divine, and it is entirely reason- 
 able for us to decide that it was also written by men. If it 
 is truly the work of the brain and hand of Deity, it must 
 necessarily be greatly superior to the efforts of man; but if 
 this is not the case your claims for its divinity fall to the 
 ground. Its contradictions cannot be reconciled by saying 
 that other books contain similar discrepancies. Its vul- 
 garity cannot be atoned for by saying that other books con- 
 tain vulgarity. It does not make it adapted to the needs 
 of people in this age of the world to show that other books 
 were also written long ago. All this falls very far short of 
 proving that it is the work of a perfect Divine Being. If 
 it has all the imperfections of other books, it can be from 
 xio higher source. One of two things must be true— God 
 either wrote the book or he did not. If he is a perfect be- 
 ing be cannot be the author of an imperfect work ; and if 
 
 ( 
 
 ■ 
 
 « 
 
 * 
 
 * f, 
 
TXB aUMPHBET-BBKNXTT OISCUIBIQll. 
 
 hundreds of thousands assert that he is the author of such 
 a work, it does not make it true. That the Bible is teem- 
 ing with imperfections I think I have abundantly shown. 
 The only rational conclusion that can be arrived at is that 
 it is not a perfect work and that the writer was not a per- 
 fect being; that it shows no superior ability, no greater 
 degree of perfection than is found in hundreds of other 
 works; that if it does not surpass ail that man has written, 
 and that it was also written by men. 
 
 You make an effort to show that the Bible is not an advo- 
 cate of kingcraft, tyranny, and slavery, but I think you 
 are unsuccessful. I am only astonished at your assurance 
 in making denial of anything so patent. That the Jewish 
 kings were anointed and abundantly recognized by the 
 prophets and, priests is as noticeable as any feature of the 
 book. IngersoU says: " The Bible teaches that God is the 
 source of all authority, and that all kings have obtained 
 their power from him. Every tyrant has claimed to be the 
 agent of the most high. The Inquisition was founded not in 
 the name of man, but in the name of God. All the govern- 
 ments of Europe recognize the greatness of God and the 
 littleness of the people. In all ages hypocrites, called 
 priests, have put crowns upon the heads of thieves, called 
 kings." It was certainly so in Bible times; the greatest 
 tyrants and murderers were called to the throne of God's 
 chosen people and their rule was sanctioned by the priests. 
 The Bible kings were certainly recognized and approved 
 in several instances. Tyranny was the rule among those 
 kings. They obtained their authority from God, and the 
 poor people whom they reigned over were made to feel the 
 iron hand of Jehovah. Nearly all kings have been tyrants 
 and the Jews were no exception in this regard. If Moses, 
 David, and their successors were not tyrants it is difficult 
 to find any in hiMory. That slavery is a Bible institution 
 I have only to refer you to Deut. xxv, 44, 40; Ex. xxi. 20, 
 21; Eph. vi, 6; CoLiii. 23-24; Tit ii^t; 1 Peter, ii, 18, and 
 
 TER MUMFHBST-BXHKETT DnOUBSIOir. 
 
 flfOS 
 
 numerous other passages. Bible rule was assuredly one of 
 kings, tyranny and slavery. 
 
 It is the same with the degradation of woman. The 
 Bible is full of it. The subjection of woman was common 
 in all the Eastern nations in olden times, and the Jews 
 were in no degree behind them in this particular. The 
 preference for the male sex is shown in many parts of the 
 Bible. In the Mosaic law, after the birth of a male child 
 the mother was "unclean" seven days, but if it was a 
 female child the term of uncleanness was extended to four- 
 teen days. We well know that it makes a woman no more 
 unclean to bear a female child than a male, and it was only 
 a piece of barbaric cruelty to make this unjust distinction 
 between the sexes. Even after the birth of the reputed Son 
 of God, and no male had officiated, according to divine law 
 the mother was unclean. Woman had no equality with man 
 under the Bible regime, and the volume has only to be pe- 
 rused for the fact to be made strikingly apparent. It is not 
 confined to the Old Testament alone. While in the older part 
 the statute stands* * * Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and 
 he shall rule over thee," the newer says, "The head of wo- 
 man is man," "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands," 
 "Let wives be subject to their husbands in everything,'" 
 •*Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is 
 not permitted unto them to speak," and much else in the 
 same vein. The provisions in the Bible in many respects 
 were especially severe and unjust toward females. On this 
 subject Prof. Denton says: "If a man went to war, and 
 found among the captives a beautiful woman, he was' per- 
 mitted to make her his wife; and if afterwards he had no 
 delight in her, he was to let her go where she would. J^o 
 help for the woman, if she found no delight in him." Ko 
 matter how much grounds of dissatisfaction the woman 
 might have against her husband, there was no redress for 
 her. In the matter of ordinary divorce the inequalities 
 were on the woman»s side. The man was permitted to get 
 
 ii 
 
 ■ \^ 
 
 Ill 
 
 A 
 
 i 
 
VBB U UMFUKKT-BENKETT DISCX7BSI0K. 
 
 ,1 
 
 1 
 
 I. 
 
 'i 
 
 
 «diTO..ee, but the woman was not (Dent, xxiv, 1), Of 
 coarse there are a few instances in tlie Bible where woman 
 was mentioned with respect, and where she was treated 
 with the distinction due her, but these were only exceptions 
 to the general rule. In nearly all cases she was made to 
 occupy a subservient position, and was treated more like « 
 subordinate, a slave, than as one having all the rights and 
 prerogatives belonging to man. The whole tenor and spirit 
 of the Bible, touching the status of woman, is that her mis- 
 sion is to minister to the baser passions of man— his inferior, 
 not his equal. 
 
 Your manner of befouling the memory of the deceased 
 French statesman, Thiers, seems wholly uncalled for. I 
 know nothing of the facts of the case, but I would not 
 base a vile slander on the testimony of one paper so notori- 
 ously untrustworthy as the New York ff&rald, I know 
 this, he was a man greatly respected by his countrymen, 
 and he rendered vast services to his native land. What he 
 did when youDg I have at present no means of knowing. 
 I cannot, however, envy you the disposition you evince ia 
 parading the faults of the dead hero. 
 
 You deny that the Bible approved of polygamy. You 
 might as well claim that it forbids the sacrifice of bullocks, 
 rams and be-goats. The patriarchs, Abraham, Jacob, 
 Gideon, David, and Solomon, were certainly polygamists. 
 They are held up as special favorites of heaven, and I ask 
 you to point out the passages where the Bible censures 
 them for their polygamy. 
 
 You cannot dispute that the Bible recognizes humaa. 
 sacrifice. Not insisting that Jephtba sacrificed his daughter 
 according to his vgw, it cannot be denied that the sons sldCl 
 grandsons of Saul were sacrificed to arrest a famine, and 
 iheir heads hung up in the sun. You may know better than 
 other people what the meaning of Lev. xxvii, 28, 29 is, bu4 
 it certainly reads: "Notwithstanding no devoted thing that 
 A man shall devote unto the Lord, of all that ho hatL, ^joth 
 
 9WB HUMPHRET-BENNETT DMCUBSIOK, ' 507 
 
 otman and beast and of the field of his possession, shall be 
 sold or redeemed ; eVery devoted thing is most holy unto the 
 Lord None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall 
 be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death." It strikes 
 me this language is clear and direct, and need not be mis- 
 understood. If it does not mean that every man and beast 
 that were devoted should be put to death, it does not m..in 
 anything. 
 
 Your attempted explanation about there being light suf- 
 floient to perfect vegetation and to mature fruits and seeds 
 before the sun was brought into existence, is as weak as 
 
 bT^n t" fr""'"'- ^' ""^^ •"' satisfactory to yourself. 
 but will hardly prove so to scientific persons. If there was 
 .0 much light why was the sun created ? What became 
 of that light after the sun was brought into existence f If 
 you should claim that the herbs and trees brought forlh 
 seeds and fruit before the earth was formed, your position 
 would be equally tenable. Well may you say the Bible 
 
 '"^T"°*,J"'!f '''^°"' ''^'■''°'"' »' N"'""' PhUosophy 
 and 1 will add, of common tense, either. ' 
 
 I shall not contend with you about 'the honor you claim 
 for the Bible for introducing Monotheism, thougL it is not 
 easy to see how the doctrine advanced the Jews beyond the 
 surrounding nations. The Egyptians and other nations, as 
 I have already shown, were far beyond them in all the arts 
 and sciences and in the march of civilization. If it is . 
 virtue to believe in one god. why should not a belief in 
 several gods be a greater virtue f and would aot the size of 
 the virtue increase with the number of gods believed in t 
 Logically, it must. As I said in a previous letter, there is 
 w much proof of a hundred gods as there is of one I 
 called your attention to the fact that a plurality of gods 
 was recognized In the first chapter of Genesis. There 
 are also other passages which bear the construction of 
 superior and inferior gods, as most of the pagan nations 
 have believed. If it is wrong to belU,v. in mofe than one 
 
 "HI 
 
508 
 
 TOM HimPHRBT-BEimETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE HtJMPHBKY-BKNNKTT DISCUSSION. 
 
 60d 
 
 Ood, it is ▼erj questionable whether the Christians did 
 right in dividing him into three parts, or persons. They 
 never got that idea from the Jews, but borrowed it from 
 pagan nations, many of whom had trinities. In this regard 
 the Mohammedans have preserved the monotheistic idea of 
 the Bible far more closely than the Christians; and if there 
 is any virtue in Monolheism they ought to be the most vir- 
 tuous. 
 
