A SHORTER CATECHISM.

_Question_. Who made you?

_Answer_. Jehovah, the original Presbyterian.

_Question_. What else did he make?

_Answer_. He made the world and all things.

_Question_. Did he make the world out of nothing?

_Answer_. No.

_Question_. What did he make it out of?

_Answer_. Out of his "omnipotence." Many infidels

have pretended that if God made the universe, and if

there was nothing until he did make it, he had nothing

to make it out of. Of course this is perfectly absurd

when we remember that he always had his "omnipo-

tence and that is, undoubtedly, the material used.

364

_Question_. Did he create his own "omnipotence"?

_Answer_. Certainly not, he was always omnipo-

tent.

_Question_. Then if he always had "omnipotence,"

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

verse is made; he simply took a portion of his

"omnipotence" and changed it to "universe"?

_Answer_. Certainly, that is the way I under-

stand it.

_Question_. Is he still omnipotent, and has he as

much "omnipotence" now as he ever had?

_Answer_. Well, I suppose he has.

_Question_. How long did it take God to make the

universe?

_Answer_. Six "good-whiles."

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

_Answer_. That will depend upon the future dis-

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

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

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

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

won't fit.

_Question_. What do you understand by "the

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

_Answer_. Of course the words "morning and

365

"evening" are used figuratively, and mean simply

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

_Question_. On what day did God make vegetation?

_Answer_. On the third day.

_Question_. Was that before the sun was made?

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

_Question_. How did vegetation grow without sun-

light?

_Answer_. My own opinion is, that it was either

"nourished by the glare of volcanoes in the moon

or "it may have gotten sufficient light from rivers

"of molten granite;" or, "sufficient light might have

"been emitted by the crystallization of rocks." It

has been suggested that light might have been fur-

nished by fire-flies and phosphorescent bugs and

worms, but this I regard as going too far.

_Question_. Do you think that light emitted by

rocks would be sufficient to produce trees?

_Answer_. Yes, with the assistance of the "Aurora

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

both, most assuredly.

_Question_. If the light of which you speak was

sufficient, why was the sun made?

_Answer_. To keep time with.

_Question_. What did God make man of?

366

_Answer_. He made man of dust and "omnipo-

"tence."

_Question_. Did he make a woman at the same

time that he made a man?

_Answer_. No; he thought at one time to avoid

the necessity of making a woman, and he caused all

the animals to pass before Adam, to see what he

would call them, and to see whether a fit companion

could be found for him. Among them all, not one

suited Adam, and Jehovah immediately saw that he

would have to make an help-meet on purpose.

_Question_. What was woman made of?

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

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

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

that is because they do not understand Hebrew.

_Question_. What was the object of making woman

out of man's side?

_Answer_. So that a young man would think more

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

father.

_Question_. What did God do with Adam and Eve

after he got them done?

_Answer_. He put them into a garden to see what

they would do.

367

_Question_. Do we know where the Garden of Eden

was, and have we ever found any place where a

"river parted and became into four heads"?

_Answer_. We are not certain where this garden

was, and the river that parted into four heads cannot

at present be found. Infidels have had a great deal

to say about these four rivers, but they will wish

they had even one, one of these days.

_Question_. What happened to Adam and Eve in

the garden?

_Answer_. They were tempted by a snake who was

an exceedingly good talker, and who probably came

in walking on the end of his tail. This supposition

is based upon the fact that, as a punishment, he was

condemned to crawl on his belly. Before that time,

of course, he walked upright.

_Question_. What happened then?

_Answer_. Our first parents gave way, ate of the

forbidden fruit, and in consequence, disease and

death entered the world. Had it not been for this,

there would have been no death and no disease.

Suicide would have been impossible, and a man

could have been blown into a thousand atoms by

dynamite, and the pieces would immediately have

come together again. Fire would have refused to

368

burn and water to drown; there could have been no

hunger, no thirst; all things would have been equally

healthy.

_Question_. Do you mean to say that there would

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

insects, or persons?

_Answer_. Of course.

_Question_. Do you also think that all briers and

thorns sprang from the same source, and that had

the apple not been eaten, no bush in the world

would have had a thorn, and brambles and thistles

would have been unknown?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Would there have been no poisonous

plants, no poisonous reptiles?

_Answer_. No, sir; there would have been none;

there would have been no evil in the world if Adam

and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit.

_Question_. Was the snake who tempted them to

eat, evil?

_Answer_. Certainly. '

_Question_. Was he in the world before the for-

bidden fruit was eaten?

_Answer_. Of course he was; he tempted them to

eat it

369

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

that, before the forbidden fruit was eaten, an evil

serpent was in the world?

_Answer_. Perhaps apples had been eaten in other

worlds.

_Question_. Is it not wonderful that such awful con-

sequences flowed from so small an act?

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

should simply remember that God is omnipotent.

There is but one way to answer these things, and

that is to admit their truth. Nothing so puts the

Infinite out of temper as to see a human being

impudent enough to rely upon his reason. The

moment we rely upon our reason, we abandon God,

and try to take care of ourselves. Whoever relies

entirely upon God, has no need of reason, and

reason has no need of him.

_Question_. Were our first parents under the im-

mediate protection of an infinite God?

_Answer_. They were.

_Question_. Why did he not protect them? Why

did he not warn them of this snake? Why did he

not put them on their guard? Why did he not

make them so sharp, intellectually, that they could

not be deceived? Why did he not destroy that

370

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

he make him for?

_Answer_. You must remember that, although God

made Adam and Eve perfectly good, still he was very

anxious to test them. He also gave them the power

of choice, knowing at the same time exactly what they

would choose, and knowing that he had made them

so that they must choose in a certain way. A being

of infinite wisdom tries experiments. Knowing ex-

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

_Question_. What punishment did God inflict upon

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

bidden fruit?

_Answer_. He pronounced a curse upon the woman,

saying that in sorrow she should bring forth children,

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

having tempted her husband, was made his slave;

and through her, all married women have been de-

prived of their natural liberty. On account of the

sin of Adam and Eve, God cursed the ground, saying

that it should bring forth thorns and thistles, and

that man should eat his bread in sorrow, and that he

should eat the herb of the field.

_Question_. Did he turn them out of the garden

because of their sin?

371

_Answer_. No. The reason God gave for turning

them out of the garden was: "Behold the man is

"become as one of us, to know good and evil; and

"now, lest he put forth his hand and take of the

"tree of life and eat and live forever, therefore, the

"Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden

"to till the ground from whence he was taken."

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

would he have lived forever?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Was he turned out to prevent his

eating?

_Answer_. He was.

_Question_. Then the Old Testament tells us how we

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

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

_Question_. Was God afraid that Adam and Eve

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

of the tree of life?

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

"ubim and a flaming sword which turned every

"way to guard the tree of life."

_Question_. Has any one ever seen any of these

cherubim?

_Answer_. Not that I know of.

372

_Question_. Where is the flaming sword now?

_Answer_. Some angel has it in heaven.

_Question_. Do you understand that God made

coats of skins, and clothed Adam and Eve when

he turned them out of the garden?

_Answer_. Yes, sir.

_Question_. Do you really believe that the infinite

God killed some animals, took their skins from them,

cut out and sewed up clothes for Adam and Eve?

_Answer_. The Bible says so; we know that he

had patterns for clothes, because he showed some

to Moses on Mount Sinai.

_Question_. About how long did God continue

to pay particular attention to his children in this

world?

_Answer_. For about fifteen hundred years; and

some of the people lived to be nearly a thousand

years of age.

_Question_. Did this God establish any schools or

institutions of learning? Did he establish any church?

Did he ordain any ministers, or did he have any re-

vivals?

_Answer_. No; he allowed the world to go on

pretty much in its own way. He did not even keep

his own boys at home. They came down and made

373

love to the daughters of men, and finally the world

got exceedingly bad.

_Question_. What did God do then?

_Answer_. He made up his mind that he would drown

them. You see they were all totally depraved,--in

every joint and sinew of their bodies, in every drop

of their blood, and in every thought of their brains.

_Question_. Did he drown them all?

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

_Question_. Were these eight persons totally de-

praved?

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Why did he not kill them, and start

over again with a perfect pair? Would it not have

been better to have had his flood at first, before he

made anybody, and drowned the snake?

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

besides, you must remember that "a thousand years

"are as one day" with God.

_Question_. How did God destroy the people?

_Answer_. By water; it rained forty days and forty

nights, and "the fountains of the great deep were

"broken up."

_Question_. How deep was the water?

_Answer_. About five miles.

374

_Question_. How much did it rain each day?

_Answer_. About eight hundred feet; though the

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

fidels have raised objections and pressed them to that

degree that most orthodox people admit that the

flood was rather local.

