Christianity and infidelity; or The Humphrey-Bennett discussion between Rev. G. H. Humphrey and D. M. Bennett, conducted in the columns of the Truth seeker, commencing April 7, 1877, closing Sept. 29, 1877

:M.

'^rvC(AA. Kk^t^^^yoToC

hnJ

/r ///,■

CHRISTIANITY I INFIDELITY;

OR THE

HIMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION

BETWEEN

REV. G. H. HUMPHREY,

Of a N, Y. Presbyterian Cliarcli,

AND

D. M. BENNETT,

Bditor of Tbe Tratb. Seeker.

CONDUCTED IN THE COLUMNS OF THE TRUTH SEEKER, COM-
MENCING APRIL 7, 1877, CLOSING SEPT. 29, 1877.

'Eear hotJi sides, and then decide** , , ,

D. M. BENNETT, ^

LIBERAL AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING!' HOUSii,
141 Eighth Street, New York,

1877,

TKEKEWYOPKj

POBLIC LIBRARY]

162747

■ ASTOR, LENOX AND
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS.

1899.

CONTENTS.

Part I.
The Relative Services of Infidelity and Christian-
ity TO American Liberty.

Humphrey's First Letter, 1

Bennett's First Reply 5

Humphrey's Second Letter, 13

Bennett's Second Reply, 17

Humphrey's Third. Letter, 28

Bennett's Third Reply, 37

Humphrey's Fourth Letter, 50

Bennett's Fourth Reply, 59

Humphrey's Fifth Letter, 74

Bennett's Fifth Reply, ...... 83

Part 11.

The Relative Services of Infidelity and Chkistian-

iTY to Learning and Science.

Humphrey's Sixth Letter, . . . .^ . 99

Bennett's Sixth Reply, 106

Humphrey's Seventh Letter 120

Bennett's Seventh Reply, 131

Humphrey's Eighth Letter, 155

Bennett's Eighth Reply, . . . , . 196

Part III.
Is THERE A Stronger Probability that the Bible is

Divine than that Infidelity is True.

Humphrey's Ninth Letter, . . • . . 194

Bennett's Ninth Reply, 209

Humphrey's Tenth Letter, 264

Bennett's Tenth Reply, 285

Humphrey's Eleventh Letter, .... 835

Bennett's Eleventh Reply, .... 354

Humphrey's Twelfth Letter, . . • . 391

Bennett's Twelfth Reply, ... . 417

Humphrey's Thirteenth Letter, . . . 467

Bennett's Thirtjjenth Reply, .... 487

iil

INTRODUCTION.

About the first of March, 1877, the Rev. G. H. Humphrey-
visited the office of The Truth Seeker and requested that
a challenge to Ocl. E. G. IngersoU and B. F. Underwood
be inserted in its columns. The Editor cheerfully con-
sented to publish the same, at the same time remarking that,
as it was probable that both IngersoU and Underwood were
too much engaged to admit of their coming here to debate
with him, rather than have him disappointed, he himself
would hold a discuesion with the gentleman in the columns
of The Truth Seeker. Mr. Humphrey remarked if
neither of those gentlemen accepted his challenge he would
perhaps gladly entertain the proposition. In the issue of
The Truth Seeker for March 3d, 1877, the following chal-
lenge appeared :

A PROPOSITION TO DEBATE — QUESTIONS.

1. Did Unbelievers in the Bible do as much for American
Independence as the believers in it ?

2. Has Infidelity done as much as Christianity to pro-
mote Learning and Science ?

3. Is there a stronger probability that Infidelity is- true
than that the Bible is divine ?

The undersigned has challenged Col. R G. IngersoU to
a public discussion of the foregoing propositions. It is to
be hoped he will accept, but should he decline, Mr. B. F.
Underwood or any other exponent of Paineology will be
taken as a substitute. Very respectfully,

G. H. Humphrey.

81 East Tenth street, New York.

V

Vi INTBODUCTION.

In the same issue the Editor again offered his services to
the reverend gentleman in case the two persons named
did not respond to the challenge. After waiting two or
three weeks, and hearing nothing from either Ingersoll or
Underwood, Mr. Humphrey accepted the Editor's proposi-
tion, and arrangements were readily made for the discus-
sion to appear in The Tkuth Seekeu, Humphrey taking
the initiative, and an article from each to appear alternately
until the discussion should be completed. Accordingly
Humphrey's first letter appeared in the issue for April 7th.
On Sept. 29th appeared Bennett's reply to Humphrey's thir-
teenth letter, the discussion having continued just six
months.

It is but fair to Mr. Humphrey to state that he has no
pecuniary interest in the publication of the Discussion,
though it is issued in this form with his entire consent.

Presuming that some who may read the following pages
may be interested in knowing something of the contestants,
brief sketches of each will be given.

Sketch of G. H. Humpheet.

My opponent, Mr. Bennett, has asked me to furnish a
sketch of my life to be inserted in the Introduction to our
Discussion. I dislike to do it. It exposes me to the sus-
picion of vanity and conceit. But I am desirous of pleas-
ing a friend in that which is indifferent, if not good ; so I
will reluctantly yield to his request. There is not a char-
acter in the alphabet that 1 hate so much as the letter I. In
order to avoid it, let me, like Csesar or Moses, speak of my-
self in the third person.

The su^^ject of this sketch was born in Carnarvon Shire,
North Wales, in the year 1844. When he was less than a
year old, his parents emigrated to Ixonia, Jefferson Co.,
Wisconsin, where he remained on a farm until his major-

INTRODUCTION. Vii

ity. His situation there had no special advantages, except
the proximity of many Germans, which enabled him to learn
their language. When twenty-one he entered Washington
& Jefferson College, located in Washington, Pa., where he
graduated four years afterwards. From College he went
to the Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Allegheny
City, Pa. He studied there for t'lree years. His first
charge was in Frostburg, Md., which he assumed, in part,
before leaving the Seminary. He was next called to the
Birmingham Presbyterian church, Pittsburgh, Pa., where
he remained about five years. In Dec. of 1876, he removed
to New York City, to take charge of the Welsh Presby-
terian church, Nos. 225, 227, 229, East 13th street. He is
now living at 343 East 15th s'reet, where he will be glad to
see not only his Christian but his Infidel friends.

His mental history is not very peculiar. When between
seventeen and twenty-three he read many skeptical works
of various kinds. His object in doing so was not of the
noblest kind. It was done more in the spirit of dare-devil-
ishness than anything else. A boy has a similar motive in
entering the mysteries of tobacco-chewing. Doubts were
engendered in his mind. But he kept them mostly to him-
self. He only whispered them occasionally, with awful
significance to his friends. He was rather glad to be
suspected of holding peculiar views. He considered
his skepticism a positive proof that he was a mighty smart
young man. As he had read German, and "critical"
English books, he thought surely he must have something
to show for it more than the ordinary belief. He fancied
that everybody who saw him said within* himself, "What
a great reader 1 There goes a thinker! "

But a change, like the rising of the sun, came gradually
over his mind. He saw that some of his companions in
skepticism were sinking into vice and immorality. The
more they sinned the more they doubted. The more un-
like true Christians they became, the more did they want

Vlll INTKODUCTIOl^.

Christianity to be untrue. Although they got to reading
and thinking less and less, their Infidelity grew more and
more. He thought this very suspicious. In addition to
this, he discovered that he himself was becoming lop-sided.
He read little but anti-Christian works. He had a kind of
aversion to everything in favor of Religion. When he did
read something on that side, it was done with such preju-
dice and foregone conclusions that it was all in vain.
When he reflected, and caught himself in this condition, he
became uneasy. He knew that he had ntjt given the Bible
and the Christian religion a tharough and honest study.
There he was, priding himself in his "reading," "think-
ing," and "liberalism ;" and yet doubting a system whose
evidences he had never examined. He knew well that he
could never be admitted to the bar without giving the law
a far more extensive study than he had given to this most
momentous of questions. He resolved to reform. He pro-
ceeded to do so. He procured the standard works on Chris-
tian evidence. He found it extremely diflScult at first to
exercise sufficient patience to read them through and digest
them. He was possessed by a strong temptation to dismiss
the whole subject atter glancing superficially over a few vol-
umes. He thought he might then say he had read them*
But, thanks be to God I he was not permitted to stop there.
He read on. He began to feel that the Scriptures might
be true. What he deemed possible at first soon became a
prohabiliiy. After some years of toil and meditation, the
probability became a certainty, as to the cardinal, essential
teachings of Christianity. He had formerly thought of
practicing law. But the convicLion of the everlasting truth
of the Christian Religion impelled him to preach the Gos-
pel, and to use every lawful means to defend and dissemi-
nate it. * He is happy in the work. He can now say:

" 0 hapDy day that fixed my choice
On thee, my Savior and my God,"

tNTRODTJOTIOK. IX

He has given this inner history of himself, not because it
is in itself important, but because he believes it is a fair
picture of eight-tenths of those who profess to be unbe-
lievers. Should these lines and this discussion furnish a
clue that will guide even one out of the zigzag labyrinth of
Infidelity, the writer will be more than rewarded.

G. H. H.

Sketch of D. M. Bennett.

He was born on the eastern shore of the beautiful sheet
of water known as Otsego Lake, in the township of Spring-
field, Otsego Co , N. Y., Dec. 23, 1818. His parents were
poor people — his father an uneducated farmer, his mother a
member of the Methodist Church. At an early age he moved
with his parents into the village of Coopersto^n, N. Y. Here
he had fair opportunities for attending district school, Sun-
day-school, etc. At the latter he was a constant attendant,
and frequently, by voluntary effort, learned twenty or
thirty verses in the New Testament during the week, and
recited them to his teacher on Sunday. He attended
church regularly, and very naturally grew up in the
belief taught by theologians.

When between fourteen and fifteen years of age, return-
ing from a visit to some relatives in Berkshire county,
Mass. , he stopped to visit the Shaker Society in "New Leb-
anon, N. Y. They lived peacefully and happily in their
beautiful home on the hill side, and he soon became so much
pleased with them that he decided to join them and become
one of their number. He thought they lived better and
happier lives than any people he had ever met. They
are a peculiar people and have a somewhat peculiar relig-
ious belief. In the first place, they are strict celibates, and
regard the sexual intercourse as the forbidden fruit which
caused the fall of Adam and Eve, and through them of the
entire human race. They regard Jesus as the pattern celibate

X INTBODUOTION.

who practiced and taught the strictest self-denial. They
do not regard Jesus as God, or as having a miraculous be-
getting. They conceive that Divinity consists of two
divisions or elements, male and female, father and mother —
Power and Wisdom — and that Jesus Christ, nearly nineteen
hundred years ago, represented the Father element and Ann
Lee, an English woman, the wife of a dissipated black-
smith, over one hundred years ago, represented the Mother
clement of diviuity. She was called Mother Ann Lee, and
in Jesus and herself they held that Christ made his firtt and
second appearing. They dress in a plain garb, lead indus-
trious lives; they hold their property in common, on the
community plan, and dance and march for worship.

Thai society then consisted of seven hundred members,
and was divided into some eight families, or lesser com-
munities. There were sixteen societies in the entire
country, with a total membership of six thousand. In
later years, however, their numbers have greatly decreased,
and they now have less than half their former members.
They are a very religious people, and they carry I heir
religion into their daily duties and avocations, making it
an eminently practical system of faith. They hold to the
possibility of living lives without fault or sin, and they
make it their object to attain to this point of perfection.
They are Spiritualists, and had among them what are called
"spirit-manifestations "long before the "Rochester kuock-
ings " were heard of. They believe in spirit protection and
guidance, and to the higher spirits they direct their prayers
and supplications. They unite in silent prayer, including
those before and after each meal, at least eight limes a day.

Bennett's occupation among them was three years at
growing garden seeds and putting them up in packages to
send over the country, four years at shoemaking, three
years at growing and gathering medical herbs and roots,
preparing extracts, making syrups, ointments and other
preparations, powdering roots and herbs, etc., and three

INTRODUCTION. XI

years at practicing medicine. He did not attend any course
of medical lectures uor graduate at any college, but had the
benefit of a fair medical library and the advice of an old
physician who had retired from practice. The system of
treatment adopted by the society was the Eclectic, and it
proved very successful.

Bennett never attended college, or any institution of
learning above a common district school, which he left at
the age of fifteen. Since that time he has been constantly
engaged at some active business — generally hard work —
affording him little time for study or close reading.

In 1846, having arrived at the age of twenty-seven years,
after residing thirteen years in the Shaker society, and los-
ing faith somewhat in their peculiar creed, and tiring to
some extent of their rather arbitrary system of government,
he left the society, in company with his sister and Mary
Wicks, who afterwards became his wife — and who since
the age of four years had lived with the Shakers— together
with one or two other members. In the fall of 1846
he was induced to "go West" as far as Brandenburg,
Kentucky, on the Ohio river, forty miles below Louis-
ville ; but, being disappointed in the nature of the
business in which he had expected to engage at that place,
in the ensuing December he removed to Louisville, and
there served nearly a year as clerk in a drug-store. In Jan-
uary, 1848, he opened a drug-store of his own in Louis-
ville, and conducted it over eight years, engaging 'also in
other kinds of business with varying success. In the
spring of 1855 he sold out his business and removed to
Rochester, N. Y., where he resided four years, engaging
in the sale of fruit-trees, shrubbery, etc., and, afterwards,
garden seeds. In 1859 lie removed to Cincinnati and bought
a drug store, which he conducted till the autumn of 1865,
engaging also, somewhat extensively, in preparing proprie-
tary medicines. During these six years he was quite suc-
cessful, and upon selling out had made enough to answer

Xll INTRODUOTIOK.

during life for himself and wife, had he not invested it in
a series of ventures that proved unsuccessful. As it was,
however, repeated bad investments and ventures used up
the earnings of six years, und in 1866-7 he had managed to
lose the snug sum of $30,000.

His religious views gradually became more and more
radical from the time he left the Shakers. While in Louis-
ville he borrowed an Infidel book which strongly shook his
faith in theology. A few years later, in visiting New York,
he called upon Gilbert Vale, who kept radical books for
sale, and bought Paiue's Age of Reason, Volney's Ruins
and a number of small books and pamphlets of a similar
character. The perusal of these aided materially in driv-
ing from his mind the relics of superstition and ecclesias-
ticism that still lingered there. He ventured to exercise
free thought, to take nothing upon the assertion of the
priesthood, to accept naught uusustained by proof, and,
in short, to do his own thinking and to arrive at his own
conclusions.

His belief gradually became very radical, and he divested
himself of nearly all the superstitions to which he had
once given his assent. He lost confidence in the Bible as
being a superhuman production, and while he saw in it
good morals and precepts, fine specimens of ancient poetry
and literature, he found in it also a great deal that is crude,
a great deal that is coarse and obscene, a great deal that is
untrue, and but little that is adapted to the present needs
and conditions of mankind. He regarded it wholly as a
human production.

He threw oflf all allegiance to fables, myths and supersti-
tions. He held himself free to embrace truth wherever he
found it, and to discard errors and fallacies from whatever
source. He gradually came to believe in the eternality and
the infinity of the Universe ; that it contains all substancea
and all forces ; that there is nothing above it, below it, or
outside of it ; that every result that has ever taken place

INTRODUCTION. XI 11

has been produced by natural and sufficient causes, and that
there can be nothing superna,tMia\. He regarded the multi-
tude of gods which men had imagined, devised and manu-
factured—or in a word, the god-idea— as the great central
superstition around which all other superstitions have clus-
tered for thousands of years. He accepted IngersoU's
axiom, that "there can be no liberty on earth while men
worship a tyrant in heaven." He saw that all that has been
effected on this planet to improve it and make it a happy
dwelling-place for man has been done by the hands of
man, and that the gods have done nothing for the race, and
that the belief in them has been one of the greatest evils
that has befallen mankind. He came to understand that
man's whole duty is towards his fellow-man, towards him-
self, and nothing for the gods ; that he can do as little for
the gods as they do for him, but that to promote the hap-
piness of himself and his fellow-beings and to aid in ren-
dering this earth a paradise he can do very much indeed.

In 1869 Bennett returned to Rochester, remained there
over a year, and then removed to Paris, 111., where he
resided three years. For a year or more he was in the
drug business, and after that he engaged in growing garden
seeds, papering them and sending them over the Western
country. In 1873 he cultivated fifty acres in seeds, and in
1873 seventy-five acres. His means being limited, he was
under the necessity of taking partners, but, like many others,
he found partnership a bad ship to sail in, and in the Fall,
of 1873 he was glad to retire from the business with a loss
of two years' hard work and $2,500 in money. His Chris-
tian partners were too much for him, and rendered his con-
tinuance in the firm no longer desirable.

In the Summer of 1873 he engaged in a newspaper dis-
cussion with two Paris clergymen on the subject of prayer.
One of the local papers published what the clergymen had
to say but refused to publish his articles because of
their radical character. This dissatisfied Bennett, and

xiV INTBODUCTION.

made him resolve to start a paper of his own in which he

could say just what he believed to be true. It was this
that caused him to start The Truth Seeker, and probably
if that bit of Christian intolerance had not been shown
him, he would never have started a Radical -paper and
never become the publisher of Infidel works.

The Truth Seeker started as an eight-page monthly, in
September, 1873. Its early success was not remarkable,
but sufficient to induce him to continue it. Having
closed out his business in Paris, and perceiving it was not
just the place whence to issue a Liberal paper, he looked
around for a better locality. New York city, the commer-
cial centre of the country, presented advantages superior to
any other locality, and he resolved to move his little paper
there. It was, perhaps, a bold step. To start the paper
was bold. For a man without capital, without editorial ex-
perience, without acquaintance with the Liberal element
of the country, and, worse than all, without the necessary
ability, to conduct a Radical journal, to engage in
such an enterprise perhaps, evinced more boldness
than good judgment. In the face of the financial
panic which was well inaugurated in the closing months of
1873, and has continued nearly four years, it was, at best,
an unfavorable time to move a little unfledged monthly to
the metropolis of the country. No. 5 of Vol. I. was issued
here in January, 1874, with sixteen pages instead of the
previous eight. In 1875 it became a semi-monthly, and in
1876 it was changed to a weekly. It has had a struggle for
existence while papers with far more ability and more than
ten times the capital were failing all around it. It is to be
hoped, however, that it has now become so well established
that no serious fears are to be entertained for its continued
existence. In addition to The Truth Seeker, one hun-
dred and fifty books, pamphlets, and tracts have been
published in the same office. If it cannot be styled an
instance of ** divine aid," it is, perhaps, an instance where

rNTRODUCTION. XV

divinity has preserved a neutral policy and kept "hands
off." It is hoped that a larger number of works will be
issued from the same establishment, and that the enquiring
and independent minds of the country will be patrons of the
same. The publisher knows not how he can better dig-
charge his duty towards his fellow-men than by placing
before them the sentiments of truth and appeals in behalf
of mental liberty. He has resolved to devote the remainder
of his life to the good work.

D. M. B.

Truth Sekeer Office, Oct. 1, 1877.

THB

HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSSION.

MR. HUMPHREY.

New York, March 29, 1877.
Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: As we have agreed to
discuss some matters rekitive to Infidelity and Christianity,
and as we are both alike in being quite indifferent to cer-
emony and red tape, I will at once proceed to prove the af-
firmative of the following proposition :

That believers in the Bible have done more for
Civil Liberty in the United States than unbelievers.

By "believers in the Bible "is meant those who recog-
nized the infallibility and divine authority of that book ;
and by the " unbelievers" is meant those who denied that
infallibility and repudiated that authority. You will
scarcely object to this definition of the word " Infidel."
Webster deiines Infidelity as " disbelief of the inspiration
of the Scriptures, or the divine origin of Christianity." No
standard lexicographer differs from this definition.

Having thus explained terms, we will proceed at once to
show that the services of Infidels to American liberty have
been infinitesimally small compared with that of Christians.
I am well aware that this is exactly the reverse of the per-
sistent representations of Infidel speakers and writers; but
it can be demonstrated nevertheless,

2 THE nUMPHUEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

1. This is shown by the fact that the struggle for iude-
pendence originated among the Puritans of New England-
yes, among the bated Puritans. It is true they did not start
out with the conscious and avowed iatentioa of securing
iheir independence. But it is noteworthy that they were
the first to resist British oppression. Samuel Adams, the
I leading spirit in this resistance, was amember of the Con-
j^gregational Church. His was a house of prayer. He was a
strict observer of the Sabbath (Bancroft's History of the
United States, vol. iii., pp. 418-420, Centenary Edition).
As far back as the year 1768 John Hancock had named one
of his sloops "Liberty," indicative of the spirit of the
man, and, perhaps, of the unexpressed wish of his soul.

The Boston Town Meeting, held in Faneuil Ilall, Sept.,
1768, was an assemblage of religious people. In that meet-
ing it was resolved that " the inhabitants of the town of
Boston will, at the utmost peril of their lives and fortunes,
maintain and defend their rights, privileges, and immuni-
ties;" and they rtcommended that a day he set apart for fasting
and prayer. This shows that the first citizen's meeting to
remonstrate against tyranny was a meeting, not of Infidels
but of Puritans.

We read often of the clergy of that period inspiring
their congregations with patriotism, courage, and hope.
Bancroft says " the Ciilvinist ministers nursed the flame of
piety and of civil freedom" (Bancroft, vol. iii., pp. 499,
587). "Where is the account of a '* Liberal Club " doing a
similar service ?

The Old Continental Congress, held in 1774, was com-
posed almost entirely of Christian men. Rev. Jacob Duche,
an Episcopalian, was iavited to act as chaplain. Franklin
testified afterwards t^jat those early Conventions and Con-
gresses were opened every day with prayer (Parton's Life
of Franklin, vol. ii. , pp. 573-4).

The battles jof Lexington and Concord were fought by
brave Puritans." The warning of the approaching foe was

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 3

given from a chitrch tower. Paul Revere revered Paul. He
was a believer of the Gospel. The march from Cam-
bridge to Charle.itown Neck under Col. Prescott was pre-
ceded by prayer by Mr. Langdon, then President of Harvard
. College (Lossing's Field Book of the Revolution, vol. i., p.
539). .

The strictly first declaration of independence — the Meck-
lenburg Peclaraiion — was made in May, 1775, in the high-
lands of North Carolina by a convention of " sturdy Pres-
byterians" (Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 575).

All this, and much more of the same import, had trans-
pired before Thomas Paine published his "Common Sense"
in Jan. of 1776. It is cheerfully admitted that that pam-
phlet had a wonderful effect on the Colonists. But it did
not create the thought of independence, as is sometimes
claimed. Along with a great many other essays and pam-
phlets of the same kind, prepared by "the ablest persons
in America " ^Lossing's Lives of the Signers; p. 246), it
helped to precipitate an idea that was already in solution in
the public mind. It touched off the magazine. As John
Adams remarked, it "singularly fell in with the temper of
the moment "(Life and Works of John Adams: Boston,
185^; vol. i., p. 304). ''The idea of independence was fa-
miliar among the common people much earlier than some
people pretend" (Ibid; vol. ix., p. 598). Patrick Henry—
who, though not a church member, was so far a Christian
that he relished Butler's "Aualogy " and Doddridge's "Rise
and Progress," and published at his own expense Jenyns'
"Internal Evidences of Christianity " (Sparks' Am. Biog-
ra^jby, vol. xi., p. o84) — as early as 1763 and 1765 had
given utterance to sentiments that caused the royalists to
cry out "Treason! Treason 1" Samuel Adams, Richard
Henry Lee, Benjamin Franklin, Rev. Timothy Dwight
(Lives of the Signers, p. 244), Gen. Greene, Gen. Washing-
ton (Bancroft, vol. v. , p. 63), and many others, had talked
if absolute separation from the mother country before

4 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION

Paine's pamphlet ever saw the light. In the words of Ban-
croft, " The Declaration of Independence was silently but
steadily prepared in the convictions of all the people, just
as every spire of grass is impearled by the dew, and reflects
the morning sun" (Bancroft, vol. v., p. 1G5).

2. The affirmative of this proposition is confirmed by the
fact that the foreigners who came to our assistance were
nearly all believers in the Holy Scriptures. De Kalb was
a Protestant (Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 40). It is well known that
Lafayette, Pulaski, and Kosciusko were Catholics. Steuben
was a Lutheran (Sparks' American Biography, vol. ix., p.
84). Bat where was the Infidel that crossed the sea to lead
the provincial patriots against the British troops ?

The Englishmen who advocated the cause of the Amer
icans in the presence of the Crown were all believers in the
Christian religion. I refer especially to Col. Barre, Chat-
ham, Camden, and Burke. No Freethinker in the House
of Lords or in the House of Commons raised his voice in
our behalf.

3. In further proof of my position I will remind you of
the fact that the masses of the Colonists were beFievers in
Christianity. An avowed Infidel in the American army
was regarded as an exception and a monstrosity. The bat-
tles of the Revolution were waged by soldiers who read
their Bibles in the camp, and exercised faith in God.

The best generals of the Revolution accepted the Bible as
the word of the Lord. This is notably true of Prcscott,
"Warren, Putnam, Greene, Knox, Morgan, Wayne, Lincoln,
and their commander-in-chief, George Washington. We
have already named Lafayette, Steuben, Pulaski, Koscius
ko, and De Kalb. Who was the Infidel general that ren-
dered any service to the Colonies ? Benedict Arnold, who
was irreligious, was a traitor. Charles Lee, the Freethinker,
proved unfaithful.

Robert Morris, the great financier of that period, had an

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT D|!^CUSSION. 5

unswerving faith in tlie principles inculcated in Holy Writ.
■So had his eminent friend, Gouverneur Morris.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were re-
ligious men. Benson J. Lossing, Esq., the well-known au-
thor, who has been for many years a careful student of
American history and biography, said recently in a private
letter: " I believe, from internal evidence, that every sigm r
of the Declaration of Independence was a practical Chris-
tian, such as Christ accepts as his worthy children. They,
of course, differed in tbeir ilieohgical notions, but not in
their religious convictions. Some of them were church
members, and some were not." That this is true, without
excepting Franklin and Jefferson, I will show in my next.

Soon after the close of the war, Congress appointed Dec.
13, 1781, as a day of "Thanksgiving to Almighty God for
the signal success of the American arms." Previous to that
"when the letters of Washington announcing the capitula-
tion reached Congress, that body, with the people streaming
in their train, went in procession to the Dutch Lutheran
church to return thanks to Almighty God" (Bancroft, vol.
vi.,p. 429,). Most assuredly, then, the American people
were in the main religious.

These remarks are suggestive rather than exhaustive. The
service of Christians to the cause of independence, as com-
pared with that of Infidels, was as a thousand to one.

I have given many references, as I intend to continue do-
ing, in order that you and our readers may verify eve^y
statement. I shall endeavor to give, as I shall demand, au-
thority and proof. Yours, very respectfully,

G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BENNETT

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: I have never thought
for a moment, nor do I think any intelligent Liberal has

6 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCL'SSION.

ever claimed, that a majority of the officers, or of the rank
and file eni^aged in the Revolutionary struggle were Infidels
or unbelievers in the divine origin of the Bible. If a census
had then been taken on that question, or a vote given, the
Bible worshipers on the one side and the unbelievers on the
other, I admit that the believers would have had a very
largo majority — perhaps ninety or ninety-five per cent of the
whole number. Unfortunately, since the earliest history of
mankind, the believers in fetishes, myths, superstitious
mysticisms, fables, and errors of all kinds, have far out-
numbered the opposite class. Truth has ever' been in a
minority. It was so one hundred years ago. It is so to-
day. But, thanks to the light of science and the inherent
love of the Right which exists in man's nature, the truth is
gaining ground. The myths and superstitions of former
centuries, with their tyrannous rule, are retiring to the rear,
and truth, reason, and mental liberty are coming to the
front and assuming control. They are unmistakably gaining
ground, and in another hundred years it is confidently
hoped that theological delusions and errors will have far
less sway, not only in this country but in the civilized
world, than they had one hundred years ago. The powers
of light and truth are potent, and we have much to hope
for from them.

I freely accord patriotism, love of liberty, and hatred of
tyranny to thousands of zealous Christians who were en-
gaged in that struggle. They fought bravely for American
independence, and I would not take one laurel from their
brows. I honor them for what they did in the cause of hu-
man liberty. They were impelled by the noblest impulses
that move the human heart. If the same credit was gen-
erously awarded to the unbelivers that were engaged in the
same struggle, this discussion would hardly be necessary.
We would hear much fewer aspersions and slanderous as-
sertions about " Tom Paine " and the ** Infidel crew," and
they would be cheerfully credited on all hands with the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 7

great deeds they performed, aiid a nation's gratitude and
honor, to which they arc so j astly entitled, would be extended
to them, instead of being grudgingly and meanly withheld as
now.

While I yield that Bible-believers greatly predominated
in point of numbers in the American struggle, I claim that
the leading spirits, the men who did the most to arouse the
people of the Colonies, to stimulate their courage and res-
olution after the conflict was inaugurated, and when dark
despair settled over the land; who directed the armies;
who made personal sacrifices to keep up the struggle, and
who gave form and direction to the Constitution and policy
of the new government when the war was over, were Infi-
dels, or men who did not believe that the Bible was written
by the finger of God, or by his immediate dictation. I al-
lude to such men as Benjamin Franklin, George Washing-
ton, Ethan Allen, Anthony Wayne, Thomas Paine, John
Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin
Rush, Arron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
etc., etc. These men did not accept the Christian dogma
tl'at Jesus Christ is God and the Supreme Power of the Uni-
verse; hence they were Infidels.

While I admit that Christians acquitted themselves nobly
in that glorious struggle, I claim that Infidels did the same,
and did more in proportion to their numbers than did the
believers, and this is all that ought to be demanded of them.
I claim, too, that the war for American independence was
not a Christian struggle, and that the impulses and senti-
ments which actuated the infant nation — hatred of tyranny
and oppression, the spirit of freedom and independence —
are not peculiar to Christians. They are the natural, spon-
taneous impulses of humanity. Man, in all ages of the
world, in all countries, and under all systems of religion
has fought and bled and died for liberty and the right of
self government.

While men of all castes and colors have aspired to free-

» THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

dom, while they have fought for liberty; while men of all
creeds have detested tyranny in their very souls, the dis-
tinctive iuculcation of Chrislianity has been ^'submit " and
"obey." Its principal teachers have enjoined rules like
these: ''Servants obey your masters," "Obey the magis-
trates," "Obey them that have rule over you," "Let your
soul be subject to the higher powers," " Render unto Caesar
the things that are Cassar's," "The powers that be are or-
dained of God. "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the powers
resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist re-
ceive unto themselves damnation. Wherefore, ye must
be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience' sake.
For this cause, pay ye tribute also, for they are God's min-
isters, attending continually upon this very thing" (Rom.,
xiii., 1-6). "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man
for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme,
or unto governors" (1 Peter, ii., 13),

According to these imperative injunctions, the American
colonists were not only in a state of rebellion against the
parent government, but also against heaven. They had
practically ceased to be Christians. They had become In-
fidels, for to question or doubt what the priesthood declares
to be the will of heaven is infidelity of the rankest kind.
When they dared to raise their hands and strike for their
liberties, they were opposing the will of God. Every king,
every tyrtant that ever reigned over an oppressed people,
either under the Hebrew or the Christian regime^ claimed to
rule by the express command of God. They were the
anointed of heaven, and to rebel against them was to rebel
against God. The American colonies, when they resisted
the power of Great Britain, opposed such a power. They
opposed the first Christian power in the world — a nation
whose kings and queens reigned by the "grace of God."
1 repeat, it was an un-Christian war to oppose the first
Christian nation on earth, whose monarchs ruled by a di-
vine commission from on high, and whose coronations were

THE nUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 9

presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest
Christian dignitary in the realm. I tell you it was the re-
hellion of Infidelity tliat made the American people raise their
arms against such a divinely-commissioned power. True,
Catholics and Protestants came over to help us, but they
came to fight the battle of Infidelity against Christian tyran.
ny, and this truth cannot be successfully denied. Most truly
did Ingersoll exclaim, ''Infidelity is Ijberty; all religion is
slavery. In every creed, man is the slave of God; woman
is the slave of man, and the sweet children are the slaves of
all!"

While the Christian government of Great Britain was
sending over its thousands of creed-bound serfs to crush
into the chains of bondage a youthful and struggling peo-
ple who dared aspire to be free, the first Infidels of England
and France sympathized with the colonists and did all they
could for their cause by pen, money, and valor. While this
was true, how was it with the great light of Christian Prot-
estantism, in England, John Wesley ? He opposed the
American struggle wiih ail his power. He wrote against it,
he preached against it, and he labored against it publicly
and privately. England had no deadlier foe to American
freedom than was John Wesley, the pious apostle of the
Church, and the founder of Methodism.

You mention instances of marches and other opera-
tions during the war being i^receded by prayer. Doubtless
it was so, but that does not prOve very much. A devout
Mohammedan prays regularly six times a day, and always
with his fiKje turned towards his holy city, Mecca.
Many of the acts of his life-time are preceded by prayer.
Does that make him a Christian ? The pious Hindoo
mother who throws her infant to her crocodile-god in the
Qanges always precedes the act by prayer. Does that
mftke her a Christian ? When two opposing Christian
armies are about to engage in a bloody confiict, and both
precede the sanguinary work by prayer asking for victory,

10 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

and both beg for God to help them, is it not calculated to em-
barrass their God to decide how to answer the prayers
of both, and to determine which side to help the most?

Bonaparte used to insist that God was on the side of
the strongest battalions, and oiher observing persons have
come to the same conclusion. If Col. Prescott had pre-
ceded his march from Cambridge to Charlestown Neck by
a lively game of "old sledge," or had he induced his
men to join lustily in s'nging '* Yankee Doodle," is it not
barely possible that it would have answered just as good
a purpose as Mr. Langdon's prayer ? Would not the sol-
diers have made the march just as cheerfully and as ex-
peditiously ?

Among the generals, patriots, and statesmen who were
in the Revolutionary struggle, it is not claimed that all
had arrived at the same degree of unbelief or Infidelity.
It is conceded that Jefferson and Paine were more pro-
nounced and outspoken in their radicalism and unbelief
than were Franklin and Washington, but all disbelieved
and denied the dogmas upon which the Christian Church
is founded — that Jesus Christ is God, the Supreme Power
of the Universe — and that he penned or dictated the Jew-
ish and Christian Scriptures. They denied that one person
could be three, and that three persons could be one, and
that three and one are the same. Rejecting these cardinal
tenets in the Christian Church, they, of course, could not
be Christians, and must, of necessity, be ranked among
the Infidels.

You may attempt to prove that these wer5 all Christians
because in some respects they acted with the Christians,
not even excepting Jefferson. We hope, at all events, that
you will leave us Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine. I asK
you not to make Christians of them. It seems, too, that
after Thomas Jefferson has been a thousand times denounced
as an Infidel, from almost every pulpit in this" land-
both before and after his election as President— you

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 11

will find it a little laborious to make it clear to the com-
mon perception that he was a Christian in full commun-
ion. If you can make a clear case of it, I shall watch
your efforts with interest. He was quite as decided an In-
fidel as Paine, and was never afraid of having his views
upon theology known. There will be no trouble in show-
ing this from his own writings. I have not room in this
article to go into these quotations, but will in my next,
when I think I can also show that Washington entertained
the same theological views that Jefferson did, and that the
Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, rector of the church in Philadel-
phia which Washington frequently attended daring the
time that that city was the seat of government, and who
was acquainted with Washington's views, admitted that the
General was a Deist. Deists, of course, are Infidels.
Thomas Paine was only a Deist. I think I can show that
Franklin was also a Deist.

I am well aware that Christian biographers and pious ad-
ulators have made great efforts to show that Washington
was a Christian; that he was a sanctimonious man, and that
he preceded his engagements on the battle-field by prayer;
that it was discovered that upon a certain occasion he retired
into a thicket to pray; but the stories lack confirmation, and
is too much like the Sunday-school story about the cherry
tree and his little hatchet, in which it was impossible for
him to tell a lie — a story, by the way, first told by a
clergyman.

The truth is, Washington has been so far deified by an
admiring American people, and we have grown up from our
infancy with the impressions implanted upon our minds
that he was a model man, a great and good personage, far
superior to any other who lived at the same time, that he
is exalted into a demi-god who could not tell a lie, who could
not use a profane word, and who was almost perfection it-
self. This is all an error. It is^true rather that he had his faults
and failings like other men. He could not only use duplic.

13 The HUMPTTREf-BP.NNETT OTSCUSStOt^

ity and strategy -when necessary, but he could swear
"like a trooper." Those who were well acquainted with
him pronounced him a profane man who often gave way to
passion, who was aristocratic and almost unapproachable to
his inferiors, and wlio often showed a species of tyran-
ny and cruelty. Still, the eminent services wMch he ren-
dered his country should be duly acknowledged and re
membered, but not on the false ground that he was a
Christian. D. M. Bennett.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir : I am pleased with the
courteousness of your reply, and with your candor in ad
mitting the substance of my last letter. Your concession
amounts to this: that, in the proportion that "ninety oi
ninety-five per cent. " is greater than ten or five per cent.,
the Christians who resisted British tyranny were more
numerous than the Infidels who did the same.

You assert that resistance to constituted government,
even when it is oppressive and inhuman, is contrary to the
principles of Scripture. This is an error. Such passages
as "Be subject to principalities and powers," "Subject
yourselves unto kings or governors," " Render unto Caisar
the things that are Caesar's," mean simply that the Christian
should not be anarchical; he should be a law-abiding citi-
zen. There is no intimation in the Old Testament that the
Israelites violated the Divine law when they threw off the
Egyptian yoke. Nor is there a hint in the New that Jesus
did wrong in ignoring the Jewish Sanhedrim.

I was rather surprised to see you making such Jiit-or-miss
assertions respecting the religious opinions of certain per-
sons prominent in the Revolution. Of course, Thomas
Paine is yielded to you. So is Etlian Alien. But I insist
that not one of the others whom you name was an Infidel in

tllE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 13

the true sense of that word. Benjamin Rush was univer-
sally known as an eminently pious Christian. Ilis "Essays"
put this beyond the reach of a doubt. The New American
Cyclopedia says of him that in 1791 "he wrote an able de-
fense of the Bible as a school-book. He was Vice Presi-
dent, until his death, of the Philadelphia Bible Society, of
which he was one of the earliest originators, and the con-
stitution of which he drafted." Parton says of Aaron Burr
that "he was no scoffer. He was desirous, while condemn-
ing the severe theology of his fathers, not to be thought an
unbeliever" (Life of Aaron Burr. vol. ii, pp. 274-329).
Alexander Hamilton was a believer in Christianity. In a
paper prepared in view of his duel with Burr he said: "My
religious and moral principles are strongly opposed to the
practice of duelling " (Morse's Life of Hamilton, Boston,
187G, vol. ii, p. 364). He sent for a clergyman to adminis-
ter the sacrament to him before his death (A Collection of
Facts and Documents relative to the Death of Alexander
Hamilton, 1804, pp. 47-55). Morse says: "He was a sin-
cere and earnest Christian. He had lately said of Chris-
tianity in his firm, positive way: 'I have studied it, and 1
can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever
submitted to !he mind of man' " (Life of Hamilton, vol. ii, p.
370). If you want to find proof that Gouverneur Morris was
not an Infidel, I will refer you to his "Life," by Jared Sparks,
vol. i, pp. 508-9, vol. iii, p. 44. A careful examination of
such works as Rives' Life and Times of James Madison
will compel any one to see that our fourth President was
very far from being a rejecter of Christianity.

The four persons who played the most active part in the
Revolutionary struggle, and in the formation of the govern-
ment afterwards, are often claimed by Infidels, and too fre-
quently conceded to them by Christians. I refer to Wash-
ington, Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams. Let us now
throw aside as so much rubbish the " Sabbath-school
stories" and religious magazine i^aragraphs, and also the

14 THE ITUMrnTlEY-BENNErT DIRCUSSTOX.

"Liberal Club" traditions, with all the Infidel newspaper
tales respecting these persons, and let us try to determine
from their own writings a ad from standard biographers what
their religious opinions really were. Let us consider them
in the order of their birth.

As Benjamin Franklin vvas the oldest, we will examine
his religious belief first. There are several trustworthy
Lives of Frankim before the public. The most recent is
that of Bigelow. But as Parton's is in all essential matters
in agreement wiin the rest, and as Mr Parton is a "liberal"
man, we will refer chiefly to him. All biographers get
their materials mainly from Franklin's Works, oifr which
there is an admirable collection edited by Sparks, Boston,
1840.

Franklin was raised under religious influences. When a
mere boy he left home to make his own living. Before
leaving' his teens he had read Shaftesbury, Collins, and other
Deistical writers. They shook his mind. When about
nineteen he wrote and published a "Dissertation on Lib-
erty and Necessity." Its conclusions were that there is no
inherent distinction between virtue and vice, and that man
is really under the reign of Fate. But, as Lossing says,
"Franklin always looked back to those early efforts of his
pen, in opposition to Christian ethics, with great regret "
(Lives of Celebrated Americans, p. 40). He afterwards did
all he could to gather every copy of his " Dissertation," and
annihilate it forever (Parton'p Life of Franklin, vol. i, p.
132). But it is on the strength of this treatise that Frartklin
is claimed as an Infidel! We might as justly sum up Col.
Ingersoll's life, and say he was a drunkard and a Democrat,
because there has been a period when he was both.

When twenty -two he reconsidered his position and
retraced his steps. He passed through what Parton calls a
"regeneration"! He drew up a creed and a liturgy for
himself (Parton's Life of Franklin, vol. i, pp. 107-178).
When twenty-three he called "Atheism" "nonsense," and

THE nUMniUEY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. l5

pronounced "the Christian religion the best of all relig-
ions" (Ibid, vol. i, pp. 192-3). When fifty-eight he advised
and urged his daugliter to "go constantly to Church," to
be devout, and "never miss the prayer days" (Ibid, vol, i,
455). When sixty-seven he styled himself a " Protestant of
the Church of England, holding in the highest venera-
tion the doctrines of Jesus Christ" (Ibid, vol. i, p. 557).
When eighty he asked: " If men are so wicked icitli religion,
what would they be wiilwut it ?" He advised a Freethinker
not to publish an Infidel work (Ibid, vol. ii, p. 554). In the
Conv^tion of 1787, when he was eighty-one, he made this
motion', *',That henceforth prayers, imploring the assistance
of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in
this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business;
and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested
to officiate in that service. "

In the course of his remarks in support of this motion lie
said: *' In this situation of this Assembly, groping, as it.
were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to
distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened,
Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly ap-
plying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understand-
ings? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when
we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this
room for the Divine protection. Our prayers. Sir, were
heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us who
were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent
instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To
that kind Providence we owe this opportunity of consulting
in peace, and the means of establishing our future national
felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend?
or do wo imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have
lived. Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more con-
vincing proofs I see of this truth: Thai God cjovernsin the
affairs of men''' (Ibid, vol. ii, p. 573),

When eighty-four he gave a summary of liis creed in these

16 THE HUMPnKEY-BEXNETT DISCUSSION.

words: "1 believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe.
That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be
worshiped. Tiiat the most acceptable service to him is do-
ing good to his other children. That the soul of man is
immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life
respecting its conduct in this." He was undecided in
regard to the divinity of Christ, but thought there was no
harm in believing that doctrine (vol. ii, p. G15-Gt6). When
eighty-five, and near his death, "he had a picture of Christ
on the Cross placed so that he could conveniently look at
it as he lay in bed. ' That,' he would say, ' is the picture
of one who came into the world to teach men to love one
another' " (Ibid, p. 618). And "his last look, it is recorded,
was cast upon the picture of Christ " (Ibid, p. G19).

Can you, my dear Sir, have the hardihood to assert that a
man who lived such a life, and died such a death, was aii
Infidel ? Can you impugn the authorities to which I have
referred you ? Yv^'ould it not be better to reject the floating
gossip that Franklin w^as a Deist, and accredit the facts of
history — that he was a skeptic only in his minority;
that when he became a man, he renounced his skepticism;
and that he drifted farther and farther from it until the end
of his life?

In regard to Washington I will say but a word. You say
he was a Deist. The only evidence you furnish is the testi-
mony of Dr. Abercrombie; and that testimony does not
come direct, but in a roundabout way which makes it very
unreliable. Robert Dale Owen said that "Dr. Wilson" said
that Dr. Abercrombie said that Washington was a Deist!
Thomas Pame "did not choose to rest his belief on such evi-
dence" as "hearsay upon hearsay." How is it that you,
the disciple, are more credulous than your master ? The
explanation is easy: This story about Abercrombie — more
vague than the legend of the little hatchet — is the only scrap
of proof that you can produce from all the libraries of the
world that Washington was a Deist 1

TtiE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 17

The truth is, Washington was a strictly moral and highly
religious man. He prohibited card-playing, gaming, drink-
ing, and profanity among his troops. If divine services
were missed necessarily on Sunday, he would introduce
them at the earliest opportunity on a week day. He recom-
mended a special meeting for prayer and thanksgiving after
the capitulation at Yorktown. He was in the habit of fast-
ing. He made it a rule to attend church on the Sabbatb.
In a letter dated Aug. 20, 1778, he said: "The hand of
ProvidencQ has been so conspicuous in all, that he must be
worse than an Infidel, that lacks faith, and more than wicked,
that has not gratitude to acknowledge his obligations." He
regarded " Religion and Morality as the essential pillars of
civil society." These statements are not old wives' fables.
You will find undeniable authority for all of them if you
will look over Washington's Writings, edited by Sparks,
Boston, 1835. See, in particular, vol. ii, pp. 141, 167, 40G; vol.
iv, p. 28; vol. v, p. 88; vol. viii, p. 189; vol. xii, pp. 245,
400, 402. Irving testifies that, in early life, he led prayer-
meetings, and that under special difficulties (Life of Wash-
ington, Leipzig, 1859, vol. i, p. 109). Weems, who was in-
timately acquainted with Washington, bears witness that he
was a devout and godly man (Life of Washington, 1837, pp.
174-189). You must rebut these authorities with stronger
authorities, or else admit that the Father of his Country
was far from being an Infidel.

Space compels me to defer my discussion of Adams and
Jefferson until my next. Very respectfully,

G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BENNETT

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir : I fear you are inclined
to give me more credit than I am entitled to, as you say I
admitted the substance of your first letter. You mistake; I
did not admit so much. I simply stated that I did not claim

IS THE IIUMPnREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

that unbelievers, in the American struggle, equaled, numeri
cally, the believers. On all the other points I took issue
with you.

You are mistaken again in saying I asserted that resist-
ance to constituted government " is contrary to the princi-
ples of Scripture." I said nothing of the kind. If you
will refer to my reply you will see that I said it was con-
trary to the spirit of Christianity — a very wide difference.
I readily grant that in the Old Testament there are numer-
ous instances where war and bloodshed were brought
into use to overthrow existing governments. The God of
the Old Testament seems to have been more fond of war
and slaughter than anything else. He styled himself " the
Lord of Hosts" and "the God of Battles," and gloried in
subduing enemies. But that was not Christianity, and I
defy you to cite one instance where the reputed founder of
Christianity, or its early promulgators, ever incited a war
for freedom, or even admitted the advisability of such a
struggle. The burden of Christ's teachings touching this
point, as I said, was, "submit" and "obey," "never
rebel," " assert not your own independence."

I am very sure you cannot cite an instance where Christ,
or any of his disciples, ever encouraged a people to rise
against their oppressors, or to lift their hands to strike off
the chains that bound them. That would not have been the
spirit of Christianity. Its office, in its incipiency, was to
make people contented with their lot, and to enjoin them to
submit to the powers that were. Christ said explicitly " My
kingdom is not of this world ; if my kingdom -^ere of this
word, then would my servants fight." He found his own
nation groaning under the heel of foreign oppression, but
he said not a word to incite resistance to that oppression.
Wlicn the hand of tyranny was laid upon himself, and his
liberty and life were in peril, he moved not a fingor towards
freedom. The tenor of all his teachings was to yield sub-
mission to the powers of this world, for the glories that

THE nUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 19

await in the next. No, Christ did not teach people to rise
and fight for liberty, nor even to aspire to political free-
dom. To fight for political rights was contrary to the
injuncJions of him who said, "My servants do not fight."
To do that was opposition to his entire teachings. It loas
Infidelity. Hence the American people were doing the work
of Infidelity when they took up arms to resist a Christian
power.

You seem disposed to claim persons as Christians who evi-
dently were not such. And before we go further, it will be
well to understand what is required in order to be a Chris-
tian. It does not make a man a Christian to be born of Chris-
tian parents, to have a Christian wife, or to sometimes, or fre-
quently, attend a Christian church, nor to pay for a pew in a
Christian church. He is not a Christian though he admits
that Jesus had a real existence, that he was a good man and
taught good morals. It does not make a man a Christian to
believe that the Christian religion, in most respects, is an im-
provement on the systems that previously existed in the
world. It does not make a man a Christian to be a lover of
virtue and moraliiy. This class of men have been found in
all S3'^stems of religion. But to be a Christia«, a man must
accept and believe the dogmas constituting the Christian re-
ligion, the principal among which are that Jesnis was divinely
begotten ; that he is God ; that he died to reconcile God to
man; to atone for a lost world; and that, without a belief in
him and in the efficacy of his blood, there can be no salva-
tion. This I have heard proclaimed from Christian pulpits
again and again, and I hardly think you will deny it. I will
call youi' attention to an ecclesiatical trial that is now pending
against the Rev. John Miller, Princeton, N. J., of your own
denomination (Presbyterian), for holding that the Bible does
not teach that Jesus is God; that he was simply a chosen man,
and for denying the Trinity. For this the Rev. Miller is
charged with being a heretic, or an Infidel, and there is but
«littlc doubt that he will be expelled from the position in the

20 THE HUMPQREY-BENNETT DI^iCUi^SION

Christian pulpit wliich lie has occupied. So be careful, my
Friend, that you do not claim as Christians those whom
your own church docs not accept. Let not Brother Miller's
perils escape your observation.

Before giving quotations from recognized authorities, I
wish to call your attention to the fact, that most of the biog-
raphies and histories published arc written, directly or
indirectly, in the interest of Christianity. A large pro-
portion of them are written by Christian clergymen or
Christian professors, or, at all events, they are written for
a Christian market, and everything is shaped and colored
accordingly. A shrewd caterer, of course, always prepares
his viands to suit the taste of his patrons, and to please those
who pay their money. When a great or distinguished man
has passed away, the fondness for making it appear that he
was a Christian, or that he accepted the Christian system, is
most conspicuous, and it is often amusing to notice the
ingenuity employed in that direction. It is not to be
thought strange, then, if the Infidel views of our great men
are kept in the background, and that every circumstance
which even squints toward their feeling friendly to the
Christian religion is most favorably presented. Everything
and everybody is expected to bow in submission to the great
Diana of the age— the Christian religion.

I cannot agree with you, that you have proved Franklin
to have been a Christian, His being raised under religious
influences does not establish it. Paine was so reared, and so
were the larger share of Infidels. You admit that, during a
portion of his life, he was an Atheist. I did not claim so
much, but that he was a moderate Deist, or Moralist. You
speak of his having drawn up a creed and liturgy of his
own. He did so, but that hardly proves him a Christian,
but rather the reverse. Had he been a Christian, he would
have needed no creed of his ow^n. The creed of the Chris-
tian Church would have been all he needed. Besides, his
creed was pure Deism. He spoke of God with great rever-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 21

eace, but said nothing about liis divine Son, nor of the effi-
cacy of his blood, nor of his death.

Parton says (vol. i, p. 175): "As Franklin grew older he
abandoned the fantastical part of his creed and settled down
into the belief of these six articles: ' There is one God, the
Creator of all things. God governs the world by his provi-
dence. God ought to be worshiped. Doing good to man is
the service most acceptable to God. Man is immortal. In
the future world the disembodied souls of men will be dealt
with justly.' " This is Deism — nothing more, and nothing
less — and agrees as nearly with the religion of Thomas
Paine as the creeds of two men can agree. It contains
nothing of the dogmas of Christianity, nothing of the author
of it. On page 71, vol. i, in speaking of the change which
had occurred in Franklin's views, Parton sa^'s: "He escaped
the theology of terror and became forever incapable of wor-
shiping a jealous, revengeful, and vindictive God." If
Parton was correct, Franklin was forever incapacitated for
becoming a Christian.

On page 319, vol. i, Parton settles the question of Frank-
lin's belief most conclusively. He says: " In conversation
with familiar friends he (Franklin) called himself a Deist or
Theist, and he resented a sentence in Mr. Whitefield's Jour,
nal which seemed to imply that between a Deist and an
Atheist there was little or no difference. Whitefield wrote:
' M. B. is a Deist; I had almost said an Atheist. ' * That is,'
said Franklin, ' clialk^ I had almost said charcoal.'" It
will be seen by this that, while Franklin did not like to be
called an Atheist, he notably called himself a Deist, and
did not object to others doing so ; and there is not the first
particle of proof that he ever changed from this position.

On page 546, vol. i, Parton, in speaking of the intimacy
oetween Priestley and Franklin, quotes from Priestley's
Autobiography these words: "It is much to be lamented
Ihat a man of Franklin's general good character and great in-
^uence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and

22 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

also have done so much as he did to make others unbeliev-
ers." Priestley furnished some works upon the evidences of
Christianity for Franklin to read, but the American war
breaking out sood after, he presumed Franklin never read
them. I regard these as positive proofs of Franklin's
Deism. Priestley knew him well and had frequent conver-
sations with him upon the subject, and though he was him-
self considered very radical, and was often denounced as an
Infidel, he still regretted that Franklin was still more unbe-
lieving. If Priestlej'", who knew him so intimately, knew
him to be a Deist, is it not a work of supererogation in us,
who knew him much less intimately, to undertake to call
him a Christian? In his comments Par ton says: "Perhaps
If the two men were now alive, we might express the theo-
logical difference between them by saying Priestley was a
Unitarian of the Channing school, and Franklin of that of
Theodore Parker" — a total unbeliever in the dogmas of
Christianity. Everybody knows that Parker was a thou-
sand times denounced as an Infidel.

To show how great a reverence Franklin entertained for
the sacredness of the Bible, I will allude to a fact which
Parton mentions (vol. i, p. 320). It was a custom with
Franklin to amuse himself and his friends by taking up the
Bible and pretending to read from it, instead of which he
extemporized as he went along. Had he believed the
Bible to be the word of God, he would hardly have subject-
ed it to caricature and ridicule in that manner.

In vol. ii, p. 413, is mentioned the list of Franklin's
friends in Paris, with whom he was on familiar terms, as
follows. Turgot, Rayual, Morcellet, Rochefo«ucault, Buf-
foD, D'Alembert, Condorcet, Cabanis, LeRoy, Mabley, Mi-
rabeau, D'Holbach, Marmontel, Necker, Malcsherbes, Wat-
elet, Madame de Genlis, Madame Denis, Madame Helve-
tius, Madame Brillon, Madame de Stiiel, La Viellard, etc.
These were mostly Infidels and were, to say the least,
rather questionable company for a Christian. Jonathan Ed-

THE nUMrnUEY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. ^o

wards would hardly have selected them for companions-
Voltaire and Franklin entertained a high regard for each
other. They met at a theatre on a certain occasion in Paris,
when they embraced each other like brothers. Voltaire
w^ould liardly have been so affectionate towards a Christian,
nor a Christians toward Voltaire.

You speak of Franklin advising a Freethinker not to pub
lish a certain skeptical work which he had written. This
has often been said to refer to Paine and his "Age of Rea-
son." To show how far this is from being the truth, it is
only necessary to state that Franklin died not less than three
years before a word of the "Age of Reason " was written.
Parton says: " Paine was a resident of Philadelphia, a fre-
quenter of Franklin's house, and was as well aware as we
are of Dr. Fruklin's religious opinions. Nor is there much
in the "Age of Reason" to which Franklin would have
refused his assent " (vol. ii, p. 553). He classes Franklin
with such Chrisiiang (?) as Goethe, Schiller, Voltaire, Hume,
and Jefferson, and says they all would have belonged to the
same church (vol. ii, p. 646). Does that look much as
though Parton considered Franklin a Christian? If Frank-
lin could have accepted the ''Age of Reason," it is a marvel
how you can claim him as a Christian!

Allow me to make a few quotations from Franklin's pri-
vate letters. To B. Vaughan (1778) he said: "Remember
me affectionately to good Dr. Price and to the honest here-
tic, Dr. Priestley. I do not call him lionest by way of dis-
tinction, for I think all the heretics I have known have been
virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude, or they
would never venture to own their heresy." That does not
sound much like a Christian. How he felt toward the
Bible may be inferred from an extract from a letter which
he wrote to a friend, in 1784. He observes: "There are
several things in the Old Testament impossible to be given
by divine inspiration; such as the approbation ascribed to
Ihe angel of the Lord, of that abominably wicked and d<j'

24 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

testable action of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite"
(Opinions of Celebrated Men, p. 9). This is sufficient to
show that certain parts of the Bible, at least, he did not
believe were given by divine inspiration, and there is noth-
ing to prove that he had any special veneration for the book
as a whole. There is also nothing to show that he believed
Jesus to be a god or to have been divinely begotten by God.
When he had reached the great age of eighty-five years,
and President Ezra Stiles, of Yale, addressed him a letter,
asking positively as to his views regarding Jesus Christ, he
showed in his reply that they had undergone no mate-
rial change. He wrote: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opin-
ion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of
morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the
world ever saw, or is like to see ; but I apprehend it has
received various corrupting changes, and I have, with the
present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divin-
ity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having
never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with
it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the
truth with less trouble." This was probably his last utter,
ance upon the subject; and while he did not wish to express
himself harshly to his respected Christian friend, he con-
fesses that though he regarded the teachings of Jesus as supe-
rior to the human teachers who had preceded him, and his
system of religion an improvement upon the old pagan sys-
tems, he did not accept his diviuiiy; that he had not taken
interest enough in it to study the question, and that in view
of an early visitation of death, he did not deem it necessary
to do so. He did not fear to die io his belief that Jesus was
simply a good man— a position that nearly all Deists occupy.
I repeat, then, Franklin was emphatically a Deist, and he
died without experiencing any change of views upon the
subject. The painting you spoke of proves little. It might
have been a fine work of art, or the gift of a dear friend, bui
because it was in his room, or because his eyes rested upon

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 25

it, does not show that he at anytime accepted Jesus as God,
or that his life-long deistical views had changed. He did not
deem it necessary to wash in Jesus' blood, nor to have any
special part in him, before or after he closed his eyes in
death.