 I think I was quite correct in saying that the books of tbe 
 canon were written at a much later date than is usually 
 daimed. I repeat it, there is no proof that, with the excep- 
 tion of the Gentile book of Job, either book of the Bible was 
 in eziatence more than seven hundred years before the Chris- 
 tian era, and several of them were not written till a later 
 date. The Jewish sacred writings were gotten up after 
 their return from the Babylonish captivity. If there were 
 any such writings before that the Jews themselves did not 
 know of them. This is attested by Hittel and other writers. 
 The Christian father Irensus says that ** they (the books of 
 the Old Testament) weiefabriecUid seventy years after the 
 Babylonish captivity by Esdras;" and Dr. Adam Clarke 
 guardedly says: '*A11 antiquity is nearly unanimous in giv- 
 ing Ezra the honor of collecting the different writings of 
 Moses and the prophets and reducing them into the form in 
 which they are now found in the Holy Bible.*' 
 
 For a somewhat graphic account of the nature of that 
 divine inspiration with which the writings were composed, 
 the reader is referred to 2 Esdras xiv, '^And the next day 
 behold a voice called me, sayiDg, Esdras, open thy mouth, 
 and drink that I give thee to drink. Then opened I my 
 mouth, and beholdl he reached mc a full cup, which wa^ 
 loll, as it were, with water, but the color cf it was like fire. 
 And I tooK it and drank; but when I had drunk of it, my 
 heart utttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my 
 breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory. And my 
 mouth was opened, and ahm no more. The highest gave 
 
 understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the won- 
 derful visions of the night that were told, which they knew 
 not; and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, 
 and at night they ate bread. As for me, I spake in the day, 
 and I held not my tongue by night. In forty days tbey 
 wrote two hundred and four books. And it came to pass, 
 when the forty days were fulfilled, that the highest spake, 
 saying, The first that thou hast written, publish openly, 
 that the worthy and the unworthy may read it. But keep 
 the seventy last that thou mayest deliver them only to such 
 as be wise among the people." 
 
 After quoting the above, Preston, in his '•The Holy 
 Bible a Historical Humbug," p. 8, remarks: "The above 
 sufficiently shows the manner of writing an inspired book. 
 All that is necessary to show the matter which makes up tho 
 books of the Bible is to read them. We thus find it histor- 
 ically established that the Old Testament, as it is now- 
 offered to us, was a comparatively modern production, 
 having been written by a cunning old priest named Ezra, 
 only some five hundred years before the time of Christ, 
 and that owing to the carelessness and profanity of the 
 Jews themselves, who not only lost whole books of the 
 Bible, but burnt others, the Christian world to-day is in 
 possession of but a small portion of the ** Word of God.** 
 
 The same writer continues his observations respecting 
 the canon of the New Testament: 
 
 •* It has never been claimed that any portion of it was 
 written during the life of the reputed founder of Chris- 
 tianity. Christ hiinself never wrote a line of the books 
 of which it is composed. He was put to death without 
 having ever written one word of tbe books of the Bible. 
 The Christian Church was establi^sbed all over the known 
 world before a single verse of tbe New Testament, which 
 contains all the doctrines of Christianity, had been written. 
 
 ** The first allusion that is made to the Gospels was by 
 the Christian Father Irensdus in the year 183, nearly a cen- 
 
 ■i' 
 
 X 
 
5 La 
 
 THB nXJMPHnET-BENNETT DISCT7SSI01I. 
 
 
 %my and a half after the time of Christ. Even then, the four 
 Gospels were presented to the world upon no other author- 
 ity than that of the Christian Father himself. At the time 
 Irenseus first introduced the four Gospels, there were many 
 others in circulation, some of which, we are told, had ex- 
 isted nearly a century before, and had actually been read 
 and quoted by the early Christians as the word of God« 
 Among the most important of these may be named the Gos- 
 pels of St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Matthias, St. Bartholo- 
 mew, St. Philip, Judas Iscariot, Thaddeus and Barnabai} 
 the Acts of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Andrew, St. John, St. 
 Philip, and St. Thomas; and the Revelations of St. Paul, 
 St. Thomas, St. Stephen, and the Great Apostle. There 
 were upwards of fifty of these Gospels, Acts, and Revela- 
 tions, which were, at one time, considered the 'divine 
 word.' During the first three hundred years from the 
 era of Christ there was no collection of the writings of the 
 New Testament. All the above-named writings were circu- 
 lated and accepted by the primitive Christians as of equal 
 authority. 
 
 *'At length there arose conflicting opinions and Berioot 
 contentions as to their credibility. It was finally judged 
 necessary to settle the dispute by an authoritative selection 
 of the true from the false books. The division of opinion 
 regarding them and the nature of Cnrist resulted in such 
 disorder that the pagans ridiculed Christianity upon the 
 stage. For the purpose of preserving order in the empire, 
 Constantine convoked an oecumenical council of the whole 
 habitable earth at the town of Nicaea in Bithynia, There 
 assembled 2,048 bishops, all of different sentiments and 
 opinions. The records of the disputes of these fierce and 
 bigoted bishops amounted to forty volumes. The conflict 
 in the council arrived at such a pitch that the Emperor, as 
 moderator, for the purpose of preserving some degree of 
 unity and propriety, was obliged to expel 1,780 of tbe exaa 
 poiated and contentious bishops. The remaining 318 blsh 
 
 THB HUMPHBEY-BENNSTT DI80UB8IOK. 
 
 MS 
 
 ops then proceeded to determine which ones of the yarious 
 writings were the inspired word of God * This was done,* 
 lays one of the Christian Fathers, * by placing all the books 
 under a communion table, and. upon the prayers of the 
 council, the inspired books jumped upon the oommunion 
 table, while the false ones remained under.' But it is 
 related that many mocked at this method, and the religious 
 row continued as fierce as ever. Finally, most of the man- 
 uscripts submitted, after being sufficiently fought over, 
 were rejected, whereupon Constantino affixed the seal of 
 the empire to the remaining few, declaring such to be the 
 * word of God.* 
 
 "And as such they passed until the year 863, when an- 
 other council, that of Laodicea, was held, to make a more 
 perfect selection of the holy books. Upon this occasion, 
 the manner of choosing them was by vote. The books of 
 tbe New Testament were then adopted, nearly as we now 
 have them, except Revelations, which was excluded. We 
 are informed by St. Chrysostom, who died in 407, that the 
 Acta of the Apostles was scarcely known in his day. Other 
 councils were called to settle the sacred canon. There was 
 one in 406 which rejected some books received by the coun- 
 cil of 363 ; but a later council in 680 restored them. And 
 thus contentious priests continued tossing the ' word of 
 God,* like a battledore, from faction to faction, changing it 
 as the spirit of sect might dictate. As illustrating the 
 spirit which animated the ordained arbiters of the.* sacred 
 writings,* we give the words of the Christian writer, Tin- 
 dal. In his work entitled ' Rights of the Christian Church,' 
 page 195, he says : ' That he fled all assemblies of bishops 
 because he never saw a good and happy end of any coun- 
 cil, but that they did rather increase than lessen the evil ; 
 that the love of contention and ambition always overcomes 
 their reason/ Speaking of the memorable Council of 
 Nice, at which the Emperor himself presided, Tindal fur- 
 ther says I *And if the&e accusations and libels which the 
 
 . - ^ 
 
 r 
 
 f 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 '■ 
 
!•'. 
 
 613 
 
 THE HT7MFHBET-BBNNBTT DI8CU8BI0K. 
 
 I 
 
 bishops gave in of one another to the Emperor were notr 
 extant, in all probability, we should have such roUa of scan* 
 dal that few would have much reason to boast of the first 
 (ecumenical council, where with such heat, passion, and 
 fury, the bishops fell f<nd on one anotlier, insomuch as 
 h»d not the Emperor by a trick burnt their church memo- 
 lials, probably they would have broke up in confusion. 
 After that council was over, the bishops made so great a 
 bustle and disturbance, and were so unruly, that the good 
 Emperor was forced to tell them that if they would not be 
 more quiet and peaceable in the future, he would no longer 
 continue his expedition against the Infidels, but must return 
 to keep them in order. Indeed/ continues Tindal, ' the 
 confusion and disorder were so great amongst them, espe* 
 cially in their Synods, that it eomelimescameloblotcs; as, for 
 instance, Dioscorus. Bishop of Alexandria, cuffed and 
 kicked Flavianus, Patriarch of Constantinople, (at the 
 second Synod of Ephesus,) with that fury that within three 
 days after he died.* 
 
 "And it is upon the decisions of such fierce and fighting 
 fanatics that the Christian world depends for its creeds and 
 sacred scriptures ! The authenticity of divine revelation 
 rests upon the ballots of bigots who otienfeUfoul of one 
 ^inother^ and kicked each otJier to death / So that it is diffi- 
 cult to determine whether it was really the majority vote 
 or the predomicant kicking power that finally settled the 
 vexei question which books were God*s and which were 
 not. The book of Luke was given to God by one single 
 vote majority, and that may have depended more upon the 
 muscular activity of the voter than upon his ability to dis- 
 criminate between books of God and books of men. 
 
 '*It is a notorious fact, and one which may well perplex 
 the priesthood, that the books which one body of bishops 
 would piously pronounce genuine inspiration, another 
 council, equally as well commissioned to settle the sacred 
 canon, would condemn and reject as profane forgeries. 
 
 n 
 
 THE HT7MPHRET-BENNSTT DISOXJflfilON. 
 
 «16 
 
 And it is also pertinent to inquire, in this connection, whj 
 the one thousand seven hundred and thirty bishops whom 
 Oonstantine thrust out of the Council of Nice were not as 
 well qualified to say what writings were the word of God 
 as the three hundred and eighteen who remained? And 
 also, why, or how, or by whose imperative command, is 
 the Christian world justified in belie viDg that the books 
 which were saved and voted into the the Scriptural canon 
 are any more sacred than those voted out, or which were 
 lost or destroyed ? Let Christians learn these facts, and 
 consider them well. Let them realize the absurdity of be- 
 lieving books to be of divine origin which so long lay in 
 obscurity, and were only saved from oblivion through the 
 presumption of unscrupulous priests, and finally decided 
 to be genuine by the ballots of bigoted and bullying 
 bishops." 
 