_Question_. If it was a local flood, why did they put

birds of the air into the ark? Certainly, birds could

have avoided a local flood?

_Answer_. If you take this away from us, what do

you propose to give us in its place? Some of the

best people of the world have believed this story.

Kind husbands, loving mothers, and earnest patriots

have believed it, and that is sufficient.

_Question_. At the time God made these people,

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

_Answer_. Of course he did.

_Question_. Did he know when he made them that

they would all be failures?

_Answer_. Of course.

_Question_. Why, then, did he make them?

_Answer_. He made them for his own glory, and

no man should disgrace his parents by denying it.

_Question_. Were the people after the flood just as

bad as they were before?

375

_Answer_. About the same.

_Question_. Did they try to circumvent God?

_Answer_. They did.

_Question_. How?

_Answer_. They got together for the purpose of build-

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

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

to heaven at any time they desired.

_Question_. Did God hear about this?

_Answer_. He did.

_Question_. What did he say?

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

see what the people are doing; I am satisfied they

will succeed.

_Question_. How were the people prevented from

succeeding?

_Answer_. God confounded their language, so that

the mason on top could not cry "mort'!" to the

hod-carrier below; he could not think of the word

to use, to save his life, and the building stopped.

_Question_. If it had not been for the confusion of

tongues at Babel, do you really think that all the

people in the world would have spoken just the same

language, and would have pronounced every word

precisely the same?

376

_Answer_. Of course.

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

fusion of languages, spelling books, grammars and

dictionaries would have been useless?

_Answer_. I suppose so.

_Question_. Do any two people in the whole world

speak the same language, now?

_Answer_. Of course they don't, and this is one of

the great evidences that God introduced confusion

into the languages. Every error in grammar, every

mistake in spelling, every blunder in pronunciation,

proves the truth of the Babel story.

_Question_. This being so, this miracle is the best

attested of all?

_Answer_. I suppose it is.

_Question_. Do you not think that a confusion of

tongues would bring men together instead of separa-

ting them? Would not a man unable to converse

with his fellow feel weak instead of strong; and

would not people whose language had been con-

founded cling together for mutual support?

_Answer_. According to nature, yes; according to

theology, no; and these questions must be answered

according to theology. And right here, it may be

well enough to state, that in theology the unnatural

377

is the probable, and the impossible is what has always

happened. If theology were simply natural, anybody

could be a theologian.

_Question_. Did God ever make any other special

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

_Answer_. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodom

and Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.

_Question_. Do you suppose it was really brim-

stone?

_Answer_. Undoubtedly.

_Question_. Do you think this brimstone came from

the clouds?

_Answer_. Let me tell you that you have no right

to examine the Bible in the light of what people are

pleased to call "science." The natural has nothing

to do with the supernatural. Naturally there would

be no brimstone in the clouds, but supernaturally

there might be. God could make brimstone out of

his "omnipotence." We do not know really what

brimstone is, and nobody knows exactly how brim-

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

in the world might have fallen at that time.

_Question_. Do you think that Lot's wife was

changed into salt?

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

378

formed. A few centuries ago, the statue of salt made

by changing Lot's wife into that article, was standing.

Christian travelers have seen it.

_Question_. Why do you think she was changed

into salt?

_Answer_. For the purpose of keeping the event

fresh in the minds of men.

_Question_. God having failed to keep people in-

nocent in a garden; having failed to govern them

outside of a garden; having failed to reform them by

water; having failed to produce any good result by a

confusion of tongues; having failed to reform them

with fire and brimstone, what did he then do?

_Answer_. He concluded that he had no time to

waste on them all, but that he would have to select

one tribe, and turn his entire attention to just a few

folks.

_Question_. Whom did he select?

_Answer_. A man by the name of Abram.

_Question_. What kind of man was Abram?

_Answer_. If you wish to know, read the twelfth

chapter of Genesis; and if you still have any doubts

as to his character, read the twentieth chapter of the

same book, and you will see that he was a man who

made merchandise of his wife's body. He had had

379

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

ment again on Abimelech.

_Question_. Did Abraham show any gratitude?

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

show his confidence in Jehovah.

_Question_. What became of Abraham and his

people?

_Answer_. God took such care of them, that in

about two hundred and fifteen years they were all

slaves in the land of Egypt.

_Question_. How long did they remain in slavery?

_Answer_. Two hundred and fifteen years.

_Question_. Were they the same people that God

had promised to take care of?

_Answer_. They were.

_Question_. Was God at that time, in favor of

slavery?

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

Egyptians for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwards

authorized the Jews to enslave other people.

_Question_. What means did he take to liberate

the Jews?

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

manded their freedom; and upon Pharaoh s refusing,

he afflicted the people, who had nothing to do with

380

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

mented and tortured beasts.

_Question_. Was such conduct Godlike?

_Answer_. Certainly. If you have anything against

your neighbor, it is perfectly proper to torture his

horse, or torment his dog. Nothing can be nobler

than this. You see it is much better to injure his

animals than to injure him. To punish animals for

the sins of their owners must be just, or God would

not have done it. Pharaoh insisted on keeping the

people in slavery, and therefore God covered the

bodies of oxen and cows with boils. He also bruised

them to death with hailstones. From this we infer,

that "the loving kindness of God is over all his works."

_Question_. Do you consider such treatment of ani-

mals consistent with divine mercy?

_Answer_. Certainly. You know that under the

Mosaic dispensation, when a man did a wrong, he

could settle with God by killing an ox, or a sheep,

or some doves. If the man failed to kill them, of

course God would kill them. It was upon this prin-

ciple that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians.

They had sinned, and he merely took his pay.

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

pensation, to please a being of infinite kindness?

381

_Answer_. All you had to do was to take an innocent

animal, bring it to the altar, cut its throat, and sprinkle

the altar with its blood. Certain parts of it were to be

given to the butcher as his share, and the rest was to

be burnt on the altar. When God saw an animal thus

butchered, and smelt the warm blood mingled with

the odor of burning flesh, he was pacified, and the

smile of forgiveness shed its light upon his face.

Of course, infidels laugh at these things; but what

can you expect of men who have not been "born

"again"? "The carnal mind is enmity with God."

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

duce Pharaoh to liberate the Jews?

_Answer_. He had his agents throw down a cane

in the presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovah

changed this cane into a serpent.

_Question_. Did this convince Pharaoh?

_Answer_. No; he sent for his own magicians.

_Question_. What did they do?

_Answer_. They threw down some canes and they

also were changed into serpents.

_Question_. Did Jehovah change the canes of the

Egyptian magicians into snakes?

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

capable of performing such a miracle.

382

_Question_. If the rod of Aaron was changed into

a serpent in order to convince Pharaoh that God had

sent Aaron and Moses, why did God change the

sticks of the Egyptian magicians into serpents--why

did he discredit his own agents, and render worth-

less their only credentials?

_Answer_. Well, we cannot explain the conduct of

Jehovah; we are perfectly satisfied that it was for

the best. Even in this age of the world God allows

infidels to overwhelm his chosen people with argu-

ments; he allows them to discover facts that his

ministers can not answer, and yet we are satisfied

that in the end God will give the victory to us. All

these things are tests of faith. It is upon this prin-

ciple that God allows geology to laugh at Genesis,

that he permits astronomy apparently to contradict

his holy word.

_Question_. What did God do with these people

after Pharaoh allowed them to go?

_Answer_. Finding that they were not fit to settle

a new country, owing to the fact that when hungry

they longed for food, and sometimes when their lips

were cracked with thirst insisted on having water,

God in his infinite mercy had them marched round

and round, back and forth, through a barren wilder-

383

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

died.

_Question_. Why did he do this?

_Answer_. Because he had promised these people

that he would take them "to a land flowing with

"milk and honey."

_Question_. Was God always patient and kind and

merciful toward his children while they were in the

wilderness?

_Answer_. Yes, he always was merciful and kind

and patient. Infidels have taken the ground that he

visited them with plagues and disease and famine;

that he had them bitten by serpents, and now and

then allowed the ground to swallow a few thousands

of them, and in other ways saw to it that they were

kept as comfortable and happy as was consistent with

good government; but all these things were for their

good; and the fact is, infidels have no real sense of

justice.

_Question_. How did God happen to treat the Is-

raelites in this way, when he had promised Abraham

that he would take care of his progeny, and when he

had promised the same to the poor wretches while

they were slaves in Egypt?

_Answer_. Because God is unchangeable in his na-

384

ture, and wished to convince them that every being

should be perfectly faithful to his promise.

_Question_. Was God driven to madness by the

conduct of his chosen people?

_Answer_. Almost.