As to Washington, you anticipated somewhat the evidence
I intended to present, and you seem not satisfied with its
directness. It certainly is not very " roundabout," nor very
apocryphal in character. Robert Dale Owen, a gentleman
of unblemished character and great intelligence, is still liv-
ing. He had seen an article in the Albany DoAly Advertiser
of October 39, 1831, from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Wilson of
the Episcopal church in that city, in which he had given as
authority Dr. Abercrombie, rector of the Episcopal church
in Philadelphia which Washington attended while Presi-
dent, that on occasions of the administration of the sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper, Washington invariably absented
himself ; and when in a discourse the Doctor reprovingly
alluded to it Washington took some offense at it and was
ne^er known to stay through the ceremony and participate
in the rite. Mr. Owen called upon Dr. Wilson. He read to
him the Advertiser article, and said he had called to converse
with him upon the subject of what his friend. Dr. Aber-
crombie, had said in reference to Washington. Dr. Wil-
son's response was as follows, "I endorse every word of
that," and further added, "As I conceive that truth is
truth, whether it make for us or against us, I will, not con-
ceal from you any information I have on this subject, even
such as I have not given to the public." He then narrated
the conversations he had with Dr. Abercrombie upon the
subject of Washington's religious views, and gave that emi-
nent clergyman's word's, thus, "Sir, Washington was a
Deist!" "Now," continued Dr. Wilson, "I have perused
every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I
do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a
professor of Christianity. I think anjr raan wUq will CM~

26 . THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSSION.

didly do as I have done will come to the conclusion I hat he
was a Deist and nothing more" (Bachelor and Owen Debate,
p. 369).

I repeat, this does not strike me as heiag "round-
about or unreliable." Between Dr. Abercrombie and Mr.
Owen was onl}^ Dr. Wilson, and all three of the gentlemen
f were men of character and reliability, and Dr. Abercrombie
had excellent opportunities for knowing Washington's views.
Your allusion to what Paine said about " hearsay upon
hearsay " in his remarks B.houi*revelation appear to be hardly
to the point. And permit me to add, if the system of relig-
ion which you so greatly revere were based upon testimony
half as direct and reliable as this of Dr. Abercrombie, Dr.
Wilson and Robert Dale Owen, its credibility would be
greatly improved. In this case there is nothing of the nature
of a dream related by a second party, from fifty to one hun-
dred and fifty years after it was said to have been dreamed.
Touching Washington's religious views, Thomas Jefi^erson
wrote as follows in his journal of 1800 (Jefferson's Works,
vol. iv, p. 572): "Dr. Rush told me, he had it from Asa
Green, that when the clergy addressed Gen. Washington on
his departure from the government, it was observed in tiieir
consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a
word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian
religion, and they thought they should so pen their addresses
as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was
a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was
too cunning for them. He answered every article of their
address, particularly, except that, which he passed over
without notice. Rush observes, he (Washington) never did
say a word on the subject in any of his public papers, ex-
cept in his valedictory letters to the governors of the States,
when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he
speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. I
know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his
secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 37

General Washington believed no more in that system (Chris-
tianity) than he did." So much from Jefierson, which does
not speak very strong for Washington's belief in Chris-
tianity, or Morris' either.

Washington's reticence on doctrinal points was marked.
He was discreet and non-commital; he did not obtrude his
Deistic views upon others, but that he firmly maintained
them cannot be doubted. I agree with you that he was a
moral man, but you hardly have the guarantee forsaking
that he was '''highly religious." He was no more so than is
compatible with a belief in Deism. I think you cannot quote
a paragraph, that he wrote or a word that he uttered, which
shows that he accepted the dogmas of Christianity, that he
believed that Jesus is God and that his blood is essential to the
salvation of the world. While he was President he signed
a treaty made between our government and Tripoli, where-
in it was solemnly declared that "the government of the
United Slates is not in any sense founded on the Christian
religion."

As to Benjamin Rush, perhaps I was hardly authorized to
class him among the Deists, though he was a liberal and
progressive man. Possibly the friendship he showed to
Paine, and the manner in which Jefferson uses his name and
remarks justified my doing so. There may be no accessible
proof that Hamilton was a Deist, though probably as much
as there is that he was a Christian, or that he believed in
the Christian dogmas. I, however, waive special claim to
Hamilton. As to Aaron Burr, I did not sa}' nor intimate that
he was a "scoffer," nor did I suppose he was so more than
Franklin, Washington or Jefferson. If, however, you had
been a little fuller in your quotation from Parton, you would
have ihown that Burr was all I claimed him to be — one who
did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. At tlie time of
Burr's death, Dr. Van Pelt, Reformed Dutch clergyman, was
called in, and he questioned Burr closely upon his belief in
the merits of Jesus, who suffered and died on the cross for

28 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSBLON.

the salvation of Ihe world. Burr's laconic and conclusive
reply was, " On that subject I am coy " (Life and Times of
Burr, p. 681). If he entertained any belief in Jesus being
the son of God, and that he must be saved by faith in him,
that was the time for him to confess it. He should then
have ceased to be coy or silent. But he did not ; and
you have no just grounds upon which to claim him as a
Christian. The same with Gouverneur Morris. Of him
and Madison I will probably have more to say as we pro-
gress. D. M. B.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Kew York, April 28, 1877.
Mr. D. M. Bennett— i)ear 8ir: Examine my last letter
closer and you will find I did not say that Franklin was
ever an Atheist. You say his creed contains no recognition
of the divinity of Christ. Th^t is true; hut ilie doctrine of
the divinity of Christ is not the dividing line between Infidelity
and Christianity, hut the doctrine of ihe divine origin of the
Bible. See Webster's and Worcester's definitions of the
words "Infidelity" and "Christianity." When Parlon says
Franklin "escaped the theology of tei'ror, and became
forever incapable of worshiping a jealous, revengeful
and vindictive God," he meant no more than that
he was emancipated from the hyper-Calvinism of "the
Lord Brethren of Boston " (Liie of Franklin, vol i, p. 71).
He had still the wide domain of Arminianism to traverse
before reaching the borders of Deism. If his friendship
with French Atheists proves that he was an Infidel, then,
on the same principle, his friendship with such men as Cot-
ton Mather, Samuel Adams, Ezra Stiles, Benj. Rush, Ed-
mund Burke, Adam Smith, John Jay, Bishop Shipley,
George Whitfield, etc., etc., proves that he was a first-rate
Christian. It is true Franklin and Voltaire were friends;

THE nUMPnKEY-BENNETT DISCUSStON. 39

but that embracing in the theatre proves nothing, as it was
not spoutaneous, but an act forced by the popular clamor
for a salutation "French fashion" (Parton's Life of Franklin,
vol. ii, p. 316). As you say, Parton classifies Franklin^
Jefferson, and Adams with Paine. But how does he do it?
Is it by asserting that the former three were Freethinkers ?
No; unaccountable as that may be, he does it by eaying
that the '*Age of Reason contains nothing against religion"
(Life of Franklin, vol, ii, p. 552) ! It is said again that
Franklin "called himself a Deist or Theist." A man that
can use words in that helter-skelter kind of a way could
prove anything from any document. "Deist or Theist"!
Mr. Parton ought to know that these words, as they are
currently used and popularly understood, are as different
as "chalk" and "charcoal." The former means an Infidel,
and the latter signifies a believer in a personal God and in a
divine revelation. That Franklin was a Theist is all I con-
tend for. I will let you and Parton reconcile the foregoing
with what the latter says of Franklin in his remarks on the
motion for prayers in the Convention of 1787: " It was the
more remarkable to see the aged Franklin, who was a Deist
at fifteen " — mark it, "was a Deist at fifteen " — "and had
just returned from France/' — from the midst of those Athe-
istic friends — " coming back to the sentiments of his ances-
tors" (Parton's Life of Franklin, vol. ii, p. 575). You
refer to Priestley's lamentation that Fraaklin was " an un-
believer in Christianity." I will say, in the words of Par-
ton, *'Ido not understand what Priestley meant," What
did he disbelieve? He was only undecided 2^^ to the divinity
of Christ. He believed in the most incredible doctrines of
Christianity, such as the resurrection of the body and
future rewards and punishments, and in its leading duties*
such as thanksgiving and prayer. In the preface to his
abridged book of Common Prayer, he styled himself a
"Protestant of the Church of England," and a "sincere
lover of social worship." In spite of Parton's leaning to

Bo THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

"Liberalism," lie had to describe his death by saying
"To use the ancient language, he had fallen asleep in Jesus,
and rested in hope of a blessed immortality " (vol. ii, p. 619)

You repeat the " hearsay upon hearsay " in rebuttal of my
proofs that Washington was not a Deist. I cannot receive
R. D. Owen's testimon\% but with suspicion. A man that
could be imposed upon by a silly girl like Katie King, is
rather incompetent to sift and furnish evidence. The
treaty with Tripoli, ratified in 1796, was "in no sense" of
a personal character. The statement that "the Government
of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian
religion," was only an assurance that the American Repub-
lic was not so allied to Christianity that the peace with
Tripoli, or with any other power, would be interrupted on
account of religion. It gives no hint that Washington person-
ally ignored Christianity. His writings contain abundant
proof that he did not. The only thing "observed" was his
silence on sectarian doctrines. He was bold and frequent
in his commendation and recommendation of the general
principles of Christianity.

Even Vale admits that the "publication of Paine's De-
istical opinions might have been one of the causes of Gen.
Washington's indifference to Fame during his imprisonment
in France " (Life of Paine, p. 129). Most assuredly, then,
Washington was no sympathizer with Deism.

But it is claimed that John Adams, too, was an Infidel.
Let us see about that. He was reared in an orthodox fam-
ily. He was educated at Harvard, an institution that was
then pervaded by a religious spirit. At twenty he thought
of entering the ministry. But his taste led him to study
law. He read many skeptical works, which modified the
rigidity of his theological views. He disliked Calvinism.
So did Adam Clarke and John Wesley. He despised
wrangling sectarianism. So did St. Paul. As evidence
that this representation is correct, see Bancroft, vol. iii, p.
143; vol. v, p. 207.

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 3 1

A patient and iaipartial examination of John Adams' Life
and Works, Boston, 1856, cannot but show you that he was
not a Deist. In his diary, Jan. 23, 1756, he wrote: "Sup-
pose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible
for their only law-book, and every member should regulate
his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every mem-
ber would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and
frugality and industry; to justice and kindness and charity
towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence
towards Almighty God. -In this commonwealth no man
would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust;
no man would sacrifice his most precious time at cards, or
any other trifling and mean amusement; no man would
steal or lie, or in any way defraud his neighbor, but would
live in peace and good will with all men; no man would
blaspheme his Maker or profane his worship (Works, vol.
ii, pp. 6, 7). He says of Bolingbroke, whom he admired
as 2>. political writer: "His religion is a pompous folly, and
his abuse of the Christian religion is as superficial as it is
impious;" "a haughty, arrogant, supercilious dogmatist"
(vol. i, p. 44; vol. X, p. 82). At the age of sixty he said:
*' The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever
prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion
of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity " (vol. iii, p. 421).
In a letter to Benj. Rush, in 1810, he said: " The Christian
religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory
and the express portrait of the character of the eternal,
self-existent, independent, benevolent, all-powerful, and
all-merciful creator, preserver, and father of the Universe,
the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as
long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, with-
out a revelation^ could ever have discovered or invented it "
(vol. ix, p. 627). In a letter to Jefferson, dated Dec. 25,
1813, he wrote: " I have examined all, as well as my narrow
sphere, my straitened means, and my busy life would allow
me; and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the

;]2 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION'.

world. It contains more of my little pliilosophy tlian all
the libraries I have seen ; and such parts of it as I cannot
reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future in-
vestigation" (vol. X, p. 85), Bancroft says he "invoked
the blessing of heaven to make the new-born republic more
glorious than any which had gone before " (vol. v, p. 312).
The most that can be said of him is that he was a Unitarian
of the most conservative kind (Works, vol. i., p. G2I; vol.
iii, p. 423; vol. x, pp. 66, 84). But he did not "deny
Christianity and the truth of the Scriptures," therefore he
was not an Infidel.

The thoroughly religious character of his son, John
Quincy Adams, shows that he did not impart Deistical in-
struction. His writings abound with severe criticisms on
Paine's views. This we shall show more fully hereafter.

But you have put in a special claim to Thomas Jefferson.
The inquiry will naturally arise, How did Jefferson come to
have the name of being an Infidel ? The answer substan-
tially is. That this story was circulated by political oppo-
nents in the campaign of 1800, and it has been kept alive
ever since, mostly by those who desired it to be true. This
story is about as creditable and about as credible as its co-
temporaneous calumny that he had a bistard by one of Irs
slaves (Parton's Life of Jefferson, p. 569).

I will argue that Jefferson was not a Deist, in the full
sense of that term, in four ways; 1. From his early training.
His parents were, theoretically and practically, believers in
the Christian religion. Their illustrious son was thoroughly
indoctrinated in that religion. Of course, this does not
'prove that he continued to cherish those principles ; but
in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, the
presumption would be that he did.

3. An argument of some weight may be based on the
man whom he admired most, and in whose learning and
judgment he had the greatest confidence. I refer to Dr.
Priestley. I have examined Priestley's w^orks carefully,

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCDSSION. 33

and especially those to which Jefferson refers with his
endorsement. In those works there is not a word of denial
that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God. The
author argues invsLTia.h]y from the Bible, but never against
it. He contended for what he conceived to be purely
Scriptural doctrines. On reading the life of Priestley I
find, moreover, that he wrote a book in defence of the Bible
against the attacks of Volney and Paine. If this was the
character of Priestley, the master, may we not fairly infer
that that of Jefferson, the disciple, was similar to it ?

3. We may certainly reason from Jefferson's own writ-
ings. He admits that he was sometimes more angry with
sectaries than is authorized by the blessed charities which
Jesus preached (Works, vol. vii, p. 128). This occasional
"anger" may account for his occasionally rash expressions.
The general tenor of his correspondence is on the side of the
Christian religion. In several of his letters he complained
that *Mibels" had been published against him (vol. iv,
p. 477 — Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. iii., p. 45).
He wrote to Dr. Rush in the year 1803 that his real
sentiments were very different from that anti-Christian
system attributed to him by those who knew nothing of
his opinions (Works, vol. iv, p. 479). In his bill for estab-
lishing religious freedom, he referred to "the holy Author
of our Religion." In referring to a collection of New Tes-
tament passages which he called " Philosophy of Jesus,"
he said: " A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I
have never seen; it is a document in proof that / am a real
Christian " (Works, vol. vi, p. 518). He believed in future
rewards and punishments (Works, vol. vii, p. 352). He
spoke of the Bible as a revelation (Works, vol iv., p. 423;
vol. vii., p. 281). In a letter to Rush in 1803 he said: "To
the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but
not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. lam a Chris-
tian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be ;
sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all

34 THE nUMPTITlEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Others; ascribiug to him every humaii -exceWencc, and
believing he never claimed any other " (Works, yol. iv, p.
479). Shortly before his dissolution he said: " I resign my-
self to my God, and my child to my conntry " (Encyclope-
dia Britannica).

In reply to all this you will probably remind us that
Jefferson disliked the Presbyterians; that he had to over-
ride some of the clergy to establish religious toleration; that
he said some pretty hard things of those who seemed to
have more zeal than knowledge; that he advised Peter Carr
to "fix Eeason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal
every fact, every opinion"; that he made no Thanksgiving
proclamations; and that he entertained Paine, and spoke
well of his writings— all of which is no proof that Thomas
Jefferson was an Infidel. The Presbyterians were disliked
in that age by almost every other denomination. Religious
toleration was advocated and established by the Revolution-
ary statesmen, not because they were opposed to religion,
but because they wanted to give to every form of religion
equal protection and equal privileges. The advice to Peter
Carr was only an application of the Protestant doctrine of
the "right of private judgment." No one denounced Phar-
isees as did the Founder of Christianity. Jefferson's refusal
to proclaim Thanksgiving days was based, not on any an-
tagonism to religion, but on his peculiar construction of the
Constitution. The}'- were not all Deists that entertained
Thomas Paine occasionally. James Monroe kept him in
his house in Paris for eighteen months; but it is well
known that President Monroe lived and died a Christian
And almost everybody, regardless of religious belief, spoke
well of Paine's political writings. Jefferson never endorsed
any other.

4. There is another consideration worth mentioning. It
does not appear that Jefferson and Thomas Paine ever ex-
changed ideas on religion. Randall says this topic did not
enter into the conversation when the latter visited Monti-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 35

cello ill 1802 (Life of JeffeTson, vol. ii, p. 644). Some nine
or ten of Jefferson's letters to Paine are still extant. Relig-
ion is scarcely mentioned in any of them. It cannot be said
that Jefferson's silence arose from any distaste for the sub-
ject, for his letters to other friends are full of thoughts on
ihat very theme. Is not this an incidental proof that there
was no congeniality between Paine's and Jefferson's relig-
ious views?

5. But my conclusion from Jefferson's writings is by no
means singular. It is substantially that of nearly all his
standard biographers. Even Parton calls Adams and Jeffer-
son "Christians" (Life of Jefferson, p. 570). The Cyclopedia
Americana and the Encyclopedia Britannica do not intimate
that he wa? an unbeliever. The New American Cyclope-
dia in 1864 said: "Discarding faith as unphilosophical, he
became an Infidel." But the edition of 1874 says simply
" He carried the rule of subjecting everything to the test of
abstract reason into matters of religion, venerating the moral
character of Christ, but refusing belief in liis divine mis-
sion," i. e. , disbelieving in his divinity. Quite a modification,
or rather recantation, in tenyears. Tucker says : "His relig^
ious creed, as disclosed in his correspondence, cannot per-
haps be classed with that of any particular sect; but he was
nearer the Socinian than any other. In the last years of his
life, when questioned by any of his friends on this subject,
he used to say he was an Unitarian " (Life of Jefferson,
London, 1837, vol. ii, p. 563), Bancroft says: "He was
not.only a hater of priestcraft and superstition and bigotry
and intolerance, he was thought to be indifferent to relig-
ion; yet his instincts all inclined him to trace every fact to
a general law, and to put faith in ideal truth; the world
of the senses did not bound his aspirations, and he believed
more than he was himself aware of " (vol, v, p, 323). Linn
says: "However opposed Mr. Jefferson may have been to
what he considered the corruptions or abuses of Christianity,
yet to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel he was strongly

36 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DlSCtTSSION.

attached ; and of our Savior lie was a warm and professed
admirer (Life of Jefferson, Itiiaca, 1839. p. 264.)

Perhaps the best Life of Jefferson is that by Henry S.
Randall, LL.D. In the preparation of it the author had the
approbation and assistance of Mr. Jefferson's family. He
devotes the fourteenth chapter of the third volume to a dis-
cussion of Jefferson's religious belief. He denies emphat-
ically tliat he was an Infidel. He shows that he wished to
put a representation of the Israelites in the wilderness, led
by the pillar of fire, as a device on the Uuited States seal;
that he once advocated the observance of a national fast;
that he contributed largely to religious enterprises; that he
attended the Episcopal church regularly, and took part in
the services; that his wife was a member of that church;
that his children were baptized in it; and that he himself
was buried according to its rites. He was neither anti-
Christian in sentiment nor unchristian in deportment. He
himself denied that he was an Infidel, and claimed to he a
Ghnsiian. Before it can be proven that he was an Infidel it
must be shown that he was an unmitigated hypocrite.

I submit that I have proved the following points:

1. That Washington was not only a moral but a religious
man.

2. That Franklin was a theoretical and practical believer
in Christianity, growing in faith as he advanced in years.
He was undecided respecting the divinity of Christ, but
leaned to the orthodox side.

3. That Adams was an Unitarian of the Priestley and
Channing type. He believed in the Bible as a divine reve-
lation. Hence, he was not a Deist.

4. That Jefferson too was an Unitarian, but of somewhat
looser views than Adams. If it is diflScult to reconcile
some things he said with a belief in the inspiration of the
Scriptures, it is equally difficult, if not much more so, to
make the preponderance of his utterances to tally with
Infidelity. Take the average of what he said about relig-

tHE HUMPHRETT-BKlCNETT DISCUSSION. 37

ion, aud you cannot but feel that it is in stnkijig contrast
with what Paiue published on the same subject. If Chris-
tianity is not entitled to him without some qualifications,
Infidelity cannot claim him without discrediting what he
said of himself.

To Christianity, then, and not to Infidelity, belongs the
credit for what Franklin, Washington, Adams, and Jeffer-
son did for American liberty.

In my next I will endeavor to give the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but tiie truth, about Thomas Paine.

Very respectfully yours. G.H. Hdmpurey.

51 R. BENNETT.

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Bear Sir: Should you, at any
time, decide to bring out a work entitled, " How to Make
Christians with Facility, in Six Easy Lessons," I think I
can cheerfully give you a recommendation for special
ability in that line. By your system almost any distin-
guished man who has passed away may be shown to have
been a good Christian. Let us try it on a few acknowl-
edged Infidels. To begin with Thomas Paine: 1. He was
born of religious parents who were "theoretically and prac-
tically believers in the Christian religion"; 2. Among his
friends were persons who were regarded as excellent Chris-
tians; 3. In his writings he never denied tbe existence of
God, nor a life beyond the grave; 4. He said nothing disre-
spectful of the author of Christianity; 5. He advocated the
best of morals, and was actuated by a deep love for the hu-
man race. Among the many good things he said were these
utterances: " I believe in one God and no more, and I hope
for happiness beyond this life"; " I believe the equality of
man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing ius-
tice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow

88 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

creatures happy"; "It is impossible to be a hypocrite and to
be brave at the same time"; " I believe that any system of
religion that shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true
system"; " Oh! ye that love mankind; ye that dare oppose
not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every
spot of the Old World is overrun with oppression; Freedom
has been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have
long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and
England hath given her warning to depart. O, receive the
fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind";
"The world is my country; to do good my religion," A
man who could pronounce such sentiments as these must
necessarily be a good and religious man, hence a Christian.
Had Paine been President, it is not at all unlikely that an
effort would be made to prove him to have been an excel-
lent Christian.

By a similar process R G. IngersoU can be shown to be
a Christian. He was born of religious parents; his father
was a clergyman; he regularly received religious instruc-
tion in his 3''0uth; his incentives are moral and humane; he
has many friends who are Christians. He dined with our
Christian President, and on Sunday, too; he is a friend to the
human race, and has done naught to injure it. He has
spoken many excellent truths; many matchless utterances
have escaped his lips. Such a one is a good man, and hence
must be a Christian.

B. F. Underwood, by a similar course of reasoning, can be
shown to be a Christian. Moral; religious parents; received
early pious instruction; is a friend to mankind; has been
guilty of no immoral conduct; faithfully served his country
in the late war — he cannot be other than a Christian.

Even your humble servant, by your process, could be made
to count as a Christian were it desirable. Was born in a Chris-
tian land, of parents who accepted the Christian religion. His
mother was a member of the Church; he had the benefit of
early religious instruction ; attended church and Sunday-

THE nUMPnRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. oU

school regularly in childhood; learned parts of the Bible by
heart; tried to get religion at the age of twelve, but was not
fully successful ; was more so three years later; joined a
church ; believed in Jesus, and several times a day for a ba-
ker's dozen of years called regularly upon his name and that
of his illustrious father; afterwards parted with some of his
religious ardor, though not from any bad conduct; gradu-
ally lost confidence in prayer, and faith in what he had pre-
viously believed. Since then he has perhaps said some
things that might be construed to be not exactly Christian-
like, but having killed nobody; not having taken anything
he could not carry away — if he had been President, had lain
quietly in his grave while a generation or more had passed
over his tomb, and it became desirable that he should be
reckoned among the friends of Christianity, the unfavorable
remarks he has made could, by your system, be charitably
overlooked and forgotten. He, even, might be a Christirn.

Even that distinguished but much-abused individual, the
Devil, by your easy process can be made a very fair Chris-
tian. He was of excellent origin or parentage; his early
opportunities for moral instruction were of the highest char-
acter; but he had, according to Milton, a little unpleasant-
ness in early life with his parent and was driven from
home. He is said, on a certain occasion, to have obtruded
his advice upon an inexperienced youug man and woman rel-
ative to eating some fruit, and which is believed to have
caused considerable trouble, but it cannot be shown that he
was immoral in the transaction. It has repeatedly been in-
timated that he did not tell the truth, but if the record is
closely examined, no instance can be found where he ever
told a falsehood, ever killed anybody, ever wronged
anybody, or even did anything that was contrary to the
laws of morality or the rules of good society. I am
sorry to say that the same cannot be truthfully said of
his opponent. The Devil may be claimed as a Christian
from his intimacy and friendship with the author of the sys-

40 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

tern. The}'- passed some time in eacli other's society, and
made a remarkable exploring expedition together. His Sa-
tanic Majesty took his companion, first to the pinnacle of
the temple, then to the top of a mountain so high that he
showed his protege not only the kingdoms on that side of
the globe but on the opposite side as well. He evinced a
disposition to enter into an extensive real estate operation
with his friend, and proposed to transfer a very large
amount of good land, town lots, mill sites, water privileges,
etc., for a very moderate consideration; but it seems the
trade was not perfected, owing, perhaps, to a supposed de-
fect in the title. His willingness to negotiate, however, is
not denied. It must be admitted, too, that he has exhibited
very excellent qualities ; that he has not shown himself im-
moral; has been patient under obloquy and aspersion; when
he has been reviled he has reviled not again. When slander,
abuse and all sorts of defamation have been continually
used against him, he has presented an equable frame of mind
and retorted not; is not vindictive, is not retaliative, but en-
dures his aggravated wrongs with remarkable meekness
and patience, never returning evil for evil but rather good
for evil. He has shown himself a friend to the human race
by befriending inventors, innovators, and reformers, and
especially as a patron of science and learning. His great
importance to the Christian system cannot for a moment be
lost sight of, for he is the most important factor in the busi-
ness. The principal character borrowed from Jewish the-
ology could be spared from the system quite as well as the
personage under consideration. Without a Devil there
would be little use of creeds, churches, or preachers. So
then, his immense importance to the system, joined witli his
meeknesss, amiability, and his many other excellent qual-
ities of character, prove him, according to your easy proc-
ess, to be worthy to be considered a Christian, should it be
deemed desirable.
Pardon me if I have occupied too much space in illustrat-

•the HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 41

ing your system. It works so easily and pleasantly that it
is a perfect pleasure to put it in operation. As, however, a
man's writings may be justly used to show what his opinions
were, I will refer to some of Thomas Jefferson's in this reply,
he being the individual at present most under consideration.
You allude to Jefferson's letter to his nephew and ward,
Peter Carr — allow me to make a few extracts from that
letter by way of showing the quality of Jefferson's Chris-
tianity: "Fix Reason firmly in her scat and call to her
tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness
even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he
must more approve the homage of reason than that of blind-
folded fear. . . Read the Bible as you would read Livy
or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course
of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer as
you do those of the same kind in Livy or Tacitus. . . .
Those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature
must be examined with more care and under a variety of
faces. . . For example, in the Book of Joshua we are
told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that
fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers
of blood, of speaking statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that
the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore,
candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired.
The pretension is entitled to your enquiry, because millions
believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough
to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body
moving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped,
should not by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals,
trees, buildings, and should, after a certain time, have re-
sumed its revolutions, and that without a second general
prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion or the ev-
idence which afla.rms it most within the laws of probabil-
ities ? You will next read the New Testament. It is the
history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the
opposite pretensions, 1, of those who say he was begotten by

42 THE HUMPHREY -BEXI^ETT DISCUSSION.

God, bom of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of
nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of
those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a be-
nevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pre-
tensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was pun-
ished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted, according to
the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that
offense by whipping, and the second by exile or death in
ftirea. See this law in the Digest, Lib. 48, tit. 19, § 28, 3, and
Lipsius, Lib. 2, de cruce, cap. 2. These questions are ex-
amined in the books I have mentioned, under the head of
"religion," and several others. They will assist you in your
enquiries, but keep your reason firmly on the watch in read-
ing them all. Do not be frightened from this enquiry by
auy fear of its consequences. If it ead in a belief that there
is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort
and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and the love of
others which it will procure you. . .

"In fine, I repeat, you must lay^ aside all prejudice on both
sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any
other person or description of persons have rejected or be-
lieved it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by
heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness, but
uprightness of the decision.

" I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testa-
ment, that you should read ;ill the histories of Christ, as
well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided
for us to be pseudo-evangelists, as well as those they named
evangelists. Because these pseudo-evangelists pretended
to inspiration as much as the others, and you are to judge
their pretensions by your own reason and not by the reason
of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost. There are
some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricus, which I
will endeavor to get and send you."

I would be pleased to extend these extracts did space al-
low, but from these does it strike you that he talked just like

•the HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 48

a Christian ? Is it not different from the advice that most
Christian uncles would give their nephews and wards ?
Does it not, rather, sound like Infideliiy? Did he not give
too much importance to Reason and not enough to Faith ?
Would Talmage or Dr. Crosby give such advice ?

In 1829 the Memoir and Correspondence of Jefferson,
edited by his grandson, was published in four volumes, and
in the same year appeared in the Neio York Observer (Presby-
terian—Sidney E. Morse, editor and founder), the following
notice of the work, which does not strike me as being as
appreciative as one Christian ought to be of the writings of
another : —

" The Memoir and Correspondence of Mr. Jefferson, pre-
pared by his grandson in four vols., 8vo, has just been pub-
lished in Charlottesville, Va., and we observe that a brief
notice of this work, expressed in terms of unreserved com-
mendation, is going the rounds of the papers, and has been
copied in some instances by the editors of the religious jour-
nals. Before religious men, and especially Presbyterians,
lend their aid to the circulation of this work, they would do
well to examine its contents. Mr. Jefferson, it is well
kiiown, was never suspected of being very friendly to ortho-
dox religion, but these volumes prove not only that he was

A DISBELIEVER IN A DIVINE REVELATION, BUT A SCOFFER
OP THE VERY LOWEST CLASS !"

What! by Presbyterian authority, a scoffer of the very
lowest class, and still a Christian? Can that be Cliristianity?
This Presbyterian brother, in quotinof from the volumes,
among other quotations gave the following:

*• In a letter to James Smith, written a few weeks after-
wards, he says of the 'doctrine of the Trinity':

*' ' The hocus-pocus ph^antasm of a God, like another Cer-
berus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and
growth in the blood of thousands and thou'^auds of mar-
tyrs.'

"In a letter to John Adams, written in 1823, he says:

44 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCDSSION.

" ' The day will come -when the mystical generation of
Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb
of a virgin, will be classed with the generation of Minerva
in Ihe brain of Jupiter.'" Is that pretty good Christianity?
" In a letter to William Short, written in 1822, he thus
speaks of Gkristian Ministers and the Christian Sabbath :

" ' We have most unwisely committed to the hierophants
of our particular superstition, the direction of public opin-
ion, that lord of the Universe. We have given them stated
and privileged days to collect and catechise us, opportuni-
ties of delivering their oracles to the people in mass, and of
moulding their minds as wax in the hollow of their
hands.' "

Friend Humphrey, do these utterances — those quoted from
Jefferson particularly — please you as Christian iujunctions ?
Did Thomas Paine say anything more pointed and explicit ?
Are these the kind of Christian sentiments that you delight
to recommend to your hearers?

The Presbyterian editor of the Presbyterian Observer, in
the following, gave this opinion of Jefferson — not very com-
plimentary, truly, for one Christian to speak of another : —

" That he was a Humanitarian of the lowest class and a Ma-
terialist, appears from the following passage to President
Adams, written in 1822:

" ' But while this Syllabus (he says) is meant to place the
character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor
himself, but a great reformer of the Hebrew code of relig-
ion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his
doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spir-
itualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards the
forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works
to redeem it,' etc.

"In the same letter, after speaking of the * stupidity of
some of the evangelists ' and early disciples of Christ, and
the * roguery ' of others, Jefferson says of Paul : —

•' 'Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 45

great Coryphaeus, aud first corrupter of the doctriues of
Jesus.' " Rather hard on Paul!

If Jeffereou thus pronounced himself a "Materialist,"
will you not find it rather hard work to make him a Chris-
tian in spite of himself? And is there not danger that you
may be considered heterodox for claiming as a brother
Christian one whom the pious editor of the Hew York Ob-
server denounced as a "Materialist," and "a scoffer of the
lowest class" ?

In 1776, when Jefferson was in Paris, in a letter to' his
friend, Mr. Whyte, he used this language, which gives a
clear view of his opinion of the clergy :

" If anybody thinks that kings, nobles and priests are good
conservators of the public happinesss, send them here. It is
the best school in the Universe to cure him of that folly. He
will see here with his own eyes that these descriptions of
men are an abandoned confederacy against the happiness of
the mass of the people. The omnipotence of their effect
cannot be better proved than in this country, where, not-
withstanding the finest soil upon the earth, the finest climate
under heaven, and a people of the most benevolent, the
most gay and amiable character of which the human form is
susceptible ; where such a people, I say, surrounded by so
many blessings from Nature, are loaded with misery by
kings, nobles, and priests, and by them alone." And more in
the same vein.

As a proof that Jefferson did not regard Atheistical works,
even, with disfavor, it may be slated that he had them in
his librarj^ and that he read them carefully and with appro-
bation is proved by the notes he made. In D'Holbach's
" System of Nature," the chief est among the Atheistical
works of that day, Jefferson made copious notes, most of
which showed that he did not disapprove of a majority of
the positions of the author. Want of space will not allow
them to be quoted now.

He took no pains to conceal his aversion to the Christiaa

4) THE HUMPHREY-BENKETT DISCUSSION.

dogma of the Trinity. lu a letter to Col. Pickering lie
scouted "the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian
arithmetic, that three are one and one is three." Even
after he had arrived at the age of eighty years he declared
that in his opioion " it would be more pardonable to be-
lieve in no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atro-
cious attributes of Calvin."

What he thought of religious revivals, etc., may be gath-
ered from what he said upon the subject in^a letter to Dr.
Cooper. "In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but
chiefly among the women. They have their night-meetings
and praying-parties, where, attended by their priests, and
sometimes by a henpecked husband, they pour forth the ef-
fusion of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal
as their modesty would permit to a mere earthly lover."
He said, too, "The final and complete remedy for the fever
of fanaticism is the diflusion of knowledge."

Does this language strike you as being peculiarly like a
Christian's ?

I could quote much more from Jefferson in a similar vein,
but I have already occupied too much room and will de-
fer further quotations for the present. If, however, your
confidence is still unshaken in the genuineness of his Chris-
tianity I will have to recur to his writings again. A man ought
to know better what he believes himself than those who live
fifty j^eara later, whether it be Mr. Randall or any other
biographer.

You admit that the New American Cyclopedia of 1864
classed him as an "Infidel." That is high authority, and I
do not wish to question it. The effort ten years later to
modify the opinion, or to explain it awaj'^, is unsuccessful.
It must stand that Jefferson was regarded as an Infidel.

It strikes me that you attempt to make too much differ-
ence between a Deist and a Theist. Deism is a belief in one
God, and Theism is nothing more. A Theist may or may
not believe in revelation and in the divine origin of the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 47

Scriptures, while a Deist is generally supposed to not so be-
lieve. That is the only difference. Both equally discard
the divinity of Jesus and the dogma of the Trinity.

I am surprised that, with the fate of the Rev. Mr. Miller
before your eyes, you still insist that ''the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ is not the dividing line between Infidelity
and Christianity, but the divine origin of the Bible." You
seem a little contradictory, too, when, afterwards, you al-
lude to Christ as the "Founder of Christianity." If a belief in
the Scriptures is all that is necessary to make a Christian,
the Scriptures must be the "Founder of Christianity,'
and the Jews ought to be excellent Christians, for they ac-
cept the divinity of more than three-fourths of the Bible.
It is a noticeable fact that the reputed ' * Founder of Christian-
ity" did not specially enjoin a belief in the divinity of the
Scriptures, but positively enjoined a belief in himself. He
said expressly he was the way, the truth, and the life; and that
those who did not believe in him could not be saved nor be
his disciples. He said in the most positive manner, "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be-
lieveth not shall be damned." Did Franklin, Washington,
Adams, and Jefferson believe, and were they baptized ? No.
Then they could not be Christians. They were neither
believers nor can you sustain a claim that they allied them-
selves to any Christian Church. Peter, the leading disciple,
and the one who did the heavy business of the concern, in
speaking of the author of Christianity, said: "There is no
other name under heaven given among men whereby we
must be saved." And when Paul — who, you will hardly deny,
had something to do towards establishing Christianity —
was with Silas, and was asked, "What must I do to be
saved ?" he laconically replied, " Believe on the LOrd Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved;" and this injunction he
virtually repeated in his epistles over and over again. Did
he not pointedly say, " The letter killeth, but the spirit
giveth life"? He said very little about the importance of

48 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

acknowledgiug the divinity of the Scriptures, which assured-
ly he should have done if it is, as you assert, of more conse-
quence than a belief in Christ. None of the disciples or
apostles laid much stress upon the importance of a belief in
the Scriptures, but faith in the Lord Jesus they repre-
sented as being the sine qua non of Christianity. I
think you will hardly contend that you know better what
constitutes a Christian than did Christ, Peter, Paul, and
the rest of the apostles.

By making a belief in Christ of little or no consequence,
you practically occupy the same ground which the Rev, Mr.
Miller does who denies the Trinity, and for which he has
just had a trial and been expelled from the ministry for her-
esy. With equal appropriateness could the Rev. Mr. Mott
point his finger at you, as he did at the Rev. Mr. Miller,
your brother clergyman, and say, "Brother Humphrey, I
charge you with taking away my Lord and Savior, and I
don't know where you have put him. You have robbed
the character of Christ of its most precious attributes." I
tremble for you, my friend, and almost fear your turn will
come next.

I cannot at this time pay much attention to the views of
Adams; and it is hardly necessary, for you have only shown
him to be a Deist or a Theist. He surely did not accept
Jesus as the Divine Being; and the letters which passed be-
tween Jefferson and himself establish the fact that they
were of the same opinion as to Jesus being God. It is unnec-
essary to add more.

I will make one more quotation in reference to Franklin
before we leave him too far in the rear. In his Autobiogra-
phy, p. 166, he says: " Some books against Deism fell into
my hands; they were said to be the substance of the ser-
mons which had been preached at Baylis' Lectures. It hap-
pened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to
what was intended by them. For the arguments of the De-
ists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me to be

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 49

much stronger than the refiilatiou. In, short, I soon became
a thorough Lcist.'''' However distasteful the term Deist is to
you, you here have Franklin's positive avowal that he be-
came a thorough Deist, and if he gives no intimation that
he cliangcd from that belief, we must conclude that it re-
mained unchanged. It matters little what pious biogra-
phers, whether D.D's or LL.D's, may say about his being a
Christian. His own clear statement is of more worth than a
thousand unfounded claims.

I am sorry that you deemed it necessary to make that un-
kind fling at Robert Dale Owen in connection with the
Katie King business. For more than half a century
he has been a piominent man in this country, and as a
statesman, as a writer, and as a citizen, he has had but
few superiors. His honor and truthfulness have never
been called in question. If, in advanced life, he was de-
ceived by a shrewd trickster, it is hardly necessary or kind
to call attention to it. It certainly does not argue that
he did not truthfull}'^ relate a statement made to him by the
Rev. Dr. Wilson over forty years ago. He believed only
what he saw, while there are millions of people like yourself
who claim to be intelligent, who believe not only what they
themselves never saw, but that which nobody else ever saw.

I wholly difcsent from your summing-up. You claim
to have shown that Franklin, Washington, Adams, and
Jc-fferson were Christians. 1 utterly fail to see that you
liave done anything of the kind. True, they were moral,
upright men, but they did not accept the leading dogmas of
the Christian faith; they did not believe that Jesus was
God, nor that he was miraculously begotten by a god. I
claim to have shown that, being unbelievers in the Trinity
and the divinity of Cnrist, they were not Christians, but
Deists or, in other words. Infidels.

Pardon the lengih of my remarks. I will try in future
to be briefer. I wished to answer your several positions,
that I may be ready to defend the great moral and patrioiu;

6*^ THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

hero, Thomas Paine, to whom you propose, in your next, to
give a general over-hauling, I doubt not you will aim to
speak truly of him, but allow me to say, if you do him full
justice you will be about the first Christian who has ever
done so. Very truly yours, D. M. B.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: I will review your last
letter in my next, and then try to close the discussion of
this proposition. Let us now endeavor to ascertain what
were the most prominent /acte in connection wath the life
and labors of Thomas Paine.

Apart from articles in Cyclopedias and sketches in His-
tories, there are five Lives of Paine still extant, though, un-
fortunately, they are not all in print. They are " Oldys', "
Cheetham's, Rickman's, Sherwin's, and Vale's. These are
all alike marred by considerable passion either for or
against their subject. The first two were given to coloring
too darkly, and the last three were no less desperate as
whitewashers.

Paine's life divides itself naturally into three parts. The
first is the Period of his Obscurity^ extending from his birth
to his departure for America. This part of his life may be
outlined in a few words: Born in Thetford, England, Jan.
29th 1737 — goes to grammar-school until thirteen — hates the
dead languages — staymaker — goes to London and Dover —
seaman — settles at Sandwich — marries — his wife dies —
moves to Margate — back to Thetford — London again —
school teacher — goes to Lewes — remarries — tobacconist and
grocer — he and his wife separate — writes the "Case of the
Excise oflacer" — returns to London — a business failure —
meets Franklin, who encourages him to embark for
America.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUS-ION. T. t

It has been asserted that Paine was the writer of the cel-
ebrated Junius Letters, which appeared between 1767 and
1773. This is not even probable. Those Letters exhibit a
certain peculiarity of style, a knowledge of the classics, and
a familiarity with Court life and State secrets, which Paine
did not possess. The best critics ascribe lliose letters to
Philip Francis (See Macaulay's Essay on Warren Hastings,
and Junius by Woodfall, L')ndon, 1850, Vol. ii. pp. 11-90).

This is .only equaled in absurdity by the claim that Paine
was afterwards the author of the Declaration of Independ-
ence. Historians unifoj'mly give that credit, undivided, to
Jefferson. Besides, if Paine icas the writer of that docu-
ment, a lie has been engraved on Jefferson's monument, and
that at Jefferson's own request !

The Period of Paine' s Fame began with his landing in
America in 1774, and ended with his return to Europe in
1787. On his arrival m Philadelphia, his introduction by
Franklin secured him at once a favorable consideration.
He soon obtained a position as editor of the Pennsylvania
Magazine. Some of his editorials were well written The
breach with England kept widening. Paine took a lively
interest in public affairs. In Jan. of 1776 he published his
"Common Sense." It had an enormous circulation. As
was shown in my first letter, that pamphlet did not create
the idea of independence; but it probably did more than
any other publication to accelerate, solidify, and energize
that idea. The Declaration was made in the following
July. As the struggle continued, and the Colonists becamr;
occasionally disheartened, Paine reinspired them with suc-
cessive numbers of the " Crisis," until Independence was
established and recognized in 1 783.

Now, I do most heartily acquiesce in all that such histori-
ans as Botta, Allen, Cassell, Randall, Morse, Ramsay,
Grimshaw, Gordon, Bancroft, and such statesmen as Mad-
ison, Rush, Monroe, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington
have said in praise of these productions. It was no more

52 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

than just for Pennsylvania and New York to reward the
writer in a tangible way. Mr. Paine deserved it all.

But was Paine an Infidel at this time ? I am inclined to
think he was; for he implies as much in his "Age of Rea-
son." Furthermore, John Adams, speaking of an interview
with him soon after the appearance of "Common Sense,"
says: "I told him that his reasoning from the Old Testa-
ment was ridiculous, and I could hardly think him sincere.
At this he laughed, and said he had taken his ideas on Ibat
point from Milton; and then he expressed a contempt for
the Old Testament, and indeed for the Bible at large, which
surprised me. He saw that I did not relish this, and soon
checked himself with these words: 'However, I have some
thoughts of publishing my thoughts on religion; but I be-
lieve it will be best to postpone it to the latter part of life' "
(John Adams' Life and Works, vol. ii, p. 508).

Bat if Paine entertained Dcistical views at that time, he
did not avow them publicly. He "checked himself "in
that respect. There is not a word in anything he wrote be-
fore 1787 that would create a suspicion that he did not be-
lieve the Bible. On the contrary, his allusions to it and
quotations from it invariably convey the impression that he
regarded it as the Word of God. Witness a fetv specimens :
" ' Not to be led into temptation ' is the prayer of dimniiy it-
self' (Case of the Excise Officer, 1772). "As the exalting
one man above the rest cannot be justified on the ecxual
lights of nature, so neither can it he defended on the authmty
of Scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gidton
and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of govern-
ment by kings " (Common Sense, 1776). " We claim broth-
erhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment " (Ibid). "Let a day be sol-
emnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be
brought forth, p^«c6(i on the divine lao, the word of Qod*
(Ibid). " The writer of this is one of those few who never
dishonors religion, either by ridiculing or caviling at any

'tHE HUSTPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 6B

denomination whatsoever" (Epistle to the Quakers 1776).

*'I wish, loiih all the devotion of a Christian, the names of
whig and tory may never be mentioned" (Crisis No. 1, 1776).

" As individuals we profess ourselves Christians" {Crisis, No.
7, 1778). it is clear from such language as this that Paine
did not speak like a Deist during the "times that tried
men's souls."

There are, moreover, several circumstances which unite
to prove that Paine had not aroused as much as a suspicion
that he was a Deist. 1. Even the most illiberal of Chris-
tians praised him without reserve — a thing they would
not have done had they surmised that he was an Infidel.
2. When he did publish his Deistical notions, the Chris-
tian world was surprised, shocked, and repelled from him.
Samuel Adams said in a letter to Paine in 1802: "When I
lieard that you Jiad turned your mind to a defense of infidel-
ity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved."
Dr. John W. Francis said: "The 'Age of Reason' on
its first appearance in New York was printed as an ortho-
dox hook, by orthodox publishers, doubtless deceived by the
vast renown which the author of ' Common Sense ' had ob-
tained." Dr. Rush, who was intimate with him during the
Revolution, did not renew his acquaintance after his return
to America. 3. When Rev. John Witherspoon opposed his
appointment as Secretary to the Committee for Foreign Af-
fairs, he did not mention Infidelity among his objections to
him (Life and Works of John Adams, vol. ii, p. 509).
4. '* Oldys," who wrote in 1791, and said every evil thing
of him that had even a shadow of foundation, did not stig-
matize him as an Infidel. This shows that up to that time
his anti-Christian sentiuients were not publicly known.
Had he died before 1787, or even previous to 1791, history
would not have recorded him a Freethinker.

From this it follows that Thomas Paine rendered his ser-
vices to the caui^e of Independence hy pretending to be a Chris-
tian, and by using Scriptural arguments! "■The swoj'd of the

54 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DiaCUSSION.

Spifit, which is the Word of Ood'" teas one of the weapons icMch
even he had to employ to secure the grand result !

Paine was not much of a statesman. In the words of
Madame Roland, he was " better fitted to sow the seeds
of popular commotion, than to lay the foundation or
prepare the form of government. He enkindled a rev-
olution, better than he concurred in the framing of a
constitution. He took up and established those grand
principles, the exposition of which struck every eye, gained
the applause of a club, or excited the enthusiasm of a tav-
ern*'(Memoires Relatifs a la Revolution Fran^aise, Paris,
1850, Tome Sec. p. 12). This, with his breach of trust
when Secretary to the Committee for Foreign Affairs,
may account for the singular fact that, although he
remained in the country over four years after the close of
the war, he was never elected by the people to any posi-
tion of honor ! He left America in the very year that the
Constitution of the United States was framed !

The Period of his Infamy opened with his departure for
France in 1787, and closed with his life in 1809. He was
received with eclat by the French, on account of his Ameri-
can fame. He soon returned to Eugland, where he wrote
his "Rights of Man." This, thougli not the most influen-
tial, was by far the most able and elaborate of his works.
Like his former writings, it implies an indorsement of
Christianity. Jefferson, and other republican statesmen,
entertained a very high opinion of it. In 1792 Paine was
elected to the French National Convention, where he at
first exerted considerable influence.

In 1794 he wrote his "Age of Reason." He had no Bible
when he composed the first part of it. It does not contain
one original thought. All its cavils had been familiar to
the world ever since the days of Celsus and Porphyry. It
owes its notoriety not to its matter Imt to its manner.
Many Infidels of the higher type are ashamed of it. Such
men as Strauss, Renan, Colenso, Comte, Huxley, Mill, Tyn-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. O)

dall, etc., take no account of it. Many Christians that are
styled " liberal " have not hid their disrespect for it. De
Quinc}^ alludes to its author contemptuously as " Tom
Paine" (Essl y on "Protestantism"). Referring to it Parton
says: "I think his judgment must have been impaired be-
fore he could have consented to publish so inadequate a
performance " (Life of Jefferson, p. 592). Theodore Parker
said: " Paine's theological works are not always in good
taste, nor does he always understand the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments he comments upon " (Life and
Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 425). John Adams' Works
abound with such expressions as the following: "The
worthless and unprincipled writings of the profligate and
impious Thomas Paine" (vol. ii, p. 153). "Let the black-
guard Paine say what he will " (vol. iii, p. 431). " That in-
solent blaspliemer of all things sacred, and transcendent
libeller of all that is good, Tom Paine " (vol. iii, p. 93).
" His billingsgate, stolen from Blount's Oracles of Reason,
from Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Berenger, &c., will never dis-
credit Christianity " (vol. ix, p. 627).

In 179G he published his Letter to Washington, wherein
he abuses the leading statesmen of America, and most of all
Gen. Washington himself. It concludes with the following
sentence: "And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friend-
ship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of
danger), and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be
puzzled to decide, whether you are an APOSTATE or an
IMPOSTOR? Whether you have abandoned good princi-
ples, or whether you ever had any?" No w^onder Oliver Wol-
cott wrote to Alex. Hamilton: "Tom Paine has published a
book against the President, containing the most infamous
calumnies" (^Vorks of Hamilton, vol. vi, p. 185).

Paine became very unpopular in France. In a letter to
Robert Morris, dated Sainport, June 25th, 1793, Gouvcrneur
Morris wrote: "He (Paine) is so completely down that he
would be punished if he were not despised " (Life of Gouv.

t)('i THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Morris, vol. iii, p. 46). There were but few regrets when
he came away.

In 1802 he returned to the United States. In recognition
of his Kevolutionary services, Jefferson provided him with
a safe passage in a man-of-war, and entertained him on his
arrival. He was either accompanied or soon followed by
a Mrs. Bonneville with her three children, but without her
husband. I\Ir. Bonneville neither came after her, nor, as far
as is known, corresponded with her afterwards (Sherwin's
Life of Paine, p. 209). Paine supported her until his death,
and bequeathed a large share of bis property to her and
her family. Vale says he was "godfather" to her youngest
child, " who had been named after him " (Life of Paine, p.
145). Cheetham intimates that Paine was that boy's man-
father (Tjife of Paine, p. 237). For my part, I suspend
judgment in regard to this whole affair. I will only say
that, were a clergyman to do precisely the same thing, every
Infidel paper in Christendom would pronounce him a vile
hypocrite.

Paine was a drunkard in his latter years. Only Vale,
who wrote his biography about twenty-eight years after his
death, twenty-eight years later fhan Cheetham,, and eigh.
teen years later than Sherwin and Rickman, has had the des-
perate hardihood to deny this allegation. Sherwin admits
the charge, and Rickman does not dispute it. Joel Barlow
said explicitly that " he gave himself verpmucJi to drink" (Vale's
Life of Paine, p. 13G.) TVe have already seen that John
Adams pronounced him ^ ^ profligate." Gouverneur Morris
testified that he vj us "besotted from morning till night" \n
France (Sparks' Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. ii, p. 409;
vol. iii, p. 40). Cheetham makes this so clear that no one
can reasonably question it. The Encyclopedia Britannica,
tlie English Cyclopedia, and the Cyclopedia Americana all
assert the same thing. Paiton says *'poor Paine " could
not "represent a clean, sober, orderly people in a foreign
land" (Life of Jefferson, p. 006). Lossing says: "Paine

THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSSION. *>•

became very iniempei^ate, and fell low in the social scale, not
oaly on account of liis beastly habits, but because of Ms blas-
phemous tirade against Christianity " (Lives of Celebrated
Americans, p. 229).

He did not always tell the truth. In Crisis No. 2 he de-
clared that he "never published a syllable in England in
his life." Rush and John Adams testify that he told them
the same thing. But it is now known and acknowledged
that he did write at least the " Case of the Excise OflScer"
in 1772. And the claim that he wrote Junius Letters is an
admission by even his admirers that his word is not always
to be believed. Cheetham says " he was not always vera-
cious" (p. 29). John Adams remarks in his Autobiography:
" At this day it would be ridiculous to ask any questions
about Tom Paine's veracity, integrity, or any other virtue "
(Works, vol. ii, p. 510).

He was self-righteous arid self-conceited. He said in his
Will, written by himself: "I, Thomas Paine, of the State
of New York, author of the work entitled Cominon Sense^
written in Philadelphia, in 1775, and published in that city
the beginning of January, 1776, which awaked America to
a Declaration of ladependence, on the fourth of July follow-
ing, which was as fast as the work could spread through
such an extensive country"! "I have lived an honest and use-
ful life lo mankind; my time has been spent in doing good."
No wonder Paine disliked a Book which says: *' Let another
man praise thee, and not thine own mouth" (Prov. xxvii, 2).
With such selt-puflang before us, we cannot but believe Du-
mont: "His egregious conceit and presumptuous self suf-
ficiency quite disgusted me. He was drunk with vanity.
If you believed him, it was he who had done everything in
America. He was an absolute caricature of the vainest
of Frenchmen" etc., etc. (Recollections of Miraheau, Lon-
don, 1832, p. 271).

I do not relish this recounting of a dead man's faults. I
do it in order that the wliole truth may be known about

ts

THE HTrMPHBET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Thomas Paine. So many attempts have been made of late
to canonize and apotheosize this man that an exposure is
absolutely necessary. The " testimonials " to his "merits "
that are so often paraded are frequently garbled and mis-
leading. And they are seldom taken from the original
sources. There is so much second-hand material — so much
of quoting quoters of quoted quotations in this matter, that
it is become quite a trial to one's patience.

By way of recapitulating and summing up, I will refer
you to the following poinis:

1. The "Testimonials to the Merits of Thomas Paine,"
which are so triumphantly cited, are mostly from Christian
men, and refer exclusively to hia political services and writings.

2. Paine was a man of talent. His style is very readable.
He might have excelled as a poet or engineer, no less than
as a political pamphleteer.

3. His assistance to the cause of Independence was very
great. He did not, liowever^ render it as an Infidel, hut as a
Christian, using Scriptural arguments, and appealing to the
prevalent religious belief. Hence, Infidelity deserves no credit
whatever far his Redolutionary services.

4. He had his good traits He was honest. Nor was he
uncharitable. He abstained from profanity, and rebuked
it in others. He opposed slavery. Many will endorse his
condemnation of Masonry. He was not the worst kind of
Infidel. He believed in a personal God. He considered
"Atheism a scandal to human nature." In the language of
Col, Ingersoll, an Atheist, "he was orthodox compared with
the Infidels of to-day." He held his opinions sincerely.
He died as he had lived, a Deist.

5. His latter years were neither Iwppy nor irreproachable.
His former friends had mostly deserted him. He was
peevish, penurious, quarrelsome, egotistic, and intemper-
ate. And he maintained to the last a very queer relation to
another man's wife. Yours very truly

G. H. Humphrey.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 59

MR. BENNETT.

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: I can see but little
connection between the character and habits of Thomas
Paine and the subject we have under discussion, but I nev-
ertheless have no objection to considering either in this
reply.

In the main, I think you fair and candid in your treat-
ment of Paine and in the credit you accord him for the ser-
vices he performed, but you repeat some of the slanders
that have been so industriously circulated against him by
his enemies. In the early days of the Republic his labors
were duly appreciated, and he was accredited with patriot-
ism, devotion, and great moral courage, and had he never
written anything to offend bigoted sectarians, his praises
would have been loudly sung to this day, and the entire
country would be proud to honor his memory; but because
he had the candor to express his honest convictions upon
theological subjects, and to differ materially from the pop-
ular current of thought, he has been most vilely traduced
therefor; and, besides, a persistent effort has been made to
belittle his services in the Revolutionary struggle, and to
blacken his name and reputation in every possible manner.
You show more fairness in this respect than many others,
and you are entitled to much credit for it.

Ingersoll states the case, with much clearness and truth,
thus: "At the close of the American Revolution no one
stood higher in America than Thomas Paine. The best,
the wisest, thfe most patriotic were his friends and admir-
ers, and had he been thinking only of his own good he
might have rested from his trials and spent the remainder
of his life in comfort and in ease. He could have been
what the world is pleased to coXU-espectdble. He could have
died surrounded by clergymen, warriors, and statesmen.
At his death there would have been an imposing funeral,
miles of carriages, civic societies, salvos of artillery, a na-

00 THE HUMPHRBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

tion in mourning, and, above all, a splendid monument cov-
ered with lies. He chose rather to benefit mankind. At
that time the seeds sown by the great Infidels were begin-
ning to bear fruit in France. The people were beginning
to think. The Eighteenth Century was crowning its gray
hairs with the wreath of Progress; on every hand Science
was bearing testimony against the Church. Voltaire had
filled Europe with light. D'Holbach was giving the elite of
Paris the principles contained in his " System of Nature."
The Encyclopedists had attacked superstition with in-
formation for the masses. The foundation of things
Itegan to be examined. A few had the courage to keep
their shoes on and let the bush burn. Miracles began
to get scarce. Everywhere the people began to enquire,
America had set an example to the world. The word of
Liberty was in the mouths of men, and they began to wipe
the dust from their knees. The dawn of a new day ap-
peared. Thomas Paine went to France. Into the new
movement he threw all his energies. His fame had gone
before him, and he was welcomed as a friend to the human
race, and as a champion of free government."