 Let me give you these Christian authorities : The learned 
 Dr. Lardner says : *'That even »o late as the middle of the 
 sixth century, the canon of the New Testament had not 
 been settled by any authority that was decisively and uni« 
 versally acknowledged ; but Christian people were at lib- 
 erty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of 
 writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine 
 according to evidence " (vol. iii, pp. 54-61). 
 
 In the second edition of his introduction to the Scrip- 
 tures, the Rev. T. H. Home says: *'The account left us 
 by ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, published, are so 
 eagitCy confuted and discordant^ that they lead to no certain 
 or solid determination. The eldest of the ancient fathers 
 collected the bepokt of their own times, and set them down 
 us certain iruUis, and those who followed adopted their 
 accounts with implicit reverence. Thus tradition, trtie or 
 fahe, passed on from one writer to another without examin- 
 ation^ until, at last, it became too late to examine them to 
 any purpose.*' 
 
 Your supposition that the NcT Testament canon wu 
 
MMI 
 
 collected at tii etalj dato, froM tbe faet tbat It does aoT 
 directly leach popery, Hariolatry, etc., i» of no more force 
 ttian the Protestant Sabbath (first instituted by Constantlner 
 In Ml), and the personality of the Holy Ghost— which can 
 easily be shown toha^e been a borrowed pagan myth— first 
 introduced as an orthodox dogma at the Council of Con- 
 atantine in 881 The fact that all the cardinal docttines of 
 ttie Ghorch were not authoritatlTely settled till a late date, 
 DTOTes conelnsirely that there eziited no caaon by which 
 they could be settled. The first councils in the fourth cen- 
 kuiy were called for the YCiy purpose of ferreting out or 
 forging sufllcient Scripture cTidenceto collect into a canon. 
 I wish, too, to call particular attention to the fact that 
 popery did not really begin to have an existence till 60&, 
 when the title of "Universal Bishop "—Pope— was first 
 giYcn to Boniface IIL Ton will understand, too, that the 
 Papist can point to as positiTc New Testament proof for 
 tianaubstantiation and Mariolatiy aa the ProUstant ean for 
 any of his particular doctrines, 
 
 Tou say, **the wonderful cTents recorded in the Bible da 
 not necessarily make it suspicioHS." Bo you mean that in 
 such storiea aa the earth producing all the yarities of yeg- 
 elation before there was either sun or rain; that man waa 
 made of clay, and woman of a rib Uken from him by a 
 iorgical operation; of a snake being able to circumyent 
 0od in nia loDgmatured plan, until he made it necessary 
 for him to drown out the world by raising the water over 
 the entire earth to the height of ftye miles; of two and 
 seyen of eyery yariety of animals being closely compacted 
 for thirteen months in a water-Ught and idrtight yessel; of 
 frogs, locusts, lice, etc, being produced in immense quan- 
 tities by miracle; of all the water of a country hundreds of 
 ■lOes in length, including a large riyer, being turned into 
 blood; of the waters of seas and rivers parting and piling 
 up on either side like a wall; of a man's stopping the sun 
 aad moon in their courses; of a man*s pieyenting rain awl 
 
 TBB mmrwaxMimaaiiri W909i&iox 
 
 W 
 
 dew falling upon the ewrth for more than three /<3hM, of Jo- 
 nah's being swallowed by a fish and retained in its stomach 
 under water for three days, and then being thrown up alive 
 and kicking upon dry ground; of thiee men being cast into a 
 fiery furnace that was made seven times hotter than usual, 
 without receiving the slightest iDJary; of a woman becom- 
 ing a mother without the natural process; of men being 
 raised from the dead; of the graves being opened and the 
 dead being resuscitated and walking forth into the city 
 among their former companions— do you mean that all these 
 stories, and many more equally as incredible, are not 
 enough to excite suspicion ? If so, I must disagree with 
 you. If such extravagant yarns were to be narrated now- 
 a-days, the strongest suspicions would not only be excited, 
 but everybody would declare them absurdly false. They 
 would, however, be just as likely to take place to-day as 
 two or five thousand years ago. 
 
 You say my condemnation of the Bible is an insult to the 
 intelligence of all Christendom. Nothing of the kind was 
 intended. I think I have made no misstatement about that 
 volume, and while I have no desire to insult any one, I 
 have wondered indeed how people of intelligence like 
 yourself can so easily swallow it without examination, and 
 accept it all as truth without a shade of error. It is easy 
 for you to say my reply *' bristles with distortions, garblings, 
 half-truths and untruths,** but I think it would have been 
 very much better to point them out than to make such 
 wholesale unfounded charges. It is easy to use epithets 
 and sweeping assertions, but there is little argument in 
 
 them. 
 
 You complain that Paine*8 Age of Reason is issued again 
 and again, and that Watson's Reply is out of print. Whose 
 fault is that f The Christians* if anybody's. It advocates 
 their side of the question, and they ought to see that the 
 public is duly supplied with it. It certainly is not part of 
 the duty of Infidels. The very statement you make, how* 
 
 > 
 1' 
 
 ^ I 
 
Dfie 
 
 
 ever, shows the difference that exists in the demand for the 
 two works. The Age of Reason is issued edition after 
 edition because there is a demand for it ; Watson's Reply 
 is out of print and not re-issued because there is little or 
 no call for it. Books that are d(mMnded will always be 
 printed. 
 
 It is hard for you to give up Jefferson. You fain would 
 still claim him for a Christian, but I cannot help thinking 
 he knew more about his views than his great-granddaughter 
 knew. I recommend you to turn to my third reply and 
 read the quotations I gave from his own writings. After 
 doing so, it will not be an easy task for you to consider him 
 a genuine Christian. 
 
 Your inclination or your prejudice leads you to give an- 
 other unfriendly hit at the Liberal Clubs. Let me again 
 assure you that the members are not all anti- Christian. 
 Some incline one way and some the other. Those who are 
 decided in the convictions that Chrietianily is re-vamped 
 paganism and that its rule has not tended to benefit the 
 world, claim the right in moderate language to give expres- 
 sion to their convictions. Those who entertain opposite 
 views are equally free to giwe utterance to them and to dis- 
 prove if possible the errors of their opponents. The Lib- 
 eral Ciubs are certainly not the pernicious organizations 
 you seem disposed to represent them. Perhaps the worst 
 thing you csn say about them is that they maintain a free 
 platform where a man is privileged to say just what he 
 thinks to be true, 
 
 Mr. Nelson and yourself are equally mistaken in suppos- 
 ing that Infidels are ignorant of the Bible. Although they 
 do not believe in the divinity of the volume, they are far 
 more familiar with its contents than is the average Chris- 
 tian. They read it for the purpose of learning its nature 
 and Import, while the Christian follows the advice of his 
 pastor, and and accepts it and swallows it as the word of 
 <lod, without hesiiation or question. Th^ do this just 
 
 TMB HUMPHBBT-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 
 
 517 
 
 ai leidlly without reading it as with. If a Christian family 
 have a fine copy of the "Holy Bible" lying upon the 
 centre-table in the parlor, it soothes their conscience; they 
 feel that they are paying great respect to God's word ; they 
 feel that they are not only fully insured against the ills and 
 mishaps of this life, but also against the fiery torments of 
 the life to come, whether they take the time and trouble to 
 read it or not. Many of them prefer to pay their preacher 
 to read for them, to pray for them, and to think for them 
 to troubling themselves by doing so. Not so with the Infi- 
 del. He prefers to do his own reading, his own praying, 
 and his own thinking. 
 
 It is a poor commentary on the intelligence of a portion 
 of our community for you to say they are more edified by 
 the senseless songs of Sankey and the stupid sermons of 
 Moody than by works on Science, Philosophy and Infideliiyj 
 It is a pitiful thing to realize that men who ought to be 
 intellectual and elevated beings aspire to nothing higher or 
 more instructive than common-place platitudes and stale 
 Sunday-school songs about the miraculous properties of the 
 blood of a man who died nineteen hundred years ago. It 
 is, however, a peculiarity of the Christian religion to feel 
 satisfied with its emotional hallucinations of semi-fetish- 
 ism, rather than to reach forward for that which leads on to 
 ennobling and elevating positions. It is one of the great 
 objections to Christianity that it admits of no progress in iis 
 dogmas or even in its philosophy. It claims to be a revela- 
 tion from heaven which embraces all of truth and all of 
 perfection possible, and there can be no advance made 
 upon it. In all departments of knowledge, science, art, 
 instruction, etc., there have been great improvements 
 made--in agriculture, plows, carts, implements, machin- 
 ery, architecture, highways, bridges, ships, steamboats, 
 railroads, telegraphs, etc. In all these, improvements have 
 been made from time to time, and much more in the same 
 direction is destined to come as men advance in mental col- 
 
ns 
 
 THB HUlCPBBST'-B 
 
 
 tare and intelligence; but with Christianity it U the same 
 old thing->a perfectly stereotyped affair— the same old 
 story about the efficacy of blood and faith in old dogmas 
 and superstitions handed down from the dim past, admit- 
 ting of no change, no improvement. If there was nothing 
 else to condemn the sytem this is quite sufficient. 
 