_Question_. Did he know exactly what they would

do when he chose them?

_Answer_. Exactly.

_Question_. Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?

_Answer_. They were. They worshiped other gods

--gods made of wood and stone.

_Question_. Is it not wonderful that they were not

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

cles wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness?

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

who must have seen bread rained from heaven; who

saw water gush from the rocks and follow them up hill

and down; who noticed that their clothes did not

wear out, and did not even get shiny at the knees,

while the elbows defied the ravages of time, and

their shoes remained perfect for forty years; it is

wonderful that when they saw the ground open

and swallow their comrades; when they saw God

talking face to face with Moses as a man talks with

his friend; after they saw the cloud by day and the

385

pillar of fire by night,--it is absolutely astonishing

that they had more faith in a golden calf that they

made themselves, than in Jehovah.

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

dence in these miracles?

_Answer_. Because they were there and saw them.

_Question_. Do you think that it is necessary for

us to believe all the miracles of the Old Testament

in order to be saved?

_Answer_. The Old Testament is the foundation of

the New. If the Old Testament is not inspired, then

the New is of no value. If the Old Testament is

inspired, all the miracles are true, and we cannot

believe that God would allow any errors, or false

statements, to creep into an inspired volume, and to

be perpetuated through all these years.

_Question_. Should we believe the miracles, whether

they are reasonable or not?

_Answer_. Certainly; if they were reasonable, they

would not be miracles. It is their unreasonableness

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

possible to have theological faith in anything that

can be demonstrated. It is the office of faith to

believe, not only without evidence, but in spite of

evidence. It is impossible for the carnal mind to

386

believe that Samsons muscle depended upon the

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

"this world foolishness." Neither can the uncon-

verted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel kept by

ravens. Neither can they believe that a barrel would

in and of itself produce meal, or that an earthen pot

could create oil. But to a Christian, in order that a

widow might feed a preacher, the truth of these

stories is perfectly apparent.

_Question_. How should we regard the wonderful

stories of the Old Testament?

_Answer_. They should be looked upon as "types"

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

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

that Jonah is a type of Christ.

_Question_. Do you believe the story of Jonah to

be a true account of a literal fact?

_Answer_. Certainly. You must remember that

Jonah was not swallowed by a whale. God "pre-

"pared a great fish" for that occasion. Neither is it by

any means certain that Jonah was in the belly of

this whale. "He probably stayed in his mouth."

Even if he was in his stomach, it was very easy

for him to defy the ordinary action of gastric juice

by rapidly walking up and down..

387

_Question_. Do you think that Jonah was really in

the whale's stomach?

_Answer_. My own opinion is that he stayed in his

mouth. The only objection to this theory is, that it

is more reasonable than the other and requires less

faith. Nothing could be easier than for God to make

a fish large enough to furnish ample room for one

passenger in his mouth. I throw out this suggestion

simply that you may be able to answer the objections

of infidels who are always laughing at this story.

_Question_. Do you really believe that Elijah went

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

fire?

_Answer_. Of course he did.

_Question_. What was this miracle performed for?

_Answer_. To convince the people of the power of

God.

_Question_. Who saw the miracle?

_Answer_. Nobody but Elisha.

_Question_. Was he convinced before that time?

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

_Question_. Suppose that in these days two men

should leave a town together, and after a while one

of them should come back having on the clothes of

the other, and should account for the fact that he had

388

his friend's clothes by saying that while they were

going along the road together a chariot of fire came

down from heaven drawn by fiery steeds, and there-

upon his friend got into the carriage, threw him his

clothes, and departed,--would you believe it?

_Answer_. Of course things like that don't happen

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

now.

_Question_. Do you mean that he performs no

miracles at the present day?

_Answer_. We cannot say that he does not perform

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

tion to any particular one. Of course he supervises

the affairs of nations and men and does whatever in

his judgment is necessary.

_Question_. Do you think that Samson's strength

depended on the length of his hair?

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

A physiologist might say that a man could not use

the muscle in his hair for lifting purposes, but these

same physiologists could not tell you how you move

a finger, nor how you lift a feather; still, actuated by

the pride of intellect, they insist that the length of a

man's hair could not determine his strength. God

says it did; the physiologist says that it did not; we

389

can not hesitate whom to believe. For the purpose

of avoiding eternal agony I am willing to believe

anything; I am willing to say that strength depends

upon the length of hair, or faith upon the length of

ears. I am perfectly willing to believe that a man

caught three hundred foxes, and put fire brands be-

tween their tails; that he slew thousands with a bone,

and that he made a bee hive out of a lion. I will

believe, if necessary, that when this man's hair was

short he hardly had strength enough to stand, and

that when it was long, he could carry away the gates

of a city, or overthrow a temple filled with people.

If the infidel is right, I will lose nothing by believing,

but if he is wrong, I shall gain an eternity of joy.

If God did not intend that we should believe these

stories, he never would have told them, and why

should a man put his soul in peril by trying to dis-

prove one of the statements of the Lord?

_Question_. Suppose it should turn out that some

of these miracles depend upon mistranslations of the

original Hebrew, should we still believe them?

_Answer_. The safe side is the best side. It is

far better to err on the side of belief, than on the

side of infidelity. God does not threaten anybody

with eternal punishment for believing too much.

390

Danger lies on the side of investigation, on the

side of thought. The perfectly idiotic are absolutely

safe. As they diverge from that point,--as they rise

in the intellectual scale, as the brain develops, as the

faculties enlarge, the danger increases. I know that

some biblical students now take the ground that

Samson caught no foxes,--that he only took sheaves

of wheat that had been already cut and bound, set

them on fire, and threw them into the grain still

standing. If this is what he did, of course there is

nothing miraculous about it, and the value of the

story is lost. So, others contend that Elijah was not

fed by the ravens, but by the Arabs. They tell us

that the Hebrew word standing for "Arab" also

stands for "bird," and that the word really means

"migratory--going from place to place--homeless."

But I prefer the old version. It certainly will do no

harm to believe that ravens brought bread and flesh

to a prophet of God. Where they got their bread

and flesh is none of my business; how they knew

where the prophet was, and recognized him; or how

God talks to ravens, or how he gave them directions,

I have no right to inquire. I leave these questions

to the scientists, the blasphemers, and thinkers.

There are many people in the church anxious to

391

get the miracles out of the Bible, and thousands,

I have no doubt, would be greatly gratified to learn

that there is, in fact, nothing miraculous in Scripture;

but when you take away the miraculous, you take

away the supernatural; when you take away the

supernatural, you destroy the ministry; and when

you take away the ministry, hundreds of thousands

of men will be left without employment.

_Question_. Is it not wonderful that the Egyptians

were not converted by the miracles wrought in their

country?

_Answer_. Yes, they all would have been, if God

had not purposely hardened their hearts to prevent

it. Jehovah always took great delight in furnishing

the evidence, and then hardening the man's heart so

that he would not believe it. After all the miracles

that had been performed in Egypt,--the most won-

derful that were ever done in any country, the

Egyptians were as unbelieving as at first; they pur-

sued the Israelites, knowing that they were protected

by an infinite God, and failing to overwhelm them,

came back and worshiped their own false gods just as

firmly as before. All of which shows the unreason-

ableness of a Pagan, and the natural depravity of

human nature.

392

_Question_. How did it happen that the Canaanites

were never convinced that the Jews were assisted by

Jehovah?

_Answer_. They must have been an exceedingly

brave people to contend so many years with the

chosen people of God. Notwithstanding all their

cities were burned time and time again; notwith-

standing all the men, women and children were put

to the edge of the sword; notwithstanding the taking

of all their cattle and sheep, they went right on

fighting just as valiantly and desperately as ever.

Each one lost his life many times, and was just as

ready for the next conflict. My own opinion is, that

God kept them alive by raising them from the dead

after each battle, for the purpose of punishing the

Jews. God used his enemies as instruments for the

civilization of the Jewish people. He did not wish

to convert them, because they would give him much

more trouble as Jews than they did as Canaanites.

He had all the Jews he could conveniently take care

of. He found it much easier to kill a hundred

Canaanites than to civilize one Jew.

_Question_. How do you account for the fact that

the heathen were not surprised at the stopping of the

sun and moon?

393

_Answer_. They were so ignorant that they had

not the slightest conception of the real cause of

the phenomenon. Had they known the size of

the earth, and the relation it sustained to the other

heavenly bodies; had they known the magnitude of

the sun, and the motion of the moon, they would,

in all probability, have been as greatly astonished as

the Jews were; but being densely ignorant of as-

tronomy, it must have produced upon them not the

slightest impression. But we must remember that

the sun and moon were not stopped for the purpose

of converting these people, but to give Joshua more

time to kill them. As soon as we see clearly the

purpose of Jehovah, we instantly perceive how ad-

mirable were the means adopted.