It is pleasant, in recalling the early services of Paine in
this country, to read what distinguished persons said of
his efforts before the religious element of the country be-
came embittered against him. I will not take the space
here to quote but few of the commendations of Paine for
his heroic labors in the cause of American Independence.
None excelled him in earnestness and courage, and he was
in advance of the masses of th; Colonists in daring to dc
clare independence of Great Britain. It was Paine who
first openly suggested that the Colonies disconnect them-
selves from the parent government. He was the first to pro-
pose an independent nationality, and to give a name to the
incipient nation. It was his pen that first wrote the grand
words — " The Free and Independent States of America.'^

The great results produced by his pamphlet, "Common

*HE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 61

Sense," can hardly be over-estimated. It did just what
was necessary to be done to arouse the young country to
the point of resistance. The effect it produced was unpar-
alleled. It awakened the most active enthusiasm in the
breasts of the Colonists. It performed an important part
in the great drama, which if it had been omitted, success
would never have been gained. I claim that, if with that
pamphlet enthusiasm was aroused and victory ultimately
achieved, it was a most important factor in the great
cause, and equal at least to any other portion of the means
employed. Without it independence would not have been
declared nor gained, and with it both were accomplished.
Hence, to the author of ' Common Sense" America owes
her liberty to-day.

Edition after edition of the brave little work was issued.
It circulated in every direction. It was read at every fire-
side, whether in the farmhouse or in the tented camp, and
many times from the pulpit where the people gathered for
worship, its arguments were unanswerable; its reasoning
was irresistible; and its logic most convincing. Well did
Major-General Charles Lee express the truth in a letter to
Gen. Washington two or three weeks after the pamphlet
had appeared, when he said: "Have you seen the Pam-
phlet ''Common Sense"? I never saw such a masterly,
irresistible performance. I own myself convinced by its
arguments of the necessity of separation." Subsequently,
in referring to this work of Paine, he said : " He burst forth
on the world like Jove in thunder."

Samuel Bryan, in speaking of "Common Sense," said:
"This may be called the book of Genesis, for it was the be-
ginning. From this book spread the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, and not only laid the foundation of liberty in
our own country, but the good of mankind throughout the
world."

Lossing, in his "Field Book of the Revolution," said:
" ' Common Sense' was the earliest and most powerful ap-

62 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

peal in behalf of independence, and probably did more to
fix that idea firmly in the public mind than any other in-
strumentality."

Morse, in his "Annals of the Revolution," said: "The
change in the public mind in consequence of ' Common
Sense ' is without a parallel."

Wra. Howitt, in "Cassell's Illustrated History of Eng-
land," says: " There was no man in the Colonies, neverthe-
less, who contributed so much to bring the open Declaration
of Independence to a crisis as Thomas Paine. This pam-
phlet (* Common Sense ') was the spark which was all that
was needed to fire the train of Independence. It at once
seized on the imagination of the public; cast all other
writers in the shade, and flew in thousands and tens of
thousands all over the Colonies. . . . During the winter
and spring this lucid and admirably reasoned pamphlet was
read and discussed everywhere and by all classes, bringing
the conviction that immediate independence was necessary.
The common fire blazed up in Congress, and the thing was
done."

Henry G. Watson, in his " History of the United States,"
says: " ' Common Sense,' written by Thomas Paine, giving
in plain language the advantages and necessity of inde-
pendence, effected a complete revolution in the feelings and
sentiments of the great mass of the people."

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and
many other distinguished personages, bore honorable testi-
mony to the great services performed by Paine but want of
room must prevent further quotations now.

Possibly the great good which was accomplished by
"Common Sense" was only equaled by the grand results
produced by "The Crisis." These were issued at irregular
periods during the great struggle and when the exigencies
of the times mos't demanded their aid. The contest was a
long and unequal one on the part of the feeble Colonists.
The people were poor, and the army was bally supplied

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 63

with arms, provisions, and clothing, and they were
contending with the most powerful nation in the world.
It is not strange that desertions were very numerous;
that the half-starved army became decimated, and that
the greatest gloom spread over the entire land. The
first number of ''The Crisis" was issued at the time
when General Washington was compelled, before superior
forces, to retreat from this city across New Jersey, when,
by numerous desertions, the army had become largely re-
duced, and when the greatest despondency had settled over
the entire country. Then it was that Paine's burning words
rang over the land: "These are the times that try men's
souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in
this crisis shrink from the service of his country, but he
that stands it now deserves the thanks of man and woman.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have
this consolation with us: the harder the conflict, the more
glorious the victory ; what we obtain too cheaply, we es-
teem too lightly." " Every generous person should say, 'If
there must be war, let it be in my day, that my child may
have peace.' " *' He that rebels against reason is a real rebel ;
but he that in defense of reason rebels against tyranny has
a better right to the title of ' The Defender of the Faith '
than George the Third."

The first number of "The Crisis" was read in every camp,
by every corporal's guard, and by every fireside over the
land, and the stirring appeals of Paine had a wonderful ef-
fect; desertions were greatly lessened, enthusiasm was re-
kindled, enlistments were revived, and new courage was
imparted to the whole country

The success of the struggle was most unpromising. The
fate of the country was like a balance, with the side of the
Colonists about to "kick the beam." It was the critical mo-
ment of the young nation's existence. Something had to be
done promptly or the cause was lost. Paine afforded that
aid; he saved the nation he had called into being and had

64 THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

christened. May the people of this country never forget tlie
great debt they owe this man. Without his services na
tional iudependeuce would not have been secured.

I was nearly prepared b}"- your third letter for your at-
tempt to count Paine a Christian; at all events when ho
wrote " Common Sense " and ** The Crisis," as he quoted a
passage of Scripture or two and did not take the occasion
to present his theological views; but the quotations
you give from Adams, and Paine's own words at the com-
mencement of the "Age of Reason," effectually refute the
allegation that his religious opinions were of recent date.
It was obviously improper to introduce theology into
"Common Sense, " "The Crisis," or "The Rights of Man;"
and he showed his good sense by not obtruding religious
beliefs into political essays or discussions. Had he done so,
you, doubtless, would have blamed him for it far more than
you now do for the omission.

You quote a woman to show that Paine was not a states-
man. Unless you can find a man or two among the thou-
sands who knew him who expressed a similar opinion, it
will be hardly just to condemn him on that authority alone
as not being a statesman. Without doing yourself or Paine
any injustice you might have quoted the lady a little more
fully, where she says, "The boldness of his conception,
the originality of his style, the striking truths which he
boldly throws out in th© midst of those whom they offend,
must necessarily have produced great effects."

The portion of Paine's life after 1787, when he went
to France, you are pleased to term The Period of Ms
Infamy. There you assuredly wrong Paine and yourself.
It was far from being a " period of infamy." There was no
such period in Paine's life. His career in Europe may well
be called glorious. After visiting France, besides attending
to the introduction and manufacture of an iron bridge he
had invented in this country, he visited his aged mother,
where he passed some timi, and ministered to her necessi-

*rHE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. C')

ties. It was during what you characterize as the period of
Paine's infamy that he wrote the " Rights of Man," one of
the grandest pleas for Humanity ever made; a production
that has won encomiums from men of the ver}' highest
ability and distinction. Richard Henry Lee, in acknowl-
edging to Gen. Washington the receipt of a copy, said: "It
is a performance of which any man might be proud; and I
most sincerely regret that our country could not have of-
fered sufficient inducement to have retained as a permanent
citizen a man so thoroughly republican in sentiment and
practice in the expression of his opinions." In reference to
that production, Lord Erskine remarked : " Mr. Paine spoke
to the people, reasoned with them, told them they were bound
by no subjugation to any sovereignty further than their own
benefit connected them." Andrew Jackson said; "Thomas
Paine needs no monument made by hands: he has erected
himself a monument in the hearts of all lovers of lil)erty.
The 'lligliU of Man' wiil be more enduring than all the piles
of marble and granite man can erect."

Napoleon Bonaparte, even, by Way of high compliment
to Mr. Paine, said : " A statue of gold ought to be erected
to him in every city in the Universe." He added, that he
slept with " The Rights of Man " under his prllow, and he
pressed Mr Paine to honor him with his correspondence
and his advice.

It certainly was not infamous to be promptly declared a
citizen of France, and to be elected to the National Assem-
bly from four different Departments. His career in that
body was eminently honorable. He was early appointed
one of the Committee to draft a Constitution for that coun-
try. He first made himself unpopular by his humane de-
fense of the unfortunate king, Louis XYI, whom he wished
to save from death and recommended that he be sent to
America. For this noble act, Ingersoll pays this merited
tribute: " Search the records of the world and you will find
few sublimer acts than that of Thomas Paine voting

66 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

against the king's death. He the hater of despotism, the
abhorser of inonarchj^ the champion of the rights of man,
the republican, accepting death to save tlie life of a deposed
tyrant — of a throneless king. This was the last grand act
of his political life — the sublime conclusion of his political
career." But, for this humane action, an insane people
threw him into prison, and by tlie merest chance he escaped
the guillotine. In my humble opinion it is well for the
world that he escaped death at that time. Otherwise his
"Age of Reason " would never have appeared.

This, his last great work, was written under the immedi-
ate apprehension of death, in a spirit of honesty, boldness,
and fairness rarely equaled. He certainly did not write
for popularity, for he took the unpopular side, but he
penned what he believed to be the truth. For this act
of self sacrifice you and the Christian world are ready to
consign him to the lowest degree of degradation and in-
famy. Why is this so ? Because he was an honest man,
and uttered just what he believed, though he shocked the
prejudices of Christendom. He found contradictions,
absurdities, and obscenity in the Bible, and had the candor
and honesty to say so. Can you say he did not find them
there? If you do, I think I can easily point out your error.
Was it so wrong for Paine to give his real convictions that
he should be doomed to the realms of infamy forever?
No ! No ! No ! Rather let paeons be sung to his memory, so
long as truth is superior to superstition and error.

Of the " Age of Reason " you say: '* It does not contain
one original thought. All its cavils had been familiar to
the world ever since the days of Celsus and Porphyry. It
owes its notoriety not to its matter, but to its manner.
Many Infidels of the higher type arc ashamed of it." Allow
me to say that 1 think in this language you do violence to
truth. A more original work of the kind than Paine's
"Age of Reason " has not been produced for two hundred
years. Why did you not give some proofs of your asscr-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

67

tiou that leading Infidels are ashamed of it? Where are
the proofs to be found? If he merely played the parrot
and repeated the ideas of others, why have the anathemas
of the Church been heaped upon his head a thousand times
more than upon those who you say were the originators of his
sentiments? If it is true that his writings cannot do any dis
credit to Christianity, please tell me wLy defamation, slan-
der, and abuse have been so persistently thrown upon him
by the Christian sects for three quarters of a century.

Is it not singular, too, that the writings of a mere plagiar-
ist should have been so popular while the originals sank
into comparative obscurity ? Probably there have been
more copies sold of Palne's "Age of Reason" than of all the
books of the other iDfidel writers you named. One hundred
editions of the "Age of Reason" have doubtless been print-
ed and sold in England and America; and hundreds more
will yet be printed and cold. His Theological Works are
selling to-day far more rapidly than tlie works of any other
Infidel writer; and I believe this will be the case for the
next hundred years. Few works on the Christian side have
been equally as popular, and probably there has not been
one copy sold of Watson's Reply to the "Age of Reason" to
ten or twenty sold of the latter.

Allow me to say in this connection that I have now in
press a fine edition of Paine's Complete Works, which will
very soon be issued in one large volume, including his
Life, also his Theological Works and his Political
Writings by themselves, as well as each part separately.
I am proud to be the publisher of the writings of Thomas
Paine, and deem it one of the most commendable acts of
my life. I shall be only too glad to furnish a copy of liis
works, or any part of them, to any person who wants them.

Paine spoke directly to the people and addressed himself
to their plain common sense. This is the secret of his sue.
cess as a writer. Jefferson expressed himself thus, regard-
ing Paine as an author: " No writer has exce'lecl Paiuo in

08 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

ease and familiarity of style, in perspicuity of expression,
happiness of elucidation, and in simple, unassuming Ian-
guage. In this respect he may be compared with Dr.
Franklin."

Stephen Simpson said of Paine: "Lucid in his style, for-
cible in his diction, and happy in his illuslrations, he
threw the charms of poetry over the statue of reason, and
made converts to liberty as if a power of fascination pre-
sided over his pen."

You have quoted a few words from Theodore Parker; let
me add a few more. In a letter to a near friend he said: "I
see some one has written a paper on Thomas Paine, in the
Atlantic Monthly^ which excites the wrath of men who are
not worthy to stoop down and untie the latchet of his shoes,
nor even to bring them home from the shoe-black. . . It
must not be denied that he had less than the average amount
of personal selfishness or vanity ; his instincts* were humaue
and elevated, and his life devoted mainly to the great pur.
poses of humanity. His political writings fell into my
hands in early boyhood, and I still think they were of im-
mense service to the country. . . I think he did more to
promote piety and morality among men than a hundred
ministers of that age in America. He did it by showing
that religion is not responsible for the absurd doctrines
taught in its name."

Quotations in this connection from a few other clergy-
men may not be out of place. Rev. Solomon Southwick,
among other complimentary remarks, said: "Had Thomas
Paine been a Grecian or a Roman patriot in olden tLjies,
and performed the same public services as he did for this
country, he would have had the honor of an apotheosis.
The Pantheon would have been opened to him, and we
should at this day regard his memory with the same vene.
ration that we do that of Socrates and Cicero. But posterity
will do him justice. Time, that destroys envy and estab-
lishes truth, will clothe his character in the habiliments

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. ^^

ihat justly belong to it." Rev. M. D. Conway, in a dis-
;;ourse in Cincinnati on Paiue's birthday, Jan. 29, 1860
'which I had the good fortune to hear), said: "All efforts to
stain the good name of Thomas Paine have recoiled on
those who made them, like poisoned arrows shot against a
strong wind. In his life, in his justice, in his truth, in bis
adbereiice to hi^h principles, in his disinterestidness, I look
m vain for a parallel in these times." The Rev. David
Swing of Chicago, and, 1 believe, of your own denomina-
tion, said: "I have read Paine's theological works with
p'eat pleasure and profit. Indeed, judging by his writings,
he was one of the grandest and best men that ever trod the
planet."

In marked contradistinction to the tributes thus honor-
ably bestowed stands such dishonorable tirades as you
quoted from the envious and maligning pen of Adams. It
seemed to wound his vanity to have praise accorded to
Paine. Ho could hardly bear to have it go down in history
that anybody but himself struggled to fire the American
heart to deeds of daring and valor in the cause of national
independence. I must confess that the strongest proof you
have adduced in favor of Adams being a Christian are the
quotations against Paine which you make from him.
They sound exceedingly like Christian sentiments, and were
it not true that he never accrpled the fundamental dogma of
Christianity, 1 would freely relinquish him to you and your
cause. That his remarks about Paine were malicious, un-
generous and uncalled for, cannot for a moment be doubted.

You say, "Paine did not always tell the truth," and as
proof adduce his assertion that he never published a syllable
in Eugland. It is quite possible that he did not. Writing
and publishing are very different operations. Many persons
wfite for my paper, but I am the publisliery and equally so if
I write not a word myself. Do you suppose for a moment
that Mr. Paiue meant that he m;ver wrote a syllable in Eng-
and? It strikes me that I can substantiate a much stronger

70 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

charge of falseliood against your God, your Savior, the
patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the popes, bish-
ops and priests, from the earliest times down to the present.
Should you desire it, it will be a cheerful task to me to ac-
commodate you.

Pdine did not claim to be the author of the Declaration of
Independence, but only that his pamphlet, "Common
Sense," led to it. This opinion is doubtless correct, and is
corroborated by the judgment of thousands. Your charge
of " self-righteousness and self-conceit" is indifferently sus-
tained. It was no more reprehensible for him to name him-
self as author of "Common Sense" than for Jefferson to
name himself as the author of the Declaration of Indepen-
dence. Both were quite excusable. His statement that he
had lived an h©nest and useful life was strictly true, and
hardly justifies your fling at his want of faith in the Jewish
Bible in conned ion therewith. Such as Paine was, he at-
tained by his own efforts. He claimed neitber grace nor
virtue on the merits of another.

Few of his friends have claimed for him the authorship
of the "Junius Letters," though William H. Burr, in
his volume, "Junius Unmasked," gives in parallel col-
umns a large number of extracts from Junius' and Paine'a
writings, and it must be confessed the similarity is striking.

You say "Paine became unpopular in France." This was
due more to the peculiar fitful, mercurial character of the
French people than to any other cause; though his praise-
worthy (lefense of Louis XVI, as has been shown, made him
temporarily unpopular. You say, also, that ' 'be was penuri-
ous." Your estimate of him differs from that of others.
Joel Barlow, a man of the hio^hest veracity, and who knew
Paine intimately, said: "He was one of the most benevolent
and disinterested of mankind, endowed with the clearest
perception, an uncommon show of original genius, and the
greatest depth of thought. . . He ought to be ranked
among the brightest and undeviating luminaries of the age

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. "1

in which he lived. . . He was always charitable to the
poor, beyond his means, a sure protector and friend to all
Americans in distress that he found in foreign countries;
and he had frequent occasions to exert his influence in pro-
tecting them during the Revolution in France." His sub-
scription of $500, all the money he had in the world, for the
benefit of the soldiers, in the darkest days of the Revolution-
ary War, did not look much like penurious ness. He headed
the list by which £30,000, or $150,000, was raised, which
was another means by which the cause was saved. His
gift of the copyright of his works, never charging a cent for
the same, did not savor of penuriousness. Had he seen fit,
as many have done, to avail himself of the copyright, a
large income could have been secured to himself. Had he
been penurious, he would doubtless have done so. He was
frugal but not penurious.

Another charge you make is that "Paine was a drunkard
in his latter years." This is unkind, to say the least, and is
sustained only by slander and misrepresentation. He lived
at a time when almost everybody drank more or less; he did
make use of spirits, but he did not drink to excess, as many
of his intimate acquaintances testified. The allowance that
he restricted himself to was one quart per week, and
this included what he placed before his friends when
they called upon him. That quantity would not suffice for a
hard drinker. The amount used is proved by the statement
of Mr. Burger, the grocer who supplied Mr. Paine, and I ob-
tained additional confirmation from surviving members of
the family with whom he boarded when at New Rochelle.
Their statement was that he never exceeded one quart per
week, and that they never knew him to be intoxicated. I
have conversed also with Major A. Coutant and Mr. Bar-
ker of New Rochelle, now very far advanced in life, but who
distinctly remember Mr. Paine. They remember him as a
pleasant, genial man, who lived on good terras with his
neighbors and was not known to ever have been intoxicated,

73 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

If he even did get intoxicated occasionally, it would hardly
disprove his arguments, either upon political or theological
subjects, and would not render him materially different
from many of the brilliant minds who have graced our na-
tion's history, among whom maybe named Daniel Webster,
Henry Clay, Thomas F. Marshall, Silas Wright, Stephen A.
Douglas, Richard Yates, and mauy others, not to name
Chandler and Grant of our own times. These men all made
pretty free use of ardent spirits, but the Church has not
tried to damn their memories on account of it. The facts
are, Paine made an habitual use of the article, but he was
not a drunkard. Had Paiue become so intoxicated as to lie
in a drunken sleep, exposing his person, as did the patriarch
Noah, or like the patriarch Lot, to commit incest with his
own daughters, or even like the Rev. Mr. Pearson of Pitts-
burgh, or that other respected chrgyman in Baltimore who
recently was so intoxicated in the pulpit as to be unable to
continue his sermon, you could have made out a much
stronger case of intemperance against him than with all
the facts we have in his case.

Your charge about his being " unhappy and quarrelsome"
is hardly worthy of attention. In advanced life, when he felt
that he had been denied the credit which a grateful people
should have bestowed upon him, he might at times have been
peevish and uncommunicative, as many aged people are;
but amiability, geniality, and sociability were his genera]
characteristics.

I am most sorry of ail, dear frienii, to see you willing to
repeat or use the vile insinuations retailed by that ungentle-
manly slanderer, Cheetham, in regard to an intimacy be-
tween Paine and Madame Bonneville, throwing out the
imputation that he was the father of one of her children,
when there was not a particle of proof that there was the
slightest truth in the insinuation, and when you must have
known that ]\[rs. Bonneville prosecuted Cheetham for libel,
and sustained the action without the slightest difficnliy, and

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 73

that Cheetham's gentlemanly lawyer, acknowledged in
court that the charge was groundless — an unmitigated libel.
I can hardly think your cause can be benefited by repeat-
ing those calumnies and low insinuations. In view of the
notorious adulterous operations of Bishop Onderdonk, Rev.
Mr. Wesley, of Illinois, Rev. J. S. Bartlett, Rev. Miriam D.
Wood, Rev. J. M. Mitchell, Rev. L. D. Huston, Rev. A. T.
Thompson, Ruv. E. F. Berkley, Rev. Dr. Griswold, Rev. E.
G. Ribbie, Rev. B. Phinney, Rev. I. S. Kalloch, Rev. Dr.
Pomeroy, Rev. Tunis Titus Kendrick, Rev. R. H. William-
son, Rev. John Newland Mafflt, Rev. Mr. Wilcox, Rev. E.
W. Sehon, Rev. John A. Huckins, Rev. Mr. Deardorf, with
hundreds of other libidinous reverends, from Henry W.
Beecher, down to the Rev. Thomas B. Bott and the Rev.
J. H. Foster, against all of whom most damaging proofs of
adulterous criminalities were brought to light, it seems
hardly worth your while to revive the false and exploded
insinuation about Paine, whose record in that direction is
singularly clear and untarnished. Occupants of glass houses
or people whose friends are, should not amuse themselves
by throwing stones.

Mr. Paine never set himself up for a saint, nor have his
greatest admirers ever claimed that he was a man without
fault. He was human, and of course had his failings as well
as other men; but take him ''all in all," through the
entire course of his life, and he will compare favorably
with distinguished statesmen, theologians, and authors of
the last two centuries. When, however, sectarians have
been unable to refute his arguments (and it is safe to say
that his theological arguments have never been refuted),
their only recourse has been to slander, abuse, and call him
hard names. They have seemed to think if they charged
Paine with intemperance, uncleanliness, sadness, and with
having recanted on his death-bed, that they had set his
arguments aside. It is not strange, then, finding this course
§0 much ej^sier than refuting his arguments, that they,

74 THE HUMPHREY-BENlSrETT DISCUSSION.

should readily resort to it. As you are candid enough to
admit that "he died as he lived, a Deist," it is unneces-
sary for me to disprove the oft-repeated and silly assertions
that he recanted on his death-bed and gave the lie to the
honest convictions of his life.

In conclusion, allow me to make one more brief quotation
from the matchless Ingersoll: "I challenge the world to
show that Thomas Paine ever wrote one line, one word, in
favor of tyranny — in favor of immorality; one line, one
word, against what he believed to be for the highest and
best interest of mankind; one line, one word, against jus-
tice, charity, or liberty, and yet he has been pursued as
though he had been a fiend from hell. His memory has been
execrated as though he had murdered some Uriah for his
wife, driven some Hagar into the desert to starve with his
child upon her bosom; defiled his own daughters; ripped
open with the sword the sweet bodies of loving and inno-
cent women; advised one brother to assassinate another;
kept a harem with seven hundred wives and three hundred
concubines, or had persecuted Christians even unto strange
cities."

The fact that it requires more space to refute false
charges than to make them must be my apology for the
length of my reply.

I am truly yours, D. M. Bennett.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: You said in your first
letter that " England had no deadlier foe to American free-
dom than was John Wesley." That, 1 think, is an incor-
rect statement. Like a great many other Englishmen, of
every species of belief and unbelief, Wesley thought the
British the best form of government in the world; and he
regretted to see a disruptipn between the Colonies and the

THE HUMPHREY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 75

Mother country. But he was not a "deadly foe to American
freedom." He pronounced the slave trade " that execrable
sum of all villainies" (Works: London, 1810; vol. v, p. 47).
He wrote and spoke in defense of religious toleration and
freedom of conscience (vol. vi, p. 237, 401). He and his
friend Gen. Oglethorpe endeavored to make Georgia a free
State (Greeley's American Conflict, vol. i, p. 32). In a let-
ter to Lord North, dated June 15, 1775, after receiving ful-
ler information than he at first [)Ossessed about the true state
of affairs, he said respecting the Colonists: " In spite of all
my long-rooted prejudices, I cannot help thinking, if I think
at all, these, an oppressed people, asked for nothing more
than their legal rights, and that in the most modest
and inoffensive manner that the nature of the thing
would allow. But waiving this, waiving all considerations
of right and wrong, I ask, is it common sense to use force
toward the Americans ? . . They are as strong men as
you; they are as valiant as you, if not abundantly more val.
iant, for they are one, and all enthusiasts — enthusiasts for
liberty" (Parton's Life or Franklin, vol. i, p. 548). Does
this look like deadly enmity to American freedom?

You promised to show that James Madison was an Infidel!
I wonder more at the promise than at the non-fulfillment.
Madison was a thorough believer in the Christian religion. •
When he died, "he had fulfilled nobly fulfilled, the desti-
nies of a man and a Christian " (J. Q. Adams' Eulogy,
p. 4)

So of Gouverneur Morris. You will hardly attempt to
prove that he was a Deist after seeing his uncomplimentary
estimate of Paine.

In your third letter you quote from Franklin's Autobiogra-
phy to prove that he was a Deist. Franklin was referring
to himself when fifteen, where he said, "I became a thor-
ough Deist." We have already shown that he passed
through a "regeneration," and "returned to the sentiments
of his ancestors " after that. Your quotation is like citing

76 THE HUMrHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

what a man has said when tipsy, in order to show how
much sense he has when sober.

You make a special effort to convince the reader that Jef-
ferson was an Infidel. Many of your quotations only show
Jefferson's views concerning the " corruptions and abuses
of Christianity." You can find similar things in sermons,
and, for that matter, in the Kew Testament. He advised
Peter Carr to take nothing for granted — to doubt everj'thing.
Perhaps you are not aware that a course in a modern theo-
logical seminary is based on a similar principle. The stu-
dent is not taught to assume but to prove the existence of a
God. Descartes began with universal doubt. He " ques-
tioned with boldness even the existence of a God." But
was Descartes therefore an Infidel? No; he *' lived and
died a good Catholic" (Huxley's Lay Sermons, p. 342).
In the inculcation of this principle, then, Jefferson did not
differ from Christian philosophers and theologians.

But Jefferson called himself a "Materialist." Yes ; and he
called himself a "Christian" also. Now, these two state-
ments cannot be reconciled in your favor; but they can in
mine. Jefferson could not be a "Christian" in amj sense
and be a "Materialist " in the A'heistic sense. But he
could be a Christian consistently with Webster's second defi-
' nition of the word Materialism : "The tendency to give un-
due importance to material interests; devotion to the ma-
terifjl nature and its wants." His writings prove abun-
dantly that he was not a *' Materialist" in the sense of "one
who denies tlic existence of spiritual substances." It follows
that Jeffer; on flatly contradicted himself, or else he used the
word "Materialist" in a sense consistent with a belief in
the Scriptures.

And he called Paul a " Coryphaeus." That vcas rather a
hard name to give the great Apostle. But you must know
that avowed Christians sometimes give vent to unguarded
expressions of this kind. Some women that want to preach,
when reminded of certain injunctions to "silence in the

THE HUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 77

churches," speak of Paul rather lightly as an "old bachelor."
Martin Luther called James' Epistle " an Epistle of straw;"
and he did it with considerable earnestness, too. But you
will hardly claim that Lather was an Infidel. Then why be
so sure that Jefferson was, since he did not speak more dis-
respectfully of Paul than Luther did of James ?

If Jefferson was an Infidel why did he call the imputation
of Infidelity a *'libel," a "malignant distortion and perverted
construction"? If he was an Infidel of the Paine type, how
was it that he did not allude, disciple-like, to Paine in one
of the twenty-five private letters tbat he wrote between the
time of Paine's death in June and the close of the year? If
he was an Infidel, how could Samuel Adams v/rite to
Thomas Paine, in 1802, such words as these: *' Our friend,
the President of the United States, has been calumniated
for his liberal sentiments, by men who have attributed that
liberality to a Intent design to promote the cause of Infidel-
ity. This and all other slanders have been made icithoiU a shad-
ow of proof;''' and why did Paine not claim him in his reply?
If he was an Infidel, why did he always deny it, and claim
that he was a Christian ? When will poor Jefferson cease
to be the subject of "libels," "slanders," "calumnies,"
"malignant distortion and perverted construction "?

You devote a considerable part of your letter in defense
of Paine to showing what I had already acknowledged. I
must give you credit for candor in not denying that
Paine labored for Am.erican Independence by assuming to
be a believer in the Bible, and by appealing to Christian sen-
timent.swith Christian arguments. What I meant by the
** period of Paine's infamy," was the period in which he be-
came infamous. You refer rather contemptuously to Mad-
ame Roland as " a woman." I gave her opinion simply be-
cause she was a skeptic, esteemed very highly among In-
fidels. The whole American people expressed the same
opinion that she did by not electing Paine to any position
where statesmanship would be required. You try in vain

78 THE HtrMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

to defend him against the charge of falsifying. Your dis-
tinction between writing and publishing seems to me very
much like a quibble. John Adams said in regard to this
matter: "He was extremely earnest to convince me that
'Common Sense ' was his first-born; declared again and
again that he had never written a line nor a word that had
been printed before ' Common Sense' " (Works, vol. ii,
p. 510). In regard to Paine and that Frenchwoman, Mrs.
Bonneville, I only gnYe facts which no one denies. Let every
one draw his own inference. You say truly that when
Cheetham was prosecuted for libel he failed to prove his in-
sinuations. Very well; but do Infidels drop their insinua-
tions against professing Christians when similar charges
are made against them, and fail of proof in a criminal court?
The first instance is yet to be produced.

Permit me to say a word about the incorporation of relig-
ious freedom in the Constitution. That was not the work
of Infidels, but the achievement of believers in the Holy
Scriptures. On this subject Judge Slory says: ''"Wo are
not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious estab-
lishment to any indifference to religion in general, and
especially to Christianity {which none could hold in more rev-
erence than theframers of the Constitniion), but to a di ead by
the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in mat-
ters of government." "Probably, at the time of the adop-
tion of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now
under consideration, the general, if not the universal, senti-
ment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive
encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement
was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience,
and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to
level all religions, and 16 make it a matter of State policy
to hold all in utter indifference, would have created univer-
sal disapprobation, if not universal indignation'' (Exposition
of the Constitution, New York, 1868, pp. 259-2G1).

It would be relevant to our subject to show that believers

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 79

in the Bible have done much more than unbelievers to bring
about the abolition of American Slavery. But time and
space compel me to confine what I have to say on that mat-
ter to a mere outline: —

1. Slavery is older than the Bible; therefore the Scrip-
tures did not create nor establish that institution.

2. Slavery among the ancient Hebrews was much milder
than among the surrounding nations. The Mosaic law pro-
vided a periodical emancipation of all bondmen. The
whole regime was virtually a scheme tor the gradual aboli-
tion of slavery, similar to that which the French Infidel
Condorcet recommended.

3. The cardinal principles of the Scriptures involve a
condemnation of Slavery. Christ so expounded them: "All
things whatsover ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets " (Mat.
vii, 12). As far back as the age of Isaiah, we find among
the Jews such sentiments as the following: "Is not this the
fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness,
to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free,
and that ye break every yoke?" (Isa. Iviii, 6).

4. It is true, however, that many professing Christians
have sanctioned slavery; and the Bible has been pressed
into the service of the slave-holder. But the remedy for
these evils in the Church has always arisen from within
herself. The voice that has taught and corrected her mem-
bers has emanated from her own altars. The Christian has
always been the best friend of the oppressed. I need not
remind you of Wilberforce, the leading Abolitionist of Eng-
land. In our own country, the movement which culminated
in the Emancipation Proclamation was in the main a move-
ment of religious people. Henry Wilson says on this sub-
ject: "It has been fashionable to couple the charge of Infi-
delity with the mention of the Abolition effort. Nothing
could be more unjust or untrue. Anti-slavery was the child
of Christian faith. Its early and persistent defenders and

so THE HUM:PHREY - BENNETT DTSCUSStON.

supporters were men who feared God and called upon his
name " (Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, vol.
lii, p. 718). In this magnificent work he shows that John
Eliot, Judge Sewall, Burling, Saniford, Lay, Woolman, Ben-
ezet, Wesley, Whitfield, Rush, &c., «fcc., opposed slavery
(vol. i, eh. 1.); that the earliest Abolition Societies were
"loj^al to the precepts of Christianity"; that Rev. Dan'l
Worth suffered imprisonment for circulating anti-slavery
literature (vol. ii, p. 668); that " the great body of the Prot-
estant clergy condemned the Fugitive Slave Law" (vol. ii, p.
310); that the "Underground Railroad" was the co5pera-
tion, "generally, though not exclusively, of members of
Christian churches" (vol. ii, p. 65). But, perhaps you do
not like Henry Wilson, because he was such a thorough-
going Christian. Take a more "liberal" man, then — a man
that could too frequently " swear like a trooper." I mean
Horace Greeley. In the first volume of his "American
Conflict "—dedicated to the "Christian Statesman," John
Bright— he shows that Jonathan Edwards, Jr., preached
against Slavery in 1791 (p. 50); that John Wesley, Ogle-
thorpe, Washington and Jefferson opposed slavery (pp. 32,
34, 51); that the devout John Jay was the first President of
the New York Manumission Society (p. 107); that Franklin
was President and Rush Secretary of a similar Society in
Pennsylvania (p. 107); that the "pioneers of modern Abo-
litionism were almost uniformly devout, pious, church-nur-
tured men " (p. 121); and that the first martyrs of Abolition-
ism—Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy and John Brown— were fer-
vent Christians (pp. 141, 296-7).

It is clear from all this that the earliest, most earnest, per-
sistent, and numerous friends of the slave were found in the
Church, and not among Infidels. In the campaign of 1860
when Slavery and Liberty were fighting their last desperate
battle at the polls, where was "the matchless Ingersoll"
that has been prating so much of late about the " liberty
of man, woman, and child"? Of course, he was among the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 81

friends of universal freedom! Not a bit of it. He was witli
the pro-slavery party, doing all he could to defeat Lincoln,
and rivet his shackles on the slave! What if he did turn
his political coat afterwards! That was policy. Country
people would not think very much of a fellow that had kept
aloof from the bee-tree until it was felled and the bees'
wings were all burned off, and then came forward with a
big brass pan to claim the honey.

It has been claimed that Lincoln was an Infidel. Having
seen the assertion that Colfax t?aid so in his lecture, I wrote
recently to Mr. Colfax to ask whether that was true or not.
He replied: "I did not say in my Lincoln Lecture that Mr.
Lincoln wf s not a believer in the Christian religion, but
that he was not a member of a church." In a speech de-
livered in 18G0 "Slv. Lincoln said: "I know I am right, be-
cause I know that Liberty is right, for Christ teaches it, and
Christ is GocV (Arnold's Life of Lincoln, p. 688). When leav-
ing Springfield to assume the Presidency he said : "He (Wash-
ington) never would have succeeded except for the aid of
Divine Provideace, upon which he at all times relied. I
feel that I cannot succeed without the same Divine bless-
ing which sustained him; and on the same Almighty Being
I place my reliance for support. And I hope you, my
friends, will all pray that I may receive that divine assist-
ance without which I cannot succeed, but with which suc-
cess is certain" (ibid, p. 168). In his first Inaugural he
said: ''Intelligence, patriotism, Chi istianiiy , and a firm re-
liance on Him who has never yet forsaken his favored land,
are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present
difficulty." Mr. Arnold says of him: "All through his
troubles, he earnestly solicited the prayers of the people,
and they were his " (Life of Lincoln, p. 169). " He seemed
ever to live and act in the consciousness of his responsibility
to God, and wiih the trusting faith of a child, he leaned
confidingly upon his Almighty Arm." "The support
which Mr. Lincoln received during his administration from

82 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DtSCUSStON.

the religious orgaDizations, and the sympathy and codA-
dence between the great body of Christians and the Presi-
dent, was a source of immense strength and power to him"
(Ibid, p. 688), "This great family, with a continent for a
homestead, universal liberty, restrained and guided by in-
telligence and ChHstianity , was his sublime ideal of the
future. For this he lived, and for this he died" (Ibid, p.
690). Raymond endorses a similar testimony concerning
his "religious experience" (Life and Public Services of
Abraham Lincoln, N. Y., 1865, pp. 730-5).

In opposition to such authorities as these what is the value
of a "they say so," or an "it is said"? Simply nothing.
Lincoln was indisputably a profound believer in the Chris-
tian Religion.

I now close my discussion of the first proposition. I
have endeavored to show that "believers in the Bible
have done more for civil liberty in the United States than
unbelievers in it " — more for Independence ; more for
Religious Freedom in the Constitution; and more for the
Abolition of Slavery from American soil.

Yours with respect, G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BE NNET T .

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: Upon the principle
that " scattering shot kill the most game," your last letter
should have brought down a bag-full, for your gun scattered
widely.

You think me incorrect in the assertion that England had
no deadlier foe to American freedom than John Wesley.
If you will consult the Life and Times of John Wesley, A.
M., by Rev. L. Tyerman, vol. iii, pp. 185-195, London edi-
tion, you will find that I had suflBicient grounds for making
the assertion. You will see that while the Colonists were
submissive to the rule of Great Britain, and were willing to

TnE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 83

abide by laws the enaction of which they had no hand in,
and were willing to be taxed to sustain them, Wesley was a
friend to the Colonists. But when they presumed' to resist
the principle of taxation without representation, none were
more zealous in opposing their movement than the great
apostle of Methodism. He early took ground against their
efiforts in opposition to being taxed without their consent.
He preached, in 1775, powerful sermons against the resist-
ance the Colonists we:e making. The Rev. Tyerman thus
writes: ** Both England and America were terribly excited;
but space prevents our entering into details. Suffice it to
say that the alleged grievance of the American Colonists
was their being taxed without their consent by the Eng-
lish Parliament. Dr. Johnson was known to be a great
hater as well as a great genius. 'Sir,' said he, concerning
the miscellaneous and mongrel Colonists across the Atlantic,
' Sir, they are a race of convicts and ought to be thankful
for anything ve allow them short of hanging!' No wonder
that the English government, already at their wits' end, ap-
plied to Johnson to assist them with his powerful pen. He
did so by the publication, in 1775, of his famous pamphlet,
'Taxation no Tyranny, an answer to the Resolutions of
the American Congress.' Ko sooner was it issued than, with
or without leave, Wesley abridged it, and, without the least
reference to its origin, published it as his own, in a quarto
sheet of four pages, with the title, 'A calm Address to Our
American Colonists, by the Rev. John Wesley, A. M.
Price one penny.' "

Thus we have the best of evidence that Wesley endorsed
and fathered the bitter arguments and invectives against
the Colonists of the man who said: "They are a race of
convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow
them short of hanging!" His little abridgment of Johnson,
at one penny, of course had a wide circulation. Wesley had
then arrived at the age of seventy-two, and, through his con-
tinuous preaching and writing, wielded a great influence.

84

THE HUMPHREY-BE XXETT DTSCUSS''0]Sr.

There were few men in England who were more conspicu-
ous or h%d more influence, so that what lie published against
the American cause was quite as effective as the labors of
any man in England.

There was a warm friendship between Johnson and Wes-
ley, and the former was evidently pleased that the latter had
so emphatically endorsed what he had written against the
Colonists. In a letter to Wesley, Feb. 6, 1776, Johnson
wrote: " I have thanks to return for the addition of your
important suffrage to my argument on the American ques-
tion. To. have gained such a mind as yours may justly
confirm me in my opinion. " Wesley's course was regretted by
the warm friends of the Colonists, and many opposed the
position he occupied, and several pamphlets were published
mercilessly combatting him. For further confirmation
on this point I will refer you to the British and American
Cyclopedias. I will not take room for further quotations,
having, I think, produced suflacient proof to show you that
at the very time that Thomas Paine, the Infidel, was using
his entire efforts to rouse the Colonists to the importance of
resisting the oppressions of the British Government, John
Wesley, the Christian par excellence, was using his great
ability and influence to aid their oppressors.

You seem not altogether pleased with my showing of
Jefferson's Christianity or his Infidelity, whichever it may
be regarded. I am sorry for this, as I wish to have his
case clearly understood. I showed that he advised his
nephew and ward to " fix reason firmly on her throne," to
"question boldly the existence of God," to read the Bible as he
would Livy or Tacitus, to believe nothing in it without au-
thority more than other books. He cast discredit upon such
statements in the Bible as disagree with the laws of nature,
like Joshua's causing the sun and moon to stand still, Jesus
being born of a virgin, etc. I showed that the leading Pres-
byterian paper of the country, Sidney E. Morse, editor, de-
clared Jefferson unfriendly to orthodox religion, a disbe-

TfitE HtJMiPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 85

liever in Divine Revelation, and a "scoffer of tlie very lowest
class, " a ' 'Material ist and a Humanitarian of the lowest kind. "
I quoted Jefferson's ov^n letters in which he characterized
the Trinity as a hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like anoth-
er Cerberus, with one body and three heads; that he wrote
to Adams, "The day will come when the mystical genera-
tion of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, will be
classed with the generation of Minerva in the brain of Ju-
piter." I showed that he spoke freely of the stupidity of
some of the Evangelists and early disciples, and of the
roguery of others; that he said, "Of this band of dupes and
impostors Paul was the great Coryphaeus and first corrupt-
er of the doctrines of Jesus;" that he pronounced himself a
*' Materialist.'' I showed that he denounced the clergy of
Europe and America, imd pronounced them an injury to the
people; that he spoke very disparagingly of revivals, prayer-
meetiogs, etc. ; that he approved of much of D'Holbach's
Atheistical writings; that he wrote to Col. Pickering about
"the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic,
that three are one and one is three."

I gave you much more that he said and wrote, and still
you are not satisfied — still you insist that he was a
Christian, and that on one occasion he called himself one.
If he did so I think it must have been in a very Pickwickian
sense, for few men have more strongly expressed themselves
as unbelievers in the divinity of the Bible and the Christian
religion.

You allude to my mention of the fact of Franklin stating
in his autobiography that he "became a thorough Deist,"
and wish to counteract the effect of it because the time he
alluded to was when he was young, but you failed to show
where he stated that he had ceased to be a Deist. He was
somewhat offended when Whitefield spoke as though there
was little difference between an Atheist and a Deist; Frank-
lin had a distinct idea of a difference. He denied being an
Atheist but never denied being a Deist. You will remem-

DO THE HUMPaRKY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

ber that Dr. Priestley, who knew Franklin intimately, re-
gretted that he was a Deist, "When Franklin had arrived at
the great age of eighty-five he acknowledged that he still en-
tertained doubts of the divinity of Jesus. I wish you would
show where he ever gave any acknowledgment that he be-
lieved that Jesus was the son of God or was God himself.

As to Washington, I showed by Jefferson and Gouver-
neur Morris that he was an unbeliever in the Christian re-
ligion, that he never wrote or spoke a word in a public or
private capacity that committed himself to it, and I showed
by the Rev. Mr. Abercrombie that the General was a Deist.
I showed Aaron Burr to be of the same belief, that even at
the hour of death he could not be induced to admit that he
believed in the divinity of Jesus.

The same may be said of John Adams. Although he was
envious of Paine, and said unkind and untrue things of
him, he did not accept the leading Christian dogma, and
in this respect sympathized closely with Jefferson

You do not quote me correctly when you say I promised
to show "James Madison was an Infidel." I only said I
would probably have more to say of him. He is not a cen-
tral figure, and I have given but little attention to him. I
think information is rather meagre touching his religious
views. His biographers have been rather non-committal
upon the subject. In the "American Cyclopedia" the
statement is made that in early life " his attention was par-
ticularly directed to the evidences of the Christian religion,
but no account is given of his having embraced it at any
lime of his life. Jefferson thus wrote respecting Madison :
"From three and thirty years' trial I can say conscien-
tiously that I do not know in the world a man of purer in-
tegrity, more dispassionate, disinterested and devoted to
pure republicanism, nor could I in the whole scope of
America and Europe point out an abler head." But in this
not a word about his " standing up for Jesus." Jefferson
and Madison were particular friends, and entertained many

THE HUMPHBEY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 8?

views and opinions in common. If Madison was a Cliris-
tian, he was in all probability a Christian of the Jefferson
i&chool. The phrase you quote from the eulogy of J. Q.
Adams about his being a man and a Christian, amounts to
very little. In one sense every man in the United States
may be called a " Christian," as this is a boasted Christian
land.

Of Gouverneur Morris, the data respecting his religious
views are meagre. We know this much, that he and Jeffer-
son were intimate and cordial friends. Jefferson thus
wrote of Morris in connection with Washington: ** I
know that Gouverneur Morris who claimed to be in his
(Washington's) secrets, and believed himself to be so, has
often told me that Washington believed no more in that
system (Christianity) than he himself did." This one
quotation is sufficient to settle the question so far as
Morris' views are concerned. Had he been a Christian, he
would hardly have repeatedly told Jefferson that Wash-
ington did not believe in the Christian religion. If, also, he
thought Washington an unbeliever, and he wished to show
the fact, he would hardly have compared Washington with
himself unless he was perfectly willing to have it under-
stood that he was also an unbeliever. If he was a Chris-
tian at all, he was of the same type with Jefferson. After
he is dead and buried it is very easy to set up the claim that
he was a Christian, but in this case the claim greatly needs
confirmation.

You still adhere to the idea of Paine's ^'Infainy" and say
you meant that the ''period of his infamy began when he be-
came infamous. " As he never became infamous, the time when
is very indefinite. When he wrote the "Age of Reason "
he was far from infamous. That effort was glorious; it is
so regarded now, and will be for centuries to come. It is a
little singular after admitting that " Paine was a man of
talent," that "his assistance in the cause of independence
was very great; that he had good traits, that he was honest,

88 THE HUMPHIiEY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

not uncharitab]e, that he abstained from profanity, that he
opposed slavery, etc., that you should still insist that he was
infamous. Is that a Christian spirit? Is it infamous to
doubt?

You are mistaken about my speaking contemptuously of
Madame Roland. Nothing could be farther from me. It
is not contemptuous to regard her or to speak of her as a
woman. To show Paine to not have been a statesman, you
quoted this lady. Thinking, as a general thing, women are
not so well informed as to what pertains to statesmansTiip as
men, I thought your case would have have been stronger
had you quoted some masculine authority on that head.

You allude to the formation of the Constitution of our
country, and make the singular assertion that *' it was not
the work of Infidels, but was the adHHevement of believers
in the Holy Scriptures." Here you are wrong, at least par-
tially so. It was a mixed convention of believers and un-
believers that framed our Constitution. If a large share of
them were Christians, they were Jeffersonian Christians,
who believed verj'- little, and had but little reverence for
antique superstitions. In proof of this, it is only necessary
to adduce the fact that neither God, Jesus Christ, nor the
Bible are recognized nor mentioned in that remarkable in-
strument. If they were strong believers in the trio, and
deemed their recognition of any special importance, thej'"
were certainly very jremiss in their duty in not inserting
them and founding the government upon them. 1 think
were a convention of leading Christians held to-day to frame
another Constitution for our country, and it were composed
of the highest Reverends in the land, including Bro.
Talmage, Bro. Fulton, Bro. Tyng, Bro. Deems, Bro.
Crosby, Bro. Moody and yourself, that "God," his "Son
Jesus Christ," and the " Holy Scriptures" would most un-
mistakably appear in the instrument, and every man who pre-
sumed to doubt them would have but few rights and pre-
rogatives. What a world of uneasiness would have been

^^HE IIUMPHEEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 89

saved to millions of tlie pious Christians of to-day bad the
framers of the Constitution recognized Jehovah, Jesus and
the Bible. It would have spared them the great labor of get-
ting up mammoth petitions, bearing hundreds of thousands
of names, asking that the instrument be amended, and that
the great trio be recognized.

It is hard to estimate with any accuracy how m.my times
the framers of our glorious Constitution have been devoutly
but secretly cursed f ( r this unpardonable omission. They
were not near equal to the framers of the Constitution of
the Confederate States, for they recognized God, Jesus, and
the Bible, in the true Christian spirit. But, nevertheless,
it did not avail them. With all their veneration, all their
reliance, all their prayers for success, their Constitution and
their cause had to go by the board, while our Constitution,
without a God, or a son of a God, or a Bible of any kind in
it, the Constitution upon which is based the government
which Washington solemnly declared "not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion," was triumphant and is
so still.

I think it is quite fair to conclude that the Christian ele-
ment was not strong in the convention that framed our Con-
stitution or there would have been some Christianity in it.
Its God, its Savior, or its revealed law, would assured-
ly have been mentioned. I think that, under the circum-
stances, much boasting of their ultra Christianity is decided-
ly superfluous. Our Constitution, essenUally Infidel as it is,
ignoring alike God, Christ, and the Bible, is a fair illustra-
tion of how much Christianity and faith had to do with this
country's achieving its independence or in framing its laws.
Infidelity was certainly as conspicuous all the way through
as was Christianity.

You say: "It would be relevant to our subject to show
that believers in the Bible have done much more than un-
believers to bring about the abolition of American slav-
ery." Yes, it would be quite relevant, if it can be done

90 TSE HlJMPHREY-BENISfE'rT DISCUSSION.

truthfully. In view of the fact that neither Jehovah nor
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, the popes,
bishops, and leading saints of the Christian Church, down to
fifty years ago, ever took it upon themselves to say a word
against the principle of slavery, it is quite cool and refresh-
ing, this hot weather, to hear you declare that the credit
of the anti-slavery movement belongs exclusively to belie v
ers in the Bible,

You say, "Slavery is older than the Bible, therefore the
Scriptures did not create nor establish that institution."
But is slavery older than God ? If he was opposed to its
origin and continuance and yet it existed for thousands of
years, does it not prove either want of will or want of power
on his part ? If slavery was regarded as wrong by the
founders and sustainers of Christianity, why were they not
brave enough to denounce it boldly and clearly ? "All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you," etc.,
scarcely meets the case. It is general and vague; besides it
was a sentiment abundantly taught by the Pagan sages,
hundreds of years before he of Nazareth uttered it.

If the authors of the Bible were earnest and honest oppo-
nents of slavery, why did they let such injunctions as these
form so conspicuous a part of the book: "A servant of ser-
vants shall he be unto his brethren," " Servants, obey your
masters," "Obey them that have rule over you," "The
powers that be aire ordained of God," and much more in the
same line ? If they believed slavery was wrong, why did
they not say so with force and directness ? Ah, my friend,
they were not anti-slavery men, and it is useless to under-
take to show that they were. Who were the leaders
and workers in the anti-slavery movement in this coun-
try— earnest workers while the cause was still unpopular —
who fearlessly rif-ked their lives in defense of the down-
trodden ? They were Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Stephen S.
Foster, Abby Kelly, Theodore Parker, Henry C. Wright,

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 91

Parker Pillsbury, Gerrit Smith, Wendell Phillips— Infidels,
every one ! They were persistent opposers of slavery when,
their lives were endangered by that course, and it was not
until the cause had become partially popular and safe that
the Christian Church embraced it. It was with this as with
most other reforms, the Church followed, but did not lead.
On the contrary, the Church for many decades was a zeal-
ous defender of slavery. Many a person was denied ad-
admittance into a church to make an anti-slavery speech.
Leading Abolitionists were mobbed and grossly insulted by
church-members. The white-cravated clergy would not be
seen upon anti-slavery platforms nor in Abolitionist con-
ventions. Half the Christians of the North were in fa-
vor of the institution, and nearly all in the South, so that
about three fourths of the Christians of the United States
were defending slavery while a great majority of the Infi-
dels were opposing it.

The Churches North and South, or a portion of tkem,
divided upon this subject. Your Church — the Presbyterian
— if I remember rightly, did not divide, but tacitly support-
ed slavery until the war of the rebellion broke out, and
since by force of circumstances and the advance of Liberal
ideas it has ceased to exist, they not only shout over its de-
feat but claim great credit for having killed it. How un-
just it is after the Churches of the United States upheld
slavery for two or three generations, while Infidels and un-
believers were earnestly fighting it, to now turn around and
claim all the honor of its suppression and give the opposite
side none. Thus it has been with the cause of temperance.
For decades the Church opposed the cause of temperance
and threw cold water and wet blankets on the struggling
child as long as they could, and now they fain would make
the world believe they are the parents of the grown child
and have done in its favor all that has been done. This is
not true. While many Christians have been and are now
earnest friends of temperance, thousands and thousands for

9» The HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

a long time retarded its progress so far as lay in their
power.

The distinguished clergyman and author, Albert Barnes,
uttered the simple truth when he solemnly declared that the
greatest obstruction which the cause of temperance had to
contend with was the apathy and unfriendliness of the
American clergy.

The brilliant Rev. Joseph Cook, in a recent discourse in
Boston, made very truthful statements touching the subject
of anti-slavery in this country. He said: " If the Northern
Church had done its duty the South would have had no
hope of a divided North, and the war would not have been.
Let not the Church grow proud over the fall of slavery; it
was not her work. The Church could have refused to up-
hold secession in the South; it could have made slave-hold-
ing a bar to church-membership, as the Quakers did; it
could have given direction to the reform movement by put-
ting itself stalwartly on the right side. United action
would have prevented apathy in the North and united action
in the South, and would have made war impossible."

He complimented Theodore Parker highly for the faithful
services he performed in the anti-slavery cause. He said:
" Theodore Parker stood upon a high pulpit in Music Hall.
But it was anti-slavery, and not anti-Christianity that made
that pulpit as high as Strasburg steeple. It was high be-
cause other pulpits were low. Parker was with God in the
anti-slavery struggle, but the Church was not where it ought
to have been,"

The reverend gentleman is quite correct. Parker was right
and the Church was wrong — "not where it ought to have
been." Had the Church in this country acted right and in
concert, slavery would have been ended fifty years ago and
the terrible war of slavery-rebellion, with its cost of one
million lives of the promising young men of the North and
the South, and five hundred millions of treasure might have
been saved. The Church acted the dastardly part in the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 9'J

foul business of slavery. It worked for generations to sus-
tain and uphold it, and sadly failed to come up to the high
instincts of human nature. It was not the Church that
overthrew slavery; it was the spirit of humanity which per-
vaded the minds and hearts of the people.

You gratuitously make uncomplimentary allusions to
Robert G. IngersoU, and refer to the time when he cooper-
ated with the pro-slavery party. I cannot give the precise
date when he left that party, but perhaps it was about the
time he turned his back upon Christianity and the Church.
You are pleased to speak of his '•■'■'prating about the lib-
erty of man, woman and child." Yes, hepra^^s, and to some
purpose, too. There is hardly another man in the United
States doing so much to-day toward forming public opinion,
and in the interests of humanity and truth, as is Col. Inger-
soll. O, that there were hundreds more that could prate like
him! If the sixty thousand clergymen of this country could
prate as he does, it would amount to vastly more than the
idle and childish prating about gods and devils and hells
which they now give us.

I was not aware that the religious views of Abraham Lin-
coln were to form a part of this discussion, but I will en.
deavor to follow where you lead. Let us see whether he
was a Christian or an Infidel. The position he occupied,
and the necessity which forced him to strike the fetters
from the limbs of the slaves have made him a very distin-
guished character in our country's history, and the Church
must needs claim him as her own, so she can monopolize
the entire credit of overthrowing slavery. Lincoln had
clear and settled views upon theological subjects, which he
maintained through life, but it must be admitted that, after
he became exclusively a politician and realized now much
his success depended upon the support of the masses, a
large share of whom were at least professed Christians, he
did not at all times make his secret views known; that in
his public speeches he used some of the cant phrases which

94

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

he well knew would fall pleasantly upon the ears of the su-
perstitious masses. It must be conceded also, that he did
occasionally drop a remark that might be construed to mean
that he had some faith in the Christian religion, and that
from a spirit of playfulness, or of enquiry, he appeared at
times to be investigating the subject of Christianity, but
that Lincoln was all his life an out-and-out Infidel is one of
the clearest propositions that can be made; and had I the
space I could give you many pages, of the size of this, of
certificates, letters, and statements of the men who knew
him intimately, and all confirming the fact of his un-
belief.

Lincoln was eminently a kind-hearted, humane person,
but he became an Infidel to Christian theology when a
mere youth. He never believed in the divinity of the
Bible, nor that Jesus Christ was God or the begotten Son of
God. By referring to pages 486 and 487 of Lamon's Life of
Lincoln you will read as follows: ** Mr. Lincoln was never a
member of any church, nor did he believe in the divinity of
Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures in the sense un-
derstood by evangelical Christians. His theological opin-
ions were substantially those expounded by Theodore
Parker. Overwhelming testimony out of many mouths,
and none stronger than that out of his own, places these
facts beyond controversy. When a boy he showed no sign
of that piety which his many biographers ascribe to his
manhood. . . . When he went to church at all, he went
to mock, and came away to mimic. Indeed, it is more
than probable that the sort of * religion ' which prevailed
among the associates of .his boyhood impressed him with a
very poor opinion of the value of the article. On the whole,
he thought, perhaps, a person had better be without it.
When he removed to New Salem he consorted with Free-
thinkers; joined with them in deriding the gospel history of
Jesus; read Volney and Paine, and then wrote a deliberate
and labored essay wherein he reached conclusions similar to

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 05

theirs. The essay was burut (by his friend, Mr. Hill) but
he neve 'anied or regretted its composition. On the con-
trary, he made it the subject of free and frequent conversa-
tion with his friends at Springfield, and stated with much
particularity and precision the origin, arguments, and
object of the work."

James H. Matheny, of Springfield, 111., who intimately
knew Mr. Lincoln for over twenty-five years, in a letter to
Wm. H. Herndon, uses this language: "I knew Mr. Lin-
coln as early as 1834-7; know he was an Infidel. lie and W.
D. Herndon used to talk infidelity in the Clerk's Office in
this city, about the years 1837-40. Lincoln attacked the
Bible and the New Testament on two grounds; first, from
the inherent or apparent contradictions under its lids; sec-
ond, from the grounds of reason. Sometimes he ridiculed
the Bible and the New Testament; sometimes he seemed to
scoff at it, though I shall not use that word in its full and
literal sense. I never heard that Mr. Lincoln changed his
views, though his personal and political friend from 1834
to 1860. Sometimes Lincoln bordered on Atheism. He
went far that way and often shocked me. . . . Lincoln
would come into the Clerk's Office, and would bring the
Bible with him; would read a chapter; argue against it. .
Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an Atheist; at least, bor-
dered on it. He was enthusiastic in his infidelity. As he
grew older he grew more discreet; didn't talk so much be-
fore strangers about his religion ; but to friends, close
and bosom ones, he was always open and avowed, fair
and honest; but to strangers he held them off from pol-
icy. . . Mr. Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little
book on infidelity. This statement I have avoided hereto-
fore; but as you strongly insist upon it, I give it to you as
I got it from Lincoln's mouth " (Lamon's Life of Lincoln,
pp. 487 and 488).

