_Question_. Have you read the replies of the clergy to your recent
lecture in this city on "What Must we do to be Saved?" and if so
what do you think of them?
_Answer_. I think they dodge the point. The real point is this:
If salvation by faith is the real doctrine of Christianity, I asked
on Sunday before last, and I still ask, why didn't Matthew tell
it? I still insist that Mark should have remembered it, and I
shall always believe that Luke ought, at least, to have noticed
it. I was endeavoring to show that modern Christianity has for
its basis an interpolation. I think I showed it. The only gospel
on the orthodox side is that of John, and that was certainly not
written, or did not appear in its present form, until long after
the others were written.
I know very well that the Catholic Church claimed during the Dark
Ages, and still claims, that references had been made to the gospels
by persons living in the first, second, and third centuries; but
I believe such manuscripts were manufactured by the Catholic Church.
For many years in Europe there was not one person in twenty thousand
who could read and write. During that time the church had in its
keeping the literature of our world. They interpolated as they
pleased. They created. They destroyed. In other words, they did
whatever in their opinion was necessary to substantiate the faith.
The gentlemen who saw fit to reply did not answer the question,
and I again call upon the clergy to explain to the people why, if
salvation depends upon belief on the Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew
didn't mention it. Some one has said that Christ didn't make known
this doctrine of salvation by belief or faith until after his
resurrection. Certainly none of the gospels were written until
after his resurrection; and if he made that doctrine known after
his resurrection, and before his ascension, it should have been
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in John.
The replies of the clergy show that they have not investigated the
subject; that they are not well acquainted with the New Testament.
In other words, they have not read it except with the regulation
theological bias.
There is one thing I wish to correct here. In an editorial in the
_Tribune_ it was stated that I had admitted that Christ was beyond
and above Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, and others. I did not say
so. Another point was made against me, and those who made it seemed
to think it was a good one. In my lecture I asked why it was that
the disciples of Christ wrote in Greek, whereas, if fact, they
understood only Hebrew. It is now claimed that Greek was the
language of Jerusalem at that time; that Hebrew had fallen into
disuse; that no one understood it except the literati and the highly
educated. If I fell into an error upon this point it was because
I relied upon the New Testament. I find in the twenty-first chapter
of the Acts an account of Paul having been mobbed in the city of
Jerusalem; that he was protected by a chief captain and some
soldiers; that, while upon the stairs of the castle to which he
was being taken for protection, he obtained leave from the captain
to speak unto the people. In the fortieth verse of that chapter
I find the following:
"And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs and
beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made
a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,"
And then follows the speech of Paul, wherein he gives an account of
his conversion. It seems a little curious to me that Paul, for
the purpose of quieting a mob, would speak to that mob in an unknown
language. If I were mobbed in the city of Chicago, and wished to
defend myself with an explanation, I certainly would not make that
explanation in Choctaw, even if I understood that tongue. My
present opinion is that I would speak in English; and the reason
I would speak in English is because that language is generally
understood in this city, and so I conclude from the account in the
twenty-first chapter of the Acts that Hebrew was the language of
Jerusalem at that time, or Paul would not have addressed the mob
in that tongue.
_Question_. Did you read Mr. Courtney's answer?
_Answer_. I read what Mr. Courtney read from others, and think
some of his quotations very good; and have no doubt that the authors
will feel complimented by being quoted. There certainly is no need
of my answering Dr. Courtney; sometime I may answer the French
gentlemen from whom he quoted.
_Question_. But what about there being "belief" in Matthew?
_Answer_. Mr. Courtney says that certain people were cured of
diseases on account of faith. Admitting that mumps, measles, and
whooping-cough could be cured in that way, there is not even a
suggestion that salvation depended upon a like faith. I think he
can hardly afford to rely upon the miracles of the New Testament
to prove his doctrine. There is one instance in which a miracle
was performed by Christ without his knowledge; and I hardly think
that even Mr. Courtney would insist that any faith could have been
great enough for that. The fact is, I believe that all these
miracles were ascribed to Christ long after his death, and that
Christ never, at any time or place, pretended to have any supernatural
power whatever. Neither do I believe that he claimed any supernatural
origin. He claimed simply to be a man; no less, no more. I do
not believe Mr. Courtney is satisfied with his own reply.
_Question_. And now as to Prof. Swing?
_Answer_. Mr. Swing has been out of the orthodox church so long
that he seems to have forgotten the reasons for which he left it.
I do not believe there is an orthodox minister in the city of
Chicago who will agree with Mr. Swing that salvation by faith is
no longer preached. Prof. Swing seems to think it of no importance
who wrote the gospel of Matthew. In this I agree with him. Judging
from what he said there is hardly difference enough of opinion
between us to justify a reply on his part. He, however, makes one
mistake. I did not in the lecture say one word about tearing down
churches. I have no objection to people building all the churches
they wish. While I admit it is a pretty sight to see children on
a morning in June going through the fields to the country church,
I still insist that the beauty of that sight does not answer the
question how it is that Matthew forgot to say anything about
salvation through Christ. Prof. Swing is a man of poetic temperament,
but this is not a poetic question.