_Question_. Do you not consider the treatment

of the Canaanites to have been cruel and ferocious?

_Answer_. To a totally depraved man, it does look

cruel; to a being without any good in him,--to one

who has inherited the rascality of many generations,

the murder of innocent women and little children

does seem horrible; to one who is "contaminated in

"all his parts," by original sin,--who was "conceived

"in sin, and brought forth in iniquity," the assassina-

tion of men, and the violation of captive maidens,

394

do not seem consistent with infinite goodness. But

when one has been "born again," when "the love

"of God has been shed abroad in his heart," when

he loves all mankind, when he "overcomes evil with

"good," when he "prays for those who despite-

"fully use him and persecute him,"--to such a man,

the extermination of the Canaanites, the violation

of women, the slaughter of babes, and the destruc-

tion of countless thousands, is the highest evidence

of the goodness, the mercy, and the long-suffering

of God. When a man has been "born again," all

the passages of the Old Testament that appear so

horrible and so unjust to one in his natural state,

become the dearest, the most consoling, and the

most beautiful of truths. The real Christian reads

the accounts of these ancient battles with the greatest

possible satisfaction. To one who really loves his

enemies, the groans of men, the shrieks of women,

and the cries of babes, make music sweeter than the

zephyr's breath.

_Question_. In your judgment, why did God destroy

the Canaanites?

_Answer_. To prevent their contaminating his

chosen people. He knew that if the Jews were

allowed to live with such neighbors, they would

395

finally become as bad as the Canaanites themselves.

He wished to civilize his chosen people, and it was

therefore necessary for him to destroy the heathen.

_Question_. Did God succeed in civilizing the Jews

after he had "removed" the Canaanites?

_Answer_. Well, not entirely. He had to allow the

heathen he had not destroyed to overrun the whole

land and make captives of the Jews. This was done

for the good of his chosen people.

_Question_. Did he then succeed in civilizing them?

_Answer_. Not quite.

_Question_. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizing

them?

_Answer_. Well, we must admit that the experi-

ment never was a conspicuous success. The Jews

were chosen by the Almighty 430 years before he

appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. He was their

direct Governor. He attended personally to their

religion and politics, and gave up a great part of his

valuable time for about two thousand years, to the

management of their affairs; and yet, such was the

condition of the Jewish people, after they had had all

these advantages, that when there arose among them

a perfectly kind, just, generous and honest man, these

people, with whom God had been laboring for so

396

many centuries, deliberately put to death that good

and loving man.

_Question_. Do you think that God really endeav-

ored to civilize the Jews?

_Answer_. This is an exceedingly hard question.

If he had really tried to do it, of course he could

have done it. We must not think of limiting the

power of the infinite. But you must remember that

if he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, if he had

educated them up to the plane of intellectual liberty,

and made them just and kind and merciful, like him-

self, they would not have crucified Christ, and you

can see at once the awful condition in which we

would all be to-day. No atonement could have

been made; and if no atonement had been made,

then, according to the Christian system, the whole

world would have been lost. We must admit that

there was no time in the history of the Jews from

Sinai to Jerusalem, that they would not have put a

man like Christ to death.

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

God's intention that the Jews should become civilized?

_Answer_. We do not know. We can only say

that "God's ways are not our ways." It may be

that God took them in his special charge, for the

397

purpose of keeping them bad enough to make the

necessary sacrifice. That may have been the divine

plan. In any event, it is safer to believe the explana-

tion that is the most unreasonable.

_Question_. Do you think that Christ knew the

Jews would crucify him?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Do you think that when he chose

Judas he knew that he would betray him?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Did he know when Judas went to the

chief priest and made the bargain for the delivery

of Christ?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Why did he allow himself to be be-

trayed, if he knew the plot?

_Answer_. Infidelity is a very good doctrine to live

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

Voltaire.

_Question_. If Christ knew that Judas would betray

him, why did he choose him?

_Answer_. Nothing can exceed the atrocities of the

French Revolution--when they carried a woman

through the streets and worshiped her as the goddess

of Reason.

398

_Question_. Would not the mission of Christ have

been a failure had no one betrayed him?

_Answer_. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and re-

canted on his death-bed, and died a blaspheming

infidel besides.

_Question_. Is it not clear that an atonement was

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

ment could not have been made unless somebody

had betrayed Christ; and unless the Jews had been

wicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?

_Answer_. Of course the atonement had to be

made. It was a part of the "divine plan" that Christ

should be betrayed, and that the Jews should be

wicked enough to kill him. Otherwise, the world

would have been lost.

_Question_. Suppose Judas had understood the

divine plan, what ought he to have done? Should

he have betrayed Christ, or let somebody else do it;

or should he have allowed the world to perish, in-

cluding his own soul?

_Answer_. If you take the Bible away from the

world, "how would it be possible to have witnesses

"sworn in courts;" how would it be possible to ad-

minister justice?

_Question_. If Christ had not been betrayed and

399

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

perdition to-day?

_Answer_. Most assuredly. There was but one

way by which she could be saved, and that was by

the death of her son--through the blood of the

atonement. She was totally depraved through the

sin of Adam, and deserved eternal death. Even her

love for the infant Christ was, in the sight of God,--

that is to say, of her babe,--wickedness. It can not

be repeated too often that there is only one way to

be saved, and that is, to believe in the Lord Jesus

Christ.

_Question_. Could Christ have prevented the Jews

from crucifying him?

_Answer_. He could.

_Question_. If he could have saved his life and did

not, was he not guilty of suicide?

_Answer_. No one can understand these questions

who has not read the prophecies of Daniel, and has

not a clear conception of what is meant by "the full-

"ness of time."

_Question_. What became of all the Canaanites, the

Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and Romans and

Chinese? What became of the billions who died

before the promise was made to Abraham; of the

400

billions and billions who never heard of the Bible,

who never heard the name, even, of Jesus Christ--

never knew of "the scheme of salvation"? What

became of the millions and billions who lived in this

hemisphere, and of whose existence Jehovah himself

seemed perfectly ignorant?

_Answer_. They were undoubtedly lost. God

having made them, had a right to do with them as

he pleased. They are probably all in hell to-day, and

the fact that they are damned, only adds to the joy

of the redeemed. It is by contrast that we are able

to perceive the infinite kindness with which God has

treated us.

_Question_. Is it not possible that something can

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

in this?

_Answer_. No; this is the only world in which

God even attempts to reform anybody. In the

other world, nothing is done for the purpose of

making anybody better. Here in this world, where

man lives but a few days, is the only opportunity

for moral improvement. A minister can do a thou-

sand times more for a soul than its creator; and this

country is much better adapted to moral growth than

heaven itself. A person who lived on this earth a

401

few years, and died without having been converted,

has no hope in another world. The moment he arrives

at the judgment seat, nothing remains but to damn

him. Neither God, nor the Holy Ghost, nor Jesus

Christ, can have the least possible influence with

him there.

_Question_. When God created each human being,

did he know exactly what would be his eternal fate?

_Answer_. Most assuredly he did.

_Question_. Did he know that hundreds and millions

and billions would suffer eternal pain?

_Answer_. Certainly. But he gave them freedom

of choice between good and evil.

_Question_. Did he know exactly how they would

use that freedom?

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Did he know that billions would use

it wrong?

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Was it optional with him whether he

should make such people or not?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Had these people any option as to

whether they would be made or not?

_Answer_, No.

402

_Question_. Would it not have been far better to

leave them unconscious dust?

_Answer_. These questions show how foolish it is

to judge God according to a human standard. What

to us seems just and merciful, God may regard in an

exactly opposite light; and we may hereafter be

developed to such a degree that we will regard the

agonies of the damned as the highest possible evi-

dence of the goodness and mercy of God.

_Question_. How do you account for the fact that

God did not make himself known except to Abra-

ham and his descendants? Why did he fail to

reveal himself to the other nations--nations that,

compared with the Jews, were learned, cultivated

and powerful? Would you regard a revelation now

made to the Esquimaux as intended for us; and

would it be a revelation of which we would be

obliged to take notice?

_Answer_. Of course, God could have revealed him-

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

individual. He could have had the Ten Command-

ments engraved on every heart and brain; or he

could have raised up prophets in every land; but

he chose, rather, to allow countless millions of his

children to wander in the darkness and blackness of

403

Nature; chose, rather, that they should redden their

hands in each other's blood; chose, rather, that they

should live without light, and die without hope;

chose, rather, that they should suffer, not only in this

world, but forever in the next. Of course we have

no right to find fault with the choice of God.