Mr. Lamon gives numerous other letters of the same
tenor from the old friends and acquaintances of Lincoln,

96 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

bearing testimony of his infidelity. I would be glad to lay
tliem before you and my readers, but space will not permit
their introduction here. I will give in addition a few pas-
sages from a letter of the Hon. John T. Stuart, of Spring-
field, 111. : "I knew Mr. Lincoln when he first came here,
and for years afterwards. He was an avowed and open
Infidel ; sometimes bordered on Atheism. Lincoln went
further against Christian beliefs, doctrines and principles
than any man I ever heard. ... He always denied that
Jesus was the Christ of God; denied that Jesus was the Son
of God, as understood and maintained by the Christian
Church. The Rev. Dr. Smith, who wrote a letter, tried to
convert Lincoln from infidelity so late as 1858, and couldn't
doit!" Also the following from Wm. H. Herndon Esq.,
who probably knew Mr. Lincoln as intimately as did any
man in America: "As to Mr. Lincoln's religious views, he
was, in short, an Infidel. . . A Theist. He did not
believe that Jesus Christ was God; was a fatalist, denied
the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand
times that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of
God, as the Christian world contends. The points that Mr.
Lincoln tried to demonstrate (in his book) were: "First,
that the Bible was not God's revelation; secoud, that Jesus
was not the Son of God. I assert this on my own knowledge,
and on my veracity .'^ Mr. Lainou gives more than twenty
pages of similiir matter, but I must quote no more. Now,
in the face of all this, it is rather up-hill work to make a
pious Christikin of Lincoln.

If you can make a good Christian of a man wiio totally
denies the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible,
and who borders upon Atheism, why Ingersoll, Underwood
and myself might as well be counted in at once. We have
not been more pronounced in our iufidelit}'', either by speak-
ing or writing, than was Abraham Lincolu. There is no use
in trying to evade the testimony of honorable men who
knew him for a life-time, and quote against their evidence

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DlSCUHiSlON. 97

what sor. priest or interested sectarian biograjDlier miglit
imagine or wisli as to Lincoln's views.

As to Mr. Colfax, he did say in his lecture delivered in
Brooklyn, March 25th, 1876, that Lincoln was not a believer
iu Christianity. I got it from a party who heard the lec-
ture. It was so reported also in some of the daily papers,
and to make the thing doubly sure, a friend of mine writing
to a party in South Bend, Ind., the home of Colfax, asked
him to call upon Colfax and enquire of him in regard
to Lincoln's belief. He did so, and Colfax contirmed what
he had said in his lecture. But as Colfax knows no more
about Lincoln's religious opinions than hundreds of others,
and inasmuch as the veracity of this " Christian statesman "
on some other important matters has been seriously ques-
tioned, pertaining to questionable operations iu which he
was implicated, I will not insist upon his testimony being
taken in this case.

Now, as we are about taking leave of this branch of our
discussion let us take a brief review of the ground gone
over and the results achieved. I claim, in the first place, to
have shown that the original pure article of Christianity as
taught by its founders does not recognize nor admit the
right of its devotees to fight for national or personal liberty,
and that those who do so violate the injunctions imperative-
ly given against fighting under any circumstances, and to
that extent, are Infidels; hence the Americans, in addition
to being rebels, were Infidels also.

I claim to have shown that the persons who did most to-
wards arousing the Colonists to the fighting-point, in con-
ducting and fighting the battles of the lievolution, and in
organizing the form of government we have since lived
under, were Infidels. Those men were Franklin, Washing-
ton, Paine, Jefferson, Allen, etc., etc.

I claim to have shown tbat our Constitution is an Infidel
instrument, entirely ignoririg God, Christ, and the Bible.

I claim also to have shown that tbe warfare agaiast

98 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

American slavery was origiualed and contiuued for decades
by leading Infidels, while the Church lent its power and in-
fluence in favor of the slaveholders; and finally,

I have shown that the man who, at one blow, struck off
the fetters of four millions of slaves, was a staunch, per-
sistent Infidel, Honest Abraham Lincoln.

I am. Dear Sir, very truly yours,

D. M. Bennett.

PART II.

The Serviceb of Infidelity and Christianity to
Learning and Science.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir: Just a word of review,
and then we will proceed to the second proposition.

You say my "gun scattered widely." There are two rea-
sons for that: — the comprehensiveness of the subject, and
the "scattered" condition of the "game." Perhaps you
ought to be thanked for the tacit admission that my " scat-
tering shot kills.'" There are indications, however, that you
will die "game."

Ghosts will not down. You repeat what you have already
said about Franklin, "Washington, Jefferson, and others. I
will refer you to my former letters, and especially to the
references contained therein, for a disproof of those reiter-
ations, lam more aDsious to {urnish. the firmest facts a.nd
the strongest arguments than to get the last word.

If you will re-peruse ray last letter you will find proof that
John Wesley did not "endorse and father bitter arguments
and invectives against the Colonists." There is not a "bit-
ter" word in his " Calm Address;" and in his letter to Lord
North he spoke in the most respectful and flattering terms
of the Americans.

As to the religious views of the framers of our Constitu-

100 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DIBCUlScilON.

tiou, 1 will let the reader choose between your assertion and
Judge Story's opinion, quoted in my last letter.

The Slavery question is a complicated subject. One thing,
however, is certain, viz: that "the inoneers oi modern Ab-
olitionism were almost uniformly devout, pious, church-
nurtured men " (Greeley's American Conflict, vol. i, p.
121). William Lloyd Garrison was a church-member when
he started out as an Abolitionist, Wendell Philiips'
religious position is somewhat uncertain. But he is
not an Infidel of the Paine stamp. A writer in the Boston
Imesiigator, May 30, 1877, condemns and ridicules him be-
cause he gave an exhortation in one of his speeches to "take
heed to the promises of God," and to " trust the future lo
God." Benj. Lundy, the first Abolitionist, properly so-
called, was an orthodox Quaker (Greeley's Am, Conflict,
vol. i, pp. Ill, 113). So is John G. Whittier. W, C. Bry-
ant is a Universalist. Gerrit Smith, though not a church-
member, had family worship in his house. The Paineites
who identified themselves with the Abolition movement
were very scarce indeed. On the other hand, Christiaus es-
poused the cause when it was "unpopular." It cost sever,
al of them their lives. Who can estimate the influence of
Mrs. Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? Who can measure
the efl"ects of Albert Barnes' anti slavery utterances as ex-
pressed in his " Notes " and other writings ? If many min-
isters were gagged by fear or policy, or received the hush-
money of the wealthy slave-holder, it must not be forgotten
that there were clergymen— and they were not a few— tiiat
dared cry aloud against the iDJuslice and inhumanity of
slavery. Religious bodies declared against it. Ever since
the Revolution the Quakers have refused membership to
such as traffic in slaves. The Cougregationalists, Baptists,
Presbyterians, and Mctholists, have not always been con-
sistent on this question; but they have repeatedly, in their
highest tribunals, expressed their disapproval of slavery.
This is more than was done by any " Radical Club " or

*rHfe ITUMPHTIEY-BENNETT DIHCUSSION. 101

'•Liberal Association." People who do little or nothing
themselves are often the readiest to criticise the doings of
others.

You try to make out that Lincoln was an Infidel. When
you thought you had Colfax on your side, you called him
a "respectable Christian authority " (Sages, p. 774); but af-
ter discovering that he is against you, you say sneeringly
that the "veracity of this Christian statesman on some
other important matters has been seriously questioned'."
This is only the fox crying " Sour grapes." We have four
elaborate biographies of Lincoln — Arnold's, Raymond's,
Dr. J. G. Holland's and Lamon's. The first three say Mr.
Lincoln was a believer in the Christian religion. Holland
especially is clear and strong on this point. Lamon alone
tries to make out that he was a skeptic.

The following points should be carefully considered re-
specting Mr. Lamon's "Life of Lincoln:"

1. It extends only to Lincoln's inauguration as President.

2. It studiously avoids quotations from Lincoln's own
utterances.

3. It bears internal evidence that the writer is anxious to
establish this allegation. Infidelity, too, has its "interested"
biographers.

4. The witnesses that Mr. Lamon brings forward are in-
consistent and contradictory. One says Lincoln " some-
times bordered on Atheism," while another declares "he
fully believed in a superintending and overruling Provi-
dence." One tells us he was " utterly incapable of insincer-
ity," while another insinuates that "he 'played a sharp
game' on the Christians of Springfield." One informs us
that he was a "fatalist;" and then the biographer assures
us ''Mr. Lincoln was by no means free from a kind of be-
lief in the supernatural," Hon. David Davis says: "I do
not know anything about Lincoln's religion, and I do not
think anybody knew:" but Hon. John T. Stuart says: "He
was an avowed and open Infidel."

103

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCOSSION.

The jewel of consistency is not to be found in this mass
of testimony. The truth is, the whole thing is the result of
Mr. Herndon's culling, collocation, jury-packing and sp;:cial
pleading. This Mr. Herndon is himself a ''Freethinker ;"
and he was deeply " interested" in showing that his famous
partner held views similar to his own.

If Lincoln was an lufidel, how was it that his political
opponents did not bring this charge against him in the cam-
paign of 1860? If he was an Infidel, and "incapable of
insincerity," why did he say that " Christ is God,^' and that
" inlelligence, patriotism, and C/im^ia;i% .... are
still competent to adjust in the best way our present diflfi-
culty "? If he was an Infidel, how was it that he asked the
people of Springfield to pray for him, when he was leaving
them to assume his Presidential duties ? Mr. Herndon said
he " was mortified, if not angry, to see him (Lincoln) made
a hypocrite " (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, p. 496). But Mr.
Lincoln must Jiave been either a hypocrite, or a believer in
the Christian Religion, as the citations given above, and
many more that might be added, clearly prove. Christians
have never charged Lincoln with hypocrisy, but Infidels
have^ and Mr. Herndon is as guilty of this as anybody. (See
Lamon's Life of Lincoln, pp. 497-504.)

Let us now take up the second proposition, That be-

LIEVEES IN THE BiBLE HAVE DONE MORE THAN UNBE-
LIEVERS TO PROMOTE SCIBXCE AND LEARNING.

I will occupy my remaining space with proof that Ihe
Bible itself contains nothing inimical to science and learn-
ing, but that, contrariwise, it praises and encourages
them. When the Jewish people were, according to the nar-
rative, objects of the Lord's special care and instruction,
Ihey were inferior to no race in their cultivation of the arts
and sciences. They were eminently a civilized nation.
The Scriptures never mention skill, invention, and refine-
ment with disrespect. On the contrary, they represent the
Most High as commanding the first man to discover and

THE nUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 103

Utilize — in one word, " subdue " — ttio 'orces and resources
of Nature. In the fourth chapter of Genesis we find hon-
orable mention of Jubal, as the first musician; of Tubal-
Cain as the first foundry-man; and of Lamech as the first
poet. And the first poem of this poet is preserved. Noth-
ing is condemned in the antediluvians but their wickedness.
Noah, it is said, was an object of the Divine favor. But
he must have been a first-class architect, and practical
builder, or he could never have constructed the ark. And
he must have been no mean naturalist, wheu he could class-
ify the animals according to his instructions. Even if you
regard this whole account as mythical, it will still remain
that Genesis speaks with approval of art and architecture.

The Tower of Babel indicates an advanced stage of civ-
ilization. The people had a language. And their applied
ambition showed that they were not inferior to the build-
ers of the Pyramids.

Abraham possessed considerable knowledge of surgery,
as is evinced by his administering the rite of circumcision.

The ancient Egyptians were among the most civilized
people of the world. In the course of events, the descend-
ants of Abraham made their abode with that people for a
period exceeding four hundred years. There they learned
all that the Egyptians knew. The common people obtained
a knowledge of the practical arts, by a hard experience, and
the more fortunate Moses acquired the learning and science
of the royal court. When they left Egypt they took all
that knowledge with them. And they added to it by their
subsequent contact with other nations, and as the result of
their varied observation. If you examine Josephus and the
Old Testament, you will discover that the Jews were infe-
rior to none in their study and practice of the arts and
sciences that characterized ancient civilization.

The women were exquisite cooks. They could make
bread, leavened and unleavened, and cakes of all kinds.
They could roast, fry, and broil meat. They knew how to

104 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

make butter and cheese. In short, they could get up a meal
in first-class style.

They were excellent milliners and dress-makers. They
could use cosmetics to as great advantage as any of our
modern ladies. If jewelry, and rich apparel, made most
tastefully, are indicative of civilization, then, most assur-
edly, the Jewish women were highly civilized. The latter
part of the third chapter of Isaiah sounds very much like a
scrap from some olden Demorest.

And the men were equal to the women. Their division
of Canaan show? that they possessed considerable knowl-
edge of surveying. They were well versed in geography,
as their frequent allusioDS to it indicate. They were inter-
ested in astronomy, as their naming of several constellations
signifies (Job. ix. 9; Is. xiii. 10; Amos v. 8). They were
familiar with the uses of medicine, and the diagnosis of
disease, as is proved by their law respecting leprosy, and by
the frequent mention of physicians and healing herbs.
They were well acquainted with books, as their many ref-
erences to them show. They had a taste for poetry, and an
appreciation of first-class poets, as is evidenced by their fond-
ness of Job, the Psalms, and Isaiah. They were superior
musicians. They were fine players on the organ, flute,
harp, trumpet, cymbal, dulcimer, drum, psaltery, timbrel,
gittith, higgaion, sackbut, and the harp of a thousand
strings. They were accurate historians, as their genealofj-
ical tables, and the Bible itself attest. They were the very
best of architects, as the tabernacle, their cities, and espe-
cially their Temple, demonstrate. Every Jew was required
to learn some substantial trade.

They had fixed weights and measures, an established cur-
rency, and a calendar equal to Caesar's or Gregory's. They
were active in domestic and foreign commerce. Their ships
traversed the seas. They encouraged philosophy. They
honored statesmanship. They had their seven wise men, as
well as Greece. Solomon was the pride of the Old Econo-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 105

my, because he was a great natural pliilosoplier. " He
spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thou-
sand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree
that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out
of the wall : he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of
creeping things and of fishes" (1 Kings iv. 32, 33). He was a
Tupper, a Linnaeus, an Audubon, a Cuvier, and an Agassiz,
all in one.

Nor is the New Testament less friendly than the Old to
learning and science. Jesus wept as he contemplated the
downfall of the beautiful Jerusalem. It was with profound
sorrow that he foretold the destruction ol the Temple— that
crown of ancient architecture. His many parables show
that he was a close observer and tender admirer of Nature.
Very significantly, his first worshipers wci-e the sa-es and
savans of the East. When only twelve years old, he sought
the company of the best scholars of the land. His " learn-
ing "was the wonder of his cotemporaries (John vii:15).
If he chose illiterate disciples, it was in order that he might
educate them. The last Apostle whom he called had passed
through the two best schools in the world in that age— the
classical school at Tarsus, and the divinity school at Jerusa-
lem. This Apostle Paul visited the greatest cities of the
world. He beheld the highest monuments of genius.
Did he show them any disrespect? Never. He was at
Ephesus, and saw the temple of Diana— one of the Seven
Wonders ; but he did not utter a word against its artistic
and sculptural grandeur. He was at Corinth, and looked
upon the crowning achievements of culture and refinement.
He found no fault with the impregnable fortress of the
Acrocorinthus. He expressed no contempt for Corinth's
extensive commerce, or for its invention of the triremes.
He was at Athens. He quoted their own poets to the
Athenians, He walked through the Acropolis and wit-
nessed the Erechtheum and that masterpiece of Phidias— the
snow-white Parthenon. The works of the Greek masters

106 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

were all around liim. But he never said a word derogatory
to Greek literature or to Greek art. He saw, too, the mag-
nificence of Rome. In its walls, arches, aqueducts, for-
tresses, palaces and Capitol, he found only objects for admir-
ation. Paul coudemued only "science falsely so-called'^
(1 Tim. vi:20). He despised only the quack-philosophy
that has been the plague of every age.

I have made the foregoing remarks to show that the Bible
itstlf contains no disrespect to the highest forms of civiliza-
tion. It rather sanctions and encourages it. And it is demon-
stiable that the most advanced type of civilization has hov-
ered around the Holy Scriptures ever since they were written.
In my next I will try to show some of what professing
Christians have done to foster and expedite education and
progress. Yours sincerely, G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BENNETT.

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: As I cannot see that
in your last you refuted any of the positions I had taken, it
will be necessary- to give but little space to that portion of
your letter. You bring no new argument to relieve John
Wesley of the charge that England had no greater foe to
the cause of the American colonists than himself, and that
he espoused the arguments of Dr. Johnson, who denounced
the colonists as a race of " convicts," and insinuated that
they ought to be hung. Johnson thanked Wesley for join-
ing him and espousing his cause ; the friejjds of the
American colonists in England were much incensed against
Wesley for the course he pursued, and he was most bitteily
denounced in numerous pamphlets and publications. Wes-
ley wielded a great influence at that time, and England had
no greater and no more ardent foe to American indepen-
dence. I think you cannot disprove this.

TfiE nUMrnREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 107

In regard to Lincoln's Infidelity, I am quite content to
rest it upon the testimony of a score of life-long friends
and acquaintances who knew liiui intimately, and had many
times heard him express himself pointedly upon theological
questions, and in opposition to the belief of Christians. I
place their evidence far above that of interested parties wri-
ting in the interest of the Church, or with a purpose to show
him- to be what he was not. The discrepancies you enumer-
ate are more apparent than real. There is no material disa-
greement. They merely illustrate how different men may
express themselves upon a given subject. Nothing is better
proved than that Lincoln was an Infidel for more than a quar-
ter of a century, and there is no reliable testimony that
he changed his belief after going to Washington. His pri-
vate secretary and intimate friend, John G. Nicolay, testified
that he did not change. That he occasionally made use of
ambiguous remarks which might give the impression that he
had confidence in prayer, etc., is quite possible, but there is
no probability that he believed that "Christ is God," and I
do not believe that he ever said so.

If Mr. William H. Herndon is an unbeliever or a "Free-
thinker," it by no means invalidates his testimony or his
labors. That class of men have proved themselves as capa-
ble of telling the truth as any men in the world.

As to Colfax, you misrepresent me. I have not found
** his testimony against me." He did say in his speech that
Lincoln was an unbeliever in Christianity, and he admitted
the same when a friend called upon him at his home. When
you reported that you had written to him and he appeared
to " hedge," and that he meant " Lincoln did not belong to
a church," I remembered that on other more important
subjects he had been accused and convicted of falsehood,
and I said I would not insist upon his evidence.

As to the Constitution of the United States, the simple
fact that God, Christ and the Bible are entirely ignored in
it, or never mentioned, goes much farther with me in decid-

108 THE HUMPnREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOI^.

ing its character than all that Christian pettifoggers can say
upon the subject. If the framers loere Christians, and they
did not think enough of their God, their Savior and their
" Book from heaven" to even allude to them, their Chris-
tianity did not amount to much. They were no better
than Infidels.

Now for the second proposition. I must confess myself
amused at your efforts to make the Bible appear to be a
book of science or especially friendly to it. A person
who can perceive much science in that volume has either a
very acute or a very accommodating perception. Is the Bible
account of the creation a scientific one? Does science teach
that light and darkness were originally blended together
and had to be separated? Does science teach that the
countless burning suns or stars that stud the vault of heaven
were not brought into existence until after the earth was
formed, and were then "set" in a firmament which held
a vast body of water above the earth from falling to it?
Docs science teach that the earth existed, had days and
]iights, brought forth plants, herbs, shrubs, and trees, per-
fecting seeds and fruits before the sun existed or before a
drop of rain had fallen upon the earth? Is it a scientific
idea of the way in which rain was produced — by opening
the windows of heaven (probably placed in the floor, or fir-
mament,) letting the body of water stored up there de-
scend to the earth, without any provision being made for its
getting back again?

Would science teach that it required Omnipotence to work
five days to make this little globe, while the sun, a mill-
ion times larger, Jupiter and Saturn, thousands of times
larger, the countless millions of celestial orbs and suns,
larger than the entire solar system, could all be made in one
day?

Are the two accounts in Genesis of the formation of
woman equally scientific — the one that she was formed of
clay at the time Adam was, the other that she was not

TrtE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 109

formed until after the animals were made and named, when
a surgical operation was performed upon Adam and a rib
abstracted, from whicli she was made? Would science
teach that a female weighing one hundred and twenty-five
pounds, principally composed of hydrogen, oxygen, nitro
gen, and carbon, could be produced from a rib of phos-
phate of lime, weighing less than a pound ?

The Bible states that the earth was created in five days,
in which time all forms of vegetable and animal life were
produced. Science leaches that the earth for vast ages was
a ball of highly-heated or fused matter, and that immense
periods necessarily had to pass before there could be
soils, vegetation, and animal life. The Bible teaches that
the earth, the sun, and all the vast number of shining orbs,
were made less than six thousand years ago. Science has
brought to light stars that are so remote that thousands and
millions of years are required for their light to reach our
earth, though it travels at the rate of 200,000 miles per
second ! The Bible teaches that the earth was made and
finished in the five days that Jehovah devoted to it. Sci-
ence teaches that for incomputable ages the earth has been
growing by the aggregation of falling bodies of matter
accumulated in contiguous space, and called meteors, aero-
lites, etc. Stratum after stratum has in this way been
added to the earth's surface, but it has taken ages upon ages
to effect it. The growth has been slow and gradual.

The Bible teaches that the first formations of organized
life were grasses, herbs, and fruit-trees. Science teaches
that the lower orders of animals which exist in water, as the
hydrozoa, jelly-fish, star-fish, etc., classed as radiata, and
clams, oysters, etc., termed moUusca, and ih.Q 'polyparia, ex-
isted ages before grass and trees could possibly have had an
existence. The Bible teaches that vegetation of all kinds
was produced on the same day. Science teaches that sea-
weed and water-plants of various kinds existed long, long
before grass and fruit-trees came into being. What is called

no THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

the coal-plant, of which the strata of coal over various
parts of the earth were composed, grew luxuriantly thou-
sands of years before grass, shrubbery, flowering plants and
fruit-trees had an existence.

The Bible teaches that birds and quadrupeds were
brought into existence on the same day with reptiles or
creeping things. Science teaches that birds, quadrupeds,
and mammals could not have existed until long, long after
reptiles and cold-blooded animals had been upon the earth.
The Bible teaches that man has exicted less than six thou-
sand years. Science shows by incontrovertible proofs
that man has existed on this earth not less than one hundred
thousand years. The Bible teaches that man was created
intelligent, highly developed, and perfect, and that he fell
iato ignorance, degradation, and barbarity. Science teaches
that man in prehistoric times lived in caves, roved about
like wild animals, was little above the brutes, and has grad-
ually risen in the scale of intelligence and civilization.

All these truths which science teaches can be demonstrated
by the history that for ages has been recorded in the rocks
that make up the crust of the earth, but want of space
will not allow me to refer to it now. "What, then, be-
comes of your harmony and friendship of the Bible for sci-
ence? They utterly fail. There is no:hing clearer than
that the writers of the Bible knew nothing of geology, little
or nothing of astronomy, very little of cosmogony, nothing
of chemistry, nothing of anthropology and ethnology, very
little of biology, very little of botany, very little of zoology,
very little of meteorology, very little of mathematics, very
little of hydrostatics, and very little of psychology. Their
knowledge of geography was extremely crude and limited
or they would not have talked so much about the ends, the
corners, the jylUai's, and i\iG. foundations of the earth. What
did they know about the earth's being a round ball; about
its revolving daily on its axis and coursing around the sun
every three hundred and sixty-five days ? Simply nothing

•THS HUMPSREY - BENNETT DlSCtTSStON. Ill

at all. What did they know about the real causes of day
and night, spring and autumn, summer and winter ? Noth-
ing whatever. An ordinary school-hoy ten years of age
knows more upon this subject than did all the Bible writers
combined, adding your God and Jesus Christ to the number.
Revelation has never brought these simple truths to light.
Jehovah seemed to know nothing about them. It has been
left to science to br'ng them to the knowledge of mankind.

Had you undertaken to show that the stories of Robinson
Crusoe and Old Mother Hubbard and her Wonderful Dog
harmonize with science and are friendly to it, I think you
would have been more successful. The first was written
by a man of far more intelligence than the Bible writers.
It contains nothing like the number of improbabilities and
impossibilities that the Bible does. It has amused and in-
structed millions of young people without filling their
minds with false representations of angry gods, malicious
devils, and vindictive torture. Even in Old Mother Hub-
bard, though the tale of a dog's dressing in man's clothes
and talking is perfectly absurd, it is no more so than an ass
talking and holding an argument with his master. Old
Mother Hubbard and her dog, equally with the Bible,
recognized many of the arts and trades, and said nothing
derogatory to them.

You speak of Noah's skill in building the ark, and of his
science in classifying the animals. The ark appears to have
been a mere box, or " flat-boat," and did not require a vast
amount of skill; besides, it is not just to give much credit
of it to Noah, for God told him how to make it in every
particular. Nor can I see why Noah should be credited
with having classified the animals, when there is no account
of his doing anything of the kind. According to the picto"
rial representations I have seen, the animals marched
into the ark two by two, like trained soldiers, and of their
own accord, while Noah seemed to pay very little at-
tention to them. But really, my friend, do you attach

li^ THE HUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

much importance to that silly '' Flood Story"? Do you re-
gard it as a scientific statement? Does it seem scientific to
you to pretend that the atmosphere could bupport moisture
enough to rain over the entire earth to the depth of
five miles, to the tops of the highest mountains? If it did
not come from the atmosphere, where did it come from?
Does it seem scientific to say that two or three millions of
animals, biids and insects voluntarily and simultaneously
congregated from every zone and continent of the earth
unto Noah, to be placed in the ark? If. they did not
come voluntarily, what brought them together? Noah was
busy building the ark for them, and he could not attend to
it. Is it scientific to believe that animals from the tropics,
and animals from the frigid zone, and from all parts of the
earth, all of different natures, could be shut up in a tight
box — the only door and wind»w closed — and remain alive
for any length of time? Is it scientific to believe that the
food of such animals as require fresh meat, fresh fish, fresh
grass, fresh leaves, quantities of worms and insects of all
kinds, and even honey, could be provided and kept in the
ark with all that aggregate of animal life — some 120 animals
and insects to every square yard the ark contained — sufli-
cient to last them more than a year? Is it a scientific suppo-
sition that when the animals from the warm countries dis-
embarked on the top of Mt. Ararat, said to be 17,000 feet
above the level of the sea, and 5,000 feet above the line of
perpetual snow and frost, they could live till they descended
15,000 feet or more, where the weather was mild? Is it sci-
entific to thiuk they could find anything to eat after all the
animals had been killed and every plant and tree inevitably
destroyed by being a year under water? Is it scientific to
hold that a rainbow never appeared until Noah left the ark
some four thousand years ago? Does not science teach
that rainbows have been produced for as many hundred
thousand years as there has been a sun to shine upon
descending drops of rain? Can you scientifically account

tnn HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. IVS

for the disappearance of the water, which reached to thi3
tops of tlio highest mountains? Where could it possibly
have gone to ?

You mention the tower of Babel as being a great work
of science and architectural skill and compare it with the
pyramids of Egypt. There are pretty good proofs that the
pyramids were built, for they still exist nearly as good as
ever, but is there a stick or a stone or a brick to show
where the tower of Babel stood? Is there a person living
who has any definite idea where it stood ? Did anybody
ever live who knew anything about it?

Do you think it a scientific statement wiiere Moses is de-
scribed as having turned rods into snakes, all the water of
Egypt — including the river Nile — into blood, changing
dust into lice, producing spontaneously immense quantities
of frogs, locusts, etc. Is it a scientific thought that the
waters of the Red Sea sepaiated and stood up perpen-
dicularly like walls while two millions of people, and at
least as many cattle passed over dry shod, and several hun-
dred thousand Egyptians followed in and were dt'owned ?
Did a scientist ever see water behave in that way? Is it sci-
entific to think that Joshua, Elijah and Elisha were able to
divide the rapid Jordan in a similar manner? Is it scientific
to think that a man could stop the sun and moon or any other
of 'he heavenly bodies ? Is it scientific to pretend that Eli-
ja/i could manufacture meal and oil from nothing, that he
could prevent the fall of rain and dew upon the earth for three
years, and that men and animals and vegetation could live
after such a protracted dry spell ? Is it scientific to claim that
he could call down fire from heaven and burn up stones and
twelve barrels of water and over one hundred men? Is it
scientific to think he could travel up into the upper atmos-
phere in a chariot of fire, and that he could live for a minute
where there is no air or oxygen ? Would a real scientist
believe that Elisha could make an axe float on the surface
of the river ; that Samson could with his naked hands tear

114i THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

the jaws of a lion, kill one thousand men at one time with
the jaw-bone of an ass, and finally that he could, by laying
hold of the pillars of a temple, throw it to the ground and
kill many thousand people? Could a scientist believe that
muscular strength could be produced by long hair instead
of well-developed muscles ? Could he believe that a fish
could swallow a man whole, retain him in his stomach
three days, and under water, without the man's suffering
for want of air, and at the end of the time throw him up
on dry ground as good as ever?

Does a real scientist believe that a ghost could hold inter-
course with a young virgin and beget a child ? Does he
believe that there is any mountain in Syria from the top of
which a person could see all the kingdoms of the earth ?
Does he believe that a dead man was ever brought back to
life ? Does he believe that water can be changed into
wine ? Does he believe that the light of the sun could be
extinguished for three hours ? that the graves could be
opened and the dead walk forth and hold intercourse with
their former companions ? Does he believe that a person
could make a trip of four thousand miles, through the inter-
nal fires of the earlh to the centre and return in thirty-six
hours? (Would it not have been pretty warm traveling?)
Cou'd a man who is a real scientist, and who believes in the
immutability of nature's laws, intelligently believe that any
of these things could take place? To believe them, does not
all scicLtific knowledge and observation, all human experi-
ences have to be set aside, and a blind superstitious faith
and credulity substituted in their place ? Is not, in fact,
a belief in impossibilities utterly at variance with science?
and can the}^ in any tiue sense, be said to harmonize and
to maintain friendly relations towards each other ?

You speak of Abraham's showing his wonderful surgical
skill in performing circumcision upon his son Isaac.
Was- that a feat to brag about ? Could not. any Hottentot
have done as much ? Does it not require far more skill to

THE nCMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 115

put a ring iu the nose of a liog or to emasculate him ? If
Abraham had performed the surgical operation of cutting
his boy's head off. as he intended to do, would it not liave
shown more skill than cutting off a little loose skin? You
claim that the Hebrew women were excellent cooks and
bread-makers. Do you allude to the peculiar cake or bread
which God commanded them to make, mixed with human
excrement and cow-dung, as described in Ezekiel iv ? Was
that scientific bread-making ? Is there the slightest proof
that the Hebrews cooked any better or baked any better
than the neighboring nations ? Yqu speak about the He-
brew women being excellent milliners and dressmakers, and
that they knew how to use cosmetics. Have you any cer-
tificate of this fact ? I call for proofs. You speak of their
jewelry and rich apparel ; do you mean that which they
stole from the Egyptians? I think there is no special ac-
count of their making any jewelry, but they were adepts at
stealing, robbing, and murdering, invariably taking the
jewelry and other valuables from tlieir victims. About the
greatest feat in the jewelry line mentioned in the Bible is
where the priest Aaron, while Moses was up on the moun-
tain helping God to get up the Ten Commandments, took
the jewelry that had been stolen from other people and
melted it together and made a golden calf for the Israelites
to worship as a god. Did that require much science ?

You quote Job to show how much the Israelites knew
about astronomy; but are you not aw^are that the best He-
brew seholurs have long since decided that that book was not
written by a Hebrew but was probably borrowed from the
Chaldeans or the Edomites ? The fact that not a person or
place is mentioned in it that is spoken of in any other part
of the Bible goes far to confirm this opinion. It is not
Hebrew in stylo or character, and neither mentions any
other part of the Bible nor does any other part mention it.
As that is the only instance where the least astronomical
knowledge is indicated in the book it hardly proves the

116 f KE ItUMPflREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Jews to have been astronomers. All they knew of the
stars was from observation; they had no knowledge of
calculation in that direction — they knew nothing about cal-
culating eclipses, transits, etc.

You claim the Israelites as "superior musicians." I can-
not admit it. They doubtless had several crude instru'
ments, and v/ere able to play them promiscuously, and
"make a joy fill noise," as David called it, but they knew
nothiug of harmony, without which there can be no real
music. Oriental nations have never known anything
about harmony, nor do they to this day. It is only within
the last two or three 'centuries that the world has known
anything about harmony, the knowledge of which was per-
fected in Europe. The Orientals had nothing to do with it.

Are you sure the Israelites played on *' a harp of a thou-
sand strings"? Will you please point out the part of the
Bible that mentions such an instrument ? Have you not
got your Bible a trifle confounded with tlie Hard-Shell Baptist
who preached in the Southwest, taking for a text, "And
they shall gnaw a file, and flee. unto the mountains of Hep-
sidam, where the liou roareth and the whang-doodle
mourneth for her first-born ; and he played on a harp of a
thousand strings— sperits of just men made perfect"? Is
that not the only instance on record where anything is said
about the thousand-stringed harp ?

You boasl of the architectural skill of the Israelites.
You have little grounds for it. They lived in tents, and
knew very little about houses. Their tabernacle was only a
tent. It is thought by many that Solomon's wonderful
Temple was a myth, that it never had an existence; but if
the Bible story is credited, it is evident that the Hebrews had
not skill enough to erect it, for they were obliged to send
for thousands of skilled workmen from Tyre and Sidon.
Palestine presents no relics of ancient architectural grand-
eur. I have it from a friend who has made four difl!erent
journeys to Palestine, and who has been over every square

THE humphhey-bennett discussion, 117

mile of that country, that there is uot in the entire length
and breadth of the "Holy Land" a stone, a monument, a
Hebrew inscription, or anything of the kind, to prove that
a numerous and civilized people lived there three thousand
years ago ; while in other parts of Syria, in Chaldea, Asia
Minor, Phoenicia, Egypt, Greece, Cypress, and Rome, the
remaiDS of ancient grandeur are often met with. In the
Metropolitan Museum on Fourteenth street, in this city,
there are some twenty thousand specimens of ancient work-
manship in earthen- ware, pottery, etc. , principally brought
from Cypress, but among them all, not one specimen of He-
brew manufacture. Probably there is nothiog in existence
to-day, in the whole world, to show there was such a nation,
save less than half a dozen coins, and the genuineness of
these is disputed.

You say every Jew was required to learn some substan-
tial trade. But what kind of trades were they? Tent-
making, pasturing cattle, sandal-making, etc. Nothing
showing a high order of civilization. In chronology they
were deficient. Their calendar was inferior to Caesar's and
Gregory's. Their months depended upon the moon and
were ever changing. It cannot be traced with precision
like the calendars of Csesar and Gregory. They never had
a commerce that amounted to anything, and the ships of
Palestine never made much show upon the oceans of the
world. They were a pastoral people, whose country con-
tained scarcely twelve thousand square miles — about the
size of New Hampshire — and half of it consisted of moun-
tains, ravines, lakes, etc., which could hardly be cultivated,
and they never were a powerful nation, nor were they ever
far advanced in arts, science and cizilization. It is a notice-
able fact that though the Greek historian, Herodotus — prob-
ably the most correct of ancient historians — who twice made
a journey through Syria, Phoinicia, etc., never mentioned
the Hebrew nation, and this nearly five hundred years be-
fore the Christian era. They were a nation or a race of

118, THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

shepherds, too obscure to attract Uis attention or to be
worthy of mention in his writings.

There is little doubt that Jewish history is very much ex-
aggerated, that there never was as large a popuhition in that
country as represented. It would be wholly unable to sup-
port such a population. The impossibility of this can be
very readily seen by a little calculation. To turn out an
army of one million fighting men — and this number it
must have had at least, to lose 500,000 in a single daj^ — it
must have had a population of five or six millions — many
times denser than Belgium, the most populous country of
Europe, and chiefly a level and fertile country, with but
little waste land. It would be utterly impossible for such a
diminutive, broken country as Palestine to sustain any such
number of people.

There is but little ground for making a great man of
Solomon. He was probably a myth ; but, according to
the Bible, he was more remarkable for sensuality than for
any scientific qualities. He knew very little about the sci-
ences. The Proverbs accredited to him were the collections
of ages and from various nations. There is no proof that
he wrote one of them, and if the " Song " in the Bible that is
called by his name is a fair specimen of his " thousand and
five " songs you allude to, it is very well that they have not
come down to our time. They would do him no credit,
and nobody any good. He assuredly was an inferior Tup-
per, a very poor Linnajus, a weak Audubon, a puerile
Cuvier, and a mean apology'' for an Agassiz.

Does the fact that "Jesus wept " prove him to have been
a scientist ? Weeping was in his line. Even if he had a
presentiment that Jerusalem would be dcstr »3^ed, diJ that
make him a scientist? Is there proof that he attended any
institution of learning; that he studied the sciences, or knew
anything of them? The mention of his talking with the
doctors in the temple when twelve years of age is but a trif-
ling incident in a career of thirty years, of which nothing

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSTON. 110

whatever is known. Did it show him to be a mui of sci-
ence to look for fruit upon a fig-tree in the part of the year
when those trees do not bear fruit, and to get angry and
curse the tree because he was disappointed ? Your effort
to make a scientist of Jesus I regard an utter failure.

What if Paul did visit Athens and look upon the temple
of Diana and found it far more splendid than anyttiing he
ever saw in Palestine ; did that make him a scientist? Could
not an Esquimaux equally as well look upon the Capitol at
Washington, the Croton aque iuct at High Bridge or upon
our East Kiver Suspension Bridge without being a scientist?
It is very doubtful whether he ever visited Rome. In the last
chapter of Acts it says he did, but afterwards, in the first
chapter of Romans, he talks as though he was very anxious
to visit Rome, but says nothing about his having done so,
Qor does it afterwards state that he ever visited the ' ' City of
Seven Hills;" but be that as it may, he was a very small part
of a scientist, and taught very few scientific truths. The
only time he used the word science, he called it false. He
was great in extolling the virtues of faith and blind credu-
Jity, and had literally nothing to say upon scientific sub-
jects. Like his master, he was dogmatic, dealt in parables,
enigmas and absurdities, and knew little or nothing of
science. His positive assertion that he " was determined
not to know anything save Jesus Christ and him crucified,"
decides forever just how much of a scientist he was. A
man favorable to scientific investigation would never thus
declare himself. Peter and the rest of the apostles were
equally scientific ! Faith with all of them was the sine qua
non; science was tabooed. Perhaps the nearest that Peter
ever came to being scientific and dexterous was when he
so neatly took off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the
high priest, with his sword. It seems, however, you did
not deem it of sufficient consequence to mention it, though
it was certainly equal to Abraham's surgery. Perhaps
Jesus performed the scientific part of the operation when h<?

120 THE HUMPHRBY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION.

touched the place where the ear hud been and healed it, but
whether by bringing out a new ear is not stated. What
business Peter, the "Rock" on which the Church is built,
a disciple of Jesus and key-holder of the gate of heaven,
had with a sword is not scientifically explained.

I am sorry, my friend, that I canuot find as much science
in the Bible and among its authors as you do, but perhaps I
am unfortunate to that extent. It is probable that we look
through different lenses.

Yours very truly, D. M. Bennett.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Bear Sir: As far as I am concerned,
you are welcome to call such men as Judge Story "petti-
foggers," and, in the face of three standard biographers, to
deny that Lincoln said "Christ is God." My cause can
afford better than yours to let you ignore authorities in that
summary way.

You assume that a belief in the supernatural is unscien-
tific. That is begging the question. For the present, sufllce
it to say that the men who have done the most for science
have been believers in the possibility, reasonableness, and
historical reality of miracles. This we shall show iarther on.

I wrote my last letter with precipitate haste, just before
going to the country. That will account for my inadvert-
ence when I said the Jewish musicians played on " harps of
a thousand strings." Of course, I am liable to make mis-
takes. But that I should even commit to writiug this mistake
is rather strange. A few evenings before, 1 had been ridi-
culing that very " harp." Well, I shall have to come down
nine hundred and ninety strings. I should have said,
" Instruments of ten strings" (Pss. 33:2; 03:3; 144:9). I
stand corrected. Thaok you.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 131

It is my turn now. Your letter is rich in materials for
retaliation. You fall into quite a number of rather serious
errors :

Error first: "Nor does any other part mention it" (the
book of Job). Job is mentioned four times in the Bible
(Ez. xiv: 14 16, 30; James v, li), and once in the Apocrypha
(Tob. ii:13) Neither is it true that "the best Hebrew
scholars have long since decided that that book was not
written by a Hebrew." Such critics as Kennicott, Eich-
horn, Michaelis, Dathe, Luther, Grotius, Doederliu, Um-
breit, Rosenmilller. Reimar, Spanheim, Warburton, Hitzig,
Hirzel, Delitzsch, Evans, Lange, etc., etc., etc., are of the
opinion that its author was a Jew. The name Job is Jew-
ish (Gen. xivi:13). But granting that it is the work of a
Gentile, the reception of the book into the Scriptures proves
that the Israelites could appreciate its contents.

Error second: '* The only time he used the word science,
he called it/«?sd," On the contrary, Paul used the word
gnosis, translated "science," in 1 Tim. vi:30, about twenty
times in his Epistles (Englishman's Greek Concordance).
It was not Paul's fault (hat this word was not uniformly
rendered "science " in the English version, as it was gener-
ally in the Vulgate and in Leusdcn's Latin Testament.
Neither did Paul call science /afee. There is a vast difference
between declaring that science is false and saying that there
is a false " science." It was only the latter that the Apostle
denounced.

Error tJiird: " They lived intents, and knew very little
about houses." How opposite to the facts! " Houses" and
"palaces," "winter houses and summer houses," built of
"hewn stone," and "cedar," and "ivory," containing
"parlours," "painted with vermilion," were no rare thiugs
among the ancient Hebrews (See Jud. iii:30; Jer. xxii:14;
Amos iii : 15).

Error fourth : " They stole irom the Egyptians." "Stole "
is not the word employed by Moses, but "borrovved" (E.%,

122 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

iii: 22, xii: 31-36). Amoug iheii first definitions of sliaal, the
original word for "borrowed," Fiiist and Gesenius give " to
ask pressingly; to ask for; to demand urgently; to beg very
urgently; to ask for one's self." Stealing is an idea entirely
foreign to the word.

Error fifth : ** He was great in extolling the virtues oi faith
and blind credulity." As regards faith, that is true; but as
regards ' ' blind credulity," it is utterly false. Scriptural faith
and "blind credulity" are as difi"erent as light and dark-
ness. Paul disclaimed and disdained the latter. He rebuked
even the scientific Athenians for being "too superstitious"
(Acts xvii:22). He prayed for deliverance " from unreason-
able men " (2 Thes. iii: 2) He regarded Religion as a " rea-
sondble,'''' or, strictly speaking, a " logical service " {Qr. logiken
laireian, Rom. xii: 1). He reasoned of righteousncKSs, temper-
ance, and judgment to come, until the Infidel Felix trembled
before him (Acts xxiv : 25).

You say Solomon was " remarkable for his sensuality." It
is tree that he fell into that grievous sin ; and the Bible
condemns him for it (1 Kings chap. xi). But the modern
Freethinkers, who regard themselves as preeminently "pro-
gressive" and" advanced," are the very ones y/\iO justify
and rf^/<9?i(i "remarkable sensuality." I refer to the doc-
trine of "Free-Love," which is by interpretation, Free-Lust.
I am glad, Mr. Bennett, to see you uniting with the Bible
to denounce an abomination which " advanced " Infidelity
is doing its utmost to propagate.

You assert that the ancient Jews were " crude " musicians.
Of course, they were inferior to the modern masters; but
they were unexcelled in their time. They could "sing
praises with the understanding " (Ps. 47: 7; 1 Cor. xiv: 15); and
they knew how to " make sweet melody''^ (Is. xxiii: 16; Amos
v:23; Eph. v:19). " Crude ''music does not have the sooth-
ing effect that David's harp did on the agitated Saul (1 Sam.
xvi:33).

You say there was nothing among the ancient Jews

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 128

'* showing a high order of civilization." Even Rationalists,
like DeWette, in his Lehrhuch der Archaologie, and Jahn,
in his Biblical Archaeology, express a very different opinion,

But I cannot stop to expose all your misrepresentations.
What I have given is enough to show how fair, accurate^
aii^l reliable you are as an expounder of the Scriptures! Let
me, however, furnish you with the proofs you call for, that
the Hebrew women were excellent dressmakers and milli-
ners, and that they knew how to use cosmetics. Read Is.
iii:16-24; Jer. iv:30; Ez. xxiii:40, and you will doubtless be
couvinced

The Bible does not pretend to be a text-book of science.
And this is no discredit to it. You do not condemn a work
on moral philosophy, because it is not a treatise on mathe-
matics. It is the mission of the Bible to teach moral and
spiritual truth. Its references to physical science are there-
fore only incidental. I showed in my last letter that those
references are always respectful and approving.

Let us now proceed to prove that believers in the Bible
have done more than unbelievers to promote learning and
science.

This is shown, in the first place, by the fact that the best
Educational Institutions of the world have been almost
uniformly founded, endowed, and cherished by Christian
people. There are over thirt}'' Universities in Germany.
Every one of them is under either Catholic, Lutheran, Evan-
gelical, or their united control. "The motives which prompt-
ed these great establishments were without exception, pure
and elevated, and generally pious and Christian " (Schaff's
Germany and its Universities, pp. 29-32). The same is true
of another country famous for its higher education. There
is not one University in all France that its Infidels have
brought into existence. Should you feel like contradicting
this statement, please name the University, with your
authority. The University of Paris was founded by the
approbation of Pope Innocent IIL (Barnard's Systems,

134 THE HUMPHREY -BENNETT DISCUSSION.

iDstitutions, aud Statistics of Public Instruction in Differ-
ent Countries. N. Y., 1872, p. 198). This institution was
suppressed by the Infidels m the riot of 1793 (Am. Cyclope-
dia, 1876, Art. "University"). Tlie higher ' schools of
France were at first religious (Ibid).- So of England. The
American Cyclopedia will tell you that Cambridge Univers-
ity was originally a religious center; that the Colleges consti-
tuting it were founded by Christian gentlemen whose names
they bear; that it was befriended by Henry III., Henry IV.,
Henry V., Henry VII., by Edward I., Edward II., Edward
III., Edward IV., and by Queen Elizabeth. And the.>-e sov
ereigns were all, according to Hume, believers in the Chris-
tian Religion. I cannot find the name of an Infidel in con-
nection with its foundation, endowment, or with the furnish-
ing of its Cabinets and Libraries. Did space permit, I could
show you similar accounts of every University in England,
Ireland, Scotland and Wales. You may find the records in
Cyclopedias, Histories, and Reports that are always accessi-
ble.

Cross over to the United States, and the same is true here.
Josiah Quincy, in his admirable History of Harvard Uni-
versity, shows that the originators of that institution were
all church people, and mostly ministers; that its first and
best friend, John Harvard, was a preacher; that its Presi-
dents were an unbroken succession of clergymen for nearly
two hundred years; and that its professors and benefactors
wefe Christians in about the same proportion. Our other
universities and colleges, such as Yale, Brown, New York,
Cornell, Bowdoin, Amberst, Dartmouth, Columbia, Rut-
gers, Union, Lafayette, Oberlin, Princeton, Washington
and Jefferson, etc., etc., owe tbeir very being to religious
men. Only think of it I Where would the world be to-day
without the universities, colleges, academies, seminaries,
and schools, that Christianity has created and supported ?
It would be in worse than Egyptian darkness.

The Public Schools of Europe and America are the pro-

THE HUMPHEEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 125

duct of Christianity. In Europe religion is everywhere
blended with secular instruction (See Barnard's Systems,
Institutions, Statistics, etc.). The prime movers of the
*' Kational Society for promoting the Education of the Poor
in England" were Christian benefactors, chiefly clergymen
(O'Malley's Sketch of the Slate of Popular Education, 1840).
The American Public School sprung up first in New Eng-
land. Its religious character is shown by the fact that the
Testament was a reader in it for many years. Webster's
Speller and Grammar were among the first of American school
books. But Noah Webster was a devout church member
(See his Memoir in his Unabridged Dictionary). The ma-
jority of school books ever since have been prepared by
religious scholars and educators. We may safely say that
more than eighty per cent, of the teachers in our common
schools are church members. I read not long ago, in an
educational journal, that there are seventeen thousand
schools in Pennsylvania, and that the Bible is read in four-
teen thousand of them. Thus, the feeling still predominates
that the State should not utterly ignore moral instruction.
In earlier days this feeling was more pronounced than it is
now. Gov. George Clinton of New York wrote to the Leg-
islature in the beginning of the present century: "The ad-
vantage to morals, religion, liberty, and good government,
arising from the general diffusion of knowledge, being uni-
versally admitted, permit me to recommend this subject
(common schools) to your deliberate attention." Gov.
Lewis and Gov. Tompkins gave utterance still later to sim-
ilar sentiments (Cheever's Bible in our Common Schools, N.
Y. 1859, pp. 201-4). Oar facilities, then, for popular
education are to be accredited to men who were not ashamed
of the Gospel of Christ. Why, Sir, if we had to depend on
Infidelity for it, we would be without a respectable diction-
ary of the English language. Johnson, Webster, and Wor-
cester (see Memoir in his Dictionary), were firm believers in
the Word of God. And what would we be without a die-

126 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

tionary ? In other words, wliat would we know if we had
nothing but Infidelity to teach us ?

A like account may be given of the world's greatest
Museums and Libraries, The first circulating library
was established in Cesarea, about 309 ad., by Saint
Pamphilus (Curwen's History of Book-sellers, p. 422).
Sir Hans Sloane may be called the founder of the
British Museum. But Sir Hans Sloane was no Infidel
(Encyclopedia Britannica). Those who bequeathed their
private libraries to the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge,
Yale, Harvard, etc., etc., will invariably be found to have
been Christians, and very often clergymen. Let us look at
the matter nearer home. The founders of the " New York
Historical Society" were godly men. We find the names
of Bishop Moore, Rev. Samuel Miller, D.D., Dr. John W.
Francis, etc., among its first and highest oflScers. There
was not one skeptic among the organizers of the Boston
Athenaeum (see Josiah Quincy's History of). John Jacob
Astor, the founder of the magnificent library that bears his
name, was a life-long church member (Parton's Famous
Americans, p. 435). Peter Cooper is a Unitarian, accepting
the Bible as the inspired word of God. I have not been able
to find anything very positive about the religious opinions of
James Smithson, the originator of the Smithsonian Institu-
tion in Washington. But the current sketches of his life
contain many circumstanlial evidences of his subscription
to the Christian system. Where are the public museunis of
art and science, the libraries and institutes, that Infidels
have established ? Ah, my friend, tliey arc almost as few
and far between as you would say that angel visits are.

Did you ever observe, in reading the lives of our
Revolutionary heroes and statesmen, how that nearly all of
them received their education from Christian clergymen ?
Where would they have been without an education ? But
what of their education, if they had been obliged to seek it
from Infidel teachers and professors ?

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 127

The greatest discoverers, iuventors, and literati have been
believers in the Bible as a Divine revelation. I can name but
a very few of them. Among them I will mention Coper-
nicus, the reviver of the heliocentric theory; Galileo, the
inventor of the telescope ; Isaac Newton, the greatest of
philosophical discoverers; Bacon, who introduced the in-
ductive melhod; Descartes, the prince of metaphysicians;
Leibnitz, the rival of Newton; Columbns, the discoverer of
America; Kepler, the formulator of " Kepler's laws;" Pas-
cal, that prodigy of profoundness; Jeuner, the discoverer of
vaccination ; Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of
the blood; Sir William Jones, the Sanscrit scholar; Adam
Smith, the unrivaled political economist; Dr. Priestley, the
discoverer of oxygen gas; George Stephenson, the perfecter
of the steam engine ;'Smeaton, the builder of the EJdystone
Lighthouse ; the Duke of Bridge water, the first English
canal constructor; Christopher Wren, the architect of St.
Paul's; William Edwards, the "rainbow" bridge-builder ;
Sir Humphrey Davy, the chemist, and inventor of the
Safety Lamp (Works, London, 1839, vol. i. pp. 114, 431;
vol. ix. pp. 214-388) ; Robert Fulton, the first steamboat
builder (Colden's Life of Fulton pp. 354, 381, 369, 371);
Prof. S. F. B. Morse, the inventor of the electric telegraph
(Prime'SrLife of Morse, N. Y., 1875, pp. 730-7); Cuvier, the
comparative anatomist (Lee's Memoirs, London, 1830, pp.
10, 35, 318, 327) ; Audubon, the ornithologist ; Faraday,
Tyudall'3 teacher (Gladstone's Life of Faraday pp. 118-122);
Sir David Brewster, the versatile scientist; the Merschels, a
family of astronomers; Chatham, Brougham, Burke, Henry,
Webster, Clay, the orators ; Blackstone, Kent, Hale, Coke,
Story, the jurists; the poets Chaucer, Spencer, Dante, Dry-
den, Gray, Wordsworth, Young, Thomson, Pollock, Milton
and Shakspeare (see Halliwell's Life of Shakspeare, pp. 33,
270-289, and Wilkes' Shakspeare from an American Point
of View, N. Y. 1877, chap, vi.); Mozart, Haydn, Han-
del, Mendelssohn, Bach, Beethoven, Liszt, the musicians;

128 THE TTUMPHKEY-BENXETT DISCUSSION.

Da Vinci, Correggio, Carracci, Raphael, Angelo, West, the
artists; RawlinsoD, Lepsius, Layard, the antiquarians; Wil-
berforce and Howard, the philanthropists. But I might
as well stop, us it will be impossible to finish the list. The
names of Cullen, Hup;-h Miller, Count Rumford, Sir Roderick
Murchison, Ferguson, Liebig, Leyden, Prof. Dana, Prof.
Silliman, Prot. Henry, Dr. McCosh, Principal Dawson, Dr.
Livingstone, Agassiz, Gren. Newton, Winchell, Mitchell,
Guyot, Guizot, Noah Porter, Duke of Argyll, Gladstone,
etc., etc., are already in the reader's mind.

Now, I ask, where would art and science be without the
discoveries and inventions of those whom I have men-
tioned ? Had we nothing to-day but such original contribu-
tions to scientific knowledge as Infidels have made, we
would have scarcely anything but barbarism. We would
be without our best music, our best poetry, and our best
art. We would have no astronomy, no steam power, no
telegraph, no America. Even now, with every advantage
and incentive, Infidels are in the rear as scientists. I have
lool^ed quite carefully over the "Annual Record of Science
and Industry," for the last six years, and I fail to find that
the men who talk the most about science, have made any
contributions to it. There is the Banner of Lights editor and
contributors ; Tlie Beligio- Philosophical Journal, editor and
contributors; The Boston Investigator , editor and contributors;
The Crucible, editor and contributors ; Woodhull & Clafflin's
Weekly, editress (?) and contributors ; The Index, editor and
contributors ; and, let me add. The Truth Seeker, ed-
itor and contributors — one might imagine from their loud
talk that they were scientists par excellence, and that they
contributed immensely to its progress! But, alas! when we
come to examine the records of what has been actually
done, and who has done it, \X does not appear that they
have done anything whatever !

The leading Publishers of the world have been generally
believers in the Christian Religion. The earliest and fore-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 129

most booksellers and publishers of Eugland have been
friends and members of the Church (see Curwen's History
of Booksellers, London, 1873). Quite significantly, Pater-
noster— i. e. the Lord's Prayer — Row, in London, was the
first to become famous for its book trade. The pioneers of
the publishing business in America — Usher, Ranger, Avery,
Phillips, Ratcliffe, Sewall, etc. — were men of faith (Thomas'
History of Printing, vol. ii. pp. 409-412). 1 presume that
what is true of New York is true of any large city in this
respect. The religious character of the New York book-
sellers and publishers is reflected in their resolutions on
the death of Mr. Fletcher Harper, where you will find
the followiug sentence: '*For all that he was as a man
and a Christian^ for all that he was permitted to accomplish
in the interest of literature and education, we looald render
thanks to Almighty/ God" {New York Herald, May 31, 1877).

O, yes; I must mention the art of printing. That, too,
was the offspring of Cliristi$in genius. Guttenburg, the in-
ventor of printing, was a Roman Catholic (Thomas' History
of Printing, Vol. I. p. 112). The first important book ever
printed was the Latin Bible. William Caxton, the first En-
glish printer, lived and died in the Church (Ibid. p. 135).
America is indebted for its first press to the Rev. Jesse
Glover, a Nonconformist minister (Thomas' History of Print-
ing, Vol. L p. 205). What would the world be without the
printing-press? When you give a correct answer to that
question, I will tell you what it would be for aught that Infi-
delity has done for it in that direction.

I anticipate in reply an elaborate treatise on Paine and
his iron bridge ; Girard College in Philadelphia ; James
Lick, and the California observatory; Tyndall and his ex-
periments; Huxley and his speculations; Darwin and his
theories, and ever so much more in that line. I give scep-
tics credit for all they have done. But they were not the
pioneers of science. They do not, and they cannot sit un-
der their own vine and fig-tree. They have themselves.

IBO TtlE nUMPHREY-BENXETT DISCtJSSION.

almost to a man, been trained and educated by religious
teachers. lu the hour of diflSculty and darkness, the Chris-
tian was in the front, bearing the brunt of the battle,
while the Infidel lagged behind, whining and finding fault,
but doing nothing. Bat now, after the day of doubt and
danger is past, and the victory is won, behold him scram-
ing forward for the booty and the glory! He beheld, pass-
^ing along, the chariot of Progress, drawn by the steeds of
Faith and Works. He saw that it was his only chance for
a ride. Though a " dead-head," he was not refused a place.
He clambered eagerly up, cocked himself on a back seat,
and then began to scatter hand-bills among the spectators,
inscribed, See ! see what Infidelity is doing for the advance-
ment of Science !!