 You allude to the comparative strength and weakness of 
 Christianity and Infidelity, and malce an effort to prove 
 that the first is growing stronger while the latter is already 
 on the wane. Tou state that certain fashionable Christian 
 churches of this city are well attended, while the congre- 
 gations of Frothingham, Alger and Adler are not immense, 
 etc. I concede that some of the fashionable, bon ton 
 churches and the Catholic churches are fully attended, but 
 I fear your prejudices prevent you doing justice to the con« 
 gregations of Frothingham, Alger and Adler. When I 
 have listened to these gentlemen I have found their audi- 
 ences large and the seats well occupied, and I am informed 
 that the attendance at their meetings is uniformly good. I 
 concede, too, that Christianity has been a power on the 
 earth, and is to-day. Although it has never reached more 
 than half the number of those who believe in Buddha, and 
 only about equaled the number of adherents to Brahmanism 
 and perhaps exceeded by a trifle the followers of the 
 Arabian prophet, it has nevertheless been one of the great 
 religions of the world and holds that position to-day. It 
 has spread itself by conquest It has grasped the sword, 
 and in the name of its Savior and its creed it has deluged 
 this fair earth in blood. In this sanguinary devastation it 
 has exceeded, by far, all the religions known to man. It has 
 shed enough of the blood of men« women and children to 
 float all the navies and merchant-ships on the globe, while 
 the great systems of Brahmanism and Buddhism have been 
 peaceful and beneficent, and their numbers have not been 
 increased by conquest and slaughter. Christianity and 
 Mohammedaniam have drawn the awofd freely and cauaed 
 
 ^nn ■UMPSRIT'HBINinSTT DIBOUflaiON. 
 
 «tl 
 
 Imman blood to flow in rivers. Those two religions of 
 monotheism hav« slaughtered fully 300,0§0,^00 human 
 i>eing8. For centuries they have pursued the same bloody 
 religious warfare which is to-day deluging Southern Europe 
 with blood. 
 
 The qualities which have been most conducive to the 
 growth and strength of Christianity are ignorance and 
 superstition. These made the Church strong, and they 
 iiave kept its 'power intact So long as it could make the 
 masses bdieve that there was a tyrant who ruled on a 
 •throne a little a^ove the •clouds ; that he commissioned a 
 vast brigade of priests to attend to his business and to help 
 iiold the people in subjection ; that there is a fearful hell 
 of brimstone, fire and flames ready to emgulf ail who will 
 Aot bow and acknowledge the faith of the cross, and all 
 who dare to think for themselves, so long has the rule of 
 that system of religion been strong in the world. But 
 assuredly it is weakening. During the last two or three 
 centuries, and more particularly during the last half-cen- 
 tury, light has been breaking in. Learning and science, 
 and the consequent advance of clvilxEation, have been 
 weakening its foundations. Science has shown those who 
 met willing to read the truths it imparts that the ground 
 upon which Christianity stands is untenable, and that ita 
 foundation dogmas are untrue; that the great truths of the 
 Universe are in opposition to the narrow-creeded exactions 
 which the Church enjoins upon its devotees. There is 
 an antagonism lietween Chri^lan credulity and the teach- 
 ings of science. As the knowledge of the truths of Nature 
 is improved by the masses, the grip of the Church is loos- 
 ened and the power of priestcraft is weakened. A strong 
 faith in the myths and fables of the past is incompatible 
 with the revelations of science and truth, and in the con- 
 flict which has begun, and is sure to continue and increase, 
 these are certain to triumph, and the old myths must retire 
 to the rear and sink down, ultimately. Into the waters of 
 
U4 
 
 ^ 
 
 .1 
 
 TWm HXJMFHBBT- BCTWm r BiBcinwioir. 
 
 obllYion. The destiny of the human mind is to be free and 
 antrammeled. On the pinions of trath it is destined to rise 
 abOTe the mists and fogs which settle oyer the Church, and 
 though the rnachineiy and organization of the same is still 
 perfect, and the power of priestcraft is hard to be broken; it 
 is only a matter of time. The struggle will not slacken ; the 
 contest will not cease until truth and reason shall triumph 
 OTer errors and myths. The fetters and shackles that bind 
 men shall be remoyed and men shaUbefree, 
 
 In connection with the subject of the decline in the 
 ^tality and power of Christianity in this country allow me 
 to quote a few remarks made by your brother clergyman^ 
 Rey. Dewitt Talmage, of the Brooklyn Tabernacle: "Oh, 
 we have magnificent church machinery in this country; we 
 haye sixty thousand American ministers ; we haye costly 
 music ; we haye great Sunday-schooh, and yet I giye yoa 
 the appalling statistics, that in the last twenty-fiye years, 
 laying aside last year, the statistics of which I haye nol 
 seen, within the last twenty-fiye years the churches of Qod 
 haye averaged less than two conversions a year each. There 
 has been an average of four or five deaths in the churches. 
 How soon, at that rate, will this world be brought to Qod f 
 We gain two ; we lose four. Eternal God, what will this 
 eome to f Ton see your brother takes a discouraging 
 view of the coming fate of the Church. The prospect is 
 anything but cheering to him. Talmage. of course, would 
 not utter such gloomy words did he not know them to be 
 true. 
 
 The growth of skepticism and the increase of doubt in 
 the dogmas ol theology are apparent on every side. They 
 are working into the churches, and the clergy themselves 
 are badly affected with the prevailing doubt. In confiden- 
 lial conversation with private friends many of them admit 
 that they have their misgivings about the the truth of what 
 they were brought up to believe. The trade of the priest 
 is all they know, and to insoie a good Uvelihood they cott- 
 
 THB HX71CPHBKT- BBHirBTT DlSOUSSIOir. 
 
 tinue to preach; but their confidence in ecclesiasticism ii 
 greatly shaken. Some estimate that half the members 
 of the churches are doubting unbelievers in the creeds that 
 the Church enjoins. 
 
 The spirit of doubt and skepticism is apparent in many 
 of the newly-issued books that are appearing, as well as in 
 the journals and magazines of the day. Frequently we^see 
 the most radical articles appearing where we would hardly 
 look for them. More and more are becoming bold enough 
 to speak out and tell their thoughte. The priesthood will 
 still use their best exertions to hold the masses subservient 
 to their will and purpose, and they will doubtless continue 
 to do this so long as the avocation is remunerative. But one 
 after one and ten after ten they are emerging from the mists 
 of faith and are coming out into the sunshine of truth. As 
 a sample of the newspaper and magazine articles that are 
 appearing from time to time, I will first give a quotation 
 from an editorial in a recent Telegram upon "Religious 
 Superstition." It says: " An essay entitled * Modern Skep- 
 ticism and How to Meet It,* is presently to be read by the 
 Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott before the General Association of 
 the Congregational Church of this State. It cannot be 
 doubted that Dr. Abbott will address himself with enthusi- 
 asm to the task, and that his defense of Christianity will be 
 tinctured by strong personal devotion to the cause. But 
 for a successful assault to be carried against the strong 
 intrenchments on the side of Infidelity set up during the 
 last few years by many members of the scientific world, 
 a leader is required of vaster powers than those possessed 
 by the defender in question. It must be remembered, too, 
 that it is idle to defend the dogmas of Christianity merely 
 because they have now survived many hundreds of years. 
 Scientific leaders are notorious for their love of truth. 
 They follow where she leads them, no matter where the 
 bourne may be. This is not true of Christian leaders. 
 They foUow according to the bent of their prejudices, their 
 
self-interest, their bigotry. They deiire to tee only thOM 
 things proved which they believe or wish to believe true. 
 Dr. Abbott will find the task which he has set for himself 
 one beyond his powers.** 
 
 As embracing deep thought upon one of the subjects we 
 have been discussing, I will insert the following which 
 recently appeared in the Nineteenth Century: 
 
 ** In former times, when Atheism was vague and stam- 
 mering, incomplete and unorganized, it was condemned 
 and suppressed with horror, anger and indignation. Its 
 apostles were execrated as monsters doomed to eternal tor- 
 ments. The world cast them out, and the Church burned 
 them. But now that Atheism is complete and organized, 
 without concealment and without shame, its name is not 
 even a term of mild reproach. On the contrary, its most 
 notorious professors are honored and looked up to by the 
 world in general, and listened to with a respectful patience 
 by even their professed opponents. Deans avow friend- 
 ship for men compared with whom 'Voltaire is orthodox, 
 and Cardinals with such men gravely discuss beliefs which 
 Voltaire would have thought it horrible to have questioned. 
 The reason o^ this is obvious. Atheism has come forward 
 under cranged conditions. It is based upon new founda- 
 tions* it <8 ar^imated with a new temper. For the first time 
 it /ebts i*9t»lt not on the private speculations of a rebellious 
 iutelJoct^ not on the ravings of a vile Parisian populace 
 drunk with the wine of politics and suffering from politi- 
 cal delirium tremens, but on the deep and broad founda- 
 tions of research, experiment, and proof. It has lost all 
 that insolence of private passion and of private judgment 
 which used to make it as offensive to men*s practical in- 
 stincts as it was to their theoretical convictions. Our 
 modern Atheists in profession, and to a great measure in 
 fact, are entirely free of the old personal bravado ; they 
 claim to teach with authority, because they have been con- 
 tent to loam irith humility. For they, too, have their 
 
 Tsi nuMTKRCT-BiiniBTT nmswmnt. 
 
 church, their infallible teacher, to whom they profess an 
 implicit and devout obedience. And this teacher is un- 
 doubtedly an august one. It is none other than Nature 
 herself, as our powerful science compels her answers from 
 her— Nature^ in the widest sense of the word, including the 
 history of th« Universe and the history of the human race, 
 and the laws in obedience to which this history has devel- 
 oped itself. Here, we are told, is our one source of knowl- 
 edge; here we learn the truth, and the whole truth. 
 Nature beans witness about every conceivable subject ; 
 there is no rational question which, if we do but ask it 
 properly, Bt^e will not answer. She will require no faith 
 from us; she will ask us to take nothing on trust. Every- 
 thing that she teaches us she will prove and verify; and 
 there is no variableness in her, nor any shadow of turning, 
 ''dome, then " — this is the appeal that our modern Athe- 
 ists make to us — "and let us learn of Nature ; let us listen 
 to the voice of truth 1*' And what does truth tell us t 
 Among many things truth tells us two, which are of prime 
 importance, and which are universally intelligible to the 
 human race — there is no God, and there is no future life. 
 The notion of the first is unnecessary, and that of the 
 second is ridiculous. In the name of truth, then, let us 
 cast these lies away from us, however painfully for the 
 moment we may feel their loss, however closely they may 
 be bound up for us with memories of the past. But we are 
 not left with this exhortation only. Something more is 
 added to sustain and stimulate us. These lies, we are told, 
 if we will but look them boldly in the face, instead of 
 blinking at them out of deference to their supposed divin- 
 ity, we shall see to be not lies only, but profoundly immoral 
 lies. Is is, therefore, in the name not of selfish indulgence, 
 not of license and free-living, but of sacred truth and all 
 the severest principles, that we are invited to accept the 
 creed of Atheism and to cast out religion. Thus the 
 Atheism of to-day, though theoretically destructive, is 
 