_Question_. Now you can tell a sinner to "believe

"on the Lord Jesus Christ;" what could a sinner have

been told in Egypt, three thousand years ago; and

in what language would you have addressed a Hindu

in the days of Buddha--the "divine scheme" at that

time being a secret in the divine breast?

_Answer_. It is not for us to think upon these

questions. The moment we examine the Christian

system, we begin to doubt. In a little while, we shall

be infidels, and shall lose the respect of those who

refuse to think. It is better to go with the majority.

These doctrines are too sacred to be touched. You

should be satisfied with the religion of your father

and your mother. "You want some book on the

"centre-table," in the parlor; it is extremely handy

to have a Family Record; and what book, other than

the Bible, could a mother give a son as he leaves the

old homestead?

_Question_. Is it not wonderful that all the writers

404

of the four gospels do not give an account of the

ascension of Jesus Christ?

_Answer_. This question has been answered long

ago, time and time again.

_Question_. Perhaps it has, but would it not be

well enough to answer it once more? Some may

not have seen the answer?

_Answer_. Show me the hospitals that infidels

have built; show me the asylums that infidels

have founded.

_Question_. I know you have given the usual an-

swer; but after all, is it not singular that a miracle

so wonderful as the bodily ascension of a man, should

not have been mentioned by all the writers of that

man's life? Is it not wonderful that some of them

said that he did ascend, and others that he agreed to

stay with his disciples always?

_Answer_. People unacquainted with the Hebrew,

can have no conception of these things. A story

in plain English, does not sound as it does in Hebrew.

Miracles seem altogether more credible, when told in

a dead language.

_Question_. What, in your judgment, became of

the dead who were raised by Christ? Is it not

singular that they were never mentioned afterward?

405

Would not a man who had been raised from the

dead naturally be an object of considerable interest,

especially to his friends and acquaintances? And

is it not also wonderful that Christ, after having

wrought so many miracles, cured so many lame and

halt and blind, fed so many thousands miraculously,

and after having entered Jerusalem in triumph as a

conqueror and king, had to be pointed out by one

of his own disciples who was bribed for the purpose?

_Answer_. Of course, all these things are exceed-

ingly wonderful, and if found in any other book,

would be absolutely incredible; but we have no

right to apply the same kind of reasoning to the

Bible that we apply to the Koran or to the sacred

books of the Hindus. For the ordinary affairs of

this world, God has given us reason; but in the

examination of religious questions, we should de-

pend upon credulity and faith.

_Question_. If Christ came to offer himself a sacri-

fice, for the purpose of making atonement for the

sins of such as might believe on him, why did he

not make this fact known to all of his disciples?

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

_Question_. How is it that Matthew says nothing

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

406

will be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgive

the forgiving, and says not one word about the

necessity of believing anything?

_Answer_. But you will remember that Mark says,

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

"lieveth not shall be damned."

_Question_. Do you admit that Matthew says

nothing on the subject?

_Answer_. Yes, I suppose I must.

_Question_. Is not that passage in Mark generally

admitted to be an interpolation?

_Answer_. Some biblical scholars say that it is.

_Question_. Is that portion of the last chapter of

Mark found in the Syriac version of the Bible?

_Answer_. It is not.

_Question_. If it was necessary to believe on Jesus

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

failed to say so?

_Answer_. "There are more copies of the Bible

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

"and it is printed in more languages than any other

"book."

_Question_. Do you consider it necessary to be

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

saved?

407

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Did Matthew say anything on the sub-

ject of "regeneration"?

_Answer_. No.

_Question_. Did Mark?

_Answer_. No.

_Question_. Did Luke?

_Answer_. No.

_Question_. Is Saint John the only one who speaks

of the necessity of being "born again"?

_Answer_. He is.

_Question_. Do you think that Matthew, Mark and

Luke knew anything about the necessity of "regen-

"eration"?

_Answer_. Of course they did.

_Question_. Why did they fail to speak of it?

_Answer_. There is no civilization without the Bible.

The moment you throw away the sacred Scriptures,

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

without a compass.

_Question_. You will remember that, according to

Mark, Christ said to his disciples: "Go ye into all

"the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Did he refer to the gospel set forth by Mark?

_Answer_. Of course he did.

408

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

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

word about the necessity of believing anything--ex-

cept in an interpolated passage. Would it not seem

from this, that "regeneration" and a "belief in the

"Lord Jesus Christ," are no part of the gospel?

_Answer_. Nothing can exceed in horror the last

moments of the infidel; nothing can be more ter-

rible than the death of the doubter. When the

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

bition becomes an empty name; when wealth turns

to dust in the palsied hand of death, of what use is

philosophy then? Who cares then for the pride of

intellect? In that dread moment, man needs some-

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

_Question_. Would it not have been more con-

vincing if Christ, after his resurrection, had shown

himself to his enemies as well as to his friends?

Would it not have greatly strengthened the evidence

in the case, if he had visited Pilate; had presented

himself before Caiaphas, the high priest; if he had

again entered the temple, and again walked the

streets of Jerusalem?

_Answer_. If the evidence had been complete and

overwhelming, there would have been no praise-

409

worthiness in belief; even publicans and sinners

would have believed, if the evidence had been suffi-

cient. The amount of evidence required is the test

of the true Christian spirit.

_Question_. Would it not also have been better

had the ascension taken place in the presence of

unbelieving thousands; it seems such a pity to have

wasted such a demonstration upon those already

convinced?

_Answer_. These questions are the natural fruit of

the carnal mind, and can be accounted for only by

the doctrine of total depravity. Nothing has given

the church more trouble than just such questions.

Unholy curiosity, a disposition to pry into the divine

mysteries, a desire to know, to investigate, to explain

--in short, to understand, are all evidences of a re-

probate mind.

_Question_. How can we account for the fact that

Matthew alone speaks of the wise men of the East

coming with gifts to the infant Christ; that he alone

speaks of the little babes being killed by Herod? Is

it possible that the other writers never heard of these

things?

_Answer_. Nobody can get any good out of the

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

410

dictions and discrepancies are only apparent, and melt

away before the light of faith. That which in other

books would be absolute and palpable contradiction,

is, in the Bible, when spiritually discerned, a perfect

and beautiful harmony. My own opinion is, that

seeming contradictions are in the Bible for the pur-

pose of testing and strengthening the faith of Chris-

tians, and for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels,

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

_Question_. Is it possible that a good God would

take pains to deceive his children?

_Answer_. The Bible is filled with instances of that

kind, and all orthodox ministers now know that

fossil animals--that is, representations of animals in

stone, were placed in the rocks on purpose to mis-

lead men like Darwin and Humboldt, Huxley and

Tyndall. It is also now known that God, for the

purpose of misleading the so-called men of science,

had hairy elephants preserved in ice, made stomachs

for them, and allowed twigs of trees to be found in

these stomachs, when, as a matter of fact, no such

elephants ever lived or ever died. These men who

are endeavoring to overturn the Scriptures with the

lever of science will find that they have been de-

ceived. Through all eternity they will regret their

411

philosophy. They will wish, in the next world, that

they had thrown away geology and physiology and

all other "ologies" except theology. The time is

coming when Jehovah will "mock at their fears and

"laugh at their calamity."

_Question_. If Joseph was not the father of Christ,

why was his genealogy given to show that Christ

was of the blood of David; why would not the

genealogy of any other Jew have done as well?

_Answer_. That objection was raised and answered

hundreds of years ago.

_Question_. If they wanted to show that Christ was of

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

alogy of his mother if Joseph was not his father?

_Answer_. That objection was answered hundreds

of years ago.

_Question_. How was it answered?

_Answer_. When Voltaire was dying, he sent for a

priest.

_Question_. How does it happen that the two gene-

alogies given do not agree?

_Answer_. Perhaps they were written by different

persons.

_Question_. Were both these persons inspired by

the same God?

412

_Answer_. Of course.

_Question_. Why were the miracles recorded in the

New Testament performed?

_Answer_. The miracles were the evidence relied

on to prove the supernatural origin and the divine

mission of Jesus Christ.

_Question_. Aside from the miracles, is there any

evidence to show the supernatural origin or character

of Jesus Christ?

_Answer_. Some have considered that his moral

precepts are sufficient, of themselves, to show that

he was divine.

_Question_. Had all of his moral precepts been

taught before he lived?

_Answer_. The same things had been said, but they

did not have the same meaning.

_Question_. Does the fact that Buddha taught the

same tend to show that he was of divine origin?

_Answer_. Certainly not. The rules of evidence

applicable to the Bible are not applicable to other

books. We examine other books in the light of

reason; the Bible is the only exception. So, we

should not judge of Christ as we do of any other

man.