But my article is already too long. The sum of what has
been said is 'this: Believers in the Bible have given to man-
kind over a hundred universities; innumerable colleges,
academies and schools; the first and largest libraries and
athenaeums of the world; the cardinal discoveries and in-
ventions, such as the Western Hemisohere, the heliocentric
theory, the law of gravitation, the steam engine, the tele-
graph, and the printing-press, which, beginning with the
Bible, has filled the earth with books. Scriptural religion
has ever held aloft the primeval Fi;it. Let there he light.
This light has varied in intensity at different periods. The
whirlwinds of persecution have rushed upon it. The mist
of superstition has enveloped it. The choke-damp of indif-
erence has dimmed it. Many a jack-with-a-lantern has set
itself up against it. But it has never been extinguished.
Its flame has always been the brightest, highest, and steadi-
est. The Spirit of History is waiting for a greater than
Bartholdi to prepare a worthy statue of Christianity En

LIGHTENING THE WORLD.

Yours with respect, G. H. Humphrey.

1?HE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 131

MR. BENNETT .

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: I do not call Judge
Story especially a "pettifogger," but mean all who try
to make out that our National Constitution is a Christian
institution, when it contains not a word about God, Jesus
Christ, or the Bible. So far as the coat fits Judge Story
he is entitled to wear it.

You mentioned Lincoln again. While his name is stilj
on the tapis allow me to refer to the fact that Robert Dale
Owen, the Infidel, who has just died, full of years and
honor, had not a little influence in causing Mr. Lincoln to
issue his ever-memorable Emancipation Proclamation.
His letter to Lincoln upon the subject, urging with power-
ful arguments the emancipation of the slaves of the south-
ern rebels, was written upon the day of the battle of Antie-
tam, Sept. 17, 1863. Mr. Lincoln wrote the Proclamation
on the 20th and 21st, read it to the Cabinet and signed
it on the 22d, and it was issued on the 23d. This letter by
Mr. Owen has just been published for the first time
in our city papers. That it had great influence upon Mr.
Lincoln's mind in deciding upon the course to pursue
may be learned from this extract of a letter from Salmon
P. Chase — who was Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln,
and who handed Mr. Owen's letter to the President — to Mr.
Owen: "It will be a satisfaction to you to know that your
letter to the President had more influence on him than any
other document which reached him upon the subject — /
tliink Inflight say more than all others put together. I speak of
that which I know, from personal conference with him. " I
mention this matter because it has recently for the first time
been brought to the notice of the public, and to show that one
of the oldest Infidels in the country had far more infiuence
in the issuing of the Proclamation of Emancipation than all
that Christians said upon the subject, including the Chris-
tian McClellan, who, in his Harrison Landing letter to Lin-

132- THE HITMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

coin, Strongly urged him to take no steps towards disturb-
ing the institution of Slavery. So, here is another proof
that the credit of the emancipation of four millions of
slaves, which you claimed for Christianity, really belongs
to Infidelity.

I was in hopes that inasmuch as you hold the Bible to be
a book of science, and your faitli in it is so strong,
you would give a scientific explanation of how the earth
could exist, morning and evening take place, vegetation of
all kinds grow and flourish, perfecting fruit and seeds, be-
fore the sun had been brought into existence and before
there had been a drop of rain upon the earth. I hoped,
too, you would explain scientifically how the water was
produced which covered the earth 30,000 feet in depth, and
where it went to afterwards; for many thousands liave
wondered in their simple hearts how God could make so
much water and how a little wind which he sent over the face
of it could dry it all up, and where it went to when in a
state of vapor. I was in hopes you would bring your
science to the task of explaining how a man could stop or
control any of the heavenly bodies; how the waters of seas
and rivers can be divided and made to stand up in perpen-
dicular walls and wait for millions of people and cattle to
pass over. I was in hopes, also, you would give a scientific
explanation of the hundreds of utter impossibilities with
the accounts of which your scientific book is so plenti-
fully filled; but it seems you found it more convenient to
skip over them and thousands of years of superstition and
error — for which your Bible is directly responsible — and
come down to modern times, when science has been able to
raise its head and wield some influence in the world.

You speak of my "misrepresentations," and enumerate
several of them, I did not intend to use misrepresentation
nor falsehood, and, with your permission, will look at my
mistakes and see how " gross " they are. What you claim as
"error first" is where 1 said the book of Job is not men

tHE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 133

tioned in any other part of the Bible. You show that the
name of Job is used in three places. Pardon me; I can-
not see how that shows that I misreprcpented. I said
the hook was not mentioned, not the name ! The name Job
is mentioned once in Genesis (and there are not the slight-
est grounds for supposing it was the man who had the
boils) ; it is mentioned once in Ezel^iel, and once in the
New Testament. I did not succeed in finding it in the
Apocrypha where you directed me. Ezekiel mentions
Noah, Job, and Daniel. It cannot be the Daniel who is
said to have been thrown into the lions' den, for that Dan-
iel did not live and write until a generation later than
Ezekiel, and many learned scholars believe that the book
of Daniel was not w^ritten till four hundred j^ears later than
the time it purports to have been, so we are at a loss to
know what Daniel it was Ezekiel talked about, and it is the
same of Job. It is probable that the three names he used
were only myths of whom he knew nothing. The matter
of James' using the name of Job, and referring to the story,
has no more force than your or my using it. He knew no
more about Job or his book than we do. Mark, I did not
say the name Job was not used, but meant that the locality,
characters, and incidents of his story were not alluded to in
any cotemporaneous part of the Bible.

You next attempt to show that I was wrong when I
merely asked the question if the best Hebrew scholars had
not decided that the book of Job was not written by a He-
brew. I made no assertion, but asked a question. But I
was not mistaken. Ebeuezar and Spinoza were learned
Jews who so held in relation to that book. The names you
give in refutation are of the past two or three centuries,
and of men whose opinions were given before philology
had been extensively brought to bear as an auxiliary in
deciding the origin of ancient writings. If you will consult
the modern learned Hebrew scholars, Ewald, Kuenen, Gold-
ziher, and Adler, you will find that they regard the book

134 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

of Job as a Gentile production, and also as having been
written at a much later period than was formerly supposed
— as late, at least, as the date of the Jewish captivity. Tlie
learned historian and essayist, Fronde, maintains the same
opinion, as you will find by reading his Essays. Chandler
Halstead also entertains the same views. They all found
that the personae of the drama, or poem, were not Hebrew,
most of them being Arabic; the narnes of the constellations
mentioned are Greek, while the theological ideas employed
were distinctively Egyptian, and were not written till some
centuries after the translators supposed it to have been.
The conception of the character, Satan, is not Hebrew, and
his name is mentioned in only three other places in the
Old Testament, which is the part of the Bible I referred to
in connection with Job. The writers of the New Testa-
ment certainly knew nothing of him. I did not misrepre-
sent as to Job.

You arraign me next for saying that Paul used the word
science but once, and say he used the word which should
have been translated science about twenty times. I referred
solely to the English version, deeming that sufficient for our
purpose. If it was not translated right, so much the worse
for the translation ; it is no fault of mine. But the Greek
word gnosis does not mean science^ it simply means to know
and corresponds with our 'word know or knowledge. It
does not reach the dignity of science, of which Paul knew
and cared very little. Thus you will see I was not in error
here.

You next take me to task for saying the ancient Jews
lived in tents and knew very little about houses. To dis-
prove the fact you quote the singing of visionary, dreamy
prophets about Summer-houses, Winter-houses, houses of
ivory, etc. Summer-houses were doubtless very slight edi-
fices, and probably composed of vines and branches. TLe
Winter-houses may have been of rough stones and earth.
"Houses of ivory" proba\'ly had a far more ideal than

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 135

real existence. I must repeat tliat the remains of liouses of
liewn stone are not to be found in Palestine. Not a liewn
stone, not a monument, not a Hebrew inscription is to be
found in the whole country. The Jews were a branch of the
Semitic race, and more or less of a mixed character —
brothers of the Arabs — and semi-barbarians. These races
all lived in tents and knew very little of houses, and there
is no proof to the contrary. Until there is something more
reliable to depend upon than the inventions of dreamers
and singers, I can hardly change my position upon the
subject of Israelitish dwellings.

Let me here give a quotation, as not inappropriate, from
Albert Barnes, the distinguished theologian: "The Bible
came from a land undistinguished for literature — a land not
rich in classical associations, a land not distini!;uished for
pushing its discoveries into the regions of science. Chal-
dea had its observatories, and the dwellers then looked out
on the stars and gave them names ; Egypt had its temples,
where the truths of science as well as the precepts of re-
ligion were committed to the sacred priesthood ; Greece
had academic groves, but Judea had neither. To such
things the attention of the nation was never turned. We
have all their literature, all their science, all their knowledge
of art, and all this is in the Bible. Among the ancients they
were regarded as a narrow-minded, a bigoted, a supersti-
tious people " (Lectures on Ev. of Christianity, p. 257).

You next arraign me for saying the Hebrews stole from
the Egyptians. Are you not catching at small straws ?
What is the difference morally, or in fact, between stealing^
and horrowing without the slightest intention of ever
returning ? Besides, in Exodus xii. 36, in alluding to this
very business, it says the Israelites spoiled the Egyptians.
In Webster's Christian Dictionary, spoil is defined to mean
toroh, to plunder. So I v/as not far out of the way. If I
had used the harsher word rob, it would have been quite
correct.

136 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

YoQ next indict me for saying Paul was great for extoll-
ing the virtues of faith and blind credulity. You acknowl-
edge the correctness of faith, but say as to blind credulity
it is "utterly false." Now I cannot see much difference
between faith and crecluliiy, whether blind or not blind. You
seem to make a distinction where there is no difference.
What is faith unless it is credulity ? Webster, in his Chris-
tian dictionary, defines it as hdief; assent of the mind to
the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and
implicitly on his authority and veracity — in other word?,
" going it bliad." Paul had a great deal to say about faith.
He used the word over one hundred and fifty times.
In the Old Testament it is used but once. Paul said,
" Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen" (Heb. xi. 1). Now if the things be-
lieved in were not seen, was it not a kind of blind cre-
dulity 1 Have not you and all other Christians failh in
many things which you never saw, and of which you never
had any proof ? Do you not believe that Jesus was God?
that he w^as begotten by God or by himself ? that he had no
natural father ? that faith in him is suflBcient to save mill-
ions of poor souls from the torments of hell ? that one is
three and three are one ? that a son can be as old as his
father and equal in all respects ? You have no proof of
these things ; you never saw them. You believe without
proof — nothing more or less than blind credulity. I have
heard Christians again and again declare the importance of
haviug faith without proof. That is blind faith ; nothing
less. There are many things in the Christian faith that are
firmly believed which have not the slightest proof. 1 call
such faith blind credulity ^ and I can make nothing else of
it. It is the same confidence which a young robin (bliud)
has in its parent when it opens its mouth and takes what-
ever is given it. I have often heard that kind of confidence
and credulity extolled by Christians. It certainly is a mry
blind credulity.

'tfiE fltJMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 137

You next attempt to show that I misrepresented when
I said Solomon was remarkable for his sensuality. You
admit the fact but seek to evade its force by saying
the Bible condemned him for it. You hardly state the
truth. It does not condemn him for sensuality, but for
going after other gods. "And the Lord God was angry
with Solomon because his heart was turned from the Lord
God of Israel" (1 Kings, xi. 9), but not a word of anger
was expressed because he had seven hundred wives and
three hundred concubines. It was not asked of him to be
any better than was David, his father, and you cannot have
forgotten how his sensual love was aroused towards another
man's wife, Bathsheba ; how he committed adultery with
her and then caused her husband to be put to death to
cover his guilt. This conduct was all right enough, so he
did not turn away from his God. Solomon, in like manner,
could have committed adultery and gross sensuality as
much as he pleased, if he had not worshiped other gods.
Herein consisted his sin. His sensuality, like David's,
could have been easily winked at.

Here let me say that you seem to have stepped out of your
way to malign Freethinkers and make the untruthful
assertion that "the most progressive and advanced Free-
thinkers justify and defend remarkable sensuality." The
mqgt advanced or the most prominent Freethinkers do noth-
ing of the kind. So far as my acquaintance goes among
Freethinkers (and I ought to be as thoroughly acquainted
with them as yourself), they live as faithfully and happily
in their domestic relations as any class of men. Tyndall,
Proctor, Holyoake, Bradlaugh and Watts in England,
Owen, Mendum, Seaver, Draper, Abbot, Ingersoll, Un-
derwood, Denton, Tuttle and scores of others, will com
pare favorably in this respect with The very best of citi-
zens. Even the " Free-lovers," so called, are not guilty of
"remarkable sensuality," as were David and Solomon.
They indulge ho more in " free-lust " than other persons.

138 THE HTJMPHREY-BENKETT DISCUSSION.

They simply hold that love should be free. Let me ask if you
are in favor of forced love ? Ought not love always to be
free ? As you are a member of the American clergy, let me
say to you in the most friendly spirit, that you ought to be
careful how you make the charge of sensuality against Free-
thinkers, for however virtuous you may be yourself, your
brethren are certainly very vulnerable. If I were to look
for acts of sensuality and adultery I know of no more
prolific source than among the clergy of our country. I
think I can name some hundreds of cases where adultery
has been proved upon them, and I defy you to do anything
of the kind among Freethinkers. I do not say that not one
among the latter has ever made a mistake in this direction,
but I do insist that they are as law-abiding and as moral as
other men. For every adulterous Freethinker you point
out, I agree to name twenty adulterous clergymen. You do
not strengthen your case by such uncalled-for insinuations.

You take exceptions to my saj'ing there was nothing among
the ancient Jews showing a high order of civilization. It
does not seem that I am far out of the way when nothing
can be cited to the contrary. Not an ancient painting, not
a piece of sculpture, not a work of fine art, no ruins of
temples or splendid architecture, nothing of the kind, while
in other countries there is much that speaks of ancient grand-
eur and art. So far as DeWette is concerned, he can hardly
be ranked as a Rationalist. Some of his writings tended
slightly in that direction, but he gravitated towards the
Church, and he was accepted as orthodox.

You close your arraignment by saying you " cannot stop
to expose all my misrepresentations." Indeed ! What
haste you must be in. If I made misrepresentations I wish
them exposed; but witk all due respect allow me to say that
I think you made out a slim case in exposing my errors.
I claim that in every instance where you charge me with
misrepresentation I was entirely correct.

You did not satisfy me as to proofs about the intimate

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 139

knowledge the Hebrew women had of dressmaking, cos-
metics, etc. You quote from Isaiah, etc., where they are
complained of for being haughty, stretching out their
necks, having wanton eyes, mincing steps, and mak-
ing a tinkling with their feet; about their rings in Iheir
ears and their noses; all of which sounds more as though
they were semi-savages than highly cultured and intellect-
ual ladies. I must confess myself unconvinced as to their
perfect and refined civilization.

You next say " The Bible does not pretend to be a text-
book of science." That is just what I think, and I looked
upon it as a mistake in you to set up the claim that it had
any aflQnity or connection with science. There is hardly a
book in existence that is more unscientific than the Bible,
none more at variance with the experience of mankind and
with the laws of the Universe.

It appears to me that you are wide of the truth when you
claim a close intimacy between Christianity and science, or
that the former has been friendly to the latter. A marked an-
tagonism existed between them for more than sixteen hun-
dred years. Christianity found Southern Europe in the enjoy-
ment of an advanced state of philosophy and science. The
labors and scholarship of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato,
Euclid, Hipparchus, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy,
Archimedes, Apollonius, and others, had given to the world
a higher degree of philosophy and learning than it had
before enjoyed. Astronomy, geology, chemistry, mathe-
matics, mechanics, etc., had been developed and brought to
the knowledge of thousands. During the five centuries
before the dawn of Christianity science achieved more
distinction and position than it had ever before attained.
But when that system of religion became a ruling power in
the world this was immensely changed.

Christianity was made up of the theology of the Hebrews,
combined with the story and teachings of the reputed Jesus,
incorporated with the dogmas of Paganism. Neither the

140 THE nUMPHREY- BENNETT DISCUSSION.

accredited founder of the system nor any of the disciples
or apostles whom, he chose as companions were men of
learning. There is no authentic record that Jesus attended
school or that he was a scholar. There is no statement that
he ever wrote a word or imparted a particle of practical
scientific knowledge. All the narratives we have of him
represent him as a stroUiug mendicant who taught his fol-
lowers no useful pursuits of life, and who stifled all
enterprise, thrift, and foresight by enjoining his fol-
lowers and listeners to take no thought for the mor-
row—to make no provision for the future. Though he
is believed to be the son of Jehovah or to be the great
Deity himself — the source of all knowledge and all science —
he never during his ministry gave his students one lesson
in practical science. He gave no evidence of knowing any-
thing about astronomy, geology, chemistry, mathematics,
hydrostatics, mechanics, biology, philology, psychology,
or any of the kindred sciences. Had he possessed sci-
entific knowledge, and had he felt disposed to be a practical
benefit to the human race, what a splendid opportunity
was afforded him for imparting a great fund of information
to those who listened to him! But he had not the informa-
tion to impart.

The Apostles were no better. They were unlettered,
ignorant men, and ■svere capable of treating of but little save
the excellence of faith in the merits of the blood of a cruci-
fied God. They did not present to the people to whom
they ministered any new scientific truths, nor did they in
the slightest degree advance the knowledge of the world in
the practical, useful, vital affairs of life.

The early Fathers of the Church were of the same char-
acter. A majority of them were uneducated men. Some
became proficient in the lore of the time, but science
and learning were 1 he least among their cares. Their ob.
ject was to establish their system of religion, and to hold up
the uncertain state of happiness in a future life as of more

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 141

consequence than education and prosperity in this. As tlie
Church increased in numbers, and under thQ murderous
Contantine became a political power in the world, the phi-
losophy and learning of the previous centuries receded from
view and were superseded by sectarian contention, bigotry,
superstition, and ignorance, until the priesthood of the
Christian Church became themselves the most ignorant of
men ; not one in twenty could read, or write his own name.
So far from aiding the cause of science and learning, it
rather did all it could to retard them. The Serapion of
Alexandria, which contained four hundred thout5and vol-
umes, by far the largest library in the world, was ruthlessly
destroyed near the close of the fourth century by the Chris-
tian Archbishop Theophilus; and Hypatia, the daughter of
Theon the mathematician, a devoted student and teacher
of science and learning, and who distinguished herself by
her expositions of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, as
well as by her comments on the writings of Apollonius,
was assaulted while on her way to the academy by a mob of
Christian monks under fet. Cyril, who had succeeded to the
episcopacy occupied by his uncle Theohpilus, and she was
stripped naked in the street, then dragged into the church,
and there killed by the club of Peter the Reader. Her
corpse was cut in pieces, the flesh scraped from her bones
with shells by those Christian fiends, who doubtless felt
that they had done great service to their Church and their
cause.

Professor Draper thus tersely speaks upon the subject:
" So ended Greek philosophy in Alexandria; so came to an
untimely close the learning that the Ptolemies had done so
much to promote. The 'Daughter Library,' that of the
Serapion, had been dispersed. The fate of Hypatia was a
warning to all who would cultivate profane knowledge.
Henceforth there was to be no freedom for human thought.
Every one must think as the ecclesiastical authority ordered
him — A. p. 414. In Athens itself philosophy awaited it^

142 THE HUATPHREY-BEXNETT DISCUSSION.

doom. Justinian at length prohibited its teaching and
caused all its schools in that city to be closed."

The history of the triumph of faith over reason, learning,
and science is one sickening to read. It is full and explicit,
but the limits of this letter will allow me to make only here
and there a quotation. " The fourth Council of Carthage
forbade the reading of secular books by the bishops. Je-
rome condemned the use of them except for pious purposes.
The physical sciences were unqualifiedly condemned, as
their cultivation was considered incompatible with the prac-
tice of religious duties. ... No importance was at-
tached to anything of an intellectual character except the
childish and unintelligible controversies which were carried
on for centuries " (Underwood). " These disputes diverted
studious minds from profane literature, and narrowed down
more and more the circle of that knowledge which they
were desirous to obtain " (Hallam's Middle Ages, p. 453).
Thus says tiie Christian historian, Guizot: " We saw them
(profane literature and pagan philosophy) soon disappear ;
sacred literature and Christian theology jtlone remained.
We no longer meet with anything but sermons, legends,
etc. This decay has generally been attributed to the tyr-
anny of the Church, to the triumph of the principles of
authority and faith over the principles of liberty and rea-
son " (Hist. Civilization, vol. iii, p. 30).

"The lives of the saints was the literature of the time.
There were men who occupied themselves in collecting
them, writing them and recounting them for the edifica-
tion, no doubt, but more especially the intellectual pleasure
of the Christians" (ibid, vol. ii, p. 339). "These lives of
the saints filled fifty-three volumes. There were 1442 for
the month of April alone. There were more than 25,000
saints contained in the fifty-three volumes " (ibid, vol. ii,
p. 350). "The legends were to the Christians of this age
(let me be allowed this purely literary comparison), what
those long accountr?, those brilliant and varied histories, of

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 143

which the 'Thousand and One Nights ' gives us a specimen,
were to the Orientals" (ibid, p. 350). "Literature, prop-
erly so called, held but little place in the Christian world "
(ibid, p. 95). **From the fourth to the eighth century
there was no longer any profane literature ; sacred litera-
ture stands alone ; priests only study or write; and they
only study, they only write upon religious subjects " (ibid,
p. 317). " Toward the end of the sixth century there are
no longer civil schools ; ecclesiastical schools alone sub-
sist" (ibid, p. 318). "The metamori^hosis of civil schools
into ecclesiastical schools was complete " (ibid, p. 318).
"Kot only did literature become entirely religious, but it
ceased to be literary; there was no longer any literature,
properly so called" (ibid, p. 320). "Doubtless nothing re-
mains belonging to this age either of philosophy, poetry,
or literature, properly speaking . . but there was a world
of writings; they are sermons, instructions, exhortations,
homilies and conferences upon religious matters''
(ibid, p. 321).

You must accept Guizot's authority, for he was em-
inently Christian; but Ingersoll portrayed much the same
state of facts when he said, " In the Dark Ages the Church
had the world by the throat. Every thought was strangled,
every idea lost. Science was actually thrust into the brain
of Europe at the point of Moorish bayonets."

Hal lam you will accept aa a reliable Christian historian.
Although in many instance.^ he seems actuated by a desire
to present the side of the Church in as favorable a light as
possible, the facts he states are sufficient to forever damn it.
I will make a few quotations from his Middle Ages: "A
cloud of ignorance overspread the whole face of the Church,
hardly bcoken by a few glimmering lights, who owe al-
most the whole of their distinction to the surrounding
darkness " (p. 460). " In the shadows of this universal igno-
rance a thousand superstitions, like foul animals of night,
were propagated and nourished. France reached her low-

144 TUE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

est point at the beginning of the eighth century, but
England was, at that time, more respectable, and did not
fall into complete degradation until the middle of the ninth.
There could be nothing more deplorable than the state of
Italy during the succeeding century. In almost every
council the ignorance of the clergy forms a subject of
reproach. It is asserted of one held in 993 that scarcely a
single person was to be found, in Rome itself, who knew
the fiist elements of letters. Not one priest of a thousand
in Spain about the age of Charlemagne, could address a
common letter of salutation to one another" (p. 460). Inger-
soll stated the case in reference to the influence the Church
had exercised when he said it had "reduced Spain to a
guitar, Italy to a hand-organ, and Ireland to exile."

I will make a quotation or two from Lecky : " Mediaeval
Catholicism discouraged and suppressed in every way secu-
lar studies, while it conferred a monopoly of wealth and
honor and fame upon distinguished theologians' (History of
Morals, vol. ii. p. 222). " Not till the education of Europe
passed from the monasteries to the universities; not till
Mohammedan science and classical freeth ought and indus-
trial independence broke the scepter of the Church did the
intellectual revival of Europe commence " (ibid, p. 219).
"Few men who are not either priests or monks would not
have preferred to live in the best days of the Athenian or of
the Roman Republics, in the age of Augustus or in the age
of the Antonines, rather than in any period that elapsed be-
tween the triumph of Christianity a-nd the fourteenth cen-
tury " (ibid, p. 13).

"The influence of theology having for centuries benumbed
and paralyzed the whole intellect of Christi;in Europe, the
revival which forms the starting point of our modern
civilization was mainly due to the fact that two spheres of
intellect still remained uncontrolled by the scepter of Cathol
icism. The Pagan literature of antiquity and the Moham-
medan schools of science were the chief agencies in resus-

THE HUMPHKBY BENNETT DBbCUSSION. 145

citating the dormant energies of Christianity " (ibid, p. 18^.

Here is given the true sources of the science which the
civilized world enjoys: first, the learning of the ancient
Pagan nations, and secondly, the Mohammedans who con-
served the sciences and kept them alive while Christendom
was sinking and groping in the theological darkness of the
Middle Ages— the Church driving the last remains of learn-
ing from the people. It is not Christianity that gave sci-
ence, education and art to the world, and it was only when
they saw that the people were determined to ^advance in
intelligence and mental culture that the priests gave any
encouragement in this direcliou. Science and civilization
exist in Christendom not by the good offices of Christian-
ity, but in spite of it.

I would like to quote more largely from the same and
other authorities, but my letter is already too long and I
must hasten on.

You name Copernicus and claim that his scientific discov-
eries were due to Christianity. To show how unjust your
claim i?, it is only necessary to state that his discoveries
were rejected by the Church. They were declared to be in
opposition to the Bible and to revelation ; and for a century
afterwards his views, though of so much importance and
so true, were not accepted by the Christian Church, either
Catholic or Protestant. Luther denounced him as an old
fool, and said he was trying to upf^et the whole art of astronomy
and in refutation of his views appealed to the teachings of
the Bible. This discovery of Copernicus was one of the
grandest ever made by man. It ended a fallacious system
founded on pretended inspiration from heaven to the effect
that the earth is the centre and principal part of the Uni-
verse, and created a new and truthful theory that the sun is
the centre of the solar system, and that the earth, like the
other planets, revolves around it. Christianity, however,
cannot be credited with the discovery. She opposed it
:&rmly and persistenily. and half a century after the discoy'^

146 THE IIUJIP&KEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

cry the disciple of Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, was impris-
oned in the infernal Inquisition for two years and tortured
in the most cruel manner, and was finally burnt at the stake
for his devotion to science and truth. This was the way in
which Christianity fostered science and the doctrines of
Copernicus.

Still later, Galileo had much the same experience to pass
through. He embraced the doctrines of Copernicus, and
made some additional discoveries in astronomy, but for
this the Christian Church pursued him and punished him
with the most vindictive cruelty. For holding and teach-
ing that the earth moves round the sun he was, after he
had become advanced in life and in feeble health, thrown
into the dungeons of the Inquisition and kept for years a
prisoner of the Church. The old man was compelled to
forswear, on his knees, his honest convictions and to give
the lie to the great truth that the earth is a sphere and re-
volves around the sun. Had he not done this his life proba-
bly would have been taken. This is another instance of the
way in which Christanity fostered science, and now you
have the assurance to claim for it tlie honor of the persecu-
ted man's discoveries and teachings, when at the peril of his
life it compelled him to recant the truth of his doctrine.

Vanini was another scientist — another disciple of Coper-
nicus whom the Church persecuted unto death because he
dared to entertain views which it did not approve. Oh,
what a patron of science was the Christian Church for over
sixteen hundred years! It frowned furiously upon every
effort in that direction.

I will make one more quotation, and from Professor
Huxley: " Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of
every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Her-
cules; and history records that whenever science and
orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been
forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not
annihilated: scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy is the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 147

Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither
can it forget; and though at present bewildered and afraid
to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that the first chap-
ter of Genesis contains the beginning and end of sound
science; and to visit with such petty thunderbolts as its
half-paralyzed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade
nature to the level of priaiitive -Judaism " (Lay Sermons,
p. 278).

For some sixteen hundred years the Christian Church
held the world, or so much of it as was under its control,
bound in the chains of darkness and ignorance. While
science and learning were being fostered and cherished
by the Arabians and other Oriental nations, Christianity
held a black pall of superstition and degradation over its
entire domain. Draper thus states the fact : "When Europe
was hardly more enlightened than Caffraria is now, the
Saracens were cultivating and creating science. Their
triumphs in philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry,
medicine, proved to be more durable and therefore more
important than their military actions had been " (Intellect-
ual development, p. 306). Christian nations were at length
glad to receive from the Mohammedan the science and
learning which fur centuries it had been conserving; and
had not this source been accessible it is probable the night
of Christian ignorance would still be hanging over Europe
to-day. Where the reign of Christianity has been most
absolute, the ignorance and degradation of the masses has
been the most complete. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium,
Ireland, and Mexico are cases in point. The Reformation
raised an opposition to this rule. A spirit of rebellion or
infidelity to the old regime actuated it. To this extent it was
beneficial to the world. The more infidelity it exercised,
the more beneficial its results. Protestantism is little more
than the original system of Christianity with a modicum of
Infidelity blended with it. This is what the Church prac-
tically declared, and it has denounced as heretics and

148 THE ntMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Infideis all who embraced its schismatic teachings and doc-
trines. This rupture in the rule of the Church doubtless
opened the way for an increase of learning among the
masses, Ihougli it is unfortunate that the new Church held
to the same miserable and debasing dogmas which charac-
terized the old. It made little or no improvement in the
articles of belief, but that it tended to break to some extent
the iron rule of the Romish Church cannot be denied.

For the last two centuries Christianity bas shown more
favor to science and learning than previously. It has been
compelled by the spirit of the age to take this course. The
priesthood have often evinced the disposition and ability to
yield to the public demand when compelled to do so.
They did so in the matter of education, though they used
every exertion to make (heir old theological dogmas the
dominant element. They have ever sought to make science
subservient to superstition. The wily and designing Jes-
uits have established schools of learning, and numbers of
them have reached degrees of advanced scholarship, but
their object has been to promote their own interests and
not to elevate and enlighten the masses. To keep the peo-
ple in subjection has ever been the spirit and purpose of
Christianity.

You make a formidable array of names of Christians who
were men of education and comparative science, and men-
tion many colleges which have been established under
Christian auspices. With a large portion of these men
Christianity was a mere incident, not a motive. They are
reckoned Christians because they were born and reared in
Christian countries. Being so born and reared did not in-
crease their intellectuality or love of learning. The rule
will be found to hold good that those who have been most
w^edded to science, and who were the most proficient in
its pursuit, cared the least for the dogmas of the Church.
From motives oi policy, and to secure personal safety, they
yielded a tacit allegiance to its rule— nothing more.

THE HUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 149

With an air of triumpli you ask: "Where are the public
museums of art, science, the libraries, and institutes that
Infidels have established?" If you had taken a fair view of
the field, I think you would hardly propound such a conun-
drum. Until within the last two centuries Infidels and
scientists have been compelled to look out closely for their
own personal liberty and their lives, for the minions of the
Church were after them like bloodhounds upon the track
of an escaping slave ! What chance had Copernicus,
Galileo, Bruno, Vanini and Servetus to found colleges and
museums? Three of them were burned at the stake by the
strong arm of the Church, and the others barely escaped.
Universities and institutes are founded successfully only
under government auspices, or by wealthy corporations.
Governments have been in the hands of Christians, and
what chance had a few ignored, despised Infidels to
found such institutions? A spirit of irony must have
actuated you to put such a question. It is almost adding
insult to injury. But within the last half century a change
has taken place. With the advance of science, and the prog-
ress of political and mental liberty, Infidels have grown a
little bolder and now dare to speak aloud and say their
souls are their own. For the time and means at hand, they
have done nobly in the cause of science. With what James
Smithson did in Washington, Stephen Girard in Philadel-
phia, Peter Cooper in this city, James Lick in San Fran-
Cisco, the London University established fifty years ago
independent of Christianity, and where its dogmas are not
promulgated, Infidels can now hold up their heads with
a degree of pride that Christians cannot honestly feel. You
have doubts about the religious status of James Smithson.
You need not have when you are aware that the matter
of introducing and championing the bill for the estab-
lishment of the Smithsonian Institute was placed in the
hands of the Infidel Owen, just deceased, who ably engi-
neered it through Congress. Be assured, had there been

150 THE HtJMPHREY-BENKETT DISCUSSION.

the sliglite£>t grounds for claiming Smitlison as a Christian,
our cycloi-edias and biographical dictionaries would have
so stated it very prominently. Neither can I yield the
venerable Peter Cooper, who has done more for the peo-
ple of this city, in an educational point of view, than a
thousand ministers ha\e ever done. He is a good man, but
he does not believe in tlie miraculous qualities of the blood
of Jesus; he is not one of your kind. He is guilty of
the same grave doctrinal crime for which your great leader,
John Calvin, caused Michael Servetus to be burned to death
by a slow fire. Had Peter Cooper lived at Geneva under
Calvin's rule, there never would have been a Cooper
Institute established. No ! no ! you cannot claim Peter
Cooper ! He has not faith enough for you 1

Who are the leading men in the world of thought to-day?
Are they the men who believe that the Jewish, personal,
anthropomorphic Jehovah made the entire Universe of suns
and worlds from nothing, less than six thousand years ago?
Or are they the men who have risen above all the childish
and puerile creeds of superstition and revelation, which
have bound the world for thousands of years? The men
who are leading and moulding the thought of the world this
hour are skeptics, scientists, Infidels. They are liolding up
the light of science in view of the mosses, and the mists and
fogs of superstition are fast disappearing. Preceded by
such men as Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, Spinoza, Goethe,
Humboldt, Lyell, and others, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley,
Spencer, Wallace, Helmholtz, Haeckel, Schmidt, Draper,
Proctor, and hosts of others, arc pressing vigorously on
towards the temple of truth, rejecting the errors and follies
which the theologies of the past have so persistently fast-
ened upon the people of the world.

Some of the institutions of learning which you claim as
Christian can hardly be justly so claimed. Cornell, for in-
stance, has a very diluted article of Christianity. I am
credibly informed that every one of the professors are un-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 151

believers in the dogmas of Christianity, and are readers of
Radical journals. Cornell has been denounced as an Infi-
del institution. Harvard is little better. It does not retain
enough of the original faith to do very much harm. The
great law of evolution is working in the Christian Church
as well as elsewhere, and ultimately science and truth must
triumph over superstition and error.

Probably the most ridiculous assumption you made in
your last letter, is that a belief in Christianity is conducive
to the inventive faculty. If you succeed in establishing
that Christians are more inventive than other portions of
the human race, will it not go far towards proving the
system of Christianity itself a mere invention ? Is it pos-
sible that you honestly maintain the opinion that a man who
believes that a person was once begotten by a ghost, that the
being so begotten is as old as his father ; that the kind
author of the Universe could create a burning hell to throw
millions upon millions of his creatures into to suffer eternal
agony; that to save a limited number from this fate, he
caused his only beloved Son to be put to an ignominious
death, do you think that believing this enables one to get
up a better steam-boat, mowing-machine, improved bee-hive
or patent churn than other men ? The Chinese and the
Japanese are very mechanical, inventive people ; is it be-
cause they have so much faith in Jesus and accept the Chris-
tian dogmas ? The Abysinians are a Christian nation, is
that what makes them such finished mechanics? The Span-
iards, Italians, Portuguese and Mexicans are very ardent
Christians ; if your rule holds good, they should there-
fore be full of mechanical inventions. Are they ?

So far as my observation has extended, inventors and dis-
tinguished mechanics arc not especially pious and full of
faith. They are generally a practical sort of people, and
think more of cog-wheels, mechanical forces, etc., than they
do of Gods and Christs, sanctification and imputed right-
eousness. The Christian Church probably distinguished it-

l52 THE HUilPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

self in the field of invention more in getting up racks,
thumb-screws, pullies, wheels, boots, pincers, burning-irons,
and other engines of torture without name, with which to
mangle and kill thousands of the poor heretic wretches
"whom they took under their kind protection and inventive
care. Could the Church have obtained a patent for its
every invention of this kind, and could have sold the patents
at a good price, the revenue from this source would doubt-
less have equaled that from the sale of indulgencies, and
from the pardons in advance, for the most heinous crimes.
Pollock describes the pleasure the Church took in its inven-
tions for torture thus :

" InQuisition, model most complete
Of perfect wickedness, where deeds were done-
Deeds I let them ne'er be named— and sat and planned
Deliberately, and with most musing pains.
How to extron^est thrill of ngouy.
The flesh and blood and souls of men.
Her victims, might be wrought; and when she saw
New tortures of her laboring fancy born.
She leaped for joy, and made great haste to try
Their force, well pleased to hear a deeper groan."

You have evoluted a long distance from where your
brethren of the Church stood two or throe centuries ago.
You claim now^ that all these useful inventions belong to the
Church while your predecessors consigned them to the
devil. Hundreds of the inventions which you. now claim
for the Church used to be traced directly to his Satanic
Majesty. Even the art of printing, which you fain
would monopolize, has many and many a time by j^our
former brethren been denounced as the work of the devil and
a device of hell. Gutenberg and Faust, when they in-
vented printing, were said to be in league with the "Evil
One." Leading bishops and priests of the Christian Church
did all they could to suppress the art and denounced it as
a great enemy to the Church. They perceived that it pos-

THE HUMPHKET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 153

sessed facilities for conveying intelligence to the masses,
and tliey feared its influence. William Tyndale, a man of
note, was, in 1536, by the authorities of the Church, burned
at the stake for translating and printing the Bible. I think
it was Gov. Berkeley of Virginia, an eminently pious Chris-
tian who, since the settlement of this country, thanked
God that there was not a printing press in the whole State,
and he prayed that there might not be.

In like manner hundreds of other inventions were piously
denounced as being the works of the devil. In this cate-
gory may be placed the steam-engine, lightning-rods, the
telegraph, railroads, reaping-machines, sewing-machines,
friction-matches, etc., etc. Even your pious Church breth
ren, the Presbyterians of Scotland, for many years persist-
ently fought the use of the fanning-mill for cleaning their
rye, oats and beans, and called the wind it engendered
"the devil's wind." Is it not amusing to see you now turn
around and claim all these inventions as the special prop-
erty of the Church ? Verily, who is it sitting on the back
seat of the ( ar of progress throwing out hand-bills ©n
which is inscribed, *' See what we are doing for the ad-
vancement of science"? I fancy, Bro. Humphrey, I see
you among the number.

You recite a great number of names of inventors, artists,
etc., who lived and died in Christian countries. You could
have increased this list greatly by copying the names of
artisans and mechanics from the Kew York Directory.
Nine-tenths of these would doubtless be found tacit believ-
ers in Christianity, and they would serve to swell the list
greatly. You might with equal propriety claim Christian-
ity as the foster parent of brothels, gambling hells, rum-
holes, lotteries, policy-shops, stock-gambling offices, horse-
races, concert-cellars, etc. , etc. , for you would find a large
proportion of those who conduct these establishments, as
well as their patrons, believers in the Christian religion,
and they are just as honestly entitled to be counted and

154 THB HUMPHEEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

claimed by you as the inventors, painters, sculptors, poets,
printers, book-sellers, etc., etc. I am disposed to yield to
you all that is justly yours.

You name several Freethought and Spiritualistic journals
and intimate that they have done little or nothing in the
cause of science. They certainly have done something in
that direction, and have at least labored to do their duty in
an unpopular cause, each according to its ability. They
will, I think, compare very favorably in the direction of
being teachers of science wiih The Observer, The Evangelist^
The Christian at Work, The Chrisiian Union, Working
Church, and the four hundred other pious Christian papers
published in this country. Are they par excellence teach-
ers of science? If teaching Christianity and teaching
science are the same, what a vast amount of science the
sixty-five thousand clergymen of the United States alone
ought to be able to present to the people! With so many
teachers of science, every individual in the country over fif-
teen years of age ought to be well versed in its great
truths. But it is not the case, for all the science they
all teach can be put into a very small space. $200,000,000
are paid annually for the promulgation of antique myths
and obsolete dogmas, and the truths of science form but a
small share of their instructions.

I could hardly repress a smile when I saw that you
claimed the dictionary as a Christian bequest. Why, there
were dictionaries in the world before a Christian was
thought of. Besides, the author of our dictionary and the
old spelling-book was, during a part of his life a skeptic,
especially when he wrote the spelling book (see Memoir in
Dictionary). Why do you not claim the rule of addition
and the multiplication table as Christian institutions? You
could do so with equal justice with much that you have
claimed.

At the close of your last letter you draw a very pretty
picture of the Car of Progress passing by, and of a dead-head

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 155

wishing a ride, and of his clambering up, taking a back
seat and at once throwing out his handbills, claiming great
honor for what he has done for science and the elevation of
mankind. This is all very pretty, only you have made
a mistake in the individual. His name instead of
Infidelity is Chn'siianify— another instance of where yba
have claimed too much. In view of the manner in which
the Church persistently stifled the aspirations of mankind
for mental liberty and the truths of science for fifteen
hundred years, and only when compelled was induced to
recognize them, it is very refreshing to now see it mount
the back seat and swing its banner, claiming thousands
of years devotion to science. Yes; it is very amusing.

In closing let me make one more quotation from Ingersoll :
*' Christianity has always opposed every forward movement
of the human race. Across the highway of progress it has
always been building breastworks of bibles, tracts, com-
mentaries, prayer-books, creeds, dogmas and platforms,
and at every advance the Christians have gathered together
behind these heaps of rubbish and shot the poisoned arrows
of malice at the soldiers of freedom."

Pardon me for my great length. To answer your general-
izations in detail necessarily requires considerable space.
I have not aimed at aught else but to answer the points
you raised. There is much more I would like to say bear-
ing upon the same subject, but must defer it for the present.
I am very truly yours, D. M Bennett.

i

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Bear Sir : I wish, first of all, to
state that I did not, in my last letter, assert that any insti-
tution or individual was of a Christian character, until I had
examined the very bept accessible authorities on the sub-
ject. I did not follow traditions or neur^paper items.

156 THE HU-VlPiIREY-BENN^ETT DISCUSS! 3}?.

Neither did I reckon any one a " Cliristian because lie was
born and reared in a Christian country." Throughout this
discussion I have stuck rigidly to the terms of our propo-
sitions, and to the standard definitions of words.

You remind me of a class of men who rejected John be-
cause he did iiot eat and drink like other people, and then
rejected Christ because he did eat and drink like other peo-
ple (Matt. xi. 16-19). You have contended that the f ramers of
the Constitution must have been Infidels, because they ex-
pressed no Constitutional partiality to any form of religion,
and you have insisted that Franklin was an Infidel, though
his writings abound in religious sentiments, though he de-
clared himself a "Protestant of the Church of England,"
and a "sincere lover of social worship," and though he
made a motion for daily prayers in the very Convention
that brought the Constitution into existence. The Consti-
tution is unsectarian ; but it is not irreligious. Immedi-
ately after its adoption, Washington and Adams, with no
precedent to press them to it, made annual Thanksgiving
Proclamations. I repeat, then, the language of Judge Story,
that none could hold Christianity in more reverence than
the framers of the Constitution.

In your last letter you show several individuals in a false
light. What authority had you for saying James Smithson
was a "Freethinker"? None whatever. As I have said
already, the circumstantial evidence is all the other way.
For instance, he graduated in the University of Oxford, at
a time (1786) when that institution conferred no degree on
anybody who was not a member of the Established Church
(See Am. Cyclopedia, Art "University"). Where is your
proof that he was a lying hypocrite at that time, or that
he changed his views afterwards ?

I cannot find that Robert Dale Owen had much to do
with the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution.
Neither Johnson's nor the American Cyclopedia mentions
his name in that connection. It was the Hon. Richard

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 157

Rush who prosecuted the claim to Smitlison's bequest be-
fore the British government. Prof. Joseph Henry — a most
estimable scientist and Christian — has been at the head of
the Institution ever since 1846.

Peter Cooper "is not one of your liind." He would
scorn the idea of being a disciple of "Tom Paine." Un-
solicited, he offered the Great Hall of the Union to the ser-
vices of the Evangelical Alliance in 1870 — all free of
charge. He addressed a letter to the Delegates, wherein he
said that "Chrislianity is in realUy a t7've science of life"";
"that he (the godly man) is guided by that great principle
that controlled the life of Christ," and much more in the same
vein. Did Mr. Cooper ever offer his Hall to an Infidel
Convention ? Did he ever say that Infidelity is in reality
a true science of life ? No. He accepts the Bible as the
inspired word of God. He belongs, therefore, to my side
of the proposition under discussion.

Ezra Cornell, the founder of the University that bears
his name, was a Quaker. The other leading benefactors of
that institution— Hiram Sibley, John McGraw, Dean Sage,
Henry W. Sage, President White — are all thorough believ-
ers in the Christian religion. I got this information from
Messrs. Henry W. Sage, 67 Wall street, A. B. Cornell, 16
East 42d street, and H. W. Sibley, 21 Courtlandt street.
Nor is Cornell University conducted on the godless princi-
ple. There are prayers in the chapel every morning. Mr.
Dean Sage's donation was made expressly to furnish the
students with "Evangelical preaching," as Mr. Sage him-
self put it, or with " lectures on general theology by divines
of different denominations," as the American Cyclopedia
expresses it. Prof. Felix Adler is not " wanted " there any
more. So you see that Cornell is in no sense "an Infidel
institution."

The same may be said of the London University. I was
surprised to see you laying any claim to it. I would like to
see your assertion backed with some proof.

158 THE nUMPHKET-BEKNETT DISCUSSION.

You are hardlj 'oetter as a Bible critic than as a deliueator
of character. You regret that I did not take more trouble to
harmonize the conclusions of modern science with the teach-
ings of Scripture. That reconciliation is by no means im-
possible. There is no conflict between the Bible, rightly
understood, and Science, properly so called. But it is as un-
desirable as it is impossible to reconcile the Bible with every
whim, vagary, and balderdash, that every scribbler persists
in calling science. If you are disposed to read in that line,
you have access to such works as Kurtz' " Bibel und As-
tronomic"; O. M. Mitchell's "Astronomy of the Bible";
Chalmers' "Astronomical Discourses"; Hugh Miller's
"Testimony of the Rocks"; Dana's "Manual of Geol-
ogy," 1875, pp. 765-770; Dawson's " Nature and the Bible ";
Hitchcock's "Geology," 1853, pp. 284-315 ; Duke of Ar-
gyll's " Reign of Law "; McCosh' " Christianity and Positiv-
ism"; Morris '" Science and the Bible"; Mozley's "Bamp-
ton Lectures on Miracles," 1865 ; Winchell's "Doctrine of
Evolution," and "Reconciliation of Science and Religion,"
and many other works of the kind, with which everybody
ought to be familiar.

You show an inclination to dispose of some Bible char-
acters by calling them "myths." Are you not aware that
the "mythical theory" is going out of fashion among the
'•thinkers" of Germany? That little critical farce is
about played out. Whately has shown in a book called
"Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon," that the myth-
ical theory would apply to Buonaparte with just as much
force as to Solomon, Daniel or Job. Why, Sir, there is
as strong a probability that Thomas Paine was a "myth "
as there is that Moses was. The accounts of his life are
very "contradictory." His career was full of "inherent
improbabilities." Nobody hnows to-day where his reputed
remains are ! Prove that Paine was not a " myth," and I
will show by the same process of reasoning that the promi-
nent characters of the Bible were no fictions.

THE flUMPIlREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOK. 159

The critics who believe that the book of Job was written
by a Hebrew, are not all as old as you say. Many of them
have lived until quite recently ; and several of them are
Btill living. Your distinction between the hook and the
name of Job looks more like a loop-hole than anything
else. What is Job apart from the book ? Who thinks of
Hamlet without the play ? As the book of Job was well
known among tlie Hebrews many centuries before Christ,
the book and the man must have always gone together in
the Jewish mind.

I am afraid you have not read the work of that eminent
scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, entitled " Observations upon
the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John."
It is the product of the same mind as the "Principia." A
diligent study of it might modify your views of Daniel's
date and real existence.

You say Solomon's sin did not consist in his many marri-
ages ? Have you forgotten that it was unlawful for the Is-
raelites to marry " strange," that is, heathen wives ? Have
you not observed that Solomon is said to have " sinned by
these things" (Neh. xiii, 26, 27)? You are certainly not
ignorant of the fact that David himself looked upon his
adultery as an "evil," a "sin," an "iniquity" and a "trans-
gression " (Pss. xxxii. and li).

You stick to what Dr. Smith, Classical Examiner in the
Uuiversity of London, calls "the vulgar objection" in
regard to the Hebrews " borrowing " from their Egyptian
masters. Dr. Smith adds: " The word 'borrow' should be
*ask.' There was no promise or intention of repayment.
The jewels were given for favo7' (Ex. xii: 36), as well as fear;
and they were a slight recompense for all of which the
Egyptians had robbed the Israelites during a century of
bondage " (Old Testament History, 1869, p. 153). Perhaps
the word "stripped," employed in the Douay Version, cor-
responds with the original better than "spoiled," in the
present sense of that word.

160

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

You are still unable to distinguish faith from ''blind cre-
dulity." Faith is trust in that which is trustworthy —
credence of that which is credible. It is confidence in
reliable testimony. It is "evidence of things not seen," in
the same way that Le Verrier's computations were an
evidence of the existence of Neptune before it had been
discovered.

You say incorrectly that the word "faith," occurs but
once in the Old Testament. It is to be found at least tioice
in King James' Translation (Deut. xxxii:20; Hab. ii:4); and
the word so rendered in these passages appears more than
twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Taylor's Hebrew Con-
cordance). There is nothing like being accurate, Mr. Bennett.

You have said more than once that Palestine contains no
relics of an ancient civilization. Your informant is some
"Great Unknown." In rebuttal of Mr. "Great Unknown's "
testimony I will cite the authority of that celebrated scholar,
traveler, antiquarian, and educator, Dr. E Iward Robinson.
As late as 1853 ho found in Jerusalem " beveled stones,"
"viaducts," "aqueducts," " fortresses," "ancient arches,"
"massive ancient chambers," and many other " remains of
antiquity" (Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adja-
cent Regions, Boston, 1857, vol. iii. pp. 161-363). Thus,
in spite of the depredations of the Infidel Mohammedans,
something still survives to attest the former existence of an
advanced civilization.

Just as I expected ! You give the " bloody shirt '' another
shake. You reiterate the usual accounts of ecclesiastical
pprseculious and oppositions to science. Let us look at the
facts of the case:

1. The Greek Church has never arrayed herself against
learning and science. Dr. Draper exonerates her in these
words: " It has always met it (science) with welcome. It
has observed a reverential attitude to truth, from whatever
quarter it might come " (Conflict between Religion and Sci-
ence, 1875, Preface).

The nUMPHREY-BE:NNKTT DISCUSSION. lOi

2. Protestantism has never disfavored the progress of
science. This, too, Dr. Draper admits (ibid). A few indi-
viduals may have shown it some dislike; but no Protestant
denominatioii has ever taken measures to obstruct its ad-
vancement. On the contrary, Protestants have fiiveu, and
given munificently, of their time, means, and influence, to
establish institutions of learning, and to diffuse knowledge
among the masses. It was the knell of the Reformation
that awakened science from her lethargy. Dr. Draper says
that "modern science is the legitimate sister — indeed, it is
the twin-sister of the Reformation" (Conf. bet. Rel. and
Sci., p. 353). He should have added that, Jacob-like, Sci-
was enabled to come forth into the light of day by clinging
to the heel of the Reformation. The twins have been most
thrifty and intimate ever since.

3. The only organized opponent to science has been
the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am not a member
of that Church. I cannot accept all her dogmas. I dis
approve of her policy in many respects. But there were
circumstances that, to some extent, extenuated her faults
and crimes:

(1) Catholic opposition to science was more an error of
the head than of the heart. Prof. Huxley admits this in
one of his Lay Sermons.

(2) There has always been, as there is to-day, so much
poor stuff passing under the misnomer, "Science," that
suspicion, and shy acceptance of it, and that only after
close scrutiny and careful sifting, is quite excusable. There
may be wheat in the pile on the threshing-floor. But that
is no reason why everybody should be required to gulp it
down with "blind credulity" — bran, shorts, chaff, cockle,
thistle, smut, and all.

(3) Even through the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church kept
in existence "Schools," where the human mind was made
strong by a thorough discipline. The intellect of Coperni-
cus and Galileo was no sport of Nature, It was the natural

163 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

product of a mental training tliat had been continued when
Science was at its lowest ebb.

(4). Before, and especially since, the Reformation, the
Catholic Church has done a great deal for Science. Hux-
ley does not hesitate to say that the Jesuits were the
"best school-masters" of Descartes' day (Lay Sermons,
p. 321). The American Cyclopedia says of the Benedic-
tines: "During the middle ages they were the great
preservers of ancient learning, and assiduous cultivators
of science and art, copying and preserving the classics,
the Scriptures, and writings of the early Fathers. For cen-
turies they were the principal teachers of youth in
their Colleges and Schools " (See Articles, " Benedictines "
and " Library "). We must not forget that Copernicus,
Galileo, Pascal, Columbus, Descartes, and a host of other
eminent philosophers, lived and died in the Church of Rome.
Read Sir David Brewster's " Martyrs of Science," and you
will find that Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler received
encouragements from several ecclesiastics. The great life-
work of Copernicus was printed " at the entreaty of Cardi-
nal Schomberg (Draper's Conf. bet. Rel. and Sci., p. 168)-
Galileo received permission from the Pope to publish his
discoveries. And when bis book appeared, it was attacked
more fiercely by the philosophers than by the theologians.
The mathematicians said Amen to the verdict of the Inqui-
sition (Chamber-i' Biography, London, 1855, p. 9).
, As a matter of course, you told us about '.he destruction
of the Alexandrian Library. I am glad you did; for you
thereby gave me an opportunity to tell the whole truth about
that unfortunate affair. Julius Caesar was the first to set it
on fire. He burned more than a half of it (Draper's Conflict
between Religion and Science, pp. 21, 103). It was next dis-
persed by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. He de-
stroyed less than the remainder of it. He was "enjoined "
to do it by the Eaiperor Theodosius (ibid, pp. 51,103). Its
destruction was completed by Amrou, Lieutenant of the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 163

Khalif Omar. John Philoponus— a Christian scholar-
interceded for it, but ia vain (ibid p. 103). Gibbon gives
the details. But these salient facts are sufficient. They
show that the Christians burned the Alexandrian Library
once, and that the Infidels "burned it twice. The Infidels,
therefore, burned far more of it than the Christians.

It was to to be expected that you would also go over
the story of Hypatia and Cyril. I will not reply in your
style, and say Hypatia was a "myth." I will admit that
her treatment was most disgraceful. But the motive was
not the extinguishment of science, but the removal of a
woman who was supposed to be too intimate with Orestes,
prefect of Alexandria, and who, as it was imagined, alien-
ated his affections from the Archbishop (Smith's Classical
Dictionary). It is notorious that the most accomplished
women of the period between Socrates and Cyril were
courtezans (Lecky's History of European Morals, vol. ii,
pp. 308-314). Be the truth as it may about Hypatia, it is
plain that the object aimed at in her massacre was not the
extermination of science.

I trust the foregoing remarks will do something to correct
the Infidel catechism. I protest against the customary
lumping of all Christians, and saying they are opposed to
science. This is true of only one of the three grand divis-
ions of Christendom. Would it be just to say that all
Infidels are ** terrible," and hostile to learning, simply be-
cause the French "Freethinkers" instigated the " Reign of
Terror," and suppressed the University of Paris ? Would
it be right to say that all skeptics are licentious, because the
freethiuking "Free-lovers" wish to abolish marriage?
Certainly not. On the same principle it is wrong, out-
rageously wrong, to say that the Christian religion is hostile
to science, when there is only one species of it so.

But have scientific men never persecuted one another ?
Have they, too, not resisted scientific innovations ? They
certainly have. It was as scientists more than as mere theolo-

164 THE HUMPHREY-BENNErT DtSCUSSlOlt.

gians that Copernicus' and Galileo's cotemporaries con-
demned the heliocentricf theory. They stood up in defense
of what science had hitherto taught. They made their great
mistake in supposing that science is ever absolutely correct,
infallible, and unchangeable. When Harvey announced the
true theory of the circulation of the blood, the doctors were
the last to welcome the discovery. When Jenner gave vac-
cination to the world, the doctors were the tardiest to appre-
ciate and commend it. When Cotton Mather was trying
to introduce inoculation in New England, who opposed
him with all their might ? The doctors again (Sparks' Am.
Biography, vol. vi, p. 314)! Who are to-day more hateful
to each other than the different " Schools" of Medicine?
But the doctors have always been regarded as scientific men.
When Franklin announced his discoveries in electricity.
Abbe Nollet did all he could to bring discredit on them.
(Parton's Life of Franklin, vol. i, p. 293). Did Newton
give his great ideas to the world without opposition ? No.
Even such eminent scientists as Hooke and Huygens perse-
cuted him. Newton himself used that very word, *' perse-
cuted " (Brewster's Life of Newton, revised by Lynn, 1875,
p. 51). How the engineers fought the improvements of
George Stephenson ! Huxley is out of humor with Prof.
Owen because he denies that the Ape is possessed of a "poste-
rior lobe," and a "hippocampus minor." Prof. Owen's of-
eDse is indeed a grave one — ignoring the infallibility of Prof.
Huxley! But a "liberal scientist" should not lose his
temper under any circmnstances (See Huxley's Evidences
as to Man's Place in Nature, N. Y., 1863, pp. 133-8).
Clergymen are not allowed to cross the threshold of Girard
College. So it seems that Infidels are not always so mighty
"liberal" after all. They, too, can set up proscriptions
and interdicts whenever they get the chance.

The greatest enemies of Science and Art are Science
and Art. The footman opposed the horseman; the horse-
man opposed the stage-coach; the stage-coach opposed the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 165

steam-eDgine. Slow transit has always been an enemy to
" rapid transit." The Telegraph 9hs always been a subject
of contention and litigation. Every great improvement has
sent a multitude into bankruptcy. The car of Progress,
as it moves along, ruins many a trade, impoverishes many an
industrious workman, and crushes to the earth many a
handsome fortune. How many a poor Jennie did the
spinning-jenny throw out of employment ! Thus the mo-
tives for showing indifference to Art and Science are not all
religious by any means.

The progress of Civilization is inevitably slots^. Science,
like the Church, must arrive at the Heaven of her purity
and triumph " through great tribulations." She must get
rid of her dross. As the iceberg breaks from the Northern
shores, and floats southward, cold, creaking, imposing in
appearance as it goes, resisted now by surface, now by
under currents, in the meantime, however, melting grad-
ually away, until at last it disappears, leaving a small
deposit on the Newfoundland banks, so the Human Mind
detaches from the shores of the boundless Unknown, now
an ''hypothesis," and then a "theory," which is borne, often
slowly, and through many resistances, toward those lati-
tudes where bulky error vanishes, and where only the
residuum of Truth remains. These modern speculations,
erroneously termed "science," are only icebergs. They are
vast in the dimensions of their pretensions. They seem
bright — with borrowed light. They may wreck the bark of
maay a weak one's faith. But the Christian insists that it
would be unwise to build a house on any of these icebergs.
He believes, moreover, that their destiny, for the most part,
is — disappearance. But he will be among the first to accept
the modicum of truth which, it is hoped, some of them
will leave behind.