 }' 
 
 i 
 

 VBB BUllPHSIT'BBimSTT mSOlTSHOy. 
 
 practically cooserrative. It no longer assails society as H 
 is, or any of those rules that sustain it, or the chastened 
 atfections that are supposed to make it worth sustaining. 
 It is associated no longer with any dissolute wit, with any 
 emel and brilliant cynicism, or with the fascinations of 
 lawless love. On the contrary, it is on the whole somewhat 
 dull ; and to say the least of it, it is eminently respectable. 
 It is the Atheism of the yigil, not of the orgy; and its char- 
 acter when developed is solemn, almost puritanical. Study 
 the language, the conduct, even the faces of its exponents* 
 and signs will be apparent everywhere of gravity and 
 severe earnestness. These are men, we see in a glance, 
 who hold life a serious thing— a thing not to be trifled away 
 in idleness, however harmless, or in licentious self-indul- 
 gence, however refined or graceful. What is really of 
 value in life, what men should really strive for, are things 
 to be reached only by self-denial and labor and a vigilant 
 rigor in the guidance and control of our passions. Those 
 who pay no heed to the better part, but who saunter, who 
 lounge, who smile, who sneer through life, are condemned 
 by the Atheists even more grimly than by the believers.'* 
 
 IVom one position of the above writer I shall perhaps 
 claim to dissent. I do not limit the power of Nature 
 to carry human existence beyond this life. I have felt 
 compelled to acknowledge that it may be in the economy 
 of the Universe to continue individual life into another 
 state of existence; that this is the rudimentary, and the 
 other the ultimate. I claim to have no special knowledge 
 upon the subject nor of the nature and locality of that other 
 world, but I have witnessed phenomena that I was satisfied 
 were not fraudulent, and which led me to this conclusion. 
 With this exception, the writer is sound; and it is possible, 
 too, that this may not be an exception after alL Science 
 may ultimately explain all not now well understood. 
 
 In connection with the subject of the spread of skepti- 
 ciim I will only remark that it is striking terror into the 
 
 TD HUMPHREY-BENNETT DlflCUSSIOlT. 
 
 696 
 
 Tery heart of the Church. The great question that is now 
 propounded with so much anxiety and mental agony is, 
 How shall the spread of Infidelity be stayed T This mo- 
 mentous question troubled the Pan-Presbyterian Council 
 recently assembled in Edinburg more than all others, and 
 it will take aU the skill and cunning of the theologians to 
 solve it. 
 
 I will take very little space to review the ground we have 
 gone over, or to sum up my portion of the discussion. Al- 
 low me to say I think you have utterly failed to establish your 
 side of the questions discussed; and I have been struck 
 with the weakness of your arguments and with the little 
 dodges, petty quibbles, and theological twaddle you have 
 found it necessary to resort to. Before the discussion took 
 place, I thought more could be said in advocacy of your 
 views than you have said, although I am convinced that few 
 of your brethren of the sacerdotal order possess more ability 
 than yourself. With all due modesty, I claim that I have 
 shown, under our first proposition, that those who did the 
 most to aid the cause of American independence and to 
 establish a free system of government were unbelievers in 
 orthodox Christianity and the divinity of the Bible. Under 
 the second proposition, I think I established the fact that 
 unbelievers have done more to aid the advance and spread 
 of learning and science than believers have. On this last 
 proposition, relative to the truth and divinity of the Bible, 
 I claim that I have shown that the Bible possesses no qual- 
 ities to prove it a superhuman production, and that it is 
 entitled to no more respect than numerous other books that 
 men have written and printed. I think that I have made 
 it clear to unprejudiced minds that Infidelity, or Radicalism, 
 has more proofs of truth than (he Bible has of divinity. I 
 stated clearly, and was prepared to prove it, that Chrisaan- 
 ity is not an original system of religion; that all its 
 dogmas were borrowed from the older systems. I have 
 repeated this some three times, hoping you would attempt 
 
tBM mumrBRmt'Wamxvn mtomNUOR. 
 
 rat wmp^mMt-mmgynst maaofrnQM. 
 
 697 
 
 I- 
 
 
 i 
 
 to refute it, tluit I miglit adduce the proofs. You haTe 
 BOt disputed it, but tacitly admitted its truth, and I wisb 
 this point to be noticed and remembered. By your silence 
 upon this charge you have confessed that Christianity is 
 not original, but that it was borrowed almost entirely 
 from paganism, and is no better than the obsolete systems 
 of religion in yogue twenty-five centuries or more ago. 
 
 It is true I have covered more space than you have, but 
 I have introduced no topic not mentioned by yourself, and 
 have endeavored to confine myself exclusively to the sub- 
 jects treated of by you. You throw out insinuations 
 about the cuttle-fish style of conducting an argument. 
 Your allusion is about as clear as the water may be sup- 
 posed to be about your cuttle-fish when making an attack, 
 but I cannot think it fairly applies to me. I am aware that I 
 am somewhat verbose and that I often repeat myself, 
 but I do not think my language is ambiguous or difficult to 
 be understood. I do not try to conceal myself nor the views 
 I entertain. Like some others of your insinuations, it 
 seems wholly tmcalled for. You have not been curtailed 
 in anything you wished to say. I have printed every word 
 you handed in, and I would not have denied you the same 
 space I have occupied. Your style is brief and concise, 
 while mine is more diffuse. I make longer quotations 
 than you do, believing it more fair to the author quoted, 
 and better for the reader, than to select a line or two 
 here and there which connot give a Aill exposition of the 
 author's views. 
 
 I cheerfully concede to yon greater ability than I pos- 
 sess. Your advantages have been superior to mine, and 
 your reading far more extensive, but I am Ailiy convinced 
 that I have the truth on my side, and with my inferior 
 abilities I think I have made this comparatively clear. I 
 will leave it with our readers to decide which has given the 
 best arguments, and on which side victory has perched. 
 
 Peihaps we have both shown sooM {o^udice and par^ 
 
 tiality. iie^ng futly Impn^s^d duit Chiistiani^ is a system 
 of shams and «4d faUes. borrowed, as I have charged, from 
 older pagan systems, I have lost nearly all the respect I 
 once had for it, but I have intended to be fair and truth- 
 ful in all cases. You have evinced not a little unfriendli- 
 ness towards Infidels, Atheists and Liberal Clubs. I can 
 not think strange of this, for they are working in opposi- 
 tion to your line of thought and your avocation, and it is 
 only the spirit so violently exhibited by your predecessors. 
 I thank you for the courtesy you have shown me. I have 
 found our personal intercourse pleasant and agreeable, 
 and I trust a friendship has grown up between us during 
 this discussion that will continue for years. I respect you 
 for your excellent qualities. I have published your views 
 wltb the same willingness that I have my own, and I doubt 
 not you accord to me a due spirit of candor and liberality 
 in laying your language and views before my numeroub 
 readers with the same freedom that I have my own. It !» 
 mere than any Christian paper in the country would do by 
 me. I very much doubt if any orthodox periodical in the 
 United States would publish a single Infidel letter of my 
 writing, while I have given in full thirteen of yours, affording 
 you access to a class of readers that you could not other 
 wise reach. Please give Infidelity due credit for this in 
 stance of fairness and liberality. Should you at any future 
 time wish to engage in another discussion upon theological 
 subjects, my columns shall be open to you, and if you can 
 find no other opponent I will offer you my own humble 
 services again. I would be very glad could the light of 
 truth so shine into your mind that you could be able to 
 see that there are greater truths in Nature and Science than 
 is contained in the old theological ideas that have so long 
 ruled Christendom, and that you might feel it incumbent 
 on you to tear off the shackles of ecclesiasticism and intol- 
 erance and to come to the belief that there is a greater good 
 Ib Katun tod a greater truth in the leaLm of Sdence and 
 
 
TSB BiniFinUIT-lKf]fSTT dhoomiok 
 
 TBB HnCPKBlT-BlinnTT NBomsiov. 
 
 feAson than in the Mief that a personal Ood devifled tho 
 world, created man weak and fallible, placed a tempter be* 
 fore him, knowing that he would be led astray, and then 
 thrusts him and his countless posterity into everlasting 
 flames for doing what he could not help doing under the 
 conditions that surrounded him. I shall still indulge the 
 hope that you may yet be able to take an advanced step 
 and leave the domain of theological myths and legendi* 
 Tou are a young man, I trust with a long life before you ; 
 you have a clear intellect, and there is much ground for 
 hope. 
 