_Question_. Do you think that Christ wrought

413

many of his miracles because he was good, charitable,

and filled with pity?

_Answer_. Certainly

_Question_. Has he as much power now as he had

when on earth?

_Answer_. Most assuredly.

_Question_. Is he as charitable and pitiful now, as

he was then?

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Why does he not now cure the lame

and the halt and the blind?

_Answer_. It is well known that, when Julian the

Apostate was dying, catching some of his own blood

in his hand and throwing it into the air he exclaimed:

"Galileean, thou hast conquered!"

_Question_. Do you consider it our duty to love our

neighbor?

_Answer_. Certainly.

_Question_. Is virtue the same in all worlds?

_Answer_. Most assuredly.

_Question_. Are we under obligation to render good

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

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Will Christians in heaven love their

neighbors?

414

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

_Question_. Do good Christians pity sinners in this

world?

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Why?

_Answer_. Because they regard them as being in

great danger of the eternal wrath of God.

_Question_. After these sinners have died, and

been sent to hell, will the Christians in heaven then

pity them?

_Answer_. No. Angels have no pity.

_Question_. If we are under obligation to love our

enemies, is not God under obligation to love his?

If we forgive our enemies, ought not God to forgive

his? If we forgive those who injure us, ought not

God to forgive those who have not injured him?

_Answer_. God made us, and he has therefore the

right to do with us as he pleases. Justice demands

that he should damn all of us, and the few that he

will save will be saved through mercy and without

the slightest respect to anything they may have done

themselves. Such is the justice of God, that those

in hell will have no right to complain, and those in

heaven will have no right to be there. Hell is justice,

and salvation is charity.

415

_Question_. Do you consider it possible for a law to

be jusdy satisfied by the punishment of an innocent

person?

_Answer_. Such is the scheme of the atonement.

As man is held responsible for the sin of Adam, so

he will be credited with the virtues of Christ; and

you can readily see that one is exactly as reasonable

as the other.

_Question_. Suppose a man honestly reads the New

Testament, and honestly concludes that it is not an

inspired book; suppose he honestly makes up his

mind that the miracles are not true; that the devil

never really carried Christ to the pinnacle of the

temple; that devils were really never cast out of a

man and allowed to take refuge in swine;--I say,

suppose that he is honestly convinced that these

things are not true, what ought he to say?

_Answer_. He ought to say nothing.

_Question_. Suppose that the same man should read

the Koran, and come to the conclusion that it is not

an inspired book; what ought he to say?

_Answer_. He ought to say that it is not inspired;

his fellow-men are entitled to his honest opinion, and

it is his duty to do what he can do to destroy a per-

nicious superstition.

416

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

having become convinced that it is not inspired--

honestly convinced--says nothing--keeps his con-

clusion absolutely to himself, and suppose he dies in

that belief, can he be saved?

_Answer_. Certainly not.

_Question_. Has the honesty of his belief anything

to do with his future condition?

_Answer_. Nothing whatever.,

_Question_. Suppose that he tried to believe, that

he hated to disagree with his friends, and with his

parents, but that in spite of himself he was forced to

the conclusion that the Bible is not the inspired word

of God, would he then deserve eternal punishment?

_Answer_. Certainly he would.

_Question_. Can a man control his belief?

_Answer_. He cannot--except as to the Bible.

_Question_. Do you consider it just in God to

create a man who cannot believe the Bible, and then

damn him because he does not?

_Answer_. Such is my belief.

_Question_. Is it your candid opinion that a man

who does not believe the Bible should keep his

belief a secret from his fellow-men?

_Answer_. It is.

417

_Question_. How do I know that you believe the

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

lieve it, you would not tell me?

_Answer_. There is no way for you to ascertain,

except by taking my word for it.

_Question_. What will be the fate of a man who

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

_Answer_. He will be damned.

_Question_. Then hypocrisy will not save him?

_Answer_. No.

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

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

not save him?

_Answer_. No. Honesty on the wrong side is no

better than hypocrisy on the right side.

_Question_. Do we know who wrote the gospels?

_Answer_. Yes; we do.

_Question_. Are we absolutely sure who wrote

them?

_Answer_. Of course; we have the evidence as it

has come to us through the Catholic Church.

_Question_. Can we rely upon the Catholic Church

now?

_Answer_. No; assuredly no! But we have the

testimony of Polycarp and Irenaeus and Clement,

418

and others of the early fathers, together with that of

the Christian historian, Eusebius.

_Question_. What do we really know about Polycarp?

_Answer_. We know that he suffered martyrdom un-

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

refused to burn his body, the flames arching over him,

leaving him in a kind of fiery tent; and we also know

that from his body came a fragrance like frankincense,

and that the Pagans were so exasperated at seeing

the miracle, that one of them thrust a sword through

the body of Polycarp; that the blood flowed out and

extinguished the flames and that out of the wound

flew the soul of the martyr in the form of a dove.

_Question_. Is that all we know about Polycarp?

_Answer_. Yes, with the exception of a few more

like incidents.

_Question_. Do we know that Polycarp ever met

St. John?

_Answer_. Yes; Eusebius says so.

_Question_. Are we absolutely certain that he ever

lived?

_Answer_. Yes, or Eusebius could not have written

about him.

_Question_. Do we know anything of the character

of Eusebius?

419

_Answer_. Yes; we know that he was untruthful

only when he wished to do good. But God can use

even the dishonest. Other books have to be sub-

stantiated by truthful men, but such is the power of

God, that he can establish the inspiration of the Bible

by the most untruthful witnesses. If God's witnesses

were honest, anybody could believe, and what be-

comes of faith, one of the greatest virtues?

_Question_. Is the New Testament now the same as

it was in the days of the early fathers?

_Answer_. Certainly not. Many books now thrown

out, and not esteemed of divine origin, were esteemed

divine by Polycarp and Irenaeus and Clement and

many of the early churches. These books are now

called "apocryphal."

_Question_. Have you not the same witnesses in

favor of their authenticity, that you have in favor of

the gospels?

_Answer_. Precisely the same. Except that they

were thrown out.

_Question_. Why were they thrown out?

_Answer_. Because the Catholic Church did not es-

teem them inspired.

_Question_. Did the Catholics decide for us which

are the true gospels and which are the true epistles?

420

_Answer_. Yes. The Catholic Church was then the

only church, and consequently must have been the

true church.

_Question_. How did the Catholic Church select the

true books?

_Answer_. Councils were called, and votes were

taken, very much as we now pass resolutions in

political meetings.

_Question_. Was the Catholic Church infallible then?

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

_Question_. If the Catholic Church at that time

had thrown out the book of Revelation, would it

now be our duty to believe that book to have been

inspired?

_Answer_. No, I suppose not.

_Question_. Is it not true that some of these books

were adopted by exceedingly small majorities?

_Answer_. It is.

_Question_. If the Epistle to the Hebrews and to

the Romans, and the book of Revelation had been

thrown out, could a man now be saved who honestly

believes the rest of the books?

_Answer_. This is doubtful.

_Question_. Were the men who picked out the in-

spired books inspired?

421

_Answer_. We cannot tell, but the probability is

that they were.

_Question_. Do we know that they picked out the

right ones?

_Answer_. Well, not exactly, but we believe that

they did.

_Question_. Are we certain that some of the books

that were thrown out were not inspired?

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

them carefully.

_Question_. If upon reading these apocryphal books

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

damned for that reason?

_Answer_. No. Certainly not.

_Question_. If he concludes that some of them are

inspired, and believes them, will he then be damned

for that belief?

_Answer_. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned for

believing too much.

_Question_. Does the fact that the books now com-

prising the New Testament were picked out by the

Catholic Church prevent their being examined now

by an honest man, as they were examined at the time

they were picked out?

422

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

clusion that they are inspired.

_Question_. Does the fact that the Catholic Church

picked them out and declared them to be inspired,

render it a crime to examine them precisely as you

would examine the books that the Catholic Church

threw out and declared were not inspired?

_Answer_. I think it does.

_Question_. At the time the council was held in which

it was determined which of the books of the New

Testament are inspired, a respectable minority voted

against some that were finally decided to be inspired.

If they were honest in the vote they gave, and died

without changing their opinions, are they now in hell?

_Answer_. Well, they ought to be.

_Question_. If those who voted to leave the book

of Revelation out of the canon, and the gospel of

Saint John out of the canon, believed honestly that

these were not inspired books, how should they have

voted?

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

he honestly believes--except in matters of religion.

_Question_. If the Catholic Church was not infal-

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

and what are not, inspired?

423

_Answer_. I suppose the question is still open--

but it would be dangerous to decide it.

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

and come to the conclusion that some that were

thrown out were inspired, and some that were ac-

cepted were not inspired, ought I to say so?