I will now submit the case to the reader. I have endeav-
ored to show that the spirit of the Scriptures is friendly to
genuine Science; that believers in the Bible have given to

166 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

the world almost all its institutions of learning, libraries,
museums, discoveries, ami inventions; that only one out of
the three grand divisions of Christendom has offered sys-
tematic resistance to science and learning; and that even
the Catholic Church has done infinitely more for both than
any Infidel organization that was ever formed. I know
that my work is incomplete. Many things have been left
unsaid. But it is to be hoped the reader will take these
scanty outlines as prompters to a more thorough investiga-
tion of the subject.

Yours very sincerely, G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BENNETT.

Rev. Gr. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: I see it is hard for
you to give up the convention which framed our National
Constitution, and which was so very pious and Christian
that that instrument utterly ignores God, Jesus Christ and
the Bible — a Convention which, in the words of Ingersoll,
" knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man
out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would
be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for de-
stroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible
history of the Church too well to place in her keeping, or
in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They
intended that all should have the right to worship or not to
worship ; that our laws should make no distinction on ac-
count of creed. They intended to found and frame a gov-
ernment for man, and for man alone. They wished to pre-
serve the individuality and liberty of all ; to prevent the
few from governing th(} many, and the many from perse-
cuting and destroying the few." So while the Convention
and the Constitution please you highly as genuine Ghris-
tianity, they suit me very well as practical Infidelity. I
would simply ask the question, if, as Judge Story insists,

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 167

the Constitution is a Cliristian instrument, -why is it
that our most zealous Christians are so anxious to insert
their God, their Christ and their Bible into it? If it is a
first-class Christian document as it is, why not let it remain
so ? Why seek to change it?

I regret that you deem it necessary to say: '* You show
several individuals in a false light. What authority have
you for saying James* Smithson was a Freethinker ?" I
said nothing of the kind, and you should not so charge me
until I have done it. My words were, "You need have no
doubt about the religious status of James Smithson when
you are aware that the matter of introducing and cham-
pioning the bill for the establishment of the Smithsonian
Institute was placed in the hands of the Infidel Owen, who
ably engineered it through Congress." I added, in sub-
stance, that had there been good grounds for claiming
Smithson as a Christian the claim would have been made
in all the Encyclopsedias of the country. I think the infer-
ence fair and correct. When a great man is not claimed by
such Christians as yourself, it is highly probable he is an
unbeliever. But I did not say Smithson was a Freethinker,
and you should not have charged me with saying it.
"There is nothing like being accurate," Mr. Humphrey.
Why do you ask for my proof that Smithson was " a lying
hypocrite " when I intimated nothing of the kind, thought
nothing of the kind? Accuracy ! Accuracy! Mr. Humplirey.

You express doubts about Mr. Owen having much to do
with the establishment of the Smithsonian Institute. By
referring to the Congressional Globe of the time your doubts
may be removed. He not only introduced the bill and
urged it through Congress, but he was one of the first
regents of the institution.

If I " showed several people in a false light," you ought
to have named them. I certainly want only to show the
truth and will thank you to point out my errors.

Peter Cooper is one of my kind, so far as being uusecta^

168 THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

lian, an unbeliever in the marvelous efficacy of the blood
of a man who was put to death over eighteen hundred
years ago, and that the man who was so executed was the
God of heaven and earth. He is not a believer in miracles,
myths, and fables, and does not take much stock in the Bible
as being a revelation from heaven. It looks very iiiCon-
sistent for you to hug to your bosom and claim as a brother
in the faith a man who believes precisely as did he whom
your leader and patron saint, John Calvin, coudemned to a
cruel death by tire, on account of his unbelief. Peter
Cooper belongs to a class of unbelievers whom orthodox
Christians have a thousand times denounced as Infidels
and deserving of hell. I remember distinctly a case where
a Presbyterian clergyman said the Unitarian Church did
more harm than all the rum-holes> theatres, and houses
of prostitution in the city. Verily, my friend, you are
evolving very far from where your brethren of the Church
stood but a very few years ago.

You have no authority for saying " Peter Cooper would
scorn the idea of being a disciple of Tom Paine." I did
not say he was such a disciple; but he is an honest man
and he doubts not that Paine was an honest man, who had
the independence and candor to say what he thought,
whether it made him popular or not. Mr. Cooper neither
scorns Paine nor his disciples. I presume in speak-
ing of Paine he would be gentlemanly enough to call
him Mr. Paine or Thomas Fainc. I do not think he
would follow the suit of pious Christians and call him by
the nickname, "Tom Paine." In many points Mr. Cooper
believes as Thomas Paine did. If Mr. Cooper gave the use
of his hall to the Evangelical Alliance, he at the same time
took occasion to give expression to his views, which were
far from being orthodox. You ask if Mr. Cooper ever gave
the use of his hall for an Infidel convention. For a very good
reason he did not. No large Ijafidt 1 convention has been held
here to whom he could offer it. As regards his offering th^

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 169

use of his hall to the Evangelical Alliance, Mr. Cooper said
to a friend that his object in doing so was to be able to pre-
seut some of his own heterodox views before them, and he
playfully alluded to the fact that he was invited upon the
platform and seated beside the President, as being a good
joke that a heretic like himself should be thus honored in
the Evangelical Alliance. He has often styled himself a
"heretic."

I said nothing about the founder of Cornell University.
You say he was a Quaker. Good enough. The Quakers are
largely good Infidels so far as a majority of their doctrinal
points are concerned. Elias Hicks was of this class, and
also many intelligent Quakers of my own personal acquaint-
ance. The ceremony of prayer is very likely kept up in the
college, but the assertion I made about the skepticism and
freethiukiug of the professors was from a gentleaian who
had gone through a course of instruction there, and knew
precit^ely what he was talking about. I have it also from
a personal friend of President While that the latter is en-
tirely an unbeliever in Christian dogmas. The letters he
has recently written from Europe, where he has been trav-
eling give clear indications as to where he stands. lu a
letter from bicily he said in substance, when looking over
the countries where the heavy hand of the Church had in
past centuries crushed out human liberty, and almost human
incentives: " 1 see in all these couutrics where the ecclesi-
astical powers have triumphed that the right of opinion and
the right of liberty have been suppressed;" and more in the
same line. Prof. W. C. Russell, acting President of Cor-
nell UDiversity, is a stock-holder in The Licex, an Infidel
paper of Boston, owniug two shares of $100 each. He pays
The Index an installment of $20 per year betides his sub-
scription, and is one of the firmest supporters of that paper.
President White has also taken The Index from its com-
mencement, and is strongly in sympathy with it. Prof.
Adler was not turned out of the Institution, He left therg

170 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

not because lie was not wanted, but because he was wanted
elsewhere more.

As to the London University, I simply claim that it is
unsectariim, and that ecclesiastici^m and theological dog-
mas are not admitted there, and have not been for fifty
years. I think this is true. That is as good Infidelity as 1
ask for. Alexander Bain filled one of its important chairs,
and he is one of the strongest Materiali^its in England, and
Professor Clifford, a pronounced Atheist, fills another.
Thus the facts bear me out in all I claimed.

You seem greatly dissatisfied with Stephen Girard be-
cause he stipulated that the clergy should not have
admittance into his college. He did that, not in a spirit of
illiberality, but because he well knew and wished to avoid
the designing, grasping, Jesuitical priesthood. For the
express reason that he wanted the colltge to be free
and liberal did he forbid the admission of priests. But
with all the old man's precautions and all the safeguards
he aimed to throw around the college, his wishes have
been nearly subverted, and the clergy have gained more
influence there than he intended they ever should.

Ah! you have at length caught me in an error ! I said
that that word of marvelous power— /aiY/i— upon which
the Christian world depends for happiness and salvation
from hell through an endless eternity, appeared but once
in the Old Testament or Bible proper. It is found there
twice. I acknowledge the mistake. I overlooked it in
Habbakuk; but I have standing on the other side of the
ledger nine hundred and ninety harp-strings which you
gracefully acknowledge as an error. I will offset this last
" faith" against one of them, and that leaves me nine hun-
dred and eighty-nine still ahead.

You still wish to make a difference between " faith " and
"credulity" when there really is none. Credulity, like cre-
dence, credit, etc., is from credens. Webster defines credence
as that w^hich gives a claim to credit, belief, confidence; and

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 171

illustrates it with this quotation from Trench : "To give cre-
dence to the Scripture miracles." Credulity is "easiness of
belief; a disposition to believe on slight evidence." Faith is
"belief; the assent of the mind to what is declared by
another; resting solely and implicitly on his authority and
veracity; reliance on testimony," etc. There is no real differ-
ence. The Christian is called upon to have faith in a great
deal which is told him, and of which he has no proof. He
must have credulity to have the necessary faith, and they
are both blind enough for all practical purposes. The more
credulity a trusting Christian has to believe what the Bible
and the priests say, the more faith he has and the better
Christian he is considered. It takes credulity to believe
impossibilities and monstrosities, and one cannot believe
them unless he has credulity, and that belief is faith — they
are the same, and both as blind as an owl in sunlight.

It appears to me you have not told the wJiole truth about
the Alexandrian Library. If a portion of it was burnt
when Julius Caesar be&eiged the city, a century before
Christianity had an existence, it was by accident or as an
incident of war. It proves, at least, that the learning and
science which the library contained was not in any way de-
pendent upon Christianity. It is unfair to represent that
Julius Caesar burned it with the same motive that influenced
Theodosius and Bishop Thcophilus four hundred years
later. Caesar was a lover of books and learning. He
was the author of several w^orks, and did not burn the
library from any hatred of literature. He established
libraries in several instances, and purposely destroyed none
as did the Christian Spaniards when they conquered
Mexico, or the Christian Crusaders who are charged with
having burnt a very extensive library in Tripoli.

You do wrong to call Caesar and Omar Injidels, in the
accepted meaning of the word. Of course neither were
Christians, but both were believers in religion. Caesar had
his gods and his creed, and Omar was as much of a zealot

173 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

and as devout as a ChristiaD, but accepted MoLammtd a£
the prophet of Allah. When he ordered the destruction of
"what remained of the library, in 643, it is .-raid to have been
done upon the grounds that if the books agreed with the
Koran — the word of God — they were useless, and need not
be preserved, and if they did'not agree with it, they were
pernicious, and should be destroyed. This motive was so
like the Christian sentiment it is hard to discern much
difference between them. The great trouble between Chris-
tians and Mohammedans was not because they had not faith,
but because they had too much faith, and had different
systems and accepted different leaders. Their contests
led to the death of many miliious of people.

You evidently dislike to own up that Palestine affords no
proofs of an ancient Hebrew civilization, and characterize
the friend from whom I obtained facts upon the subject as
the " Great Unknown." You are as wide of the truth here
as in other instances. The gentleman is modest, but is not
unknown. He is not a "myth." Prof. A. L. Rawson
has been honored by the colleges of Europe and
America with the honorary degrees of Master of Arts,
Doctor of Divinity, and Doctor of Laws, has made
four journeys to Palestine, has edited a History of all
Religions, History of the Roman Catholic Church in
America, Statistics of Protestantism, Antiquities of the
Orient, Introductions to the Holy Bible, etc., etc.,;
as an artist, illustrated Beecher's Life of Jesus, Howard
Crosby's Jesus, his Life and Work, Dr. Deems' Jesus,
Commentaries by several authors, Youthful Explorers in
Bible Lands, Free Masonry in the Holy Lands, Bible
Lands Illustrated, Pronouncing and Comprehensive Bible
Dictionaries; and is now engaged on a la-ge work on the
chronography, geology, climate, antiquities, and natural
history of animals and plants of Palestine, with maps and
engravings, soon to appear by one of the leading publishing
houses in this city. You will find him at almost any

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 173

houT of the day in his studio, 34 Bond st. You will find
him aifable and disposed to give you any information he
possesses in reference to Palestine. He will take pleas-
ure in showing you drawings and photographs of ruins,
etc., taken in various parts of Palestine, Syria, and the
adjacent countries, and he will assure you that every piece
of ruins that is found in Palestine is traceable to the
Grecians, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the
Arabs or the Saracens. He will repeat to you the assur-
ances I have already given that he found not a stone
nor a vestige of anything traceable to the ancient Hebrews,
and that Dr. Robinson admitted as much, with the exception
perhaps of the lower part of the foundation of the Temple,
which, of course, cannot be accurately determined. Let
me add here that Captain Wilson and Captain Warren who
were sent out to Palestine by the London Palestine Explo-
ration Society, and who also spent four years in that
country, in Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 813, make this state-
ment: "Looking through tlie series of photographs taken
for the Palestine Exploration Fund, we recognized two
distinct styles of work; the one rich but debased Roman
work, the other Greek or Byzantine." But they found
none of ancient Hebrew, Let me also make a quotation
from Dr. Paley in his Evidences of Christianity: **Our
Savior assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic Institution.
I conceive it very difBcult to assign any other cause for the
commencement or existence of the institution, especially
from the singular circumstance of the Jews adhering to the
Unity when every other people slid into polytheism, for
their being men in religion and cliildren in everything else;
behind other nations in the arts of peace and of war; but
superior to the most improved in their sentiments and
doctrines relating to the Deity." While I think I can show
that to the Jewish God were assigned attributes and quali-
ties more abhorrent than to any other gods. Dr. Paley's
admission that the Jews were behind other nations in the

174 THE HXJMi^HREY-BENNKTT DISCtJSSIOK.

arts is an important one. There are few things more
certain than that the ancient Jews were a semi-barbarous
people, and that there are not now any proofs to show that
they ever, as a nation, attained to any high degree of
civilization.

I think you are mistaken in supposing that the belief that
the past ages were replete with myths is being lessened.
There was never a time when the general opinion was
stronger than now that a great share of the ancient history
of the world is mythical, and this is especially true of Jew-
ish history. The belief that there ever were such persons
as Adam, Methusaleh, Noah, David, Solomon, etc., is
wonderfully weakened by the investigations that are being
made. There is no earthly proof of them except the crazy,
improbable Jewish stories in the Bible, and they could easily
have been fabricated at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah,
or as late, even, as the time of the Maccabees. It is a very
suspicious circumstance that the name of Moses was not
used by any of the older prophets. If he really was the
captain, lawgiver, and savior which the Bible makes him ;
if he and God were in each other's company daily for forty
years; if Moses advised God, restrained him, and controlled
him, as the Bible represents, it would seem as though he at
least should have been mentioned by all succeeding proph-
ets. The entire Jewish history res's under a dark cloud of
doubt. There are no corroboraticg proofs in existence.
Of course, the hills and rivers of Palestine still remain, but
the entire country never was capable of sustaining a popu-
lation able to raise two millions of fighting men, nor able so
soon after emerging from the pastoral, semi-barbarous con-
dition it was in at the time David was made king, to acquire
the enormous amount of gold and wealth said to have
been used by his son Solomon. The story is nearly as
extravagant as some of the tales of The Arabian Nights,
though not nearly as well written. There is about as much
proof of the existence of Sinbad the Sailor, Aladdin, Gulli-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 175

ver, Robinson Crusoe, and Baron Munchausen, as of the
Bible myths. It is quite probable that, a few centuries
before the Christian era, feeling that a national history was
necessary, some cunning and capable writers got up what
is called the Bible history; and as but a limited number
of copies were written, and a limited number of people had
access to it, or could read it if they had, and they the priests
only, it attracted but slight attention for a long time.
As time wore away, a veneration grew up for it, which is
so easy for superstitious people to bestow upon that which
has great age, oris supposed to have. This may be a mat-
ter of mere speculation, but one thing is certain, such a
thing could have been very possible. There is nothing in
those old stories that a man or men of fair talent could not
write, and it is more probable that they were so written
than that many of the statements made were true. If the
Jews were such a powerful nation as the Bible makes them;
if David and Solomon were such mighty monarchs, and
reigned midst such regal magnificence, it is singular that
other nations and cotemporaneous historians knew nothing
of it. As I said in my last, Herodotus the celebrated
Greek historian, made two journeys through Syria five ceutu-
ries after Solomon was said to have reigned, and when his
magnificent Temple ought to have been standing, but he
makes not the slightest mention of Solomon, of the Temple,
nor even of the Jewish nation. If they existed at all then
it was as a race of rude nomadic people, semi-barbarians not
worthy of his attention. Their numbers, their wealth, and
their splendor were doubtless matters of subsequent inven-
tion.

You will have it that Thomas Paine is as much a myth
as Moses. I have seen several men who have seen and con-
versed with Paine. I have seen the grave where his body
was buried. I have seen men who saw the wagon convey-
ing his remains from the grave under the direction of Wm.
Cobbett. I have seen men who saw the bones of Paine

176 THE nUMPHREY-BENisETT DCSCUSSIOIT.

exposed in Cobbett's bookstore in Fleet street, London. I
had it from a trustworthy party that those bones were
taken to one of the large potteries of England, ground to
a powder, mixed with fine clay and made into ornaments
and trinkets for keepsakes. I have read Paine's writings.
They are characteristic of the man, clear, simple, forcible,
logical and unambiguous, such only as Paine was capable of
writing. But what does the world know about Moses? What
did it ever know about him ? The place of his burial was
never known, and it is a matter of grave doubl whether as
a living man he was ever known. It is probable he was
like Menes of Egypt, and Minos of Greece, a copy or pla-
giarism of the Menu of India. It is claimed that he wrote
the first five books of the Bible, but there is not the slightest
authority for the claim. An assertion that he was the writer
is not made in any one of the books credited to him. In
all probability he had no more to do with the writing of
those books than you or I. They relate incidents and al-
lude to events which occurred hundreds of years after he
was said to have lived. As smart as he was claimed
to be ; able as he was to advise and control Jehovah,
he was hardly capable of narrating minutely what took
place a thousand years before he was born or two hundred
years after he was buried. The claim, two thousand years
after he was dead, that he was the author of those writings
is much easier made than proved.

One thing may be set down as the truth : what is called
the Mosaic writings are not the oldest records in the world,
nor could they have been written till after a certain period.
The world has had three systems of writing. The oldest
known is the "arrowheads," or cuneiform inscriptions of
the Chaldeans and Babylonians. These were not written
with an alphabet of letters representing sounds, but charac-
ters representing syllables and words. George Smith and
Gen. Rawlinson discovered great numbers of these cunei-
form inscriptions in Nineveh, and found there practically

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 177

llie same legends of the Creation and the Flood as those
which were afterwards adopted as their revealed cosmgony.
After this system, came into vogue the Egyptian hiero-
glyphics, or picture-writing These were used many cen-
turies, and numerous inscriptions on the temples and
pyramids of Egypt in hieroglyphics remain to this day. It
is not known how long the systems of cuneiform inscrip-
tions and hieroglyphics were used, but probably thousands
of years. Not till long after these was an alphabet formed.
Letters representing separate sounds are comparatively a
modern invention, and as Hebrew was only vvritlen with
an alphabet, whatever was written in that language was "
long subsequent to the use of the other two systems. From
this it is clear that the Hebrew is far from being the oldest
language in the world, and alphabetic writing far from the
mOit ancient.

You make out a very weak apology for David and
Solomon for their licentiousness. There is not the slightest
proof that David wrote the Psalms you pointed out, nor the
slightest proof that in those Psalms his adultery with Bath-
sheba, or his having Uriah put to death, were meant at all.
His confessions of sins committed are general and indefinite.
The condemnation in Nehemiah in regard to Solomon are
far from emphatic, for notwithstanding his gross sensuality
with his 700 wives and 3U0 concubines in one of the verses
you named it says: "There was no king like him beloved of
God." Thus, notwithstanding David's lechery ami aiurder,
he was a special favorite with God, and though Solomon was
the greatest libertine that ever lived, God loved him above
all other kings. My assertion, then, stands good, that Solo-
mon was condemned for his idolatry and not for his licen-
tiousness.

For a friend of science you speak disrespectfully of it, I
must say. Such epithets as "poor stuff," "bran," "shorts,"
"chaff," "cockle," "thistle," "smut and all," sound singu-
lar coming from a professed I'riend. An enemy would hardly

i78 THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

undertake to heap more obloquy upon it. In fact, I would
prefer an out-and-out enemy to such an ambiguous friend.
How is it with your scientific book, the Bible? Does it have
any "bran," "shorts," "chaff," "cockle," "thistle," and par-
ticularly, smut? I fancy I find much of all of these diffused
through its science. For the latter quality, "smut" (if you will
not tell Comstock), I will refer you to the beautiful Song of
the favorite king, Solomon, to the story of Lot and his
daughters, of Dinah and Schechem, of Reuben and Bilhah,
of Judah and Tamar, of Onan by himself, of Joseph and Mrs.
Potiphar, of Zimri and Cozbi, of the Levite and his concu-
bine, of Ruth and Boaz, of David and Bathsheba, of Amnon
and Tamar, of Absalom and his father's concubine, and
many other choice bits too numerous to mention. Are
there any books published, save a few that are justly
tabooed by law, that contain so much "smut"? To read
these lascivious recitals is enough to make one wonder why
the sainted Comstock has not long since arrested the Amer-
ican Bible Society for sending out obscene literature.
Such indecent matter could not circulate in any other book.
I prefer the friendship that Professor Huxley evinces for
science to yours. Hear him: "Modern civilization rests
upon physical science; take away her gifts to our country,
and our position among the leading nations of the world
is gone to-morrow; for it is physical science that makes
intelligence and moral energy stronger than brute force.
The whole of moral thought is steeped in science. It has
made its way into the works of our best poets, and even
the mere man of letters, who affects to ignore and despise
science, is unconsciously impregnated with her spirit, and
indebted for his best products to her methods. She is
teaching the world that the ultimate court of appeal is
observation and experience, and not authority. She is
creating a firm and living faith in the existence of immut-
able moral and physical laws, perfect obedience to which
is the highest possible aim of an intelligent being. "

•THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 17^

You magnanimously admit that the putting of Hypatia
to death was " a disgraceful affair." I should think it was I
— just about as disgraceful as millions of other acts of the
same character committed by the Christian Church. Do
you imagine, however, that it makes the crime less offen-
sive to every instinct of ennobled human nature to throw
an insinuation over the memory of the murdered woman
that possibly she had been intimate with Orestes ? If it
was true — which by no means is made clear — would
that justify the knocking down of a defenseless woman
upon the streets, dragging her into a church, stripping her
naked, beating her with clubs till dead and then finishing
the very Christian proceeding by scraping the flesh from
her bones ? Was that slight impropriety "more an error
of the head than the heart"?

In your brief allusion to " the reign of terror " in France,
you commit the same mistake which your Christian breth-
ren have done in hundreds of instances, that is to charge
upon Freethinkers the blame for the excesses that were
committed at that time. I will not say that you are dis-
honest in insinuating this, but you ought to be better in-
formed. The excesses so committed were wholly of a
political character, and neither religious or anti-religious.
The extravagant conduct of those who become investeel
with power was a natural reaction or rebound of a mercu-
rial people from the rule of a corrupt monarchy, a corrupt
aristocracy, and a corrupt priesthood which for a long time
had ruled the country. It is a law in human nature that
where a nation or a community emerges from a state of op-
pression before an equilibrium can be gained, a rebound
to the opposite extreme is inevitable.

The causes which led to the excesses under consideration
were some of them remote. Under the reign of Louis
XIV. corruption, extravagance and licentiousness reached
a great extreme, no less on the part of the monarch and
the nobility than the ecclesiastical authorities. The king

180 THE HtTMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

wasted the revenues of the governmeRt in the gross-
est extravagance in building useless palaces, reclaiming
waste places, etc., etc. The treasury was also sadly de-
pleted by the licentious clergy and aristocracy. Rioting,
revelry, court carnivals, mistresses, royal favorites, and
debauchery were the order of the day until the wealth of
the nation was exhausted. This state of things was fol
lowed in 1788 by a devastating hail-storm, which cut off the
crops over a large portion of the kingdom and brought the
people to starvation. The cry was "Bread or blood."
The enemies of Marie Antoinette excited the prejudices of
the hungry mobs against " the Austrian." The issue came
between the starving masses on the one hand and the op-
pressive aristocracy on the other — between monarchy and
mobocracy. The heavy exactions of a lordly priesthood
had much to do in leading to the bloody result. The
noted Infidels of Paris so far as they meddled with the ter-
rible transactions of the times, sought to stay the threaten-
ing storm. Count Mirabeau, an Atheist, and the most pow-
erful man in France, both with the people and the nobility,
sought to reconcile the frantic factions, and probably would
have succeeded to a great extent had he lived ; but at this
critical moment he suddenly died, while negotiating between
the mob and the monarch ; and the saturnalia of blood suc-
ceeded. The throne of the Bourbons was dashed to pieces.
So the "reign of terror," I repeat, was simply a reaction
against the twin-oppressors, kingcraft and priestcraft, by a
long suffering, starving people. Paine, the Infidel and the
Republican, hazarded his own life in attempting to save
tlie dethroned king and to avert the frenzied storm he
saw in the near future. He was thrown into prison and
his life was saved by the merest fortuitous circumstance.
The Infidels were really the conservatives all through that
bloody period when madness was the ruling power, and
many of them lost their lives as a sacrifice to the prin-
ciples of liberty and peace. Yes, the people did set up the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 181

Goddess of Reason, and it was high time that they did,
when they saw that the altar and throne leaned together,
and so foully sustained each other. To show what
was the status of Robespierre, who became for a time
the ruling spirit in that mad hour, it should be stated
that he caused God to be recognized in the new con-
stitution that was framed. His memorable remark before
the convention was: "If it is true that there is no God, it
behooves us to invent one." His suggestion was carried
out. This is the truth about "the reign of terror," and
shows how untrue is the charge so often made by Christians
that it was the work of Infidels or Atheists. It was strictly
of a political character, and with the impulsive French
people was a natural reaction from the priestly oppressions
they had so long endured.

But let us get right down to the question of science and
the patronage which it derives from the Bible and Chris-
tianity. We have already seen how Bible science and real
science compare. The explorations which scientists have
made, such as the antiquities of the stone age, the finding
under immense deposits of alluvial soil and drift numerous
implements of roughly carved stone and the bones of
man side by side with the bones of animals which long
since became extinct; human bones found under the stalag-
mite formations which by careful computations were
found to be the accretions of scores of thousands of years;
fossils pertaining to the human race found in the tertiary
rocks, convince the wisest and most observiug that the
human race has existed on the earth fully 100,000 years.
The Bible makes it less than 6,000, Scientists kuow most
positively that the Bible cosmogony is wholly untrue. But.
without stopping to enumerate the many instances where
the Bible is in direct opposition to science, I will make the
assertion as true, that in scarcely the slightest particular is
there an agreement between the Bible and science; and it
seems the wildest vagary a man can be guilty of to

l82 THE HUMiPmiET-BENNETT DISCUSStOT?.

seriously undertake to show that the teachings of science
harmonize with the unnatural and impossible Bible stories.
I notice, too, that you pass over those monstrosities just as
easily as possible. I cannot wonder that you do not wish
to give Bible cosmogony and archeology an examination.
They will not bear it in the light of science. Christian /<a^i7/i
and credulity are all that can make them seem truthful.

Christianity is very little more in unison with science
than is the Bible. How can it be, when it is founded upon
those old unscieatific Bible stories? The genius of Christian-
ity— if it may be said to have a genius — is diametrically
opposed to the spirit of science. The latter depends upon
investigation, study, testing, digging, smelting, assaying,
melting, burning, distilling, analyzing, accepting and con-
demning, as the case requires, while Christianity says it has
a revelation from an unknown God in the sky, which we
must accept without proof, and without question. The
voice of science says ''Study, examine, and learnt The voice
of Christianity is *' Believe on' he damned.'''' Science tells us
we must not believe without proof; that we must look into
the causes of existences as we find them, and learn more
and more as we extend our observations and investigations.
Christianity tells us that its revelation contains all that man
needs to know, that coming from God it is perfect and can-
not improve. It provides for no change or progress, so far
as its revelation is concerned. Science says: "Press for-
ward, men; be not satisfied with old discoveries and old
opinions; increase your investigations; dig deeper; climb
higher; know more ; believe less ; learn all that is possible
for you to know." Christiauity says: "I have given you
the ultimate of truth, the sum of all knowledge; it cannot
be improved upon; it cannot be revoked; it cannot be ex-
celled; you must look no farther, you must search no
higher." Science commands in sonorous tones: "Doubt
everything until you have proof upon which to found an
opinion; believe nothing except upon evidence; insist upon

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 183

the facts in every instance; take nothing on tick." In
thundering and authoritative voice Christianity vocifer-
ates: "Accept what I give you; believe witliout a question;
hsiYe faith, faith, FAITH ! that is all you need." Science
says: "Distrust even what I say, until you know it is cor-
rect; always be convinced before you accept; learn ever,
more and more, and thus be happy." Christianity replies:
"Doubt nothing I declare unto you; accept, and live in
glory in the city with golden streets, with crowns of dia-
monds upon your heads ; but if you presume to doubt you
shall be thrust down into the regions of darkness and sub-
jected to fires of inconceivable intensity and for intermin-
able ages." Science has its teachers, but they make no
onerous demands upon its votaries ; it ipaposes no burdens
upon its followers, and kindly invites all to follow its
peaceful lead. Christianity has its priests, and they place
heavy loads upon the necks of their dupes; it imposes such
burdens upon the people that they become wearied with
life, and are dragged down almost to penury and exhaus-
tion. Science sits lightly and wears a smiling and cheerful
face for all. Christianity is sombre and forbiddiug, and
while it points to the beautiful city of gold for the few that
have/aM, it ever exposes the horrid, yawning gulf of hell
to the many who do not believe. The rule of science in the
world has been peaceful, elevating, and happifying. It
has not drawn the sword; it has not deluged the earth with
blood. It has made the world better, wiser, and happier.
Christianity has ruled with an iron hand. It has savagely
used the sword, the scaffold, the stake, the rack, and the
dungeon. It has caused millions to groan in terror, sorrow
and anguish. It has blighted the happiness of mankind.
Science has not puiposely caused the death of a single indi-
vidual in the world. Christianity has been most cruel and
relentless; it has pursued its victims with hate; it has tor-
tured them without mercy; it has laughed at the wretched-
ness it has caused. It has drenched the earth with the

184 THE HUMPHREY-BE^'NETT DISCU3SI0N.

blood of millions of the hapless victims it has slain.
Science has been the leading element in the progress that
man has made. It has given Lim knowledge, usefulness
and power. It has been the great factor in the civilization
of the world. It has been the real Savior of man. Take
from the earth what science has done, and in the language
of Ingersoll, "we would go back to chaos and old night.
Philosophy would be branded as infamous, Science would
again press its pale and thoughtful face against the prison
bars, and round the limbs of Liberty would climb the
bigot's flame." Take from the world what Christianity has
done, and I insist the world would be the better for it.
Fully seventy-five millions of hapless mortals would be re-
turned to life : desolate lands would be restored to plenty
and happiness; the heavy rule of popes, prelates and priests
would be set aside and humanity vould become its own
ruler. Centuries of ignorance would be wiped out, and the
reign of darkening creeds would seek the shades of ob-
livion.

Friend Humphrey, in your argument you exhibit much
ingenuity and flippancy, but you cannot successfully deny
the great facts pertaining to the subject under discussion.
Science is classified knowledge. Christianity is a bundle of
theological dogmas derived from Judaism and Paganism.
The world had a re-pectable share of learning, science and
philosophy before the birth of Chrislianity. Christianity
originated with the unlearned. In its infancy it was em-
braced by the uneducated. At that time it did not foster
and encourage the learning which had previously existed
in the world. It destroyed books and discouraged litera-
ture. It insisted that the wisdom of this world was a dam-
age to mankind, and that the knowledge how to escape the
regions of sulphurous flames was all that man needed to
know. When Christianity became a political power and
gained supreme control over several countries, it did not
seek to elevate learning and science, but within its do-

^HE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 185

main the people gradually saDk into ignorance and deg-
radation. At the very time when in Moslem countries edu-
cation was fostered, science was encouraged and schools of
philosophy flourished, in Christendom these were all neg-
lected, and numerous councils were convened to decide
whether a sou could be as old as his father ; whether a
ghost could beget a child ; whether the God-nature or man-
nature predominated in Jesus; whether they became one, or
remained separate ; whether God had a mother ; whether
she had an immaculate conception ; whether women have
souls; whether bread and wine were absolutely transubstan-
tiated into the real body and blood of Christ ; whether this
miraculous diet should be partaken of by the priests when
unmixed, and whether the wafer combined of the two
should only be dispensed to the laity, and whether certain
manuscripts written by unknown authors, should or should
not be regarded as sent from heaven. Over these and
other similar questions bishops and priests quarreled
and fought ; and science and mental liberty gradually less-
ened as theological dogmas became the ruling principle
in Europe. The more the dogmas of Christianity triumphed
the faster did science and human freedom go to the wall.
After a few centuries of Christian supremacy the whole
mass of the people were so ignorant that not one in a
thousand could read or write, and even a large portion of
the priests were unable to write their own names.

During this benign and heavenly reign of theological
ignorance the Christian Institution ^w/' excellence^ the "Holy"
Inquisition, was established, and for nearly five hundred
years this engine of cruelty was a terrible scourge to
Southern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of hapless
men and women, of all ages and of all conditions in society,
were dragged before it, at all hours of the day and night,
for the simple crime of daring to think for themselves and
for not bending the knee with acceptable suppliauce to the
rule of ecclesiastical power. Here the poor wretches w^re

186 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

arraigned and put upon the torture rack without knowing
who were their accusers or what were the offenses with
which they were charged. Ecclesiastical demons presided
over these diabolical institutions and submitted the
wretched victims to the cruelest tortures their ingenuity
was capable of inventing until the victim confessed to the
satisfaction of the " Holy Inquisitor." The wretches were
put upon the rack or the "wheel"; the crank turned a
little more, and a little more, until the joints were torn
asunder and the bones of the body broken one after an-
other, and at intervals the hapless victim was again called
upon to confess. A millionth part of the suffering thus
damnably inflicted can never be known to the world.
According to Victor Hugo five millions of human beings
were thug murdered by the Christian Church in cold blood.
Of the stake I need not speak. The horrors of the auto da
fe are too well known to need description here.

Let me introduce an appropriate quotation from Mark
Twain's Innocents Abroad: *'We look out upon many
objects of interest from the dome of St. Peters; and last of
all, almost at our feet, our eyes rest upon the building which
was once the Inquisition. How times changed between
the older ages and the new ! Rome seventeen or eighteen
centuries ago the ignorant men of Rome were wont to put
Christians in the arena of the Coliseum yonder, and tu-n
the wild beasts in upon them for a show. It was for a
lesson as well. It was to teach the people to abhor and feai
the new doctrine the followers of Christ were teaching.
The beasts tore the victims limb from limb, and made poor
mangled corpses of them in the twinkling of an eye But
when the Christians came into power, when the Holy
Mother Church became mistress of the barbarians, she
taught them the error of their ways by no such means.
No ; she put them in this pleasant Inquisition and pointed
to the Blessed Redeemer, who was so gentle and merciful
to all men, and urged the barbarians to love him; and she

THE HUMPHREY-BEITKETT DISCUSSION. 187

did all she could to persuade them to love and honor liim—
first by twisting their thumbs out of joint with a screw ; then
by nipping their flesh with pincers— red-hot ones, because
they are the most comfortable in cold weather; then by
skinning them alive a little; and finally by roasting them in
public. She always convinced those barbarians. The true
religrtm properly administered, as the good Mother Church
used to administer it, is very, very soothing. It is wonder-
fully persuasive, also. There is a great difference between
throwing parties to wild beasts and stirring up their finer
feelings in an Inquisition. One is the system of degraded
barbarians; the other of enlightened, civilized people. It
is a great pity the Inquisition is no more."

These terrors and inhumanities are the special science of
Christianity. Hero it showed its invention and its art.
During the long night of religious darkness a man of learn-
ing was a rare exception. Duns Scotus, in the 13th century,
was one, but where, for five hundred years before or two
hundred years after, will you point out another like him ?
True, schools were kept up to a certain extent all through
the dark ages, but what kind of schools were they ? Not
schools of science, but Christian schools, where dogmas,
ccclesiasticism, and theological mysteries only were taught.
The common branches of education were denounced by the
magnates of the Church as being " profane " and ungodly.
Gregoiy the Great sharply blamed St. Dizier for teaching
grammar, and said: " It is not fit that a mouth sacred to
the praises of God should be opened to the praises of
Jupiter." The highest authorities, including Mosheim,
Ilallam, Guizot, Lecky, Draper, and others can be abun-
dantly quoted to show the truth of the statements I have
made, but my letter is already too long, and I must forego
the pleasure at this time of bringing these writers to my
support.

I am aware it is unpleasant to you to acknowledge and
approve all the acts and persecutions of the Catholic

188 THE humpiirey-be:;7Nett discussion.

Church, but I cannot see how you can get by it. It looks
bad for a man to deny his own mother and accuse her of
base conduct. When a person "goes back '' on his mater-
nal parent he is regarded as being in a depraved condition.
That the Romish Church is the parent of the Protestant
Church is too patent to be questioned for a moment. As
much as you are disposed to condemn her for her murders
aad persecutions, she is still 3"(jur mother. Every dogma,
every i)oint of faith is retained by you ; you have added
nothing to the old system.

You would have it appear that the Greek Church has not
been inimical to science. If she has not taken as much
pains to fight it as the Romish division has done, her
friendship for science has rot been of such an ardent char-
acter as to induce her to make any special advance in its
pursuit. I believe the Greek Church to this day has not
distinguished herself in scientific education.

I free-y admit that many Christians in the last two cen-
turies have been friendl}'' to loarciug and science, and that
many have done much to increase the facilities of popular
education ; but this did not come from their ardent Chris-
tianity or their love for ecclesiasticism. It arose from their
Liberalism and the spirit of progress and the genuine love
of humanity inherent in their natures. Despite the selfii^h-
ness and intolerance of the dogmas of Christianity, which
causes its votaries to believe they are going to heaven with
a select few to sing the joyful song of Moses and the
Lamb through a blessed eternity while countless millions,
liy nature as good as themselves will be doomed to roast for
countless ages, numerous Christians who from lack of
knowing better, have accepted the creed i^i which they
were born and educated, have evinced the grand character
istics of love of their kind wliich have actuated good men
in idl ages of the world and in all systems of religion. It
is no more Christian itj'^ than other forms of creed Ihat
cause men to feel these implulses or to act upon them, but

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 189

it is the grand spirit of Liberalism wliicli has shown itself
in spite of religions and creeds — Christianity as well as
others.

I think no charge can be brought against you for not
claiming enough for your pet system. Like your brethren,
you claim for it not only all the advancement science has
made, but civilization, free government, etc., as well. Our
government is often called a Christian government, and our
popular institutions are called Christian institutions. These
claims are untenable. Civilization is not dependent upon
any creed nor upon any form of religion. Buckle and
Draper have consistently shown that climate, meteor-
ology, soil, and formation of country have had much to
do with modifying civilization. Race and customs are also
important factors in the process. The more the different
races of men are brought into contact, the more the mind is
stimulated and rendered active by other minds, the more gen-
eral intelligence and civilization arc promoted. Some races
are more disposed to savagism and barbarism than others,
and pel' contra it is the same with civilization; certain nations
and races take more kindly to it than others. Some races
are better mechanics than others, and some will gain a
higher altitude in learning and science than others. The
more intercourse is promoted, the more nearly all nations
become one nation or one family, the better for all.

Are our laws Christian laws ? By no means. The better
part of them are from the Romans, while our most
cherished institutions, as trial by jury, voting by ballot,
etc., etc, are of ancient Teutonic, Saxon, and Pagan
orighi, probably handed down from the Druids of Northern
Euroi^e. In the extreme Christian countries in Southern
Europe, trial by jury is hardly known even at the present
day. It is as unjust for Christianity to claim the paternity
of our civilization as of modern science, Moslemism is
quite as much entitled to the honor as is Christianity, but
neither that nor any system of religion is the source of

190 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

civilization and science. They come not from creeds, re-
ligions, nor mythologies. They come not from a belief in
mysticisms, superstitions, or supernaturalism. They are
the legitimate heritage of man, despite of ecclesiasticism,
priestcraft, and faith. It is a weighty question whether
religions have not greatly retarded the progress of civiliza-
tion, science, and mental liberty. So far as they have
cramped and bound the mind of man, so far as they have
curtailed the right of opinion and freedom of thought they
have doubtless done it. You and many others think that
religion is the great panacea, the great savior of the world
I do not. The world has had far too much of religion. It
has been the blighting curse of thirty centuries. I turn
lovingly and confidently to science, mental freedom, and
civilization. These liberate the human intellect, loosen the
mental fetters, and render mankind blessed and free.

Does it please you that scientific men have their liitle
differences, and that they are sometimes impatient with
each other ? Unlike theologians, their contests are blood-
less. They do not take life. How different the contests
of scientists and ecclesiastics! The former are usually bound
together by the ties of fraternal regard, while the wars
of the latter have literally deluged the earth with blood.
From seventy-five to one hundred millions of men, women,
and children have been deprived of life by Christian wars.
Science has never demanded a single human life. Chris-
tianity made slaughter, murder, and torture her principal
business for more than a thousand years. You do injustice
to Prof. Huxley. I think he has not been badly out of
humor with any brother scientist. He is a gentleman of an
equable mind, and not liable to fly into a passion.

You speak of the icebergs of science as they come slowly
floating down from the great Northern Ocean, cold, creak-
ing, and massive, but gently melting in the warm southern
sun. You deem them unfit places upon which to erect
habitations. You say they are bright with borrowed light;

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCISSION, 191

but you are again sadly mistaken. Astronomy, geology,
natural philosophy, chemistry, and mathematics do not
shine with borrowed or false light. Kor are they icebergs.
They are rather luminaries which shine with the steady
brilliance of the sun. Neither are they lessening in size,
nor melting away. On the contrary, thej'^ are growing and
spreading, attracting more and more attention, and doing
more and more good.

I fancy the iceberg that crossed your vision was the huge
body of ecclesiasticism, mysticism, and theological fiction.
This miserable iceberg has, for thousands of years, been
floating around in the great sea of humanity, and for many
centuries the old giant mass grew and spread in every direc-
tion, but thanks to the glorious orbs of science, intelligence,
and truth, that great body of ice is steadily melting away.
Its days are numbered. In comparatively a few decades it
will be so reduced in size that it will neither obstruct our
view of the horizon and the heavenly bodies, nor be a hin-
drance to the free navigation of the teeming waters of life.

I am glad to see you quoting so freely from Prof. Draper.
Let me urge you as a friend to quote him often, and read him
closely. You can hardly find a safer authority. I would
gladly have quoted him more fully in this letter, but I have
been so diffuse that I have allowed myself very little space
for the purpose. 1 cannot, however, forego the temptation
to make a single quotation from the last paragraph of his
Conflict between Religion and Science: "As to the issue of
the coming conflict, can any one doubt? Whatever is resting
on fiction and fraud will be overthrown. Institutions that
organize impostures and spread delusions must show what
right they have to exist. Faith must render an account of
herself to Reason. Mysteries must give place to facts. Re-
ligion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering
position which she has so long maintained against science.
There must be absolute freedom for thought. The ecclesi-
astic must learn to keep himself within the dom9,in he has

192 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

chosen, and cease to tyrannize over the philosopher, who,
conscious of his own strength and the purity of his motives,
will bear such interference no longer."

Pardon me once more for writing so long a letter. 1
have endeavored to confine myself to the points you raised;
and to correct your numerous errors has necessarily taken
& good deal of space. Like yourself, I am willing to leave
it with our readers as to which has the truth on his side.
I have endeavored to show that the Scripture theory of cos-
mogony on which Judaism and Christianity are founded and
the many impossible stories which form parts of the same
book are utterly opposed to the plainest teachings of sci
ence and common sense. You have studiousl}^ avoided
trying to reconcile the discrepancy, and, as I believe,
because you fully realize the impossibility of doing so.
If the Bible can be made to harmonize with the clear incul-
cations of science, I cali upon you to perform the task. If
you fail to attempt this work our readers may fairly in[er
that you shrink from the undertaking.

I have attempted to show that Christianity has not been
the friend and foster-parent of science; that Christianity
absolutely dragged the civilized world from a state where
learning, science, and philosophy bad long held sway down
to ignorance, faith and degradation; that when Christianity
had the supreme control in a large portion of the world it
did nothing for science and education, but bound the heavy
ecclesiastical collar of mental servitude and faith upon the
necks of the people; that while Christianity had effectually
suppressed learning and science in its own domain, its
enemies, the Mohammedans, were establishing schools, fos-
tering learning, and proving themselves the fast friends of
education and culture; that it was this class of people that
preserved science, and then generously bestowed it upon
the Christian world. While many Christians of late have
become to some extent disciples of science and are now
friendly to it, they can only be looked upon as adopted

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 193

sons, and in embracing science they have to that extent
proved recreant to the original precepts and practices of
Christianity.

I am sincerely yours,

D. M. Bennett.

PART III.

Is THERE A Stronger Probability that the Bible is
Divine than that Infidelity is True ?

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir : As the vigilant farmer
walks around his fields after a wind-storm has passed over
them, to replace here a falleu board, and to readjust there a
leaning post, so I will have to glance over my last letter,
after the gust of your •' Reply " has swept over it, to put
things back where they properly belong.

Since you have asked the question, I will explain why
some religious people wish to insert a recognition of God
in the Constitution of the United States : It is to protect it
from misunderstanding and perversion, in the face of
recent Atheistic claims in regard to it. The Christians of
eighty years ago did not think of such an insertion, although
they were more particular about such matters than the
Christians of to-day. This shows that in their time the
Constitution was not viewed by anybody as an Infidel docu-
ment. Perversion of a law often necessitates an amend-
ment, not to change its character, but to bring it back to
its original scope and meaning.

You failed to strengthen your claim to Peter Cooper. I
will only add that there is not a copy of Paine's works in
the Cooper Institute, while there are plenty of Bibles on the

194

THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 195

tables of the reading-room. Does this look as if he were
'* one of your kind ?"

All you have said of Cornoil University can be disproved
from the pen of President White himself. Referring to it,
he says: •* I might picture to you the strategy which has
been used to keep earnest young men from an institution
which, it is declared, cannot ba Christian because it is not
sectarian. ... I might show how it has been denounced
by the friends and agents of denominational colleges and
ia many sectarian journ ils ; how the most preposterous
charges have been made and believed by good men ; how
the epithets of 'godless,' ' infidel,' 'irreligious,' 'unrelig-
ious,' 'atheistic' have been hurled against a body of Chris-
tian trustees, professors, and students " (Warfare of Science,
p. 144).

The silence of Herodotus about Jerusalem does not prove
that that metropolis was insignificant. It might be shown
in the same way precisely that Rome was an obscure,
'* semi-barbarous " town. Herodotus did not visit it, neither
did he say a word about it. Your argument is a specimen
of proving nothing by proving too much.

It is pleasing to see you beginning to give the names of
some of your informants. I say leginning ; for you still
attempt to establish some of your points by an appeal to
the" testimony of *'a friend," "a gentleman," "a trust-
worthy party," and "a personal friend." I entertain no
disrespect for your friends ; but in a controversy like this
everything should be above-board. Anonymous testimony
is as worthless here as it would be in a civil court.

You still ignore the distincliou between Protestantism and
Catholicism. This is neither pliilosophical nor ingenuous.
There is neither sympathy, connection, nor cooperation be-
tween the two. Would it be right to hold the Government
of the United States responsible for all the past acts of
Great Britain, even if the latter is in some sense our
♦' mother country "? So it is a flagrant injustice to charge

196 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

the two innocent sections of Christendom with the errors
and iniquities of Romanism.

I did not, as 3'ou insinuate, say a disrespectful word of
true science. I spoke lightly of only the adulterated and
counterfeited article.

You still insist that the ancient Jews were "semi-barba-
rians." I have already produced such an array of facts as
utterly disproved this. How couid they be "semi-barba-
rians" after sojourning for centuries in Egypt, at that time
the most civilized country in the world ? How could they
be *' semi-barbarians " when they were among the first to
possess and foster the art of writing ? How could they be
"semi-barbarians," and be familiar with " many books ?"
(Ecc. xii. 13.) How could they be ** semi-barbarians " and
possess such a collection of wit and wisdom as the book of
Proverbs? How could they be "semi barbarians" when
they had among them, ever since the days of Jacob, an idea
that has made Darwin famous ? I refer to the "variation
of species under domestication" (Gen. xxx. 37-43). How
could they be " semi-barbarians " when a queen of Sh-ba
" came from tjie uttermost parts of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon"? How could they be "semi-barba-
rians " and have one of the grandest Temples on the face
of the earth ? The difficulty to believe in the real exist-
ence of such a Temple is entirely removed by the fact fhat
we have the architectural i?Za?i of that Temple to-day in the
Jewish Scriptures. As we would understand that the age
of Pericles was famous for its Art, even if we had nothing
to show it except the conceptions of Phidias expressed in
plans, sketches, and drawings, so we know from the con-
ception and plan of a magnificent Temple, still before us in
the Sacred Scriptures, that Solomon's was a Golden Age.
As to the remains of that edifice, antiquarians disagree
somewhat. It is not claimed that many remains have been
found. What deeper and wider excavations may discover,
is yet to be seen. Hitherto, whatever was imagined to be

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 197

a relic of the ancient civilization, has either been destroyed
by prejudice or carried away by superstition. Still, Prof.
Rawson stands almost alone among travelers in saying that
there are no indications of an ancient civilization in Pal-
estine.

Now as to the "mythical theory": it certainly is on the
wane. Baur, Bauer and Strauss are falling into disrepute.
The halls of Tiibitfgen are emptier than of yore. Dr.
Schliemann's "Troy and its Remains" is showing that
much of what the world had consigned to Mythology may,
after all, belong properly to History.

Were I disposed to taunt you, I would still insist that
Paine was a "myth." Doubtless you saw what somebody
said had been Paine's grave. How did your informant know
that the person who carried the remains (?) away was Wm.
Cobbett ? How do you know that those men who said they
had " conversed with Paine " were not deceived ? Have
you not seen men who thought as firmly that they had
"conversed" with ghosts ? The story of Paine's skeleton
hanging in a book-store, and then taken into a pottery to be
ground, and mixed with clay, to be "made into ornamen's,
trinkets and keepsakes," is at once horrible and incredible.
Paine — if such a man ever existed — was treated about as
disrespectfully and barbarously as Hypatia. I guess, Bro.
Bennett, you will have to settle down in the conclusion that
Thomas Paine was a " myth," since it is as difficult to find
his " remains " as those of Solomon's Temple.

Your dialogue between "Christianity" and "Science"
is an innocent little thing. I have only to say that " Chris-
tianity," in this case, as in many others, has either been
incorrectly reported, or else it has been personated by an
enemy. I repudiate your ventriloquous dialogue altogether.

Your attempt to wash the "damned spots " of blood from
the hands of the French "Freethinkers" is, of course, an
utter failure. Seas of sophistry and explanations can
neither scrub them out nor cover them up. The " Reign of

108 THE HUMPKREY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION.

Terror" was nothing more than " Freethought " embodied
in free deeds. Many of the leaders of that "Reign " were
Atheists. Several of them, however, and notably Robes-
pierre and Paine, believed in the existence of a God. But
they were all Infidels of some description.

You affect great nausea over some of the plain narratives
of the Bible. It is true the sacred writers were more anx-
ious to give the whole truth than to accommodate deranged
stomachs. But will you please explain why Infidels are so
much given to placing their hands on their noses when they
approach the Bible, while they regard greater stenches 11
their own authors as sweet bouquets. Rousseau's writings
are full of the grossest indecencies. Some of Michelet's
works seethe with sensuality. A great deal of Byron's
poetry is saturated with impurity. Voltaire's PucelU stinks
with obscenity. Diderot's Bijoux Indiscrets is simply a lit
erary dunghill. Some of Dumas' novels are unfit for the
walls of a water-closet. As Theodore Parker said, "there
was a ti?ige of loicness " about your Pope, Thomas Paine.
Victoria WoodhuU — another "Liberal" champion — has
been delivering her tongue — I will not say inind — of such
stuff as might well bring the blush to the cheeks of rake-
hells and strumpets. Yes, and " reform " journals like the
Boston. Invesiigaiar and The Tkuth Seeker contain weekly
advertisements of "Marriage Guides," "Plain Talks,"
"Sexual Physiology," and " Spermatorrhea " doctors (?)!
Even my esteemed Friend Bennett has defended and lion-
ized men like John A. Lant, George Francis Train, E. B.
Foote and Charle* Bradlaugh, who have been convicted of
circulating obscene literature. All this shows that "Free-
thinkers " feign vomiting over Ihe "indelicacy" of the Bible,
not because they are of such exquisite refinement and
dainty modesty, but because they want some excuse for op-
posing a book which they dislike for other reasons.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 199

Our third proposition is as follows : That there is a
Stronger Probability that the Bible is Divine than

THERE is that InFIDELITY IS TrUE.

1. I will base my first argument on Phrenology. I do

this mainly because the teachers of that system persist in
calling it a '* science," and because many Infidels profess to
accept it. We are taught that the "Moral and Religious
Faculties" occupy the central and highest place in the
brain. They constitute what is termed the '* crown of the
head." A symmetrical and " large " development of these
faeulties is indispensable to a perfect manhood (Fowler's
Phrenology, pp. 123-159). How deformed a human being
would be with the top of his head scooped out half way to
his ears! But that is what a consistent Infidel would call a
faultless cranium ! This is not the only sense in which Infi-
delity would fain deprive man of his crown.

2. Infidelity is always flattering human nature. We hear
a great deal about the nobleness of the natural hearty and
about the " Oracle of reason." If we may take the Infidel's
word for it, the average sentiment of mankind is perhaps
the highest standard of Truth.

I am willing to decide our case in this court of appeals.
There is an innate and indestructible conviction in the
average mind that Godliness is better than Godlessness; that
Piousness is better than Impiousness; that Religion is better
than Irreligion ; that Puritanism is better than Impuritan-
ism; that Fidelity is better than Infidelity.

3. Infidelity cannot be true because it is not self-consis-
tent. What can be more contradictory than Atheism and
Pantheism? Materialism and Spiritualism? Positivism and
Nihilism? These cardinal isms do not difi'er merely on the
surface, and in non-essentials. They are antagonistic and
irreconcilable in their heart of hearts. They cannot, there-
fore, all be right. But which is true? That is a question
which can never be settled on the Infidel principle. A de-
cision, declared by any one, would be " dogmatism " ; and

200 THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

" dogmatism," we are told, has no place in the world of
" Liberalism."

4. Infidelity is inferior to the Scriptures because that, from
its very nature, it is disintegrating and disorganizing. You can-
not constitute government of any kind without forming and
adopting a code of laws. But the moment you do that you
encroach on the "sovereignty of the individual." The
citizen is not then permitted to follow his own inclination
in all the affairs of life. In other words, a civil creed has
been made for him ; and that is unutterably repugnant to
"liberal" notions. In the language of a modern Atheist,
noted for his diarrlicm xerbovum, "Every creed is a rock in
running water; humanity sweeps by it. Every creed cries
to the Universe * Halt !' A creed is the ignorant past bully-
ing the enlightened present." As mankind is everywhere
adopting not only religious but social and civil creeds — laws
and constitutions — it is plain that Infidelity is an enemy to
compacts and organizations of all kinds. If "Freethinkers"
are law-abiding citizens, it is because they are inconsistent.
They withhold from civil enactments the objections which
they bring against every religious declaration of principles.
Were the Infidel doctrine to be applied simultaneously to
everything, the whole world would be in a state of hope-
less anarchy in twenty-four hours!

But in spite of its inconsistencies and restraints, the dis-
solving and disorganizing character of Unbelief is very
manifest. Pure Infidelity has produced no " Orders,"
"Brotherhoods," or "Societies." It has created no insti-
tutions of charity or learning. Of course, it is doing its
utmost to annihilate the Church. Its self-styled " advanced
thinkers " are endeavoring to sever the golden bonds of the
family. The most godless nation within the limits of civ-
ilization— the French— are the most seditious and ungovern-
able. The history and the teachings of Infidelity prove
that its tendency is to universal disintegration and decom-
position—that is, universal death, since death is only disso-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 201

liition. But this is an evidence of its dangerous and
destructive character. What can men accomplish merely
as individuals? Where may man find joy and blessedness
as he can within the sacred covenants of Friendship and
Wedlock? What hour was more auspicious to the world
than that in which " We the People" took a solemn oath
to honor, obey, and defend our National Confession of
Faith — the Constitution of the United States?

The Bible encourages by precept and example the organiz-
ing Frinci'ple. It gives no uncertain sound as to the sane-
tit}^ and inviolability of the Family. It teaches obedience
to lawfully- constituted and righteously-administered govern-
ment. It has created the Church to promote man's moral
and spiritual well-being. It teaches that " in union there is
strength."

In the proportion that an organizing and integrating, i. e.
a mtal Principle is superior to a disorganizing and disinte-
grating, i. e., a fatal Principle, the Holy Bible is superior to
Infidelity.

5. The Bible inculcates and Christians exercise more Sin-
cerity tha.n Infidels practice. The words "sincere," "sin-
cerely," and " sincerity " are found about sixteen times in
King James' Version. The same idea is set forth by many
equivalents in words and phrases. Insincerity is one of the
tliings which the Sacred Writings condemn most unspar-
ingly.

How the Apostles showed the depth of their convictions
by their incessant labors! How subsequent believers have
evinced their earnestness by their adherence to principle,
even under persecution and in death ! The myriad churches
of Christendom attest the sincerity of those who erected
them. Doubtless the wolf of hypocrisy has stolen often-
times among the sheep. But notwithstanding all, the Chris-
tian Charch exhibits far more Sincerity than her opponents.

A great many Infidels have betrayed their life-long hypoc-
risy by their death-bed m.isgivings and confessions. Others

203 THB HTJMPHREY-BKNNETT DISCUSSION.

have shown either fear, duplicity, or both, by not announc-
ing their views until the close of their lives. Dr. Johnson
used to say that ' ' Bojingbroke was a scoundrel and a coward ;
he loaded a blunderbuss against Christianity which he had
not the courage to fire during his life-time, but left half a
crown to a hungry Scotsman to draw the trigger after he
was dead." And Thomas Paine, about whose "honest con-
victions" and " boldness " we hear so much, saii he believed
it would be best to postpone the publication of his Deistical
thoughts "to tbe latter part of life." If these men really
believed that the principles they had to disseminate would
be a blessing to the world, was it not a crime to withhold
them so long? and did their delay not prove either that they
did not care about benefiting mankind, or that they did
not themselves believe what they had to say?