 It is a great thing to change the religion of a people. To 
 throw oS the effects of early education, and to becomi 
 divested of the influence of the old traditions and legends 
 is a herculean task, but it has got to be accomplished. The 
 old systems that the world has thus far accepted have not 
 benefited their devotees ; the gods that have been held up 
 for worship, and on whose account and on account of whose 
 priests, uncounted millions of wealth have been wrung from 
 the hard-toiling masses— have done nothing for the world, 
 and humanity demands that they shall be dethroned and 
 cease to be objects of reverence. All the old systems of 
 religion have proved to be failures and only served as 
 obstructions to mankind on the great highway of life's 
 journey. The human race has subdued this planet so far 
 as it has been subdued ; it has made it a garden in so far as 
 it is a garden ; but there are yet many desolate wilds to be 
 improved by the industrious hand of man. A great deal has 
 yet to be done in learning the true science of life, in knowing 
 how to obtain the greatest amount of happiness from our 
 existence, and how to make happy those around us; how to 
 live, how to produce a healthy, well-balanced, happy race 
 upon the earth; how to secure pleasant lives, and now to 
 make them useful, is of far more consequence to us to-daj 
 than can be the blood of a man who died nineteen hundred 
 years ago. It is time we dropped the old religions of tbo 
 
 gods, and adopted the better religion of man. Love of 
 mankind is the highest elevation to which we can attain, 
 and therein lies our whole duty. We can do good or evil 
 to ourselves and to our fellow-beings, but we can do neither 
 to the gods. Even if there are such beings, they are so 
 far removed from us, and we know so little^of them, and 
 they care so 11 ale for us, that our neglect will not offend 
 Kor our oblations cajole them. The objects of our concern 
 are around us and with us, and they claim our undivided 
 attention. 
 
 You speak of the havoc of sin. The sins have been 
 entirely toward the human race, and here is where the ref- 
 ormation should be begun and continued. Let us our- 
 selves endeavor to live truo, pure, noble lives, and help 
 others to do the same. Let us understand that each indi- 
 vidual must secure his own happinees and his own Justifi- 
 cation. Let us not depend for our peace and happiness 
 upon the good deeds of any man nor lurk behind the cov- 
 ering of another's virtues. Let us be pure, be unselfish and 
 be upright. Let us scorn to act from low motives. Let us 
 cease to balance our heavenly gains by our earthly losses, 
 and to chuckle over a credit-mark on the recording angel's 
 book when we have performed good actions here. Let us 
 substitute the service of man, who is ever around us, in 
 place of the service of unknown gods whom we can never 
 know anything about. Let us increase real knowledge and 
 lessen superstition and faith. Let us use our entire exer- 
 tions to hasten this reformation, and strive to make of this 
 earth as perfect a paradise as is possible with the conditions 
 which attend us. 
 
 ••Oreads, empires, systems, rot with a^e. 
 
 But the srreat people's ever youthful/ 
 
 And it shall write the future page 
 
 To our humanity more truthful. 
 
 The gnarllest heart hath tender chords 
 
 . To waken at the name of "Brother." 
 
 f 
 
 ii 
 
Aftd time ooBi«fl when ■oorpioB words 
 Wa Bhall thall not speak to itlM ••«* 
 Tis oomlns 1 fes. 'tis oominff 1 
 
 othec. 
 
 ••Out of the lltfht, ye priests, nor flinff 
 Tour dark, cold shadows on us longer I 
 Aside, thou world-wide curse, called kinff* 
 The people's step is auioker. stronger I 
 There's a divinity within . 
 
 That makes men sreat whene'er they will its 
 Ck>d works with all whe dare to win* 
 And the time cometh to reveal It 
 'Tls oominc 1 yes. 'tis ooming. 
 
 ••Fraternity! loye's other name! 
 
 Bear heaven-oonnectinff link of 1»eliiffl 
 Then shall we grasp thy ROlden dream. 
 
 As souls fuU-statured grow far-seeing I 
 Thou Shalt unfold our better part. 
 
 And ki our life-cup yield more hontyl 
 Light up with joy the poor man's heart. 
 And love's own world with smiles more luniif. 
 *Tia coming! yes. 'tis coming! 
 
 ••Ay. it must come! the tyrant's throne 
 Is crumbling, with our hot tears rusted s 
 The sword earth's mighty have leant on 
 
 Is cankered, with our best blood erustedl 
 Boom! for the men of mind make way! 
 
 Ye priests and tyrants l—pause no longer! 
 Ye cannot stay the opening day! 
 The world rolls on. the light grows stronger^ 
 The people's advent's eomlngl" 
 
 In the bonds of hnniftiiity and fraternity. I am sinoerdj 
 
 jour friend, 
 
 D. M. BsinnRT. 
 
 INDEX.* 
 
 Adams (John) not an Infi- 
 del. H. 80 
 Architectural Skill of the 
 
 Israelites, B. 116 
 
 Alexandrian Library. H. 
 
 162. B. 171 
 
 Arguments (ten) in Favor 
 
 of the Bible, H. 406 
 
 Arguments (fifty) Opposed 
 
 to the Bible, B. 431 
 
 Atheism, from the Nine- 
 teenth Century, B. 523 
 Believers in the Majority B. 6 
 Bennett Shown to be a 
 Christian, B. 88 
 
 Bible and Scieoce, H. 102, 
 
 B. 108, H. 128, B. 132, 181 
 Book of Job, B. 133 
 
 Barnes (Albert Dr.) Quota- 
 tion from, B. 835 
 Bruno, B. 146 
 Brownlow on Clergymen, 
 
 B. 296 
 
 Bible Canon, H. 839, B. 508 
 Bible Objections Consid- 
 ered. EL 841 
 Bible Contradictions, B. 
 
 868 "^ 
 
 Bible! Arguments for, H. 406 
 Bible. Degradation of Wo- 
 man, B. 505 
 Bible Tyranny and Des- 
 potism, B. 604 
 Christianity and Universi- 
 ties, H. i^ 
 
 Christianity and Science, 
 B, 139, H. 161, 182, 187 
 
 Christian Publishers, H. 128 
 
 Copernicus, remarks on, 146 
 
 Cooper (Peter), reference 
 to, B. 150, H. 157, B. 
 167, H. 194, B. 210, 825 
 
 Cornell University, B, 150, 
 H. 157, B. 169. H. 195, 
 B. 211 
 
 Calvin, B. 168. 216, H. 271. 
 B. 823 
 
 Crimes of the Patriarchs, 231 
 B. tiSl 
 
 Crimes of Prominent Chria. 
 tians, B. 233 
 
 Clergymcn*s Sensualities. 
 B. 237, 282 
 
 Christian Dogmas, Rites 
 and Symbols, borroweu 
 from Paganism, B. 26Si 
 
 Contradictions of the Bi- 
 ble, B. 868, H. 895, B. 422 
 
 Contradictions of Paine, 
 H. 396, B. 425 
 
 Canon of the Bible, B. 508 
 
 Council of Nice, B. ^10 
 
 Draper, quotations from, 
 B. 147, 191 
 
 Death of Hume, B. 515 
 
 D'Holbach, B. 319 
 
 Divinity of the Bible, rea- 
 sons therefor, H. 889, B 865 
 
 Design Argument, H. 404, 
 B. 
 
 • H. indicates Humphrey. B. Bennett 
 
633 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Deposits of Marine Debris 
 
 on Mountain Tops^ B. 425 
 Doctrines about Ueli, B. 449 
 Decline of Christianity, 518 
 Existence of God, H. 401, 
 
 B. 453, 405 
 
 Existence of the Uaiyerse,493 
 Foreign aids to Atnericana, 4 
 Franklin a Christian, H. 14 
 Franklin not a Christian, 
 
 B. 21, 48 
 
 Franklin, qaotations from,23 
 Framers of U. S. Consti- 
 tution, B. 88, 168 
 Freethinkers not sensual- 
 ists, B. 187 
 Faith and Credulity, B. 170 
 French Revolution, B. 179, 
 
 H. 197, B. 212, B. 809 
 
 Guizot, quotations from, 142 
 Girard College, H. 184 
 
 Gerderman on the Catho- 
 lic Priesthood, B. 297 
 Guild on Clergymen, B. SOI 
 Hamilton, (Alexander), m 
 
 Christian, H. 18 
 
 Hypatia, Murdered, B. 
 
 141, H. 163. B. 178 
 
 Hallam, quotations from, 142 
 Huxley, qaotations from, 
 
 B. 148, 179 
 
 Hebrew CiYilization, B. 
 
 134, 138, H. 160, B. 172 
 Holy Inquisition, B. 185 
 Hobbes, B. 816 
 
 Haiton, B. 462 
 
 Human Sacrifice in the 
 
 Bible, B. 606 
 
 Ini^ersoU, shown to be a 
 
 Christian, B. 38 
 
 lasersoll, quotations from 
 B. 74, 141, 143, 155, 823, 
 889, 446 
 
 Inventors and discoverers, 
 
 H. 127, B. 151 
 
 Ins'nceriryof Infidels, H. 
 
 202, B. 218 
 
 Immorality Consistent 
 with Infidelity, H. 203, 
 
 B. 221, 225. H. 273 
 
 Infidels illiberal, H. 201, 
 
 B. 219, 225 
 
 Infidels hypocritical, H. 
 
 206, B. 228 
 Infidels superstitions, H. 
 
 207, B. 236 
 Infidels blindly credulous,207 
 Infidels unprogressive, 
 
 H. 208. B. 228 
 
 Infidels charged with im- 
 morality, H. 201. H. 364 
 Infidel recantations, B. 314 
 Infidelity disintegrating, 826 
 Intelligence, B. 457 
 
 Increase of Infidelity, B. 618 
 Jefferson on Washington, 26 
 Jefferson not a Deist, 32, 76 
 Jefferson, quotations from, 41 
 Jefferson an unbeliever. 
 