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

father, or calculated to interfere with your own po-

litical prospects.

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

Bible books that are uninspired as to reject those

that are inspired?

_Answer_. Well, it is a crime to reject an inspired

book, no matter how unsatisfactory the evidence is

for its inspiration, but it is not a crime to receive an

uninspired book. God damns nobody for believing

too much. An excess of credulity is simply to err in

the direction of salvation.

_Question_. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspira-

tion of the New Testament--believes it to be entirely

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

lieves--but not from any evidence obtained in the New

Testament--that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and

that he made atonement for his soul, can he then be

saved without a belief in the inspiration of the Bible?

424

_Answer_. This has not yet been decided by

our church, and I do not wish to venture an

opinion.

_Question_. Suppose a man denies the inspiration

of the Scriptures; suppose that he also denies the

divinity of Jesus Christ; and suppose, further, that

he acts precisely as Christ is said to have acted;

suppose he loves his enemies, prays for those who

despitefully use him, and does all the good he pos-

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

saved?

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

"given under heaven and among men," whereby a

sinner can be saved but the name of Christ.

_Question_. Then it is your opinion that God

would save a murderer who believed in Christ, and

would damn another man, exactly like Christ, who

failed to believe in him?

_Answer_. Yes; because we have the blessed

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

"fire."

_Question_. Suppose a man read the Bible care-

fully and honestly, and was not quite convinced that

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

died; what then?

425

_Answer_. I do not believe that God would allow

him to examine the matter in another world, or to

make up his mind in heaven. Of course, he would

eternally perish.

_Question_. Could Christ now furnish evidence

enough to convince every human being of the truth

of the Bible?

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

finite.

_Question_. Are any miracles performed now?

_Answer_. Oh, no!

_Question_. Have we any testimony, except human

testimony, to substantiate any miracle?

_Answer_. Only human testimony.

_Question_. Do all men give the same force to the

same evidence?

_Answer_. By no means.

_Question_. Have all honest men who have exam-

ined the Bible believed it to be inspired?

_Answer_. Of course they have. Infidels are not

honest.

_Question_. Could any additional evidence have

been furnished?

_Answer_. With perfect ease.

_Question_. Would God allow a soul to suffer

426

eternal agony rather than furnish evidence of the

truth of his Bible?

_Answer_. God has furnished plenty of evidence,

and altogether more than was really necessary. We

should read the Bible in a believing spirit.

_Question_. Are all parts of the inspired books

equally true?

_Answer_. Necessarily.

_Question_. According to Saint Matthew, God

promises to forgive all who will forgive others; not

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

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

the truth?

_Answer_. The Bible must be taken as a whole;

and if other conditions are added somewhere else,

then you must comply with those other conditions.

Matthew may not have stated all the conditions.

_Question_. I find in another part of the New

Testament, that a young man came to Christ and

asked him what was necessary for him to do in order

that he might inherit eternal life. Christ did not tell

him that he must believe the Bible, or that he must

believe in him, or that he must keep the Sabbath-

day; was Christ honest with that young man?

_Answer_. Well, I suppose he was.

427

_Question_. You will also recollect that Zaccheus

said to Christ, that where he had wronged any man

he had made restitution, and further, that half his

goods he had given to the poor; and you will re-

member that Christ said to Zaccheus: "This day

"hath salvation come to thy house." Why did not

Christ tell Zaccheus that he "must be born again;"

that he must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"?

_Answer_. Of course there are mysteries in our

holy religion that only those who have been "born

"again" can understand. You must remember that

"the carnal mind is enmity with God."

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

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

or of the "scheme of salvation"?

_Answer_. Well, it may be.

_Question_. Can a man be saved now by living

exactly in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?

_Answer_. He can not.

_Question_. Would then a man, by following the

course of conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermon

on the Mount, lose his soul?

_Answer_. He most certainly would, because there

is not one word in the Sermon on the Mount about

believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; not one word

428

about believing in the Bible; not one word about the

"atonement;" not one word about "regeneration."

So that, if the Presbyterian Church is right, it is abso-

lutely certain that a man might follow the teachings

of the Sermon on the Mount, and live in accordance

with its every word, and yet deserve and receive the

eternal condemnation of God. But we must remem-

ber that the Sermon on the Mount was preached be-

fore Christianity existed. Christ was talking to Jews.

_Question_. Did Christ write anything himself, in

the New Testament?

_Answer_. Not a word.

_Question_. Did he tell any of his disciples to write

any of his words?

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

_Question_. Do we know whether any of the dis-

ciples wrote anything?

_Answer_. Of course they did.

_Question_. How do you know?

_Answer_. Because the gospels bear their names.

_Question_. Are you satisfied that Christ was abso-

lutely God?

_Answer_. Of course he was. We believe that

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

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

429

_Question_. Was Christ the God of the universe at

the time of his birth?

_Answer_. He certainly was.

_Question_. Was he the infinite God, creator

and controller of the entire universe, before he was

born?

_Answer_. Of course he was. This is the mystery

of "God manifest in the flesh." The infidels have

pretended that he was like any other child, and was

in fact supported by Nature instead of being the

supporter of Nature. They have insisted that like

other children, he had to be cared for by his mother.

Of course he appeared to be cared for by his mother.

It was a part of the plan that in all respects he should

appear to be like other children.

_Question_. Did he know just as much before he

was born as after?

_Answer_. If he was God of course he did.

_Question_. How do you account for the fact that

Saint Luke tells us, in the last verse of the second

chapter of his gospel, that "Jesus increased in wis-

"dom and stature"?

_Answer_. That I presume is a figure of speech;

because, if he was God, he certainly could not have

increased in wisdom. The physical part of him could

430

increase in stature, but the intellectual part must have

been infinite all the time.

_Question_. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?

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

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

figurative or symbolical.

_Question_. Did I understand you to say that Christ

was actually God?

_Answer_. Of course he was.

_Question_. Then why did Luke say in the same

verse of the same chapter that "Jesus increased in

"favor with God"?

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

self and read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John!

_Question_. Is it necessary to understand the Bible

in order to be saved?

_Answer_. Certainly not; it is only necessary that

you believe it.

_Question_. Is it necessary to believe all the

miracles?

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

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

had better believe them all.

_Question_. Then you regard belief as the safe

way?

431

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

world than to be damned in the next.

_Question_. Do you think that there are any cruel-

ties on God's part recorded in the Bible?

_Answer_. At first flush, many things done by God

himself, as well as by his prophets, appear to be

cruel; but if we examine them closely, we will find

them to be exactly the opposite.

_Question_. How do you explain the story of Elisha

and the children,--where the two she-bears destroyed

forty-two children on account of their impudence?

_Answer_. This miracle, in my judgment, estab-

lishes two things: 1. That children should be polite

to ministers, and 2. That God is kind to animals--

"giving them their meat in due season." These

bears have been great educators--they are the

foundation of the respect entertained by the young

for theologians. No child ever sees a minister now

without thinking of a bear.

_Question_. What do you think of the story of

Daniel--you no doubt remember it? Some men

told the king that Daniel was praying contrary to

law, and thereupon Daniel was cast into a den of

lions; but the lions could not touch him, their

mouths having been shut by angels. The next

432

morning, the king, finding that Daniel was still

intact, had him taken out; and then, for the purpose

of gratifying Daniels God, the king had all the men

who had made the complaint against Daniel, and

their wives and their little children, brought and cast

into the lions' den. According to the account, the

lions were so hungry that they caught these wives

and children as they dropped, and broke all their

bones in pieces before they had even touched the

ground. Is it not wonderful that God failed to pro-

tect these innocent wives and children?

_Answer_. These wives and children were heathen;

they were totally depraved. And besides, they were

used as witnesses. The fact that they were devoured

with such quickness shows that the lions were

hungry. Had it not been for this, infidels would

have accounted for the safety of Daniel by saying

that the lions had been fed.

_Question_. Do you believe that Shadrach, Meshach

and Abednego were cast "into a burning fiery furnace

"heated one seven times hotter than it was wont to

"be heated," and that they had on "their coats, their

"hosen and their hats," and that when they came

out "not a hair of their heads was singed, nor was

"the smell of fire upon their garments"?

433

_Answer_. The evidence of this miracle is exceed-

ingly satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion of

Nebuchadnezzar.

_Question_. How do you know he was converted?

_Answer_. Because immediately after the miracle

the king issued a decree that "every people, nation

"and language that spoke anything amiss against

"the God of Shadrach and Company, should be cut

"in pieces." This decree shows that he had become

a true disciple and worshiper of Jehovah.