The insincerity of Infidels is shown farther by the scanti-
ness of their efforts to propagate their ideas. Avowedly
Infidel journals are not well supported. *' Freethought
Lecturers " have to do a prodigious amount of advertisiogj
drumming up, and indirect self-puffing, in order to squeeze
out a sufficient number of engagements to keep them in mo-
tion. All the Infidels in America have not zeal enough to
remove the debt-incubus ($70,000) from the only structure
between the two oceans erected and dedicated to the mem-
ory of Paine ! In the great city of New York, the Infidels
have never founded a building for their own use. The most
they have done was to "hire a hall." And even in that
they have not exhibited much generosity. * ' Science Hall !"
That sounds \^ ell a thousand miles away. But when the place
is actually visited, it will be found to be a dingy little back
room with neither scientist nor scientific apparatus near
it. If it is so important that the world should know
the doctrines of Deism, Atheism, Spiritualism, Materialism,
Free-Love, etc., why is it that the Infidels of Europe and
America do not keep a legion of home and foreign mission-
aries continually at work? It is true Mr. IngersoU — having

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 203

nothing else to do — has gone to the California heathen to
tell them about his "Ghosts" and " Bob"-goblins. But
alas ! his glad tidings are not for the poor. There is an
■■^'Admission Fifty Cents" between the masses and the
" i^r<?(3-thoughts " of the " i'ree-thinker." And then, Mr.
Ingersoll is — I hope I give no offense — only one man. The
laborers are indeed few on the Infidel field. All this goes
to show how shallow and inactive is the conviction and sin-
cerity of skeptics generally.

Other things being equal, the greater the sincerity, the
greater the merit. But '* other things " a/re equal, and more
than equal on the side of the Bible and its believers. Hence,
the superior Sincerity of Christians, as compared with Unbe-
lievers, goes to establish the afiirmative of our proposition.

6. There is another fact worthy of serious consideration:
Immorality is consistent with Infidelity. I do not by this mean
that all unbelievers are bad men; but that, if they were so,
no one would feel that they were at variance with " Free-
thought." It is quite true that many professors of religion
have been guilty of unlawful practices. But everybody felt
that they were acting contrary to their profession and prin-
ciples. Everybody exclaimed^ Row inconsistent/ Everybody
thought they should be censured or excommunicated. And
the Church is continually doing this. Little does the out-
side and fault-finding world know of her concern for her
erring ones. But it ought to see that she does not permit
sin to pass unnoticed. You and other Infidels seem to take
ecstatic delight in recounting the vices and crimes of men
who were once ministers. But we may show by these very
men the infinite superiority of Christianity over Infidelity.
Even suspicion will degrade the standing of a clergymen.
Those who have been convicted of immorality have been de-
posed. They have ceased to be preachers; and it is improper
to speak of them as such. This fact, backed by the public
sentiment, proves that Immorality and Christianity are in-
consistent.

204 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

But with Infidelity it is not so. An Infidel cannot
injure his standing, as an Infidel, by anything he may
do. No injustice or vileness on his part could bring man-
kind to feel that he Lad violated his principles. This cafi
be shown from history. Bolingbroke could be a "notorious
libertine"; Byron could be a scandalous debauchee; Shelley
could leave his wife, even when she was with child, and
break her heart by living with a "companion"; Girard
could quarrel with his wife until she beeame insane; Ches-
terfield could advise his bastard son to be a whore-master;
Rousseau could live in adultery, and send his illegitimate
children to the Foundling Hospital; Voltaire could perjure
himself, tamper with legal documents, spend years "pla-
tonically "(?) with a female that was never his wife;
Collins, Ralph, and Keith could "greatly wrong" Franklin;
John Stuart Mill could associate with a "lady friend"
in a way that would have blasted the nam* of a clergy-
man; Auguste Comte could mislead a living woman,
and worship a dead one; Paine could live with Mrs.
Bonneville, and be "godfather" to her youngest son "who
had been named after him"; Goethe could be himself the
Mephistopheles who defiled and ruined many a poor Mar-
guerete; Gen. Charles Lee could be unfaithful to his trust;
Tweed could steal millions from the city of New York; S.
S. Jones could seduce another man's wife; Dr. Dillingh^im
could be indicted for practicing abortion; George Francis
Train can act the fool to his heart's content; Victoria
Woodhull can be the quintessence of nastiness — all these
could be all this, and nobody thinks any the less of Infidelity !
Nobody ever remarked that they were at all inconsistent
with " Liberalism." They did the cause no harm.

You may array all the counter-charges you please. But
the fact will still remain that Christianity condemns immor-
ality, while Infidelity is consistent with it, and encouraging
to it. This was the deliberate judgment of Franklin, when
he said in his Autobiography that " immorality and in-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 205

justice might have been expected from a want of religion ^''^ and
when he asked in one of his letters: " If men are so wicked
with religion, what would they be loithout it"?

The Bible, that prohibits "all appearance of evil," is
certainly superior to Infidelity, which is both inviting to,
and consistent with, every species of iniquity.

7. Infidels are full of all the short-comings with which
they charge Christians. They are bigoted. It is said that
the word *' bigot " originated with Hollo, who, when he was
required to kiss the foot of King Charles in return for the
province of Neustria, replied, '^Nese, bi Gof'' — Not so, by
G — d In this sense of using profane language, "Freethink-
ers " are generally the greatest bigots in the world. Col.
Ingersoll is "matchless" at cursing and swearing. And
they are bigoted in the sense of being "unreasonably devoted
to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of
others." How many of them boast that they never go in-
side of a church ! How few of them give the Christian
side a candid and thorough study ! Such books as I men-
tioned in my last letter are not examined by the mass of
Infidels. Many of them heartily hate everything and every-
body that is religious. All this is bigotry.

Infidels are illiberal. We have already shown that they
are so with their money. They have endowed scarcely any
institutions of learning. They support no charities. The
best hospitals of Germany, France, England, and America
are under religious auspices. I have before me a "Hand-
book of the Benevolent Institutions and Charities of New
York for 1877." The Jews, the Catholics, and all the
Protestant denominations have a noble record. But it does
not appear that the Infidels are supporting one hospital or
benevolent institution.

Neither are they "liberal" even toward each other.
There was a furious rumpus at one of the " Liberal Club "
elections not many weeks ago. Do you not rather think
the Investigator is trying to "freeze" out The Truth

206 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Seekek? Less than a century ago Infidels beheaded Infidels
in Paris. Hume and Rousseau had a most violent quar-
rel. The "Liberal" Pike shot the "Liberal" Jones
because the latter had been tery "liberal" with Mrs. Pike.

They are extremely illil eral to professing Christians.
When rumors are afloat about a minister or a church mem-
ber, they always believe the worst, and that before there is
pTVofot guilt. If they can help it, they will tolerate nothing
that has the least savor of religion in it. Stephen Girard
represented the character of their " Liberalism " when he
made an imperative stipulation in his will that no minister
should ever enter Girard College. Several of the originally
orthodox Universities of Germany have permitted Rational-
ism to be taught in them; but there never was an institution
under Rationalistic or Infidel control that would tolerate
evangelical instruction within its walls.

Infidels are hypocritical. According to Infidel writers, they
are very hypocritical. How often do we see and hear the
assertion that there are ever so many that are Infidels at
heart, who yet allow themselves to pass for orthodox in soci-
ety, in the Church, yea, and in the pulpit. As far as this is
false, it proves that those who say so are liars. As far as
it is true, it proves that Infidels are craven and sneaking
hypocrites. Toland professed to be a " Freethinker " and a
"good churchman" alternately, as self-interest dictated.
When Voltaire was over fifty years of age, he dedicated one
of his plays to Pope Benedict XIV, w rote to him as his "Most
Blessed Father, " and ' 'Head of the true religion, " requesting
bis benediction, and closing with these words: " Witii the
profoundest reverence, I kiss your sacred feet " (Voltaire's
W( rks, trans, by Smollett and Franckiin, London, 1763,
Vol. XXV, p. 16). It is plain from this that Voltaire was
cither a Catholic in heart, and an Infidel disi;embler, or else
he was an Infidel in heart, and a Catholic dissembler. But
have it as you will, he was a hypocrite. We have seen
already that Thomas Paine pretended to be a believer in the

•THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 207

Christian Eeligion during the period of the Revolution. It
is on record that David Hume advised a friend to take false
vows, and preach doctrines he did not believe, in order that
he might get the emoluments. For myself, I have always
been suspicious of the pretended respect of Materialistic
editors for Spiritualism.

Infidels are superstitious. If anything is a greater exhi-
bition of superstition than Spiritualism, I would like to know
what it is. The majority of the "clairvoyants," and
"astrologers," that disgrace our cities are "advanced"
Spiritualists, or some nondescripts in that neighborhood.
1 am really surprised to find The Truth Seeker, that
pretends to be so opposed to impostures of all kinds, adver-
tising "astrologers." Quite recently a gentleman in Wash-
ington was offering for sale Thomas Paine's old spectacles
and shoe-buckles (Truth Seeker, March 3, 1877). Verily!
some Infidels have come right down to venerating relics 1
'T have heard that extremes meet; and lo! an instance — the
Catholic and the Infidel meeting devoutly at the sacred
shrine of the Belie, the one kneeling in the presence of
Peter's sandal, and the other bowing before Paine's spec-
tacles! O, what a spectacle !

Infidels exercise Uind credulity. You will perhaps regard
this as the keenest cut of all. But nothing can be more
true. How many there are who believe everything they see
in Infidel papers! They do not verify what they read.
They simply sit down to swallow. Skeptics talk a great deal
about the conclusions of science. But can they personally
follow the astronomer through his computations ? Can
they personally accompany the geologist step by step until
he arrives at his inferences ? Can they personally compre-
hend and see all the intermediate "evidences " of Evolution?
No; not one in ten thousand is able to do this. They merely
accept by faith the conclusions of others. As far as they
themselves are concerned, it is " going it blind."
Infidels are very much given to copying one another.

208 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

How many have got into trouble because they quoted Vol-
taire, imagining that he was a reliable historian! Perhaps
you will allow me to say that your own "World's Sages,
Infidels, and Thinkers" is far from being trustworthy.
Many of its claims, assertions, and implications are demon-
sirably incorrect. Now I do not impute this to dishonesty
in my friend Mr. Bennett. I do not believe that he would
intentionally play the Ananias with the gold of Truth. I
ascribe it entirely to his unfortunate combination of credu-
lity and incredulity. He believes too much evil and too
little good about Christians, and he believes too much good
and too little evil about Infidels. The action of incredulity
always begets an equally great reaction of credulity.

Infidels are unprogressive. The Paine sect of unbelievers
is producing very little that is new. Nearly a century has
passed, and yet nothing better to offer a "thinker" than
the "Age of Reason"! Too bad! Voltaire's "Philo-
sophical Dictionary " is still kept in circulation, fraught
with the ignorance and blunders of more than a hundred
years ago ! The Infidels of to-day are living on old hash,
cold hash, and rehash

All this goes to show that "Liberals" have every fault
which they impute to Christians. They call themselves
" Reformers," but they are not reformed. They imagine
they are " advanced " and "progressive," when in reality
they are only going ahead like the crab— backwards. ^And
they are more hopeless than anybody because they fancy
they are superior to everybody.

My article is already long, and I must break off right
here. I trust that the reader has received some assistance
to see that Infidelity cannot be true, 1. Because even
Phrenology condemns it. 2. Because the average senti-
ment of mankind is against it. 3. Because it is hopelessly
self-contradictory, 4. Because it is a disorganizing, fatal
principle. 5. Because it is comparatively insincere. G.
Because it is consistent with immorality. And 7. Because

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 209

Infidels, though they style themselves "Reformers," have
all the imperfections of those whom they condemn and per-
secute.

I beg pardon, if occasionally I have been a little ironical
or sarcastic. I want to close with a good feeling all around.
I cherish the best wishes for my doubting friends. I would
that, as searchers for Truth, they would take for their ex-
ample some model man, like Sir Isaac Newton. In him
met all the elements of complete manhood. He was as pure
as the snow-flake, and as strong as the granite. He was as
simple as a child, and as profound as Nature. He combined
in his soul the critical and the devout, the manly and the
godly. To be one such a man is better than to be a thousand
kings. Yours with respect, G. H. Humphkey.

MR. BENNETT.

Eev. G. H! Humphrey, Dmr Sir: I fancy I see you
walking over your domain endeavoring to repair the dam-
ages of the storm of argument which so recently swept
over it. I see you anxious to replace and readjust the posts,
etc., which you had so carefully planted, and that the task
is too hard for you. But I perceive, too, that you have the
faculty, where you cannot remedy the effects of the storm,
of quietly letting it pass and of saying nothing about it.
Where you were damaged the most and your posts are
completely gone, you say not a word.

In your subsequent efforts to recover from the damage
you become excited and wild. You remind me of a dis-
comfited champion of the prize ring who has received such
stunning blows that his head rings and swims, his face
bleeding, his eyes swollen and closed, his strength ex-
hausted, and he strikes wildly and frantically in all di-
rections without object or aim. What have the adver-

210 THE HUMPHBBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

tisements in the columns of The Truth Seeker and other
journals, the treatment of spermatorrhcea, the sale of medical
works, astrology, Paine Hall, Science Hall, The World's
Sages, George Francis Train, Mrs. Woodhull, John A Lant,
and many other things you strike at and clutch at, to do
with the subject under discussion ? Where your posts were
entirely swept away, I see you fain would set up new ones,
but they will hardly serve you. I fancy you appear to
better advantage on '* the back seat of the car of Progress,"
throwing out your hand-bills, claiming great scientific
achievements for Christianity than in the role of a post-
setter and defender, or as a bully in the P. R.

I can hardly notice all the points you touch upon, but you
make so many glaring misstatements and misrepresentations
that I cannot let all pass unnoticed. While I have you
under my charge I feel a certain responsibility for your
conduct, and cannot let you make misstatements without
applying a gentle corrective. I fear your cause is not a good
one if misrepresentation is necessary to help you out. It
may be set down as an axiom that Truth never needs faUe-
Tiood to sustain it. You doubtless think with Paul, your
guide and authority, that falsehood and guile may serve a
good purpose in certain emergencies (Rom .iii, 7, "For if
the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto
his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner," and 2
Cor. xii, 16, "But be it so, I did not burden you; never-
theless, being crafty, I caught you with guile"), but the
clearest judges do not accept falsehood and guile as proper
factors in making up the most excellent moral character or
as the best agencies with which to efiect good works. Let
me point out some of your departures trom truth.

1. You say I failed to strengthen my claim to Peter
Cooper. I think not. I proved that he admitted that he was
a heretic. He is not orthodox, and will so admit to you if
you call upon him. What if Paine's works are not in his
library and the Bible is? He did not select the books for

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 211

<

the library. He does not believe all contained in the boolis
in the library, nor discard all in books not in it. The
Life of Paine and Voltaire's Writings are there, and if
your argument proves anything, Peter Cooper must believe
them. On a certain occasion, in a short speech at a public
meeting in his hall, Mr. Cooper admitted that he did not
regard the Bible stories of the creation, the fall of man, and
the flood, as being literally true, but as mere legends. Be-
sides, let me inform you that Paine's Work's are in his
library — now, if not -when you looked for them.

2. You say all I have said about Cornell University is dis-
proved by the quotation you make from President White.
Not so. It does not disprove a word of it. The assertions
I made are true and must stand. Of course, he wishes to
have religious young men attend his school, and he
caters somewhat to them, but neither he nor acting-Presi-
dent Kussell are believers in the central dogmas of Chris-
tianity.

3. The silence of Herodotus about Jerusalem and the
Temple is a proof that they were not in existence, or were
not worthy of remark. He visited Syria twice; and as Pal-
estine is included in Syria, had there been such a city, such
a nation, or such a temple, he assuredly would have known
it and described them. He may also have visited Rome,
and his allusions to that city may have been in the portions
of his works that were lost. What he wrote about Syria is
not lost, and he says not a word about that part of it where
the nomadic Jews resided.

4. You misrepresent Prof. Rawson. You say he stands
alone among travelers in holding that there are no indica-
tions of ancient civilization in Palestine. He has not
claimed that there are no proofs there of an ancient civiliza
tion. He readily admits it, but claims they are not proofs
of Hebrew civilization. There are luins there of Egyptian,
Grecian, Roman, and Arabic origin, but nothing distinct-
ively Jewish. Neither does he stand alone in this position.

'212 THE HtJMPHRElY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

Dr. Robinson practically admits the same, and is confirmed,
as I showed in my last, by Captains Wilson and Warren.

I see you dislike to acknowledge the fact that the Jews
were semi-barbarians, but you may as well do so with the
best grace you can. Their being degraded slaves in Egypt
would not disprove it. Slaves are not apt to be far ad-
vanced in education and civilization. Your attempts to
prove that they were not barbarians by referring to the
silly story of Jacob and his ringed and streaked sticks, and
about Queen Sheba coming "from the uttermost p'arts of
the earth," seem to me weak and sophistical. Where are the
"uttermost parts of the earth" located? That the Jews were
barbarians it is only necessary to state that they offered as
sacrifices both animals and human beings. For an instance
of the latter, I will refer you to the case of Jephtha and his
daughter, and to Leviticus xxvii, 28 and 29. "Notwith-
standing no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the
Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast," etc.
"None devoted of man shall be redeemed; but shall surely
be put to death." That they also ate human flesh I will
refer you to the following passages; Deut. xxviii, 53-57;
Lam. iv, 10; Ezelnel xxxix, 18, and Bar. ii, 3.

5. It is hardly fair in you, after I had given you Prof.
Rawson's name and address, and after you had called upon
liim several times, to still insinuate that I withhold authori-
ties. I will in all cases give them where it is necessary.
The statement that Peter Cooper calls himself a "heretic"
is from Mr. Egbert Hasard, a cultivated and well-known
gentleman.

6. Your repetition that the excesses connected with the
French Revolution and the Reign of Terror were a part
of the i^rogramme of Freethought is most untrue. If you
assert it a thousand times, it is still untrue. They were
^vho]ly political in character and origin. The Reign of
Terror began with the reign of Robespierre, and continued
while he was in power. He was the leading spirit of the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 213

times; and for proof that he was a Christian, a religious
fanatic, I will refer you to Chamber's Encyclopedia, and
to Thiers' French Revolution, vol. ii, p. 376, and vol. iii.
pp. 11, 12.

7. You say: "Infidelity is always flattering human
nature." Untrue. It simply aims to tell the truth about it
and to show how much it is capable of doing. Christianity
is always demeaning human nature, insisting that it is
totally depraved and incapable of itself of doing anything
good or praiseworthy. The doctrine of total depravity leaves
no room for good in the human heart. Infidelity in this
respect teaches truth, and Christianity falsehood,

8. You say: " Infidelity is not self-consistent." It is per-
fectly so. However diflScult it may be to decide the nature
of a Supreme Power, or whether we have an individual ex-
istence after this life, the rejection by all classes of Liberals
of the absurd dogmas upon which the Christian religion is
founded is perfectly consistent and perfectly correct.

9. You insist that Infidelity is inferior to the Scriptures
because it is disintegrating and disorganizing. Incorrect.
While Infidelity does not form creeds and dogmas, it accepts
the moral law of doing the greatest good to our fellow-be-
ings, compatible with individual rights. Infidelity is supe-
rior to the Scriptures because it rejects the supernatural, it
is less contradictory, less obscene, less bloody, less murder-
ous, less cruel. Do you pretend to say there is more diversity
of opinion among Infidels than there is among Christians
with their hundreds of modifications and difi"erences over
which they have contended and fought for nearly twenty
centuries?

10. You say "the history and teachings of Infidelity
prove that its tendency is to universal disintegration and
decomposition — ihat- is, universal death." This assertion is
entirely devoid of truth. Pagan and anti-Cbristian nations
have been as much devoted to the organization of families
and societies. as Christendom has ever been. Pagan sages

214 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

and philosophers have never been excelled in their inculca-
tions respecting the sanctity of home, duties to parents,
children, and all members of society. I refer you to the
Institutes of Menu, the teachings of Zoroaster, Buddha, Con-
fucius, Mencius, Bias, Socrates, Epicurus, Plato, and num-
erous others of later date.

11. You declare that "Advanced thinkers are endeavor-
ing to sever the golden bonds of the family." Untrue.
The leading thinkers and reformers are seeking to make
family love and family happiness more perfect and more
productive of good. As a complete refutation of your
assertion, let me refer "you to the lecture of Col. Robert G.
Ingersoll, our leading exponent of Liberalism, upon the
"Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," which appeared in
the last issue of The Truth Seeker, and which contains
eloquent appeals for the sanctity of the home and mar-
riage relation. The marriage ceremony itself is an In-
fidel institution. It originated with the pagans, and was
adopted from them by the Christians. It was jonr oi'gan-
izing Jesus who taught: "If any man come to me, and
hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). When making such sweep-
ing charges as you do, you should adduce some proofs.
Who are they who are " endeavoring to Fever the golden
bonds "? Either name them or cease to make the charge.

12. You next say, "If Freethinkers are law-abidiflg cit-
izens, it is because they are inconsistent." It is a marvel to
me how a man who makes any pretension to sanity and
truthfulness can make such a reckless assertion. Free-
thinkers are law-abiding citizens for the same reason that
all good people are who recognize the necessity of law and
order in the regulation of society.

13. Again, you say: "Were the In fidef/ doctrine to be
applied simultaneously to everything, the whole world
would be in a state of* hopeless anarchy in twenty four

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 215

hours. " I do not know how a man could insert more untruth-
fulness and absurdity in a single sentence. There is not a
word of truth in it. Infidelity is simply a denial of the super-
natural origin of the Bible and Christianity. Nine tenths
of the inhabitants of the world are disbelievers in this di-
vinity, and they still do not exist in a state of anarchy, but
are absolutely more orderly and moral than Christians.
Verily, my friend, you have taken the text for your last
letter from Rom. iii. 7 previously quoted; and, of course, to a
man who can accept such immoral teachings as the word of
God, truth must always be subservient to the interests of
his creed or of himself. The evil effects of a thorough be-
lief in the Bible are making themselves manifest.

14. You have the hardihood to assert that "Pure Infidel-
ity has produced no orders, brotherhoods or societies; it has
created no institutions of charity or learning." Wholly
untrue. Nations not accepting Christianity have produced
far more orders, societies, brotherhoods, associations, and
the like than Christianity has done. There are at the present
time in the world hundreds, yea, thousands of societies and
associations under Infidel auspices. They have established
numerous colleges and institutions of learning and charity.
Do not be so blind or narrow-minded as to think that
Christianity has done all that has been effected in this line.

15. You say; "The Bible inculcates and Christians ex-
ercise more sincerity than Infidels practice." A most
ridiculous absurdity, and not susceptible of proof. No
class of people in the world exercise mere sincerity than
Infidels; and as proof I assert the fact that to maintain
their honest convictions they bear the opprobrium, abuse,
and condemnation of the votaries of theological mysticism
who belong to the popular respectable (?) class. It takes a
sincere, honest, and truly brave man to be a good Infidel.

16. You reiterate the threadbare untruth that " a great
many Infidels have betrayed their life-long hypocrisy by
their death-bed misgivings and confessions." It is perhaps

2V^ THE nUMPmiEY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

harsh to tell a man he utters a falsehood, but in this case it
is mild I language to do so. The charge is as false as the
doctrine of hell ! No distinguished Infidel has confessed
his error on his death-bed, nor recanted his views, and I
defy you to prove where one has. But there are thousands
of cases where Christians have died in great doubt, and in
utter fear and terror. " Martin Luther despaired of the sal-
vation of his soul. Shortly before his death his concubine
pointed to the brilliancy of the stars of the firmament:
'See, Martin, how beautiful that heaven is.' *It does
not shine in our behalf,' replied the master, moodily. ' Is
it because we have broken our vows?' resumed Kate, in
dismay. 'May be,' said Luther. 'If so, let us go back.'
*Too late, the hearse is stuck in the mire;' and he would
hear no more. At Eishenben, on the day previous to that
on which he was stricken with apoplexy, he remarked to
his friends: 'I have almost lost sight of the Christ, tossed
as I am by these waves of despair which overwhelm me,
and after a while he continued, ' I who have imparted sal-
vation to so many cannot save myself. ' . . ' He died
forlorn of God, blaspheming to the very end.' Schussel-
berg, a Protestant, writes thus of the death of Calvin:
'Calvin died of scarlet fever, devoured by vermin, and
eaten up by an ulcerous abcess, the stench whereof drove
away every person ' ( Tkeol. Calvin^ t. ii. p, 72). * In great
misery he gave up the ghost, despairing of salvation, evok-
ing devils from the abyss, and uttering oaths most horrible,
and blasphemies most frightful.' John Hazen, a disciple
of Calvin, and an eye-witness of his death, writes thus:
' Calvin died in despair. He died a death hideous and
revolting, such as God threatened the impious and repro-
bate with.' And he adds: 'I can vouch for the truth of
every word, because I have been an eye-witness ' {Be vita
Calvin), . Spalatin, Justus, Jonas, Isinder, and a host of
other friends of Luther, died either in despair or crazy.
Henry VIlI. died bewailing that he had lost heaven, and

THE HUMPHBEY-BKNNETT DISCUSSION. 217

his woitliy daughter Elizabeth breathed her last in deep
desolation, stretched on the floor — not daring to lie in bed,
because at the first attack of her illness she imagined she
saw her body all torn to pieces and palpitating in a caul-
dron of fire " (Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day,
by M. Segur),

How did your own dear Savior leave this world ? In
utter fear and terror, crying out in mental agony, ^^ Eloi,
Eloi, lama sahacthani! — My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me !" How different the death of these great
lights of your Church from the courage and calmness dis-
played by Socrates, Bruno, Spinoza, Mirabeau, Hume, Vol-
taire, Volne}'-, Hobbs, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Gibbon, Jef-
erson, Ethan Allen, Paine, Kneeland, Theodore Parker, John
Stuart Mill, Michael C. Kerr, and hosts of other unbelievers
who died peacefully and placidly, without the slightest
fear. ''In all my experience," says the Rav. Theodore
Clapp, for a long time a prominent clergyman of New
Orleans, and who doubtless preached nearly ten times as
long as you have, "1 never saw an unbeliever die in
fear. I have seen them expire, of course, without any
hopes or expectations, but never in agitation from dread or
misgivings as to whgit might befall them hereafter. It is
probable that I have seen a greater number of those called
irreligious persons breathe their last than any other clergy-
man in the United States. . . When I first entered the
clerical profession I was struck with the utter inefficiency
of most forms of Christianity to afford consolation in the
dying hour." Add to this the testimony of a great light
of your own Church, the Rev. Albert Barnes, who for half
a century preached the gospel of Jesus to anxious souls. As
he neared the close of a long, busy life he said: "I see
not one ray to disclose to me the reason why sin came
into the world, why the earth is strewn with the dying
and the dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity.
I have never seen a particle of light thrown on these sqlh

218 THE HITMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

jects that has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind;
nor have I an explanation to offer or a thought to suggest
that would be a relief to you. I trust other men, as they
profess to do, understand this better than I do, and that
they have not the anguish of spirit I have; but I confess,
when I look on a world of sinners and sufferers, upon
death-beds and graveyards, upon the world of woe, filled
with hearts to suffer forever; when I see my friends, my
parents, my family, my people, my fellow citizens; when
I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and dan-
ger; when I see the great mass of them wholly unconcerned;
and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he
does not do it, I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark to
my soul, and 1 cannot disguise ii" (Practical Sermons, p. 124).

Thus we see, from Christian authorities, that instead of
Infidels dying in fear and terror, it is leading Christians
who have ddne this; it is they who so frequently recoil at
the approach of the King of Terrors.

It is an unfair insinuation in you to attempt to make it
appear as cowardice in Paine that he deferred the publica-
tion of the Age of Reason till the latter part of his life.
There is not the slightest warrant for your doing this. To
charge Thomas Paine with moral cowardice is like charging
the sun with being the source of darkness.

You quote Dr. Johnson as calling Bolingbroke a coward,
but Johnson was himself far more a coward. He was
noted for his timidity and superstition, and he entertained
a perfect horror of death.

17. You say, "The insincerity of Infidels is shown by
the scantiness of their efforts to propagate their ideas.''
Not so. AVhile they do not bcdieve the promulgation of
their views is necessary to save souls from the seething lake
of fire and brimstone, they have evinced commendable zeal
in bringing their views to the knowledge of their fellow
beings. Many have spent their lives in disseminating the
truths of Liberalism, and with slight expectation of pecu-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 219

niary remuceration. I claim to be one of this class. I
have devoted my time and strength to this labor of love.
I do not believe there is a Christian in the country who
gives as many hours' service in a year to spreading his
views as I do mine, and who does it with less expectation
of making money by it,

18. Again, you say, " Freethou^ht lecturers have to do
a prodigious amount of advertising, drumming up, and
self-pufflng." This is a contradiction of your previous
assertion. It is a specimen of your fairness and consistency
to taunt Infidels with making no efforts to promulgate their
views and in^ie same breath to asperse them for making
" prodigious " efforts in that direction. Our lecturers do
not do a "prodigious amount of advertising," but a limited
amount. Our two most popular lecturers, logersoll and
Underwood, are under very little necessity of advertising.
Ing^rsoll, without a single effort of the kind, could have
fifty audiences for every night in the year, could he serve
them Underwood has more calls for his services than
he is able to supply. He is compelled to refuse many ap-
plications. It is not necessary for him to advertise. New
lecturers have, of course, to make themselves known. Your
fling at the cost of Infidelity is iu keeping with your other
criticisms. Christianity has cost the world a thousand
times more than Infidelity ever has or ever will.

19. You say, "Infidel journals are not well supported."
Th'y are supported well enough to continue to exist. The
Investigator has put iu an appearance every week for
nearly half a century. Newer papers, considering the time
and capital employed, have done well. Have Church
paper.s all done well ? Far greater numbers of them have
been forced to the wall for want of adequate support
than Liberal papers. How is it with the Christian daily,
The Witness, which has been running a long time at a heavy
loss ? The compositors and other employees recently struck
for the $3,000 that is owing them for their labor, and the

220 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

paper was compelled to be issued with a single page of new
matter. My compositors have never been under the neces-
sity of striking. They have received their pay every Satur-
day night.

As to efforts being made to "freeze The Truth Seeker
out," I know nothing of it. Just now the temperature is
such that freezing seems to be the most unlikely misfortune.
It began with the financial panic in the autumn of 1873. It
had neither capital nor experience to back it; but iu spite
of the unprecedented hard times it has grown from a
monthly to a semi-monthly, then to a weekly, and its num-
ber of patrons and readers has steadily increased.

20. You say Science Hall "is a dingy little back room."
Not true; it is of fair size; 80 by 35 feet, and has seats for
about five hundred persons. It is not gorgeously fitted up
with richly cushioned seats and a $10,000 organ, but it is
not dingy. It is no farther back from the street than nine
tenths of the churches in this city, and is more quiet for
being removed from the front. Do you think your churches
would be more pleasurable if the pulpits were close to the
noisy streets ? Scientific apparatus, diagrams, and costly
illustrations are used there when needed. I have seen them
all used there repeatedly, but not once in any of your
churches. Whatever aspersions you may please to make
about want of grandeur and style in Science Hall, I can
assure you it was not stolen, and it is not in debt. It is not
likely soon to be sold out at Sheriff's sale, as was the altar,
the pulpit, the organ, and all the holy paraphernalia at the
" Church of the Holy Savior " recently, to pay a debt the
church could not meet. I will call your attention to a
recent article in the Tribune, taken from the county records,
showing on fifty-four churches of this city, of various
denominations, mortgages amounting to $2,367,880, and
will ask you whether it is not better for Science Hall
to rest under your imputation of being little and *' dingy "
Ihan to be grand and fashionable by followingthe Christian

tHE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 221

example of going in debt to accomplish it ? If Science
Hall people had borrowed $40,000, which is less than the
average owing on the fifty -four churches alluded to, they
doubtless could have fixed the place up splendidly, but they
preferred to not be embarrassed with such a debt for mere
grandeur.

In enumerating the places in the city where Liberal meet-
ings are held, it would not have been unfair to have named
the magnificent Masonic Temple where Mr. Frothlng-
ham discourses to lar^re audiences, Standard Hall, where
Professor Adler holds forth to the Ethical Society,
Republican Hall and Harvard Rooms, where the Spiritual-
ists meet regularly, and the hall in which the Cosmopolitan
Conference meets every Sunday, at 1214 Broadway.

21. You set it down as an axiom, that "Immorality is con-
sistent with Infidelity.'' It is most untrue. Infidels are
admirers of virtue, morality, and good deeds. They
esteem them for the results they produce, and not be-
cause they think the practice of them will save anybody
from a literal hell. Knowing they cannot be counted
righteous by the good deeds of another, they realize the
necessity of performing the good deeds themselves. They
are lovers of virtue for virtue's sake, and not for Jesus' sake.

22. Again you say, "An Infidel cannot injure his standing,
as an Infidel, by anything he may do. No injustice or vile-
ness on his part could bring mankind to feel that he had
violated his principles. " I cannot conceive how a man could
go to work to state a more palpable untruth. Infidels are
just as susceptible to the effects of bad conduct as any class
of men in the world. Injustice and vileness sink them in
the estimation of their fellow-beings as much as any class
of men. It is the Christian who can consistently commit
unmanly deeds and be guilty of immoral conduct, for he
does not expect to be saved by his own merits, nor to be
damned for his misdeeds; it is faith in the blood of Jesus
that takes him to heaven. It is the dying pangs of his

222 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Savior that waft his soul to Paradise. No matter how
much vile conduct he may be guilty of, if he only has
"faith," he is all safe. Let him contract ever so many
debts, " Jesus pays it all."

23. You step out of your way to throw filth and abu.-e
upon the memory of some of the best men the woild has
ever produced. While there may be some truth in your
charges, they are distorted, and you traduce where praise
is more deserved. I can hardly take the room to follow
you in all cases, and show how unjust your charges are.
Girard did not make his wife insane by quarreling with
her. You have no grounds for insinuating that Paine lived
improperly with Mrs. Bonneville. You have thrown out
this slander before, but offered no adequate proof to sustain
it. I should be equally justified in claiming that Jesus
committed adultery with the Mary whom he loved so well.
Goethe was not an immoral man. Rousseau was an
upright, well-disposed man. Voltaire was not a perjurer.
Chesterfield did not seek to make his son a whoremaster.
John Stuart Mill sustained a character too pure for you to
besmirch, Shelley was not guilty of wroDg in leaving his
wife; nor was he dissolute. What are the facts in his case?
When a mere boy he was expelled from college and driven
from home because he presumed to disbelieve what the
orthodox taught about God and devils. Two years before
he became of age he was thrown in the company of Harriet
Westbrook, and they, as boys and girls so often do, fell in
love with each other. She proposed to elope with him, but
he declined to do this, and they were legally married. But
unfortunately, as is too often the case, as time sped away,
they found they were uncongenial to each other. This
state of things was intensified by the conduct of a maiden
sister of the wife, who, because of Shelley's unbelief, used
every effort to turn her sister's mind against him. They
finally mutually agreed to separate, and the same was done
with the approbation of the wife's father. Shelley did not

THE HUMPHKEr-BEKNETT DISCUSSION. 22u

forsake her, but contributed to her support and felt friendly
towards her. The world has produced few more brilliant,
amiable and pure men than was Percy Bysshc Shelley; and
though he died before he reached his thirtieth year, he has
left such a monument of the beautiful creations of his gen-
ius ar.d sterling truths as will carry his name in honor and
glory down to the latest generation. Byron, it is true,
was wild and amorous; but he, too, died young. Had he
lived to late manhood, it may well be supposed he would
have "sowed his wild oats," and become a staid and
exemplary member of society.

Your flings at Geo. Francis Train, John A. Lant, Dr. Foote,
Charles Bradlaugh, and the fanatic and insane Pike are per-
haps worthy of you. Let me assure you that neither of
these were really guilty of obscenity. Dr. Foote and Brad-
laugh published scientific information needed by tbe peo-
ple. Train published without comment portions of the
" Holy Scriptures. " Lant did even less. These were all
victims of Christian bigotry and oppression. Let me also
assure you that Mrs. Woodhull has never been claimed
by the Infidels of this country. She is one of your kind,
and is a strong believer in the Bible. She takes it with
her upon the lecture platform, and selects texts from it the
same as you and her other brethren do. She prevented a
witness from being allowed to testify in court because he did
not believe in the "Gawd" of the Bible. It is asserted that
she has joined the Church, so I beg of you not to traduce a
sister in the Lord as being the " quintessence of nastiness."
You have, of course, studiously hunted up all the dark
spots you could find on the escutcheon of prominent Infi-
dels, and you have presented them to their worst advantage.
But really what does it all prove? It proves that unbeliev-
ers are human beings, and have sometimes made mistakes.
What class of men is there in the world, that running over
their records for hundreds of years, as many charges could
not be brought against them ?

224 THE HUMPHREY-BENI^ETT DISCUSSION. \

You have succeeded in giving at most but a short cata-
logue of the errors of Infidels, men who claimed no power
from on high to aid them in withstanding the impulses of
human nature. To counterbalance the arraignment let me
before I close give you a single chapter of the crimes of the
old patriarchs and worthies of the Jewish Church and some
of the spiritual leaders and bright lights of the Christian
Church— men who are thought to have the spirit of God
with them to guide them aright, and the sanctification and
holiness of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, not only to aid
them to lead pure lives but to be leaders and pilots to those
having less assistance from the heavenly throne. I will
resume this part of my snbject further on.

24. You say " Ingersoll — having nothing else to do— has
gone to the California heathen to tell them about his
Ghosts," etc. How do you know so well that he has noth-
ing else to do ? Let me inform you that he is one of the
ablest and most popular lawyers in Illinois, and for years
has had a large and constantly increasing practice. As a
reply to your aspersions that Infidels have no missionary
societies, let me say, that had they such organizations, it
would not cost thirty-nine out of every forty dollars re-
ceived by them to pay the officers, etc., as was the case
with the pious St. John's Guild in this citj'', nor ninety-nine
out of every hundred dollars received, as is tiie case with
the Christian foreign missions. The poor heathen who
stand in so much danger of being plunged into hell do not
really get the benefit of one dollar in a hundred of the
money that is persistently begged from Sunday-school chil-
dren, servant girls, and silly children of older growth. The
thousands thus obtained are used to pay the numerous offi-
cers of the organizations, and to line the pockets of the
attaches, unsalaried priests, etc.

25. You assert that " Christianity condemns immorality,
while Infidelity is consistent with it and encourages it."
Why, my pious friend, do you make such reckless asser-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 22.)

Lions ? Christianity excels no religion in tke world in con-
demning immorality. It has sanctioned, and its believers
have prdcticed, for many centuries the grossest of crimes.
There is more crime in Christian countries than in any
others on the globe. If Christian doctrines are true, moral-
ity is wholly unnecessary. Morality cannot save the world
but the blood of Christ can, and it can save an immoral
world — an immoral people — just as well as a moral one.
Faith is the only ingredient necessary. Infidelity does uoL
encourage immorality. It exalts morality and teaches that
it is the source of happiness. It does not call it " filthy
rags," etc., as Christians have done thousands upon thou-
sands of times.

26. You again repeat that "Infidelity invites and is con-
sistent with every species of iniquity." In the mildest
language I can command I must characterize this charge as
uncalled for, uncharitable, unfair, and positively false! I
demand of you to prove your charge or withdraw it. It
avails you little to quote Franklin in a remark about '^re-
ligion." He does not sustain your slanderous position at
all. Of course he had a sincere veneration for religion, but
none for Christianity. He did not laud the Christian dog-
mas, nor harp about the blood of Jesus. Until you can
show when he praised the Christian faith, and acknowl-
edged it as his, it will be quite as well for you not to claim
him as a supporter of your system.

37. You say " logersoU is 'matchless' at cursing and
swearing." Mistakes again. You wrong the gentleman. ;
He may occasionally use some expletives, but there are
thousands of clergymen in the country who surpass him a
long way in cursing and swearing. I have been in his com-
pany for hours, and at different times, but do not remem-
ber to have heard him swear or curse. You should be a
little more careful in making charges.

28. Again you say, "Infidels are illiberal They have
endowed scarcely any institutions of learning," etc. You

236 THE HUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

thus wrong them again. With the bequests of Stephen
Girard, Smithson, Peter Cooper, Gerrit Smith, and James
Lick in memory, how can you make such a statement ?
When Liberals give in charity it is not as a sect, an order,
or as a class, but as citizens of the world. I know not why
they should not be just as generous to give according to
their means as believers in myths and superstitions. It was
the practice of Christianity for so many centuries to kill off
the Infidels that the latter had few opportunities to accum-
ulate wealth to give away. It kept them pretty busy to
save their lives.

29. You say " There was a furious rumpus at one of the
'Liberal Club' elections." How easy it was for you to
exaggerate and misrepresent. There was some difference
of opinion as to which members were suitable or unsuitable
for certain ofllces, but there was nothing "furious" or vio-
lent about it. Have not Liberals the same right to disagree
in matters of opinion of this kind that Christians exercise
so largely ? There is nothing in the country more common
than church quarrels and fights. Hundreds of cases could
be cited were it necessary, The proportion of church quar-
rels to Liberal quarrels is probably a million to one.

30. Again, you say " Infidels are hypocritical." Indeed !
It took you to make that discovery! It is possible some of
the weaker ones, in order to keep on good terms with Mrs.
Grundy and Mrs. McFlimsy, may not be outspoken in ac-
knowledging how little they believe, but it is only the weak
ones who act in this way. The bulk of Infidels show a
great amount of honesty and independence in acknowledg-
ing their views. You must have been put to your trumps
to rake up charges against them.

31. "Infidels are superstitious." This is too weak to
demand attention. If there are any people in the world
free from superstition they are Infidels. They have no
faith in myths and supernaturalism. They believe in the
Universe — in matter and the powers and forces that pertain

:nE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 227

to it, aucl ill nothing else. Superstition forms no part of
their composition. As to astrologers, it is, perhaps, hardly
worth your while to slur them. There have been, and still
are, men with more iDtelligence than you and I both possess
who believe that the planets exercise a decided influence on
the people and affairs of this world. Thales, Pythagoras,
Hippocrates, Aristotle, Claudius Ptolemy, Roger Bacon,
Lord Francis Bacon, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and Sir Isaac
Newton, were firm believers in astrology. Your rap at the
advertisements that appear in the columns of The Truth
Seeker was hardly necessary. The publishers of papers
are never expected to endorse every advertisement that is
brought to them. Christian papers advertise patent medi-
cines, gift concerns, insurance companies, patent rights,
etc., and nobody thinks they are responsible either for the
worth or worthlessness of the articles advertised.

32. "Infidels exercise blind credulity." Then you add,
"You will perhaps regard this as the keenest cut of all."
O, no! I don't think it keen at all. If instead of "keen"
you had said " silly," I would not have disputed you. Of
all the people in the world Freethinkers are the least given
to blind credulity. It takes solid proofs and facts to con-
vince them.

83. "Infidels are very much given to copying." Not
any more than other people. That they sometimes use argu-
ments that others of their numbers have used is not impos-
sible. I believe there is no law against it. A good argu-
ment will bear repealing. But do not Christians pattern
after one another ? Have they not been preaching the same
fables, and telling the same talcs about God's anger, the
fountain of Jesus' blood, the lake of burning sulphur, and
all the rest of that similar nonsense, for many centuries ?

34. You have the kindness or unkindness to allude in
some ralher uncomplimentary remarks to my work, "The
World's Sages," etc. You pronounce it "untrustworthy"
and "demonstrably incorrect." You may be right. It may

228 THE HBMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

be wholly untrustworthy, but allow me to say in the most
gentle manner that if I thought there were half as many
errors of statement in it as there are errors of doctrine in
your little volume of 130 pages on your favorite theme of
"Hell and Damnation" — in which you labor so earnestly
to prove an angry God, a personal Devil, a literal Hell of
fire and brimstone in which hundreds of millions of help-
less beings are to fry forever — I would get them all together
nnd burn them to ashes. The facts contained in my vol-
ume were taken from biographies and cyclopedias of the
highest reliability, and I am very sure no fact was distorted
or misrepresented. The information regarding moderns
treated in the work was sometimes obtained from the par-
ties themselves, and sometimes from near friends. I assure
3^ou truth and accuracy were the ends kept in view.

35. ' ' Infidels are unprogressive. . . Nearly a century
has passed, and yet nothing better to offer a thinker than
Paine's Age of Reason. . . The Infidels of to-day are
living on old hash, cold hash, and re-hash." You certainly
have the faculty of compressing untruth into a small space
to a greater extent than any other person I can think of.
There may be truth in your remark that there is nothing
better than the Age of Reason. In its way it is hard to
beat, and has never been refuted nor answered by your
ablest clergymen. It will live long after you and I are for-
gotten. But you are greatly mistaken in thinking that
" thinkers " have had nothing given them since the Age of
Reason. With your knowledge of the works of Humboldt,
Darwin, Spencer, Mill, Tyndall, Huxley, Wallace, Amber-
ley, Holyoake, Bradlaugh, Draper, and many others, it is
most singular you should make such a statement. If we
can always have such old hash or cold hash as the writings
referred to, we think we shall thrive nicely. We greatly
prefer it to the brimstone broth which you ladle out.

36. Tour attempt to prove by phrenology that Infidelity
is false appears to me futile, and as evidence of it I would

THE H0MPHBEY-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 229

say that phrenology is strictly a natural science, and has no
connection with the supernatural. Nearly all Freethinkers
and scientists accept phrenology as being mainly a true sci-
ence, which teaches that the brain is the organ of the mind,
and that character corresponds to structure.

37. The average sentiment of mankind is not against
Freethought any farther than it is cramped and dwarfed by
ecclesiasticism and superstition. Had it been, the Protes-
tant religion would never have been known, and instead of
you and I living to publish our opinions in an Infidel paper
we would long since have been burned on a pile of pine
wood carefully prepared by your Catholic mother whom
you have so unceremoniously shaken. Martin Luther was
a Freethinker for his time, and Infidels now are only finish-
ing the work which he commenced — the demolition of the
Christian religion. As fast as the human mind becomes
emancipated from mythological and theological dogmas
and errors, it is free to embrace the great truths of the Uni-
verse, which practically constitute them Freethinkers or
Infidels. The average sentiment of mankind is certainly
opposed to Christianit3^ If the majority is to decide what
is truth, your system could not get more than one vote in
ten, taking the whole world into account.

38. In your closing paragraph you make a very compli-
mentary allusion to iSir Isaac Newton, and hold him up as a
specimen of perfected manhood. Newton was a great man,
and when he kept within the range of positive science he
was mainly correct. But when he entered upon the realm
of superstition he was perfectly at sea, and steered wildly.
Biot, in his Life of Sir Isaac Newton, after giving a full
account qf his work (Observations upon the Prophecies oE
Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John), remarks: "'It will
doubtless be asked, how a mind of the character and force
of Newton's, so habituated to the severity of mathematical
considerations, so accustomed to the observation of real
phenomena, so methodical and so cautious even at his bold

230 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

est moments in physical speculation, and consequently so
well aware of the conditions by which alone truth is to be
discoTered, could put together such a number of conjec-
tures without noticing the extreme improbability that is
involved in all of them." "The only answer that can be
given to this question is, that this work was written at a
time w^hen Newton had almost ceased to think of science —
that is, after the fatal aberration of his intellect in 1693."
This is the answer, in brief, which Biot gives, and which is
accepted not only by scientists, but by the majority of well
informed theologians.

Thus I have followed you through more than a third of
a hundred errors and misrepresentations which you made.
Several others I must leave unnoticed this time. In taking
my leave of them, allow me to say I hope in the future you
will be more careful and guarded in your statements. It is
unpleasant to have to take so much time and space to cor-
rect your mistakes. My replies would not need to occupy
half the space they do were it not for correcting the egreg-
ious errors you appear so capable of makmg. A public
teacher like yourself ought to despise misrepresentation
and untruth.

You have a way of playing fast and loose with the Catholic
Church. When it suits your convenience to claim what it
has done as an honor to the Christian cause you readily
count it in as of the true elect, but when its damnable enor-
mities and abominations are in view, you find it equally as
convenient to disown it. I think in my former reply I said
sumething about the ingratitude of a child's turning against
its mother and denouncing her as an old prostitute. Such
conduct cannot be justified. You must remembe;- that all
that Protestantism has she obtained from the Mother
Church, and all that makes her any better than her crimi-
nal mother is the modicum of Infidelity and independence
she dared to espouse when she set up business for herself.

Let me now fulfill my promise and give you an install-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 231

iiicuL of the immoralities and crimes of distinguished patri
j.rchs and saints of olden and modern limes, to serve as an
offset to the short chapter of similar short-comings which
you arrayed against prominent Infidels. As you seem to be
fond of this kind of literature, it gives me pleasure to grat-
ify your tastes in that direction.

To begin with old Father Noah, we have Bible authority
that he was a drunkard, and that he indecently exposed him-
self while lying in a drunken debauch. That he cursed his
grandson and his descendants to perpetual slavery because
Ham laughed at old man Noah while thus lying drunk.
This is held to be the cause of African slavery, which your
own Church, the Presbyterian, has declared to be a divine
institution, and regarded itself as an agent to sustain it.

Lot was also guilty of drunkenness ancl of the horrible
crime of incest.

Abraham was not only a liar and an adulterer, but he
turned the woman he had used as a wife, together with his
own child, out in the wilderness to perish with hunger.

Isaac was a liar and foolish dissembler.

Jacob was a deceitful trickster, a liar, a swindler, an
adulterer, a polygamist and a fraud.

Keuben, son of Jacob, was guilty of cohabiting with his
father's concubine.

Judah, another son, was guilty of whoring on the public
highway.

Moses was a murderer, a bigamist, a thief, or the planner
of wholesale theft, he was a tyrant, a slaughterer in cold
blood of fifty to one hundred thousand women and chil-
dren. He turned thirty-two thousand innocent girls over
to his soldiers for the gratification of their brutal lusts.

Aaron was an idolater and a manufacturer of gods,

Joshua was a blood-thirsty slayer of the human race, a
brigand, a robber and an appropriator of other people's
property.

Gideon, besides being a reveller in human blood, a rob-

232 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

ber and despoiler, was a libertine — a regular Brigham
Young. He kept many wives and concubines for his own
use, and had seventy sons of his own begetting, not to
count the daughters.

Samson, another judge in Israel, was a murderer, a thief
and a dallier with a Philistine prostitute.

David, the sweet sieger in Israel, and the man after
God's own heart, was a robber, brigand and murderer. He
delighted in deeds of slaughter and bloodshed. He was
very sensual, keeping many wives and concubines. He
slyly watched the fair Bathsheba while she was caking a
bath, had her conveyed to his own bed, committed adultery
with her and then meanly and murderously caused her hus-
band to be put to death, and from that adulterous source the
Savior of man is claimed to have descended, but there is a
serious break in the lineage. As a proof that David had the
venereal disease very bad, I will refer you to Psalms xxxviii.

Amnon, a son of David, raped and ravished his own
sister.

Absalom, another son, held adulterous connection with
his father's concubines, and in view of all the people.

Solomon, the son of David and Bathsheba, was the most
lecherous man that ever lived. His seraglio consisted of
seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. He
was also a worshiper of idols.

Skipping several hundred years of lecherous and murder-
ous kings and rulers among the Jews, let us get down into
the heart of the Christian Church and see if they are any
better than unbelievers and pagans.

Peter was guilty of lying and treachery. He flew into a
passion and cut off a man's ear with a sword.

Paul advocated lying and guilt, if by them his purpose
could be achieved.

Eusebius was a falsifier, forger, and Interpol ater.

Constantine, the Great Christian Propagandist, murdered
his own son, his nephew, his wife— in all, he put to death

IJttB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 233

iitiven members of his own family — besides the numerous
other murders of which he was guilty.

St. Augustine was one of the most lecherous and dissi-
pated men in Carthage. A thousand times worse than Ben-
edict Arnold, he invited the Vandals under Genseric into
Africa io ravage and destroy his own country.

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, v^as a pious pillager and
a religious ruffian and has justly been styled "a bold,
bad man." By his order the Alexandrian Library was de-
stroyed.

St. Cyril was an atrocious assassin. The horrible murder
of ihe beautiful and talented Hypatia was ordered by him.
Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, beat to death the bishop
oi" Constantinople, while attending a Christian council.

St. Alexander, another bishop of Constantinople, poi-
soned Arius, a brother bishop.

Macedonius passed over the bodies of three thousand
men and women to obtain the bishopric of Constantinople.
St. Cyprian was guilty of so many black and damnable
crimes that it would take a volume to contain a recital
of tliem all. The history of his foul deeds may be found in
MosUeim and the Bihiioiheqe Universelle.

Charlemagne, styled "The Pious Augustus, crowned of
God," was a wholesale butcher, who, in one day, cut the
throats of 4,500 Saxons because they would not consent to
be oaptized.

Clovis, " The Eldest Son of the Church," assassinated his
relatives and all the princes eligible to the throne, and
removed by treachery and murder all the heads of the
Frankish tribes, and soaked the soil of Gaul with the blood
of the Ariau proprietors.

Theodosius, called the Great, massacred seven thousand
defenseless persons in the circus of Thesalonica.

Clotilda, wife of Clovis, and to whom he owed his con-
version, caused, in her old age, two of her grandsons to be
stabbed.

234 THB HUMFHKBY-BENl^ETT DISCUBSION.

Pope Joan, a prostitute, the head of the Church, aud
vicar of Jesus Christ, it is claimed gave birth to a child
in the streets while at the head of a religious procession.

Pope Gregory the Great sanctified the most atrocious
assassinations ever committed.

The pious Phocus assassinated his Emperor Maurice.

Pope John XII. was a drunkard, a profligate, and a mur-
derer. He converted the papal palace into a brothel. He
repeatedly raped widows, wives, and virgins while kneeling
at his shrine, invoking his holy aid in the practice of re-
ligious purity and piety.

Pope Gregory VII. lived in open adultery with Countess
Matilda.

Pope Innocent III. was one of the crudest persecutors
ever known. He caused hundreds of thousands of the
virtuous Albigenses to be put to horrible deaths. He often
used this expression: "Sword, whet thyself for vengeance.'
This miglit have been the sword which the lovely Jesus
spoke of having brought into the world in place of peace.

Pope Alexander VI. was guilty of the most brutal and
sensual conduct. He seduced his own daughter, and con-
spired with his son to poison four cardinals. Poisoniog
and gross licentiousness were his great delight. He was
unquestionably one of the most licentious villains that ever
lived.

Pope John XXII, a pirate in early life, was guilty of
simony, rape, sodomy, illicit intercourse with his brother's
wife, and of debauching three hundred nuns.

Pope Julius III. was a licentious brute. He committed
sodomy with boys, men, and even cardinals.

In fact, many of the popes and cardinals kept boys for
the express purpose of sodomy, and the cardinals often
committed this vile offense among themselves. Monks,
priests, and friars were notoriously guilty of this damnable
crime.

St. Dominic was the founder of the ** Holy Inquisition,"

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 235

the cruelest and most damnable organization ever iaslituled,
and whicli Victor Hugo claims caused the death of 5,000,000
persons.

Peter D. Arbuss was Inquisitor-General of Arragou, and
caused the most cruel deaths to great uumbers of heretics.

Pope Gregory IX. sent out bloody, murdering persecutors
against the Albigenses, caused the death of a great number
of men, women and children.

Simon de Montfort was a monster in human form. He
hung, gibbeted, butchered, slaughtered, and put to death in
every cruel manner that pleased his fancy, thousands of
hapless human beings whom he was pleased to regard as
heretics; and this was kept up for years.

Pope Alexander Hi issued an edict against those who did
not entertain the riglit faith, and caused the death of great
numbers.

Pope Innocent VIII. directed his Nuncio to take up arms
against the Waldenses and other heretics, and caused great
slaughter among them. Blood was made to flow in
rivers.

The Christian Catherine de Medici, the notorious poi-
soner, with her mad son, Charles IX., caused the butchery
of 66.000 people.

Duke Alva caused the death of 30,000 in the Netherlmds
because their faith was not of the grade he demand&d.

Torquemada, the cruel monster, was at the head of the
Inquisition, and caused the death of eight thousand people
in Spain because they did not agree with him in their opin-
ions.

Henry VIII. of England, " Defender of the Faith," burnt
many men and women at the stake. He beheaded two of
his six wives.

The pious "Bloody Mary" burnt three hundred persons
for diverging a trifle from her standard of the true faith.

John Calvin, the great founder of Presbyterianism, was a
tyrant and a murderer. He caused the death of two excel-

26b THE HUSIPHEEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

lent men, Michael Servetus and James Gruet, for not enter-
taining the required belief about the Trinity.

Munzer, disciple of Luther, was a reckless agitator. At
the head of 40,000 men he ravaged the country, bringing
destruction on many.

Claverhouse (Sir John Graham) was a marauding perse
cutor who at the head of a force of fanatics and murderers
spread desolation over much of England and Scotland.

Oliver Cromwell ordered or permitted the massacre at
Wexford, Ireland, of five thousand people, including three
hundred who had gathered around a cross pleading for
mercy. He also deluged the streets of Drogheda with
blood, and gave God the credit for doing it.

Cortez and Pizarro proved themselves cruel monsters in
Mexico and South America. They put many to death for
being heathens.

Guy Lusignan, first king of Jerusalem, was a murderer.

Louis XL was a cruel tyrant, who confined his dorbting
subjects in iron cages, and put many to death.

Bilhuaser Gerald, in a fit of religious zeal, committed
murder.

Revaillac assassinated Henry III. of France.

Guy Fawkes, in the interest of the Romish Church, at-
tempted to kill the king and both houses of Parliament.

Jeffreys, the Christian judge, was the most infamous that
ever sat on an English bench.

Pandulph, the Pope's legate to the Court of England,
though under a vow of celibacy, was found in bed with a
prostitute.

Archbishop Cranmer imported in a box a mistress from
Germany, and she came near being suffocated by the box
being left upside down.

Cardinal Woolsey was a lecherous man and died of
syphilis.