_Question_. How did the card of Dr. Thomas strike you?
_Answer_. I think the reply of Dr. Thomas is in the best possible
spirit. I regard him to-day as the best intellect in the Methodist
denomination. He seems to have what is generally understood as a
Christian spirit. He has always treated me with perfect fairness,
and I should have said long ago many grateful things, had I not
feared I might hurt him with his own people. He seems to be by
nature a perfectly fair man; and I know of no man in the United
States for whom I have a profounder respect. Of course, I don't
agree with Dr. Thomas. I think in many things he is mistaken.
But I believe him to be perfectly sincere. There is one trouble
about him--he is growing; and this fact will no doubt give great
trouble to many of his brethren. Certain Methodist hazel-brush
feel a little uneasy in the shadow of this oak. To see the difference
between him and some others, all that is necessary is to read his
reply, and then read the remarks made at the Methodist ministers'
meeting on the Monday following. Compared with Dr. Thomas, they
are as puddles by the sea. There is the same difference that there
is between sewers and rivers, cesspools and springs.
_Question_. What have you to say to the remarks of the Rev. Dr.
Jewett before the Methodist ministers' meeting?
_Answer_. I think Dr. Jewett is extremely foolish. I did not say
that I would commence suit against a minister for libel. I can
hardly conceive of a proceeding that would be less liable to produce
a dividend. The fact about it is, that the Rev. Mr. Jewett seems
to think anything true that he hears against me. Mr. Jewett is
probably ashamed of what he said by this time. He must have known
it to be entirely false. It seems to me by this time even the most
bigoted should lose their confidence in falsehood. Of course there
are times when a falsehood well told bridges over quite a difficulty,
but in the long run you had better tell the truth, even if you swim
the creek. I am astonished that these ministers were willing to
exhibit their wounds to the world. I supposed of course I would
hit some, but I had no idea of wounding so many.
_Question_. Mr. Crafts stated that you were in the habit of swearing
in company and before your family?
_Answer_. I often swear. In other words, I take the name of God
in vain; that is to say, I take it without any practical thing
resulting from it, and in that sense I think most ministers are
guilty of the same thing. I heard an old story of a clergyman who
rebuked a neighbor for swearing, to whom the neighbor replied, "You
pray and I swear, but as a matter of fact neither of us means
anything by it." As to the charge that I am in the habit of using
indecent language in my family, no reply is needed. I am willing
to leave that question to the people who know us both. Mr. Crafts
says he was told this by a lady. This cannot by any possibility
be true, for no lady will tell a falsehood. Besides, if this woman
of whom he speaks was a lady, how did she happen to stay where
obscene language was being used? No lady ever told Mr. Crafts any
such thing. It may be that a lady did tell him that I used profane
language. I admit that I have not always spoken of the Devil in
a respectful way; that I have sometimes referred to his residence
when it was not a necessary part of the conversation, and that a
divers times I have used a good deal of the terminology of the
theologian when the exact words of the scientist might have done
as well. But if by swearing is meant the use of God's name in
vain, there are very few preachers who do not swear more than I
do, if by "in vain" is meant without any practical result. I leave
Mr. Crafts to cultivate the acquaintance of the unknown lady,
knowing as I do, that after they have talked this matter over again
they will find that both have been mistaken.
I sincerely regret that clergymen who really believe that an infinite
God is on their side think it necessary to resort to such things
to defeat one man. According to their idea, God is against me,
and they ought to have confidence in this infinite wisdom and
strength to suppose that he could dispose of one man, even if they
failed to say a word against me. Had you not asked me I should
have said nothing to you on these topics. Such charges cannot hurt
me. I do not believe it possible for such men to injure me. No
one believes what they say, and the testimony of such clergymen
against an Infidel is no longer considered of value. I believe it
was Goethe who said, "I always know that I am traveling when I hear
the dogs bark."
_Question_. Are you going to make a formal reply to their sermons?
_Answer_. Not unless something better is done than has been. Of
course, I don't know what another Sabbath may bring forth. I am
waiting. But of one thing I feel perfectly assured; that no man
in the United States, or in the world, can account for the fact,
if we are to be saved only by faith in Christ, that Matthew forgot
it, that Luke said nothing about it, and that Mark never mentioned
it except in two passages written by _another_ person. Until that
is answered, as one grave-digger says to the other in "Hamlet," I
shall say, "Ay, tell me that and unyoke." In the meantime I wish
to keep on the best terms with all parties concerned. I cannot
see why my forgiving spirit fails to gain their sincere praise.
--_Chicago Tribune_, September 30, 1880.