_Question_. If God in those days preserved from

the fury of the fire men who were true to him and

would not deny his name, why is it that he has failed

to protect thousands of martyrs since that time?

_Answer_. This is one of the divine mysteries.

God has in many instances allowed his enemies to

kill his friends. I suppose this was allowed for the

good of his enemies, that the heroism of the mar-

tyrs might convert them.

_Question_. Do you believe all the miracles?

_Answer_. I believe them all, because I believe the

Bible to be inspired.

_Question_. What makes you think it is inspired?

_Answer_. I have never seen anybody who knew

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

434

_Question_. Have you any other reasons for be-

lieving it to be inspired?

_Answer_. Yes; there are more copies of the Bible

printed than of any other book; and it is printed in

more languages. And besides, it would be impossible

to get along without it.

_Question_. Why could we not get along without it?

_Answer_. We would have nothing to swear wit-

nesses by; no book in which to keep the family

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

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

without the Bible.

_Question_. Did God always know that a Bible was

necessary to civilize a country?

_Answer_. Certainly he did.

_Question_. Why did he not give a Bible to

the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and the

Romans?

_Answer_. It is astonishing what perfect fools in-

fidels are.

_Question_. Why do you call infidels "fools"?

_Answer_. Because I find in the fifth chapter of the

gospel according to Matthew the following: "Who-

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

"hell fire."

435

_Question_. Have I the right to read the Bible?

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

it is your duty.

_Question_. In reading the Bible the words make

certain impressions on my mind. These impressions

depend upon my brain,--upon my intelligence. Is

not this true?

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

pressions are made upon your mind.

_Question_. Can I control these impressions?

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

remain in a sinful state.

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

_Answer_. You must believe on the Lord Jesus

Christ, and you must read the Bible in a prayerful

spirit and with a believing heart.

_Question_. Suppose that doubts force themselves

upon my mind?

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

ner, and that you are depraved.

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

have I the right to try to understand it?

_Answer_. Most assuredly.

_Question_. Do you admit that I have the right to

reason about it and to investigate it?

436

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

not help reasoning about what you read.

_Question_. Does the right to read a book include

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

the book contains?

_Answer_. Of course,--if the book is not inspired.

Infidels hate the Bible because it is inspired, and

Christians know that it is inspired because infidels

say that it is not.

_Question_. Have I the right to decide for myself

whether or not the book is inspired?

_Answer_. You have no right to deny the truth of

God's Holy Word.

_Question_. Is God the author of all books?

_Answer_. Certainly not.

_Question_. Have I the right to say that God did

not write the Koran?

_Answer_. Yes.

_Question_. Why?

_Answer_. Because the Koran was written by an

impostor.

_Question_. How do you know?

_Answer_. My reason tells me so.

_Question_. Have you the right to be guided by

your reason?

437

_Answer_. I must be.

_Question_. Have you the same right to follow your

reason after reading the Bible?

_Answer_. No. The Bible is the standard of reason.

The Bible is not to be judged or corrected by your

reason. Your reason is to be weighed and measured

by the Bible. The Bible is different from other

books and must not be read in the same critical spirit,

nor judged by the same standard.

_Question_. What did God give us reason for?

_Answer_. So that we might investigate other

religions, and examine other so-called sacred books.

_Question_. If a man honestly thinks that the Bible

is not inspired, what should he say?

_Answer_. He should admit that he is mistaken.

_Question_. When he thinks he is right?

_Answer_. Yes. The Bible is different from other

books. It is the master of reason. You read the

Bible, not to see if that is wrong, but to see

whether your reason is right. It is the only book

about which a man has no right to reason. He must

believe. The Bible is addressed, not to the reason,

but to the ears: "He that hath ears to hear, let

"him hear."

_Question_. Do you think we have the right to tell

438

what the Bible means--what ideas God intended to

convey, or has conveyed to us, through the medium

of the Bible?

_Answer_. Well, I suppose you have that right.

Yes, that must be your duty. You certainly ought

to tell others what God has said to you.

_Question_. Do all men get the same ideas from

the Bible?

_Answer_. No.

_Question_. How do you account for that?

_Answer_. Because all men are not alike; they

differ in intellect, in education, and in experience.

_Question_. Who has the right to decide as to the

real ideas that God intended to convey?

_Answer_. I am a Protestant, and believe in the

right of private judgment. Whoever does not is a

Catholic. Each man must be his own judge, but God

will hold him responsible.

_Question_. Does God believe in the right of private

judgment?

_Answer_. Of course he does.

_Question_. Is he willing that I should exercise my

judgment in deciding whether the Bible is inspired or

not?

_Answer_. No. He believes in the exercise of

439

private judgment only in the examination and rejec-

tion of other books than the Bible.

_Question_. Is he a Catholic?

_Answer_. I cannot answer blasphemy! Let me

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

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

accursed.

_Question_. Why do you curse infidels?

_Answer_. Because I am a Christian.

_Question_. Did not Christ say that we ought to

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

"love our enemies"?

_Answer_. Yes, but he cursed the Pharisees and

called them "hypocrites" and "vipers."

_Question_. How do you account for that?

_Answer_. It simply shows the difference between

theory and practice.

_Question_. What do you consider the best way to

answer infidels.

_Answer_. The old way is the best. You should

say that their arguments are ancient, and have been

answered over and over again. If this does not

satisfy your hearers, then you should attack the

character of the infidel--then that of his parents--

then that of his children.

440

_Question_. Suppose that the infidel is a good man,

how will you answer him then?

_Answer_. But an infidel cannot be a good man.

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

reputation, than that thousands should lose their

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

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

that it exists.

_Question_. How should infidels be treated? Should

Christians try to convert them?

_Answer_. Christians should have nothing to do

with infidels. It is not safe even to converse with

them. They are always talking about reason, and

facts, and experience. They are filled with sophistry

and should be avoided.

_Question_. Should Christians pray for the con-

version of infidels?

_Answer_. Yes; but such prayers should be made

in public and the name of the infidel should be given

and his vile and hideous heart portrayed so that the

young may be warned.

_Question_. Whom do you regard as infidels?

_Answer_. The scientists--the geologists, the as-

tronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No one

can overestimate the evil that has been wrought

441

by Laplace, Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel,

Renan, Emerson, Strauss, Bikhner, Tyndall, and

their wretched followers. These men pretended to

know more than Moses and the prophets. They

were "dogs baying at the moon." They were

"wolves" and "fools." They tried to "assassinate

"God," and worse than all, they actually laughed

at the clergy,

_Question_. Do you think they did, and are doing

great harm?

_Answer_. Certainly. Of what use are all the

sciences, if you lose your own soul? People in hell

will care nothing about education. The rich man

said nothing about science, he wanted water.

Neither will they care about books and theories

in heaven. If a man is perfectly happy, it makes

no difference how ignorant he is.

_Question_. But how can he answer these scientists?

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

ments alone. Of course, you will deny all their

facts; but the most effective way is to attack their

character.

_Question_. But suppose they are good men,--

what then?

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

442

We cannot admit that the infidel is really good. He

may appear to be good, and it is our duty to strip

the mask of appearance from the face of unbelief. If

a man is not a Christian, he is totally depraved, and

why should we hesitate to make a misstatement

about a man whom God is going to make miserable

forever?

_Question_. Are we not commanded to love our

enemies?

_Answer_. Yes, but not the enemies of God.

_Question_. Do you fear the final triumph of infi-

delity?

_Answer_. No. We have no fear. We believe

that the Bible can be revised often enough to agree

with anything that may really be necessary to the

preservation of the church. We can always rely

upon revision. Let me tell you that the Bible is the

most peculiar of books. At the time God inspired his

holy prophets to write it, he knew exactly what the

discoveries and demonstrations of the future would

be, and he wrote his Bible in such a way that the

words could always be interpreted in accordance with

the intelligence of each age, and so that the words

used are capable of several meanings, so that, no

matter what may hereafter be discovered, the Bible

443

will be found to agree with it,--for the reason that

the knowledge of Hebrew will grow in the exact

proportion that discoveries are made in other depart-

ments of knowledge. You will therefore see, that all

efforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible will simply

result in giving a better translation.

_Question_. What do you consider is the strongest

argument in favor of the inspiration of the Scrip-

tures?

_Answer_. The dying words of Christians.

_Question_. What do you consider the strongest

argument against the truth of infidelity?

_Answer_. The dying words of infidels. You know

how terrible were the death-bed scenes of Hume,

Voltaire, Paine and Hobbes, as described by hundreds

of persons who were not present; while all Christians

have died with the utmost serenity, and with their

last words have testified to the sustaining power of

faith in the goodness of God.

_Question_. What were the last words of Jesus

Christ?

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

"saken me?"