 B. 41-46, 84 
 
 Jews living in tents and 
 
 not civilized, 134, 138, 196 
 Jesus not a scholar, B. 140 
 Jews cannibals, 314, 838 
 
 Jehovah delineated, B. 814 
 B. 384, 422 
 
 Lossing on the Signers 
 of the Declaration of 
 Independence, H. 5 
 
 Love of Liberty, not 
 
 Christianity, B. 8 
 
 Lincoln not an Infidel 
 
 H 81, 101 
 
 Lincoln an Infidel, 
 
 B, 93, 107, 181 
 
 Lecky, quot. from, B. 144 
 Luther. B. 218 
 
 Museums and Libraries, 
 
 H. 120, B. 149 
 
 My lbs going out of fash- 
 ion, H. 158, B. 174, H. 197 
 Multiplicity of Sects, fl. 277 
 Mill, by Conway, B. 808 
 Mirabeau*s death, B. 818 
 Mind, B. 456 
 
 Monotheism, B. 607 
 
 Newton, Sir Isaac, B. 229 
 Owen, Robert Dale, 11, 
 
 «• 
 
 25, 86, 131, 176 
 
 Ubscenity of the Bible, B. 
 
 178, H. 198, B. 367 
 
 Our laws not Christian in 
 
 origin, B. 189 
 
 Objections to the Bible, 341 
 Paine a Christian, B. 37 
 
 Paine criticised, H. 60-58 
 Paine defended B. 59-9*, 87 
 Printing, art of, 129, 152 
 Palestine, 134. 138, 160, 172, 
 „196. 211 
 
 Priestcraft, nature of, B. 261 
 Quotation from Judge Storv, 
 ^ H. * 78 
 
 Quotation from Pollock, 152 
 * ** Paley, B. 178 
 
 ** Mark Twain, 186 
 " Thej. Clapp, 216 
 " Beecher, B. 387 
 " ** Orthodox wri- 
 ters concerning Hell, 449 
 3uot. from Tyndall, B. 490 
 larrels at Christian 
 Couucils 511 
 
 Quot. from The Telegram, 521 
 *• " 19th Century 522 
 Rush (Benj.)aCbri8tian, 13 
 Kawson (Prof. A. L.) 172, 211 
 Reign of Terror, B. 179. 212; 
 HI 197 
 
 R'>be8pierre, H. 269, 337; B. 
 309, 355 
 
 Religionists not liable to 
 
 insanity, H.-. .•. ; 2j{r6: 
 Religion not ilicoilsiitQnt 2gr9: 
 Slavery sustar&dd'bV the *• 
 Bible, H. 79; B. 89 
 
 S'avery and puCrj9ttaJiUy/8(l ' 
 Science and Ih^ JJlBlfe, *. 102,' 
 a 108, 132, lit" 
 
 Solomon not a great man, B. 
 
 118, 137, 177; H 123 
 
 Smithsonian Institute, 1^6 
 
 Science Hall, B. 231 
 
 Shelley, B. 809 
 
 Tne Devil shown to be a 
 
 Christian, B. 80 
 
 The Israelites as musi- 
 cians, H. 104; B. 116 
 The Apostles not educated 
 
 men, B. 140 
 
 The Early Christian Fath- 
 ers not scientific, 140 
 The Midianites, B. 382 
 Ten arguments in favor of 
 
 the Bible, H. 406 ; B 426 
 Tyranny and despotism of 
 
 Bible, 504 
 
 Talmage on the decline of 
 
 Christianity, 620 
 
 Unbelievers in revolution- 
 ary times, B. 7 
 Underwood (B P.) shown 
 
 to be a Christian, B. 38 
 Universe, thoughts of, B. 493 
 Vnnini, B. 146 
 
 Voltaire, H. 338, B. 857 
 
 Wesley unfriendly to 
 American liberty, B. 9, 
 82. 106 
 
 Wesley not unfriendly to 
 
 American liberty, H. 74 
 "'Vashington an Unbeliev- 
 >^t, ^...n, 2P 88 
 
 W^Si«itfgti>n> believer, H. 17 
 Wh^t* Maked a hian a 
 
 Christian, B. 19 
 
 Woin*iat8*d*e^radatioIi in 
 : lie -^^blc, U: 505 
 
 • ••• 
 
 • • • 
 
 • ••• 
 
 • • •• 
 
 » a 
 
 • •, 
 
 • • 
 
 ■I > 4 
 
 II 
 
I 
 
 IKDKK0 
 
 633 
 
 TNDBZ. 
 
 Deposits of Marine Debris 
 
 OB Mountain Tops, B. 425 
 Doctrioes about Hell, B. 449 
 Decline of Christianity, 518 
 Existence of God, H. 401, 
 
 B. 453, 495 
 
 Exislence of the Uaiyerse,493 
 Foreign aids to Atnericans, 4 
 Franklin a Christian, H. 14 
 Franklin not a Christian, 
 
 B. 21, 48 
 
 Franklin, quotations from,23 
 Framers of U. 8. Consti- 
 tution, B. 88, 166 
 Freethinkers not sensual- 
 ists, B. 137 
 Faith and Credulity, B. 170 
 French Revolution, B. 179, 
 
 H. 197, B. 212, B. 809 
 
 Guizot, quotations from, 142 
 Girard College, H. 164 
 
 Gerderman on the Catho- 
 lic Priesthood, B. 297 
 Guild on Clergymen, B. 801 
 Hamilton, (Alexander), a 
 
 Christian, H. 18 
 
 Hypatia. Murdered, B. 
 
 141, H. 163, B. 178 
 
 Hallam, quotations from, 142 
 Huxley, quotations from, 
 
 B. 146, 179 
 
 Hebrew Civilization, B. 
 
 134, 138, H. 160, B. 172 
 Holy Inquisition, B. 185 
 Hobbes, B. 316 
 
 Hutton, B. 462 
 
 Human Sacrifice in the 
 
 Bible, B. 506 
 
 In^rersoll, shown to be a 
 
 Christian, B. 38 
 
 lasersoll, quotations from 
 B. 74, 141, 143, 155. 823, 
 389. 446 
 
 Inventors and discoverers, 
 
 H. 127, B. 151 
 
 Insincerity of Infidels, H. 
 
 202, B. 218 
 
 Immorality Consistent 
 with Infidelity, H. 203, 
 
 B. 221, 225. H. 373 
 
 Infidels illiberal, R 201, 
 
 B. 219, 235 
 
 Infidels hypocritical, H.. 
 
 206, B. 226 
 Infidels superstitious, H. 
 
 207, B. 236 
 Infidels blindly credulous,207 
 Infideh un progressive, 
 
 H. 208, B. 228 
 
 Infidels charged with im- 
 morality, H. 201. H. 364 
 Infidel recantations, B. 314 
 Infidelity disintegrating, 826 
 Intelligence, B. 457 
 
 Inorease of Infidelity, B. 518 
 Jefferson on Washington, 26 
 Jefferson not a Deist, 32, 76 
 Jefferson, quotations from, 41 
 Jefferson an unbeliever. 
 
 B. 41-46, 84 
 
 Jews living in tents and 
 
 not civilized, 134, 138, 196 
 Jesus not a scholar, B. 140 
 Jews cannibals, 314, 336 
 Jehovah delineated, B. 814 
 B. 384, 422 
 
 Leasing on the Signers 
 of the Declaration of 
 Independence, H. $ 
 
 Love of Liberty, not 
 
 Christianity, B. 8 
 
 Lincoln not an Infidel 
 
 H. 81. 101 
 
 Lincoln an Infidel, 
 
 B. 93, 107, 181 
 
 Lecky, quot. from, B. 144 
 Luther. B. 216 
 
 Museums and Libraries, 
 
 H. 126. B. 149 
 
 Myths going out of fash- 
 ion, H. 158, B. 174, H. 197 
 Multiplicity of Sects, fl. 277 
 Mill, by Conway, B. 808 
 Mirabeau's death, B. 818 
 Mind, B. 456 
 
 Monotheism, B. 507 
 
 Kewton, Sir Isaac, B. 229 
 Owen, Robert Dale, 11, 
 
 25, 86, 131, 176 
 
 ubscenity of the Bible, B. 
 
 178, H. 198, B. 867 
 
 Our laws not Christian in 
 
 origin, B. 189 
 
 Objections to the Bible, 341 
 Paine a Christian, B. 37 
 Paine criticised, H. 60-58 
 Pdinc defended B. 59-'M, 87 
 Printing, art of, 129, 152 
 Palestine, 134, 138. 160, 172, 
 ^190. 211 
 
 Priestcraft, nature of, B. 261 
 Quotation from Judge Storv, 
 U. 78 
 
 Quotation from Pollock, 152 
 '* ** Paley, B. 173 
 
 " '• Mark Twain, 186 
 '• •* Thej. Clapp, 216 
 '• " Beecher, B. 387 
 •' " Orthodox wri- 
 ters concerning Hell, 449 
 Quot. from Tyndall, B. 490 
 Q larrels at Christian 
 
 Councils 511 
 
 Quot. from The Telegram, 521 
 
 ** ** 19th Century 522 
 
 Rush (Benj.)aCl»ristian, 13 
 
 Rawson (Prof. A. L.) 172, 211 
 
 Reign of Terror, B. 179, 212; 
 
 H. 197 
 
 R'^bespierre, H. 269, 337; B. 
 
 309, 355 
 
 Religionists not liable to 
 
 insanity, H.-. .-. j 2g6: 
 Religion not i^icodsi&Qnt 2^9; 
 Slavery sustafnM'bV the •• 
 Bible, H. 79; B. 89 
 
 S'averyand i^uCrJgttaliUy/aO ' 
 Science and lh« JJIW6, \10V, 
 
 B. 108. 182, lir* 
 
 Solomon not a great man, B. 
 118, 137, 177; a 123 
 
 Smithsonian Institute, I56 
 B. 167 
 
 Science Hall, B. 831 
 
 Shelley, B. 809 
 
 Tne Devil shown to be a 
 
 Christian, B. 89 
 
 The Israelites as musi- 
 cians, H. 104; B. 116 
 The Apostles not educated 
 
 men, B. 140 
 
 The Early Christian Fath- 
 ers not scientific, 140 
 The Midianites, B. 382 
 Ten arguments in favor of 
 
 the Bible, H. 406 ; B 426 
 Tyranny and despotism of 
 
 Bible, 504 
 
 Talmage on the decline of 
 
 Christianity, 520 
 
 Unbelievers in revolution- 
 ary times, B. 7 
 Underwood (B P.) shown 
 
 to be a Ctiristiau, B. 38 
 Universe, thoughts of, B. 493 
 Vaninl, B. 146 
 
 Voltaire, H. 338, B. 857 
 
 Wesley unfriendly to 
 American liberty, B. 9, 
 82. 106 
 
 Wesley not unfriendly to 
 
 American liberty, H. 74 
 "T^ashington an Unbeliev- 
 >^t, 0.-,n, f^. 86 
 
 "W^ajlttCgtOnj^ believer, H. 17 
 What* makes a Inan a 
 
 Christian, B. 19 
 
 Wpm*^«8*ae^a*datioli in 
 : \k6 "S^bli It/ 605 
 
 
 • •• 
 
 
 • •- 
 
 • • • 
 
 
THE BIBLE OF BIBLES, 
 
 01 
 
 TWENTl-SEVElf 
 
 "Divine Revelations:" 
 
 CONVAIKINO 
 
 A DESCRIPTION OF TWENTY-SEVEN BIBLES, AND >ll 
 
 EXPOSITION OF TWO THOUSAND BIBLICAL ER. 
 
 ROUS IN SCIENCE, HISTORY, MORAIfl, 
 
 RELIGION, AND GENERAL 
 
 EVENTS. 
 
 AI0O A DELIKKATION OF THE 0HARA0TER8 OF 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL PERSONAGES OF THE 
 CHRISTIAN BIBLE, 
 
 AND AW 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THEIR DOCTRINES. 
 
 BT RERSEY GRATES, 
 
 Author erf " Tho World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," and " Tkc 
 
 Biographj of Satan." 
 
 As will be remarked on perusal of the table of contents, tn« 
 ground gone over by Mr. Graves in the course of his new work 
 is simply astounding, and the literary labor performed is worthy 
 of receiving the approximate reward of an extensive reading at 
 the hands of the public. In the sixty-six chapters into which the 
 book is divided, almost every question of interest which arises in 
 tiie mind at the mention of the word Biblb is considered in thai 
 straightforward style which has made the volumes of Mr. Graves 
 so extensively sought after. 
 
 The Leading'Pog 
 
 Cbap. l.—The Signs of the TimesV the' Comhig Revolution; 
 Reason will soon,Triuwph , 
 
 Chap. 2.— Aplt2^<;3^aIla*&cpl»Oaticftl^,. ^I^ltofA 9o1( our God; Re- 
 lationship oil thclOld vut i^^ Jfest^me#t^r : \ / 
 
 Chap. 3.— Why this Work was Written; The Moral Truths of 
 the Bible; Why^Rjoort to RidteulQ^. Tjie Ppncipal Design of 
 this Work; DesTt Ri4d FdhiicigOs BoDk^ ; Tv?o Thousand Bible 
 Errors Exposed ; JOUBilbM Udejul'irt ti^ir, ffeice. 
 
 Chap. 4. — Beauties and Benefits of Bibles ; A Higher Plane of 
 Development has been Attained; Bible Writers Honest; G«ii 
 
 «ml Claims of Bibles. 
 
 Vsr Bsto by B. HI. BETVH ETT, 
 
 141 Bl0lMii ttrMt, ir«w YMrk. 
 
 THE 
 
 HOLY BIBLE, 
 
 [ABRIDGED] 
 OONTArnNG PORnONS OP Tmi 
 
 OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS 
 
 OOXPILSD rBOM 
 
 KING JAMES' TRANSLATION : 
 
 V 
 AMD iriTB ALL 
 
 STANDARD BIBLES DILIGBNILT COMPARED 
 
 AND REVISED. 
 
 "All scripture is given by inariration of God, Mid is profttabi* 
 for doctrine, for reproof, for cf rection, for instrdction in richv 
 •ousness."— 2 Tim. iii, 16. * 
 
 "Search the scriptures: for m them ye think rs }vv^ «temst 
 Kfe."— John v, 39. 
 
 This "blessed vol»ime"is dedicated "to the Missionary an« 
 Bible Societies, Sunday-schools, the Young- Men's Christian Aaso 
 ciation, advocates of the Bible in the public schools, societies fe 
 fhe suppression of vice, American Reform Association, the denr 
 and church generally, and especially to Anthony Comstock." 
 
 Among the subjects wkich God treats of in this abridgment o 
 " His Word," are . " Tho rape of a rib ; Adam and Eve play hidt 
 and seek with the Lord God; Adam knoweth Eve and she raisoth 
 Gain ; The sons of God playeth naughty tricks upon the daughters 
 of men ; Noah drinketh wine to excess and becometh tipsy and 
 indecently exposeth himself; Abraham goeth in unto tlie hand- 
 maid of his wife, and she conceiveth ; Which event causeth much 
 t*Duble in the bosom <rf his wife and family ; The Lord covenant- 
 fith with Abraham and requireth the flesh of his foreskin as s 
 token ; Abraham laugheth at a jolly good joke; The Lord appear- 
 eth unto Abraham in three parts, and exciteth the risibilities oj 
 tho ancient dame Sarah ; Lot, the Sodomite, adviseth the angels to 
 terry and wash their feet; The angels smite the Sodomites and 
 they go It blind ; Lot's daughters get the old man helplessly drunk 
 and act very naughtily; The Lord soaleth and healeth the wombs 
 of the house of Abimelech ; The Lord doetli uuto Sarah as he had 
 spoken, and she conceiveth; Isaac sporteth with Rebekah his 
 wife; Laban fooleth Jacob with Leah, and he goeth in unto her 
 Leah conceiveth various and several times and beareth divers and 
 •xmdry sons ; Jacob goetli in unto his wife's handmaid ; Jacob 
 hirneth his nose toward Canaan and f oUoweth the organ afore- 
 •id." •!•., •ko. For sale by B. M. BENMETT. 
 
 141 Blillik ftTMt^ Mew York. 
 
WORKS B¥ D. H. BK^^HTT. 
 
 Tb« CUkto ADd Rellcioiis of Ancieat and Modern TIbim*' 
 
 In (wo folumet, ocuto, 900 iw8«t each. A fuU Md Iflorough exwualMtlon of 
 the Kodfl and rcUgloM which the world hM believed In. Volume I. treat tor 
 the gods, volume II. of the religions Written in priaon. |3 per volume. U 
 doth. 15 for the two; 17 In leather, red edgea; |8 in morocco, gilt ed,sea. 
 
 The World's »lt«e»,Tliliili©r», and Keformerft. Contalnliy i 
 biographical aketchea of three hundred excellent mowl teachers of the worw • 
 »ot Christiana. 1,U«5 pp., 8vo. Cloth. $3; leather. $4: morocco, gilt edgea. $iM 
 
 The Champions of the Church, their Crimes and P©"* 
 cations. Biographical aketches of many of the worst men that ever Uve(k 
 1419 pages, octavo. Cloth. |3: leather, |4; morocco, gilt edges, ^.50. 
 
 The Semitic <Sods, and the Bible. Taken from VoU I. of - Thj 
 9cda and ReUgiona." The Bible ia treated at a god, and examined at lengtft. 
 63 large pages. Paper, 60 cents; cloth, $1. 
 
 Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. A critics| 
 snd historical examination. From volume II. of " The Gods and BeUglont. 
 no laige pagea. Cloth, 91*50. 
 
 From Behind the Bars. A scries of letters written while In prison, 
 Inclading an Open Letter to Samuel Colgate. 700 pages. 12mo. $1.50. 
 
 An Infldel Abroad. A series of letten writun while on a ten weefeP 
 Tisit to Europe. 8S0 pages4l2mo. flJSU. 
 
 What I Bon't Believe, What I Bo BeUeve, Why and 
 Wherefore. (Forthcoming.) 850pp.,l2mo. Paper, 60 cents; cloth, f 1.50. 
 
 Intervovatorles to Jehovah. Being 8,000 questions propounded to 
 his JewlahGodship. upon a great variety of subjects 260 pages. 12mo. Paper, 
 BO cents; cloth, 75. 
 
 Thirty Dlscnsslons, Bible Stories, Essays, and I^ectares. 
 VJO pages. Paper, 75 cents; cloth, $1. 
 
 TheMomphreyBennett Blsensslon; or, Christtanltyaad b. 
 fidelity Compared. Between the Bev. G.H. Humphrey and D.M. Bennett, 
 no pages, fl. 
 
 ■ The Bennett-Teed Blscnnslon. Proposition: Jesus is the IM 
 God. creator of heaven and earth. Teed for. Bennett against. Paper, »o«ilw 
 cloth, SO cents. 
 
 Beacon Shldmore's I^etters. First Deacon of Zlon »»» BfJ«J 
 ch«rch.giylng-church incidents and his progress from orthodoxy lo Uberai- 
 tam. Paper. SO cents; cloth, 75 cents. 
 . Anthony Comstock, His Career of Cruelty and Crime. »eentfc 
 
 TheCU^dsofSaperstltlon. Scents. 
 
 The Great Religions of the World. lOcentfc 
 
 Open IiCtter to Samnel Colgate. 10 cents. 
 
 Eighth and I^ast liCtter from I^ndlowStreet JalL 10 lt^ 
 
 letters from the Albany Penitentiary. 25 G«iitt. 
 
 Jesos Christ Considered as an InfideL 10 cents. 
 
 Matter, Motion, lilfe and Blind. 10 centa. 
 
 . \n Hour with the Be vll. 10 cents. 
 
 rHnfnl Saints and Sensnal Shepherds. lOeenn. 
 
 A %neat <|nestlons and B[onest Ansi^ert. •< 
 
 ■ 
 
li^c, 
 
 } 
 
 W** 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 025992791 
 
 ^^^ 1 1 1933