Revs. Parr is and Cotton Mather, in Salem, Mass., perse-
cute! many poor wretches to death upon the ground that

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 237

ihey were influenced by witches. Parris stood calmly by
while weights were piled upon an old man of eighty years
until liis tongue protruded from his mouth, when Parris
tried to poke it in again with his cane. The old man died
in agony.

Father Achillie was denounced in England by Cardinal
Manning for the lowest licentiousnefis and filth. The
father denied it most positively, whereupon Manning sent
to Italy and procured witnesses who proved such an amount
of lewdness, licentiousness, and vulgarity, as were before
seldom proved against a man. The pious man ultimately-
confessed all, but justified himself by claiming that he com-
mitted the vile offenses when he belonged to the Roman
Church, where such crimes were the common practice with
the clergy.

Bishop Armagh, Protestant, of West Ireland, was guilty
of long continued sodomy with his coachman. Upon discov-
ery both were compelled to flee the country.

Bishop Onderdonk, of the Episcopal Church in this city,
was deposed for being culpably guilty of lecherous conduct
with many females, some of whom were wives of clergy-
men, in his library J, and notoriously with his servant girls
in all parts of his premises.

Bishop Onderdonk, of Pennsylvania, brother to the
above, was convicted of similar conduct, and retired in dis-
grace.

Rev. L. M. P. Thompson, of the Second Presbyterian
Church in Cincinnati, regarded as the most able clergyman
in the city, was guilty of whoring and promiscuous inter-
course with many females. He was expelled from the min-
istry, and after confession he united with the Synod at Buf-
falo, and was allotted to a charge in Jamestown, but soon
fell into the same carnal practices, and was again expelled
from the Church. He is now traveling in Europe and act-
ing as correspondent for a religious weekly.

Rev. T. Turner, D.D., President of the English Wesleyan

238 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Conference, about 1850, was convicted of the seduction of
several servant girls. He left England in disgrace, and next
appeared in Australia.

Rev. Epliraim K. Avery, of the Methodist Church,
seduced a young girl and then murdered her. During the
long, searching trial the church swore him through and did
all they possibly could to screen him and keep him from
the hands of justice.

Rev. T. Marson, of the Methodist Book Concern, 1840,
was guilty of seduction and disgraced.

John Newland Maffit, Methodist, a great revivalist, was
widely known in the Western States thirty and forty years
ago. He talked and sung sweetly for Jesus, and pictured
hell in its most lurid colors, and gave the devil his very
blackest garb. His greatest love was for the dear sisters.
In revival times it was a common thing for him to put his
hand in their bosoms to see if they had the Holy Ghost,
and to go home with some kind sister and stay all night.
He committed adultery with the dears many scores of
times and in various parts of the country. The lovely
creatures deemed it a privilege to do for Bro. Mafflt
anything he wanted. I have received many authentic
statements of his antics with the sisters. A near and
excellent fiiend of mine, Oscar Roberts, saw MaflSt on
one occasion, in the private bed-room of one of the leading
sisiers of the church at two o'clock in the morning. A
bright fire m the vicinity brought them to the window, and
they exposed themselves before they thought. This was
during a big revival, and the next night he plead for Jesus
as earnestly as ever, and there was a great inflowing of the
spirit.

Rev. E. W. Sehon, a great light of the Methodist Church
iu the West, long a presiding elder, and afterwards at the
head of an educational establishment, had adulterous inter-
course with a prostitute late one evening in his own church
in Louisville, Ky. He was a very amorous man, and went

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 239

it "on the sly" with many of the good sisters. Many
charges of this kind were brought against him.

Rev. McCraig, El Paso, 111., was guilty of crim con with a
lady of the place and had to leave.

A clergyman of Detroit forsook his wife and went away
with another woman. He resumed preaching in the far
West and wrote back that he "hoped to meet his friends in
heaven."

Rev. Mr. Wesley, Geneseo, 111., ran away with another
man's wife.

Rev. E. P. W. Packard caused his wife to be confined in
un insane asylum because she would not believe that a por-
tion of the human race were destined to burn in hell for-
ever.

A Catholic priest of Evansville, Ind., was proved guilty
of gross improprieties and immoralities with the young girls
under his charge.

A clergyman of England not long ago was convicted of
forgery and other criminal conduct.

Rev. Mr. Torrey, of the Conference of Western New
York, was tried and convicted of holding assignations in
li's church. After prayer-meetings a select few of the sis-
ters would remain, the lights would be extinguished and
several hours, and sometimes the whole night, would be
spent iu sexual pleasure. A discovery was, however, made
and the interesting game closed. He was removed to an-
other field of labor.

Rev, Henry Brown, Methodist, seduced a girl in Texas
under promise of marriage.

Rev. A. Q , D.D., now preaching in a prominent

town in Massachusetts, officiated for a few weeks in
Plymouth pulpit in 1875, for Henry Ward Beecher. Dur-
ing his stay he was known to have adulterous intimacy with
two fancy women on Fourth avenue in this city. He some-
times had them both in bed at the same time. Proofs of
this can be produced if called for.

240 THB HUMPHBBY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION.

A well known D.D. and LL.D., for many years President
and Dean of one of the leading theological colleges of New
England, was in the habit of committing sodomy with cer-
tain students under his charge. He seduced for this pur-
pose a pleasing young man, and the abominable practice
was continued with him for sixteen years, and after the
young man also became a D.D. professor in the same col-
lege. This unnatural intercourse practically nnsexed the
younger man and depraved his tastes. He married, but
from consequent deficient virility growing out of the vile
habit alluded to, his wife was dissatisfied and committed
adultery with several of the professors of the college. This
horrible case can be fully attested by a learned physician of
this city, who gave the younger man surgical and medical
treatment for the physical injuries he had sustained in that
monstrous, criminal course of life.

Rev. S C , D.D., of this city, was a well

known whorist for more than twenty years.

There is now preaching in Brooklyn a distinguished D.D.
whom a friend of mine cured of gonnorhoea. The same
medical friend has treated numerous elders, deacons, clasg-
leaders, church stewards and church members ia almost
countless numbers for private diseases. Among this class
he has known many mere moral wretches whose history
was too low and filthy to relate in the public press. Names
can be given if insisted upon.

Rev. Mr. Allen, of Cincinnati, in 1865 and 1866 was con-
victed of intemperance and whoring.

Rev. J. S. Bartlett, Milford, Ohio, was guilty of criminal
intimacy with a pretty married woman of that town, who
had no children.

Rev. Mr. Linn, of Pittsburgh, was guilty of several im-
proprieties with the ladies of his congregation.

Rev. Maxwell P. Gaddis, an eloquent Methodist preacher
of Cincinnati, a loud temperance lecturer and United States
revenue collector under A. Johnson, was guilty of looseness^

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 241

whoring and drunkenness. His wife was also a loose char-
acter, and had sexual connection with numbers of men. A
pretty pair of pious cases, indeed I

Kev. Miriam D. Wood, of Decatur, seduced Miss Emma
J. Chivers. Result, a bouncing boy without a legal father.
Rev. J. M. Mitchell, of Savanah, Ga., and formerly from
Maine, was guilty of improprieties with females of his fold.
When charged with the offences, he stoutly denied it, and
asserted his innocence ; but when proofs accumulated and
stared him in the face, he was compelled to confess to
Bishop Beckwilh, that he was not only guilty of the offen-
ces as charged, but that he had used the grossest falsehood
in endeavoring to conceal his crimes.

The embroglio between Rev. Dr. Langdon and Rev. Mr.
Goodenough, and several other Reverends of the Methodist
Book Concern of this city, is well remembered, when
charges of dishonesty, embezzlement, falsehood, etc., etc.,
were freely made against each other.

Rev. Mr. Lindsley, of Medina, N. Y., whipped a little
child of his, three years old, for two hours and until it died.
The excuse alleged by the reverend *'man of God" was,
that the child would not obey its step- mother and say its
prayers. He was imprisoned at Albion, and came near
being lynched by an infuriated populace.

A Methodist minister in Cheltenham, Pa., was boarding
with the wife of one of the deacons of his church. The
deacon had a blooming daughter of fifteen summers, with
whom the parson became so much enamored that his pas-
sions were greatly aroused. The mother of the young girl
was justly shocked on a certain occasion to find the clerical
gentleman in bed with her daughter. The pastor endeav-
ored to explain the unfortunate occurrence to the satisfac-
tion of the parent, by claiming that he must have got into
the child's bed when asleep, but the story was not credited
by the parents, and he was given twenty-foi;r hours to leave
the neighborhood.

343 THE HUMPH REY-BENXETT DISCUSSION.

Rev. Dick Bottles, of Meridan, Mass., was arrested Tor
stealing ham; but as lie is a son of Ham, possibly he thought
he had a right to it.

Rev. Charles A. Graber, pastor of the Lutheran church
in Meriden, Conn., was accused of Beecher-like immorality,
and of improper connection with the sisters. Like Beecher
he denied it, but would not stand an examination, saying
he preferred to resign his charge.

Rev. Mr. Wilcox held a revival of several days' duration,
several years ago in Northern Illinois. He was loud and
earnest in his appeals for " dying sinners to come to Jesus;"
but in due process of time it was found that during that
religious revival the Rev. Mr. Wilcox had become the father
of four illegitimate children.

Rev, Mr. Dowling, Indianapolis, Ind., prominent among
the Campbellites, committed adultery with his servant girl,
and was seen in the act by persons from a higher window
in a neighboring house.

Abbe Joseph Chabert, a prominent Catholic ecclesiastic
of Montreal, and Principal of the Government School of
Art and Design, was on Sept. 25th, 1875, arrested on a
charge of rape, committed on Josephine Beauchamp, a girl
of fifteen years, and in his own room. Probably his saint-
ship had indulged too much in celibacy, until the flesh re-
belled against the spirit.

Rev. John A. Hudkins, of Mount Airy, Ohio, was a big-
amist, or rather a trigamist, having three wives at a time.
He eluded justice by escaping to Canada.

A Baptist clergyman of North Carolina was imprisoned
for bastardy. The fine assessed against him was paid by
members of his church, and when he was released from
confinement the sisters of his congregation met him at the
prison door and received him with open arms.

Rev. W. H. Johnson, of Rahway, N. J., was convicted
for stealing chickens, ftnd w?^s sentenced to prisoo for the
offense.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 246

Rev. Luke Mills, of the Methodist church, Norwich, Ct.,
decamped with a considerable sum of money which had
been collected for building a new church. He was also
said to be guilty of irregularities with a female member of
his congregation.

A well known Episcopal clergyman of Covington, Ky.,
has several times partaken too freel}'' of intoxicating liquors,
80 as to plainly show the effect it had upon him. On Christ-
mas day of 1874 he preached a sermon in St. John's fash-
ionable church in Cincinnati, and he was so fuddled with
eggnogg and communion wine, his preaching was so strange
and his language so incoherent that his condition was made
known to all present. His mumbling became so senseless
that the wardens made signals to the congregation, and in
shame and disgrace they left the church and the drunken
pastor to talk to empty benches.

Rev. Mr. Warren, of Busset Hills, N. Y., resigned his
charge at the special request of his congregation, because
he was the husband of three living and undivorced wives.
He asked to preach a farewell sermon, but they would not
consent to it. It was only leniency on their part that pre-
vented them from prosecuting him for bigamy and sending
him to State prison.

Rev. Mr. Deardofl, of Yates City, 111. , held a protracted
meeting at that place, some time ago, and was one night in- '
vited by one of the sisters to go home with her and stay
over night. Upon arriving there he began improper famil-
iarities, and she not feeling in the humor for the like, and
tearing herself away from his embrace, rushed to one of the
aeighbors for safety. It is needless to say the protracted
meeting came to a sudden termination, and the reverend
gent proceeded to another field where the sisters were more
accommodating.

Rev. Mr. Curtiss not long since conducted a revival meet-
ing at Piano, 111., and lived on '* chicken fixings" and the
best the pious sisters knew how to get up for him. Clerical

244 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

business called him to the village of Blackberrj^ where be
put up at a hotel and staid over night. When he retired be
was either so absorbed in the spirit, or in the flesh, that he
accidentally got into bed with a woman not his wife. When
discovered in the interesting situation by some over-curious
individuals, he claimed that the little affair was entirely an
accident. It is singular how many of these little accidents
do take place.

Rev. Dr. Fiske, upun a trial for adultery in Michigan,
unlike many of his brothers of the cloth, honestly owned
up as follows : "I frankly confess to the fearful sin which
I am charged with, and I will not be a coward to lie or seek
palliation-of my weakness and guilt. I have returned my
letter of fellowship to the denomination I have so grievously
stricken, and have abandoned the profession I have so de-
plorably shamed. I am not a coward or sneak to make
Adam's plea, that a woman did it. It was my own weak
and unguarded soul that in a moment of frenzy and passion
wrought my downfall!" This man was much more honor-
able and honest than a majority of his brothers who are
tried for similar offenses, and insist "through thick and
thin," in the face of positive proof, that they are perfectly
innocent.

Rev. L. D. Huston, the clerical villain of Baltimore, was
guilty of seducing and ruining several young, innocent
girls, daughters of widows and other members of his
congregation, who were sent to him for moral instruction.
The fiendish ingenuity he employed in accomplishing his
vile purposes was enough to strike one with horror.

Rev. A. T. Thompson, Methodist, Cincinnati, O., was
guilty of numerous criminal intimacies with married and
unmarried females of his congregation, and also of gross
intemperance. His conduct was of the most scandalous
character.

Rev. Dr. Griswold, of Maine, of South Carolina, and of
•ther localities, was a noted '* ladies' man." His love adyeq-

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 246

tures were numerous and spicy. He was also very fond of
jovial and convivial company. He committed bigamy, hav-
ing two wives at one time.

Rev. E. F. Berkley, of St. Louis, was guilty of criminal
intimacy with the " gen'Je ewe-lambs of the fold." Among
them was Ella C. Perry of the immature age of 11 years.

Rev. Washington W. Welch, near Holly, Mich., commit-
ted a rape on Mrs. Louisa Green, the wife of a brother min-
ister.

Rev. Geo. Washburn, of the Lewiston and Bradford cir-
cuit, Alleghany Co., N. Y., was engaged in courting several
young ladies at the same time, and was under promise of
marriage to two or more of them.

Rev. Wm. Holt, near Paris, 111., whipped a widow woman
with plow-lines.

Rev. Thurlow Tresselman, in Annetia, N. Y., seduced
several young ladies of his flock, and when unmistakable
indications became so apparent that he was charged with
the matter and about to be tried, he left the place very early
one morning with the gay Mrs. Hurst, the wife of a gentle-
man who was absent from borne.

Rev. E. G. Ribble, of DeKalb Co., 111., seduced four
young girls of the neighborhood, and ran away, leaving
his wife and two children unprovided for.

Rev. B. Phinney, of Westboro, Mass., was guilty of licen-
tiousness with various females connected with his chL.rcb.

Rev. Mr. Reed, of Maiden, was in the same category.

Rev. I. S. Kalloch, of Kansas, while a resident of Massa-
chusetts, visited a neighboring village with a woman not
his wife, and hiring a room in a hotel for a short time, com-
mitted adultery with her then and there, as testified to by
an eye-witness. Mr. Kalloch, after this little affair, removed
to Kansas, and for several years wallowed in the mire of
politics; but not succeding just to his mind in obtaining
offices, he for the second time turned his attention to min-
isterial duties and pleasures. But sad to say, the lovely

246 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

sisters once more proved too charming for him, and he
wandered in by and forbidden paths. He was hauled up
before the church authorities for his peccadilloes, and
finally stepped down and out for a season; but he is said to
be now once more imparting to his admiring hearers the
will and requirements of God.

Rev. Dr. Pomeroy, Secretary of the American Board of
Foreign Missions, Boston, was proved to be a liberal patron
of houses of ill-fame, where he freely used the money his
confiding flock had donated for the conversion of foreign
heathen. By his own confession, he had paid more than
six thousand dollars to women of notorious character in
that city. •

Rev. Tunis Titus Kendrick, of Brooklyn, was proven
guilty of drunkenness and other immoral conduct. He
struggled for a long time to regain admission into the
church from which he was expelled, but did not succeed.

Rev. R H. Williamson, Wilkesbarre, Pa., (pastor of the
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church) was guilty of visiting
houses of Hi-fame, and of other immoral conduct.

Rev. Mr. Smith, of Illinois, a few years ago drowned his
wife in a shallow stream by holding her head under water.

Rev. Father John Daly, Catholic, Montgomery, Mo.,
seduced a young girl nineteen years of age, named Lizzie
McDonnell, whose mother had been housekeeper fur the
priest for a long time. After getting her in a condition to
soon become a mother he procured an abortion for her. The
congregation were much excited in consequence, while a
portion of the church authorities did all they could to
smother the reports.

Rev. Archibald Hiues, Knoxville, Tenn., was charged
with stealing fifty cents from a bowl in the cupboard of one
of his parishioners, and it made a great excitement among
the saints.

Rev. T. M. Dawson, Brooklyn, Cal.,left that locality and
went to Nevada, leaving a number of his brethren, in the

THE HDMPHREY-liEJSiJETT DISCUSSION. 247

aggregate several thousands of dollars, in arrears, lie having
invested for them in mining slocks. He was also, not long
ago, divorced from his wife on the ground of desertion.

Rev. George O. Eddy was deposed for bigamy at Glov-
ersville, N. Y.

Rev. Mr. Edgerton, same place, was afterwards charged
with theft. He boarded at the Mansion House, and a ser-
vant found a quantity of stolen towels, napkins, etc., in a
satchel in his room. He was arrested and he left his watch
in payment for his board biil.

Rev. L. T. Hardy, a Baptist elder in Shelby ville, Ky.,
had a fall from decency. He eloped with one of the sisters
of his congregation, and her brother pursued the pair in
hot haste.

Rev. J. A. Davidson, recent State lecturer for the Grand
Lodge of Good Templars of Pennsylvania, was arrested at
Erie for drunkenness and disorderly conduct and had a fine
to pay. He is said to have organized more lodges than any
other person in the State.

Rev. J. M. Porter, Bethlehem, N. J., was deposed from
the ministry and Christian fellowship by an ecclesiastical
council for gross immorality in connection with the sisters
of the church.

Elder Sands, of the Baptist church in Hoosick, N. Y.,
formerly an insurance agent in this city, was charged with
*' naughty " conduct with a ewe-lamb of his flock. He paid
frequent visits to her, and one day her brother surprised
them in very suspicious relations together. An investigat-
ing committee was appointed to enquire into the case. The
girl was entirely mum and had no communication to make
on the subject. The elder confessed to having his hands
under the youag lady's clothes but further than that deposed
not. The affair, however, was smoothed over and hushed
up, and the gay Lothario still breaks the bread of life to the
faithful.

Rev. G. W. Porter, Methodist, recently had a trial at

248 THE flOMPHBEY-BENNETr DISCUSSIOK,

Danbyborougli, Vt., for adultery with Miss Hattie Allen.
The young lady was on the witness stand nine hours and
made a clean breast of the affair, making the preacher's
guilt most apparent to all present.

Rev. John W. Hanna, Presiding Elder, and the most
prominent Methodist preacher in the State of Tennessee,
and one of the ablest lights in the Episcopal Church South,
had recently in Muiphysboro, Tenn., a trial before a
church investigating committee, consisting of Bishop
McTyeirie and five prominent clergymen, for gross immor-
ality in writing a lascivious letter to Miss Parilla Nailor for
trying to seduce lier from the path of virtue and to yield
herself to his lustful embrace. In his amorous suit he di-
rected the attention of the young lady to the seventh chap-
ter of Solomon's Songs, hoping the sensuous character of
that portion of " God's Word " would aid him in his unholy
enterprise. Fortunately the young lady's brother inter-
cepted the base letter and detected the hoary, clerical
lecher. Upon exposure he became verj penitent and ac-
knowledged in great sorrow his criminal folly. The love
of Jesus in his case was altogether insufficient to keep him
pure and upright.

Rev. John S. Glendenning, of Jersey City, N. J., it will
be remembered had a long trial for the seduction of Mary
E. Pomeroy, who deposed with her dying breath that he
was the father of her child, and that he had seduced her.
Although the clergyman boldly and persistently asserted
his innocence, the public were satisfied that he was a basely
guilty man. He subsequently removed to Henry county,
Illinois, and preached to the faithful there.

Rev. W. H. Batler, pastor of St. Luke's church, (Lu-
theran) of New York, was arraigned before the church
authorities for deceiving a young lady under promise of
marriage. He was requested to resign his charge and he
had the good sense to do so.

Rev. Austin Hutchinson, of Vermont, was charged by

THE flUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 249

his own daughter, Ida, with being the father of her babe
five months old, she asserting the fact with great persist-
ency.

Rev. Benjamin F. Bowen, Cold Spring, N. Y., was tried
for malicious trespass.

Rev. L. L. Copeland, of Vermont, and a revivalist of
some note, was denounced as a rascal. The credentials
upon which he entered the ministry, even, were proDOunced
forgeries, and he was accused of being a swindler and a
bigamist.

Rev. J. H. Todd, of Sioux City, Iowa, played an unmanly
trick upon his wife. While she was mending his pants he
slipped out of the house and eloped with a milliner.

Rev. A. B. Burdick, of River Point, R. I., was guilty of
improprieties of a social character with female lambs of his
flock. Eight witnesses testified pointedly against him, his
guilt was unmistakably established, and he was compelled
to " step down and out."

Rev. K. N. Wright and Rev. Mr. Kristeller, both con-
tested for the same pulpit at Newbridge, K Y. The first
had preached there a year, and was opposed to leaving.
The second was appointed by the Conference to succeed
him. The first refused to vacate; hence the quarrel. The
Church divided as to the two claimants, some joining one
side, and some the other. The quarrel waxed very warm
until the saints shook their fists at each other in a very un-
godly manner.

Rev. A. W. Torrey, Kalamazoo, Mich., was tried by the
Church for falsehood, and found guilty.

Rev. Mr. Coleman, of the M. E. Church, in E. Janesville
Circuit, Iowa, was held in $5,000 bonds for committing a
rape on a girl thirteen years old.

Rev. Mr. Parshall, Oakland, Cal., was not long ago tried
by a church council for lascivious conduct with sisters of
the congregation. He was convicted and left town.

Rev. John Hutchinson, Episcopal, Boston^ was sent to the

250 THE HTJMPHBBY-BEKNETT DISCUSSION.

House of Correction for eight months, for swindling George
Allen out of a thousand dollars.

Rev. A. W. Eastman, West Cornwall, 0., was expelled
from the Baptist Church for immorality.

Another Baptist clergyman at Sabin, Mich., was detected
in too much familiarity with some of the sisters, and ran
away to avoid the shame of exposure.

Rev. Wm. Rice, Methodist, Mason, Mich., was convicted
of adultery.

A pious reverend in Warren, McComb Co., Mich., was
charged with violating a dozen tchool girls and swearing
them to secrecy on the crucifix of the church. He ran
away to escape exposure.

Rev. D. M. White, Presbyterian, Pittsburg, Pa., was
sent to State prison for two years for stealing money.

Rev. D. S. K. Rinp, same place, was charged by a young
woman with sexual irregularities.

Rev. Dr. Wm. G. Murray, rector of the Central Church,
Baltimore, got druck and was extremely profane.

Rev. A. Steclson plead guilty to the charge of too much
intimacy with the sisters.

Rev. James Reedsdolph, Methodist, Adrian, Mich., was
sent to the Detroit House of Correction for sixty days, for
false pretenses and getting drunk.

Rev. Mr. Reynolds, Muhlenburg Co., Ky., brutally and
repeatedly whipped his daughter, eighteen years of age, to
force her to marry a man Fhe did not love.

Rev. Hiram Meeker, Granville, N. Y., was convicted of
fornication and adultery.

Rev. H. Foster, Circleville, O., was compelled to marry
his servant girl whom he had seduced.

Rev. John Seeley Watson, Kansas, murdered his wife.

Rev. Mr. Johnson, Williamson Co., Tenn., seduced a girl
fourteen years of age.

Rev. E. S. Whipple, Baptist, of Hilsdale College, Mich.,
seduced a deacon's wife, and when charged with the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 251

crime was compelled to confess it. He afterwards prayed
with the deacon and his wife. The deacon must haye
enjoyed that.

Rev. Richard Dunlap, Baptist, Midland, Mich., was con-
victed of adultery with a Mrs. Burnett.

Rev. Mr. Davis, same denomination, was arraigned for
adultery with sister Brunk.

Rev. Mr. Kirby, Chambersbnrg, 0., was fined $200 for
seduction.

Rev. Malcolm Clark, superintendent of the Sunday -
school, Howard, Mich., ran away with $400 belonging to
his mother-in-law, and also forged her name to obtain
other money.

Rev. Mr. White, Washington, Pa., was found guilty of
seduction.

Rev. J. H. Rose, Baptist. Hartford, Mich., was guilty of
forgery.

Rev. Jay H. Fairchild; leading Congregational clergy-
man of Boston, after honorable service in the pulpit many
years, was guilty of intercourse with the sisters. Left
Boston, went to Exeter, was tried for seduction. Confessed
that he had bound the young girl by a solemn oath not to
divulge that she ever knew him. He attempted to preach
again in Boston but was not successful ; was charged by the
public press with the crime; brought suit for libel, and
upon full exaoiination of the case was defeated.

Rev. Dr. Fay, a very eminent divine of Boston for over
twenty-five years, had been esteemed and beloved by his
Church; committed fornication and adultery; was charged
with it; denied it and swore that he was innocent. A Church
Committee examined the case, were disposed to clear him ;
were about to report him innocent when one of them. Dr.
Hooper, said he could not sign the report, and proposed to
adjourn for a fuller examination. When Dr. Fay heard this
he begged them not to adjourn; said he had a communi-
cation to present, when he confessed his crime in full.

253 THE HUMPHRET-BEKNETT DISCtJSSION.

Rev. Mr. Strasburg, First Presbyterian Chiirch at Albany,
large congregation of influential citizens, and those con-
nected with State government, an able, eloquent, and pop-
ular preacher. Accused of debauchery, herding with
negroes, and of the lowest and dirtiest conduct. Was put
on trial, found guilty and deposed. Thus was prematurely
hushed a voice eloquent for Jesus.

Rev. Mr. Southard, son of Senator Southard from New
Jersey. Was founder of the Calvary Episcopal Church in
this city. Accused of gross immoralities. The church
tried to shield him, but his character was deemed so base
that he could not continue preaching here; went to Newark
and founded the "Home of Prayer; was kicked out, and
went South, dividing his time while there between the pul-
pit and low dens of prostitution in southern cities. He died
drunk in a low brothel in New Orleans.

Rev. Augustus Duolittle (or St. Clair, as he sometimes
called himself), preached at Hoosic Falls, and was accused
of unlawful intimacy with a wife of one of the deacons of
his church. Was first charged with the guilt by a single
person, who was beset and persecuted. Additional proofs
came to light, and after several months the seductive saint
confessed in full that the crime had been committed by him
on numerous occasions for several.

Prof. Webster, a pious Christian, connected with the
leading universities of Boston, murdered Dr. Parkman, etc.
Denied his crime most persistently, but the jury had suflS-
cient proofs to find him guilty, and he w^as duly executed.

The Rev. Dr. Reed, Congregational, Maiden, Mass., waa
guilty of most heinous crimes with youths of both sexes,
and children even. Was proved guilty of most disgusting
and revolting crimes.

Rev. Mr. Pomeroy, Congregational, preached in a fashion-
able church in Bangor, Me. Was Secretary of American
Board, a position of high honor and trust. Was followed
to houses of ill-fame in Boston, in tjiis city and in cities of

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 253

the West. Denied that he was guilty of any impropriety,
but claimed that he visited those places to* reform the sinful
inmates. He was charged, tried, condemned and deposed.

Rev. Charles Rich, from Boston, was settled over a most
respectable church in Washington, the one in which Dr.
Sunderland preached for several years afterwards. He was
convicted of immoralities and indecencies unfit to be named,
and died in disgrace.

Rev. Mr. Thompson, Presbyterian, preached in Buffalo,
and afterwards in Arch street, Philadelphia, was over and
over again charged with adultery. Was tried several times,
but managed through the sharp practice of friends to
escape.

Rev. Mr. Johnson, of the Evangelist, a very pious man, a
loud advocate of temperance, was several times seen in the
third tier of the theater drinking with low prostitutes and
acting disgracefully. He was tried and deposed in disgrace.

Rev. Dr. Magoon, at this time President of Jones Col-
lege, a Congregational institution, was guilty of very
licentious conduct with females of his congregation. Was
tried, convicted and deposed. But after confessing and
humbling himself was taken back into fellowship and set
to preaching again.

Rev. Horace C. Taylor, one of the chiefs of the church
at Oberlin, O., was guilty of seduction, was tried, con-
victed and imprisoned. Was afterwards restored to the
ministry, but he fell again and was more sinful than before.

Rev. Richard Fink, of Grand Rapids, Mich., was in 1874
found guilty of adultery with a young sister of his church.
He was eloquent, popular and highly esteemed. The case
was so plain against him that he readily resigned.

Rev. Joseph Stillim, Winchester, Pa., was charged with
ruining a young lady, Miss Sarah Hall, who stood high in
the society of that locality. The great disgrace rendered
her insane, but in her lucid moments she averred that the
reverend gentleman quoted scripture to her to prove that

254 THE HUMPH KEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

his conduct was in keeping with the word of God. She
unfortunately trusted too much in a false shepherd.

Father Forham, of the Catholic church, Chicago, was
charged with and tried for embezzling several thousand
dollars that belonged to the church. He claimed that a
part of the money was won by gambling in a church fair,
that there was no legal owner of it, and that he had as
much right to it as any one. He was held in $5,000 bail.

Rev. Alfred K Gilbert, of Baltimore, had charges pre-
ferred against him by members of his own church for sinful
intimacies with a grass widow also belonging to his congre-
gation. The widow was induced to leave, and the matter
was piously hushed up, and the pastor's preaching and
praying were resumed.

Rev. A. J. Russell, Melllodis^, preached in Berrien Springs,
Mich., in the year 1876, holding one or two revival meetings
during the time, and securing quite a number of converts.
He also developed a great amount of "true inwardness."
On one occasion he met a young ladj^ member of his church
and went home with her. The family bcir.g absent, he fol-
lowed her into her private room and attempted to bestow a
" h.o\y kiss," a la Beecher. The young lady, a school teacher
of most excellent character, demurred to the proceedings,
and exposed the reverend rascal; but for this the elders
advanced him to higher honors in the church.

Rev. Mr. Humpslone, Malta, N. Y., in consequence of
a churcli difficulty, tendered his resignation in April, 1875.
On the following Sunday it was arranged that the Rev. Mr.
Ci)ok should officiate in his place; but as he did not appear,
it was suggested by a member that brother Humpstone read
the services. Dr. Bellinger opposed the proposit'on and
rebuked the brother for makiug it. When brother Hump-
si one arose to speak, Dr. Bellinger ordered him to sit down.
The ex-pastor would not be thus suppressed. The con-
tending parties then clinched, and a disgraceful fight ensued.

Rev. J. K. Stillwell, of Logansport, Ind., was brought

THE HUMPUREY-BBNNETT DISCUSalON. 355

before the Church for making improper advances to the
sisters of his flock. A clear case was made against him,
and without adding falsehood and perjury to his other
crimes, he had the discretion to confess his offenses, resign
his charge, and leave the place. The local papers regretted
the circumstance, more especially as it came in the midst of
a successful revival, which was sensibly checked by the
publicity of the clerical scandal.

Rev. Thomas Barnard, of London, recently got disgrace-
fully drunk, and in that condition went to the Globe Thea-
tre, where Lydia Thompson was cDgaged. That evening a
new piece was put upon the stage, in which Mrs. Thompson
did not appear. This so enraged the drunken parson that
he stamped, shouted and hissed to such an extent that a
policeman arrested him and took him to prison.

Rev. J. J. Reeder, a young clergyman, went in 1874 to
New Milford, Pa., and studied for a time under the Rev.
E. F. Bledsoe, pastor of the Methodist church in that vil-
lage. Subsequenily he was sent to Newark, N. J., Confer-
ence to fill a vacancy at that place. The young divine
proved to be popular, especially with the younger sisters of
the society, with whom he spent the most of his time. He
afterwards manifested a great fondness for horse-flesh. He
traded in fast horses, and soon obtained the reputation of
being a good judge of equine stock. He finally purchased
a valuable horse, for which he gave his note; but just be-
fore it became due he suddenly decamped for parts un-
known, leaving many unpaid bills behind. In his hasty
flight he left, his trunks and books, which were sold to pay
his debts; but unfortunately they went but a short way
towards paying them. It is not known in what part of the
moral vineyard he is now laboring.

Rev. Charles S. Macready, of Middleboro, Mass., on May
20, 1875, commited suicide by cutting his throat with a razor.

Rev. J.. J. Howell, Presbyterian, Minneapolis, Minn.,
hung himself in May, 1875.

356 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Rev. Samuel B. Wilson, of the First Presbyterian Church,
Louisville, Ky., was in May, 1875, deposed by the Presby-
tery for immoral conduct.

Rev. John W. Porter, in the Winter and Spring of 1875,
had a charge at Van Sycles Corners, Huntington Co., N. J.
In addition to preaching, he also taught school. It turned
out that the villain basely seduced one of his young female
pupils named Silenda Stires, daughter of Peter W. Stires, a
well-to-do farmer in the neighborhood. While she was yet
a mere child, she was about to become a mother. Upon
being questioned, she informed her parents of the nature of
the lessons the clergyman had taught her. When con-
fronted by the injured father, the villain confessed the
crime, and turned over his horse and buggy to partly make
amends for his shameful conduct, and with his heart-broken
wife, took the first train for another field of labor.

The case of Henry Ward Beecher is fresh in the minds
of all; of his various liasons with the females of his flock,
particularly with Mrs Elizabeth R. Tilton. His protracted
trial of six months for the crime of adultery: the amount of
damaging testimony that was arrayed against him, his
confession, etc., axe not forgotten. Probably twenty-five
millions of the people of America believe him guilty not
only of the offense charged against him, but also of the
most barefaced perjury, when for thirteen consecutive days
he swore positively that he had not done it. He still fills the
pulpit as a spotless shepherd, to lead the little lambs to the
arms of Jesus.

Lucius M. Pond, of Worcester, Mass., a zealous leader in
the Methodist Church, and very active in all religious
movements, committed forgeries to the amount of $100,000,
and borrowed and purloined all he could obtain, after
which he suddenly left and had it given out that he
had been murdered for his money. He intended to
have gone to Australia, but was arrested in San Francisco
and was brought back, convicted and puuished.

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 2^1

Rev. Aug. C. Stange, Presbyterian, of Patterson, N. J.,
was guilty of gross improprieties with Sister Pfennibuker
in the church. He was tried and acknowledged his
guilt. The sister, however, accused the clergynian of
forcing her contrary to her wishes.

Rev. John James Thompson, of Orange Co., N. Y., was
arraigned for making a criminal attack upon a young female
member of bis church. The plea made in his defense was
insanity. There has been too much of that kind of insanity
about.

Rev. Ambleman Wright, of Whitestown, N. Y,, by pres-
ents of money, coaxing, etc., induced a little girl of twelve
3''ears to yield her body to his lusts. He was a man with a
wife and married daughters.

Rev. Fred. A. Bell, of Brooklyn, was charged with mak-
ing improper advances to Mrs. Mary Morris, a member of
his church.

L. K. Strauss, superintendent of the Sunday-school in
Huntington Co., Pa., and deemed a very exemplary Chris-
tian, seduced one of the teachers. Miss West. The crimi-
nal practices were continued a long time until the young
lady became stricken with remorse and confessed. He was
tried and fined $4,500.

Rev. E. D. Winslow, of Boston, swindled confiding banks
and financiers out of $500,000 and left suddenly and has not
yet returned

Rev. J. J. Kane was sued by his wife for a divorce on
account of inhuman treatment.

Elder Doolittle was tried in the Juneau county. Wis.,
Circuit Court on a charge of incest and adultery. The
testimony was conclusive, he wa^; found guilty and was
sentenced to six years' imprisonment in the State prison at
Waupun. He was over sixty-three years old, and one of his
victims was a simple-minded girl, his own niece.

Rev. F. W. May, presiding elder of the Methodist church,
Chesaning, Mich., was guilty of grossly immoral practices

258 THE HtJMPHRBY-BBNNETT DIBCUSSlON.

with several of the sisters. A number of them testified
against him.

Rev. Henry A. Heath, Methodist, formerly of Maine and
later of Morrison, Dl., was a lecherous old hypocrite. He
left his wife in Maine and committed adultery with numer-
ous females, both pious and not pious. His crimes were
many and black.

Rev. Joseph M. Berry was tried by his church in Ash-
ville, N. C, for drunkenness and adultery, and was found
guilty.

Rev. Jonathan Turner, Methodist, Fourth street, Phila-
delphia, was arraigned for embezzling from Mr. Myers
and was held in $1,000 bail.

Rev. F. F. Rea, of Durham, Conn., was expelled from
the Congregational church for drunkenness.

Rev. Seth B. Coats, of Dallas City, 111., was tried for im-
proper conduct with the females of his congregation, both
single and married. The testimony was explicit and unfit
for publication.

Rev. Mr. Parker, Presbyterian, Ashland, Ky., eloped with
a young girl, daughter of a deacon of the church, and leit
a wife and several children.

Rev. Francis E. Buffum, Congregationalist, was tried at
Hartford, Conn., for holding criminal intercourse with
Miss Cora Lord, who lived in his family. He procured an
abortion upon the young woman. His wife left him and
sued for a divorce.

Rev. Mr. Kendrick seduced a little girl, the organist of
his church, and but thirteen years of age. He did it with
cheap jewelry and a twenty-five cent penknife.

Thomas W. Piper, sexton of a Boston church, ravished
a child five years old, named Mabel Young, and murdered
her in the belfry of the church.

Rev. E. S. Fitz, Southampton, Mass., was tried for very
improper conduct with the sisters. The evidence was of
the most spicy character and rather unfit for publication.

THE HUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 259

The brethren and sisters did all they could to screen him,
but his guilt was too apparent.

Rev. G. M. Davis was caught by his wife in a very im-
proper coHDection with another lady, and this in the church.
Much excitement in consequence.

Rev. D. Ellington Burr, of EUardsville, Mo., was tried
and suspended for three years for using intoxicating liq-
uors, and being criminally intima.te with women.

Rev. J. B. Patterson, Presbyterian, Elizabeth, N. J.,
upon an examination being instituted, confessed to being
guilty of drunkennsss and immoral conduct with the sisters.
He was very contrite. • i

Rev. James Regan, Methodist, Madison, Ind., was de-
posed for improper intercourse with Mrs. McHenry, a beau-
tiful widow. The crime was committed on board a steam-
boat on ihe Ohio River.

Rev. C. D. Lathrop was expelled by the First Congrega-
tional Church of Amherst, Mass., for cruelty to his family,
and other unchristian conduct.

Rev. Arthur Watson, Protestant, Killowen near Kinman,
over fifty years of age, killed his wife by shooting her.

Rev. E. P. Stemson, of Castleton, JST. Y., was found
intoxicated in the streets of this city and was arrested by
officer R3 ckman. The Judge in kindness let him off.

Rev. Thomas B. Bott, of one of the Baptist churcbes in
Philadelphia, has had many charges preferred against him
for lascivious conduct with various females. The last one
was Miss Louisa Younger, daughter of one of the deacons
in his church. It was proved that he visited her at unsea-
sonable hours, that they passed several days together at a
place of Summer resort; they went in bathing together, and
he was seen in a nearly naked state in her private room.
She was seen sitting in his lap, and they were kissing each
other, etc. He has a wife and family, and the latest news
in reference to him is that his wife has brought suit against
him for neglect and desertion.

260 THE HUMPa^EY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Thus, Brother Humphrey, I have given you quite an in-
stallment of the crimes and shortcomings of that class of
our fellow-citizens who would have it.understood that they
are nearer to God than the masses of the people, that they
are favored with an extra amount of aid from on hia;h, and
have more influence at the Throne of Grace than the aver-
age of mankind. I assure you though I have gone into the
subject at some length, that it is by no means exhausted.
I can furnish you with a good deal more of the same kind
should you wish it.

I have simply mentioned the names of several of the
characters and their crimes, without giving a moiety, even,
of the damnable practices of -which they were guilty. I
have now in course of preparation a work, which will be
out in a few months, entitled '• The Champions op the
Church; or. Biographical Sketches of Eminent Christians."
It will be an octavo of one thousand pages, and will contain
a history of much that has been done by the characters
above named, and by many others, in the name of Chris-
tianity. Such as wish to inform themselves of many of the
facts in the rise and progress of Christianity, its crimes and
excesses, its persecutions and executions, its wars and mas-
sacres, its licentiousness and immoralities, will find in the
" Champions of the Church" the information they seek.

I may mention in connection with the clergy of America,
that more of them have been hung in the last twenty-five
years than of Infidels. More of them are in our States
prison for capital offenses. As compared with actors, who
are often denounced as a wicked class, according to ,statis-
tics carefully compiled, clergymen have committed more
murders than actors in the proportion of twenty to one,
and they exceed actors in about the same proportion in
seductions and adulteries.

If the charges you made against Infidels (if true) prove
them to be bad men and in error, does not the array of
facts that I have presented against the American clergy

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 261

incontestibly prove them not only weak and bad mes,
but utterly unworthy to be looked upon as guides and
leaders of the young and inexperienced, and entirely mis-
taken in the superiority of the system they advocate ? Can
a good tree bear so much had fruit ?

It must be borne in mind that the instances of clerical
criminality here noted are but a small part of the cases that
actually occur. But fuw of those that have been made
public are named here, and not one case in fifty is suffered
to come to light. "For the good of the cause" every in-
stance of this kind is smothered and covered up that can be,
and it is only here and there a case comes to the ear of the
public. But those that are known, are enough to appall
the stoutest hearts and strike conviction deep into the
thinking men and women of the country, that they are sup-
porting a fallible and useless class of privileged characters
that would be doing far better were they engaged in some
honest and useful calling, producing something or manu-
facturing something of value to the human race.

The fact is, the priesthood, as a class, have for thou-
sands of years, and under various systems of religion,
been living upon the credulous masses and drawing their
support from the patient, submissive toilers who are willing
to labor for them. The priesthood have never been a pro-
ducing class. They have not grown what they have needed
to eat, nor spun and woven what they needed to wear, but
they have fed upon the best of food and have been clad in
the finest broadcloths, linens, and furs, because it has
been superstitiously supposed that they were mediators
between the gods and the people, and were able to tell the
gods what the people wanttd of them, and in return give
the will of the gods to the people. I mean nothing personal
in this, friend Humphrey. I entertain much respect for you
and believe you honest and sincere, but I think 1 have
correctly stated the character of the priests of the
world.

263 THE HTJMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Let me state, too, that they are all upholding systems of
superstilion and error. Whether priests of Brahma, Ormuzd,
Fohi, Osirus, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, Allah or Jehovah,
it is all the same. Their rule is to hoodwink the people
and to draw their support from them, without rendering
a just equivalent in return.

All the religions of the world have been handed down
from the ages of prehistoric barbarism, myths and super-
stition. The Christian religion is no exception to this rule.
It is made up of Judaism and Paganism. I make the asser-
tion and call upon you to disprove it, that Christianity con-
tains not an original dogma, rite, sacrament or point of be-
lief. Everything upon its programme was borrowed from
the Jewish and Pagan theologies, and largely the latter.

The fundamental legend or idea of a son of God being
born of a virgin w^as old long before the birth of Christi-
anity. The conception of Virgin and child dates away
back thousands of years. The Egyptians had their Isis
(virgin) and infant three and four thousand years ago. The
Hindoos, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Siamese, the
Thibetians, the Grecians, the Scandinavians and many other
nationalities had similar legends. There have been— accord-
ing to the old legends— at least forty different saviors and
redeemers born into the world, and a large proportion of
I hem of virgins and of deific paternity. Nearly half of
them, after a life of holy teaching, performing miracles,
leading obscure lives, it has been believed were crucified
for the salvation and happiness of mankind.

Ihe symbol of the Cross has been used in the religions of
the world fully three thousand years. That and the steepU
were handed down from the Phallic worship.

Baptism by water was practiced as a pagan rite centuries
before Christianity had an existence.

Fasting, Prayer and Praise were employed thousands of
years before Christianity began. The Trinity and the Holy
Ghost were early pagan conceptions.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 26o

The existence of a devil and demons was believed in by
pagan nations long before there were any Christians to be-
lieve in them.

Confession of sios, monasteries, monks, nuns, the eucha-
rist, anointing with holy oil, belief in a day of judgment, in
the resurrection of the body, in angels and spirits, the sec-
ond birth, belief in sacred writings or bibles, holiness,
repentance, and humility, prevailed among pagans many
centuries before there was a Christian in the world. This
can be fully substantiated, and if it is not true, I call upon
you in the most earnest manner to disprove it.

If what I have stated is the truth, it follows that the great
system of Christianity, which you and millions of others
venerate, is simply modified Paganism, and that the story
of Jesus, his miraculous birth, his moral teachings, his
band of , followers, his ignominious death upon the cross,
and all the rest of it, is a mere clumsy rehash, or plagia-
rism of the old pagan fables. I am honestly of the opinion
that this is the case, and that a man of your intelligence and
research ought to be able to see it and understand it.

I charge you, then, with supporting and defending a bor-
rowed system of myths and superstitions handed down
from the ages of darkness and ignorance, and that the
supernaturalism upon which it is founded is untrue and
impossible.

I should rejoice could you become a convert to the truth
ns it is in the Universe and is revealed by science, and if
you could freely discard all belief in gods, devils, hobgob-
lins, lakes of sulphur, etc., until you have some proof of their
existence, and reject every oreed and dogma that depends
upon supernaturalism or the setting aside of the immutable
laws of Nature.

I am sincerely yours,

P. M. Bennett,

264 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCtTBSIOHo

MR. HUMPHRBT.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir : It seems to me that you
have resorted to some rather imbecile arguments ; at any
rate, I think that, were I to make use of similar ones, you
would be among the first to belittle them. For instance,
you meet my observation on the equal silence of Herodotus
about Rome and Jerusalem by saying that "he may have
also visited Rome, and his allusions to that city may have
been in the portions of his works that are lost," Right here
let me ask two questions : 1st. May it tot be as fairly pre-
sumed that his promised but missing history of Assyria, or
Syria, as the Greeks called it, contained "allusions" to
Palestine and Jerusalem ? 2nd. What would you say of a
Christian critic, if he should base an explanation of a diffi-
cult passage of Scripture on the supposed contents of some
of the lost documents frequently mentioned in the Old Tes-
tament? Again, you plead for Byron that "had he lived
to late manhood, it may be well supposed he would have
'sowed his wild oats,' and become a staid and exemplary
member of society." Tell the candid truth now, Mr. Ben-
nett: would you show any respect for a prospective apology
of that kind for a wayward professor of religion? I am
afraid we should have to hunt up your "lost works " to
find an instance of such a thing. Speaking of my exposure
of some leading Infidels, you say: "But really, what does
it all prove? It proves that unbelievers are human beings,
and have sometimes made mistakes. What class of men is
there in the world, that, running over their records for hun-
dreds of years, as many charges could not be brought
against them ?" That is very nice. Of course, you will not
object to throwing the same cloak of charity over the " mis-
takes" of the professing Christians whom you have enumer-
ated. A good rule always works both ways.

A few weeks ago, I saw a couple of quotations from Paul

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 205

in the Boston Investigator. It was clear that their drift and
meaning had never been investigated by that joarn 1. As
the Apostle himself said, he was "slanderously reported"
(Rom. iii, 8). Imagine my surprise at finding the same
citations, put in the same way, in your last Reply ! I could
not help tij inking of Byron's lines, slightly modified:

A man must serve his time to every trade.
Save ceusure— critics all are ready made;
Take hackney'd jokes from Mendum, got by rote.
With just enough of learning to miscmotQ ;
A mind well skilled to flud or forge a fault,
A turn for punning, call it Attic salt.

EiiQlish Bards and Scotch Reviewers.

You furnished an item about church debts. The Tribune
is a very acceptable authority ; but you did not give the
date, so that the statement you refer to could be verified
and examined. But grant that theife are fifty-four churches
in New York city under "mortgages amounting to $2,367,-
886," If these churches were each under a debt equal to
that on Paine Hall ($70,000), the sum would be $3,780,000—
almost a million and a half more. And it should not be
forgotten in this connection that this is a comparison of
fifty-four churches and the Christians of a single city, with
one building and the Infidels of the whole Western Continent.
Then it should be remembered that there are hundreds of
magnificent churches, and thousands of tidy chapels all over
the country, entirely free of debt. You will see by the
Directory that there are over two hundred and fifty in
New York City alone. Most emphatically, then, there
is nothing in this direction but very odious compari-
sons for Infidelity. Its liberality is as nothing in the
p(V3ence of the munificent and varied generosity of Chris-
tianity.

Your last letter is the fullest and clearest illustration I
ever saw of the meaning of the Latin phrase, ipse dixit. The
solidified and petrified Past seems to be mere dough in jowx

266 THE HUMPITREY-BEXNETT DISCUSSION.

hands. You can put the features and lineaments of Intidel-
ity on it with the greatest of ease. In order to show this,
let me place some of your assertions and the fixed facts of
history side by side:

"Voltaire was not a perjurer." (D. M. Bennett).

"When very hard pushed, lie would not swerve from a
false oath " (Morley's Voltaire, N. Y., 1873, p. 200).

"Eusebius was a falsifier, forger, and interpolatei " (D.
M. B.).

'* Eusebius wrote under the pressure of the great commo-
tions of his age, but with much freedom from prejudices,
wikh a more critical spirit than many both of his predeces-
sors and successors, and with an eccclesiastical erudition
unsurpassed in his age " (American Cyclopedia).

"St. Augustine was one of the most lecherous and dis-
sipated men in Carthage" (D. M. B.).

That is true of him only when he was an unbeliever in
(Jhristianity. After his conversion " it is believed that he
was at once the purest, the wisest, and the holiest of men,
equally mild and firm, equally prudent and fearless, equally
a friend of man and a lover of God " (Am. Cyclopedia).

" Girard did not make his wife insane by quarreling with
her"(D. M. B.).

"He about this time married the daughter of a shipbuildei
of that city, but the union was unhappy. Mr. Girard
applied for a divorce, and his w«fe ultimately died insane
in a public hospital " (American Cyclopedia).

"He was very eccentric in his habits, a free thinker
ungracious in manner, ill-tempered, and lived and died
without a friend " (Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia).

"You have no grounds for insinuating that Paine lived
improperly with Mrs. Bonnneville" (D. M. B.),

"Mr. Paine was godfather to one of the others, whc
had been named after him" (Vale's Life of Paine, p. 145).

" Tliomas has tlie features, countenance, and temper ot
Paine " (Cheetham's Life of Paine p. 22r

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 267

"Goethe was not an immoral man" (D. M. B.).

*'His first years there (in Weimar) were spent in wild and
tumultuous enjoyments, in which 'affairs of the heart,' it is
to be feared, did not always end with the heart. ' There is
not a woman here,' wrote the simple-hearted Schiller more
lately, 'who has not had her liaison.^ ... A relation
with Frau von Stein, which Goethe had long maintained,
was now broken off, but the poet soon formed another with
Christine Vulpius. She was uneducated, and lived in some
domestic capacity in his house; but in spite of the enormous
scandal which the new tie occasioned even in Weimar,
Goethe afterwards married her to legitimate his son "
(American Cyclopedia).

" Shelley was not guilty of wrong in leaving his wife ;
nor w«s he dissolute " (D. M. B.).

" Toward the close of 1813 the estrangement which had
been slowly growing between him and his wife resulted in
their separation, and she returned to her father's house,
where she gave birth to a second child. ... He was
soon after traveling abroad withMary, afterwards the second
Mrs. Shelley, daughter of William Godwin and Mary WoU-
stonecraft, all of whom deemed marriage a useless institution,

. . On his return he found that his wife had drowned
herself, and his sorrows are said to have made him for a
time actually mad, and as such he describes himself in
'Julian and Maddalo.' He now married his second wife,
who had been his companion for two years " (American Cyclo-
pedia).

" Chesterfield did not seek to make his son a whoremas-
ter"(D. M. B.).

" Uti arrangement^ which is, in plain English, a gallantry,
is, in Paris, as necessary a part of a woman of fashion's
establishment, as her house, stable, coach, etc. A young
fellow must therefore be a very awkward one, to be reduced
to, or of a very singular taste, to prefer drabs and danger to
a commerce (in the course of the world not disgracelul)

268 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

with a woman of health, education, and rank" (Chester-
field's Letters to his Son. Letter 237).

"John Stuart Mill sustained a character too pure for you
to besmirch " (D. M. B.).

I only said, and I again repeat, that a minister's name
would be tarnished or "besmirched " were he to do as Mill
did with another man's wife. Let me quote Mr. Mill: "At
this period she lived mostly with one young daughter, in a
quiet part of the country, and only occasionally in town,
with her first husl and, Mr. Taylor. I visited Tier equally in
^ oih places ; and was greatly indeb'ed to the strength of charac-
ter which enabled her to disregard the false interpretations liable
to be put on the frequency of my visits to Iter while living gener-
ally apart from Mr. Taylor, andj on our occasionally traveling
together, though in all otlier respects our conduct during
those years gave not the slightest ground for any other sup-
position than the true one, that our relation to each other at that
time was one of strong affection and confidential intimacy only.
Fo7^ though we did not consider the ordinances ofsotiety binding
on a subject so entirely persoiiul, we did feci bound th.it our
conduct should be such as in no degree to bring discredit
on her husband, nor therefore on herself (Autobiography,
N. Y., 1875, pp. 186, 329.) Thtre is Mr. Mill's word for it.
I am willing to accept it. But I am sure that if a bishop
were to follow his example-, the Infidels especially would
wink, and insinuate, and pat their mouths in position to
say "lecherous."

" Rousseau was an upright, well-disposed man" (D. M. B.).

Whew ! That assertion needs no quotation to disprove
it. No wonder you could flatter the Devil in one of your
preceding letters. If Rousseau was moral, immorality
is an impossibility; and you should not be so inconsistent
as to condemn " clerical beasts " any more.

I have entered into these details in order to vindicate my
former statements, and to show the reader how scrupulous
you are about historical truth 1 I have quoted largely from

THE HUMPHREY-BBNNKTT DISCUSSION. 2G§

the New American Cyclopedia, partly because it is unsec-
tarian, and far from partial to Protestantism and Orthodoxy,
but chiefly because you have expressed your acceptance of
it as high and unquestioned authority C^eply No. iii).

I have been tracing some of your references. You point
to several Sc^ripturai passages in evidence that the Jews
"ate human flesh." Do you by this mean that they were
cannibals ? Your language is framed so cunningly that it
at the same time conveys this impression, and leaves you a
loop-hole in case of exposure. Well, I will have to force
you into the loop-hole. Deut. xxviii, 47-58; Lam. iv, 10;
and Bar. ii, 3 do not at all refer to the ordinary customs of
the Hebrews, but to the last desperate resort of a people
dying with famine. Ez. xxxix, 18, does not speak of
human beings as "eating the flesh of the mighty and
drinking the blood of the princes of the earth." In the
preceding verse we are explicitly told that this was done by
^^ every feathered fowl " and by ' ' every berst of the fields Let
the reader examine these passages carefully and he cannot
fail to see that you have tried to play a trick on him. All
your other Scriptural comments are about as critical and
accurate as this one.

I have also examined Thiers, and Chambers' Cyclopedia,
but I found no evidence whatever that Robespierre was a
Christian. As your generosity has recently placed Paine's
works in Cooper Institute, in order that you may be able to
say they are there, so, I am afraid, your jaundiced imagin-
ation sometimes reads things into authorities which they do
not really contain. I have taken considerable pains to ex-
amine Thiers' History of the French Revolution; Qarat's
Memoirs of tbe Revolution; Lamartine's History of the
Girondists; and especially Lewes' Life of Robespierre, and
I find that Robespierre was simply a Deist; that his mode
of thought was moulded by Rousseau's philosophy; and
that his coadjutors were avowed Infidels. It is true some
of the Atheists sneered at him as a kind of religionist, be-

270 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOK.

cause lie believed in the Being of God. But that does not
prove your allegation. For the same reason Paine became
unpopular with the very same class of people. And it had
been said long before that even Voltaire was "retrograde,"
"superstitious," and a "bigot," because he was a Deist
(Morley's Voltaire, p. 94).

You, too, can play "fast and loose" with Catholic
authorities. While you would scornfully reject their testi-
mony about skeptics, you can accept, ^ith smacking gusto,
their most spiteful mirepresentations of the life and death
of Luther and Calvin.

It is quite likely that some Infidels have " died as the
fool dieth," with stolid unconcern. But it is on record that
many of them approached death with fear and trembling.
There is good evidence that Voltaire died whining for a
Catholic priest, and that Hobbes contemplated " the inevi-
table " with terrible trepidation (Condorcet's Life of Vol-
taire; Thomas' Dictionary of Biography; Blackburne's
Life of Hobbes; Hume's History of England, new ed.,
London, 1864, vol. v, p. 97). A conscientious historian
says that Robespierre and his fellows, when besieged in the
Hotel de Ville, writhed like a knot of snakes encircled by
fire. Henriot was drunk. Las Basas despatched himself
with a pistol. Couthon cut ghastly gashes in his bosom,
but lacked courage to drive the knife to his heart. Robes-
pierre made an attempt to shoot himself, but succeeded only
in breaking his jaw. St. Just begged his comrades to kill
hfm (Scott's Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, vol. i, chap,
xvii).

It is nobler, like Hamlet, to meditate on death in a seri-
ous vein, than to breathe the last, like Hume, with a deck
of cards in Ids hands. But who, except a true Christian,,
can die with the serene assurance of St. Paul, and s-dy: "I
am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure
is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my
course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid ni)

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 271

for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous judge, shall give me at that day" (2 Tim, iv, 6-8)?
I might as well improve this opportunity, once for all,
to say a word about Calvin and Servetus. Everybody is
familiar with these two names. Callow striplings tha';
never saw a Life of Calvin, far less read one, are able to
articulate the three words: " Calvin burned Servetus."- Ig-
norami that can hardly tell the difference between Calvin-
ism and Galvanism, somehow manage to say, with a knowing
air: '* Calvin burned Servetus." The sectarian hater of
Calvinism; the Catholic hater of Protestantism; and the
Infidel hater of Christianity, can stand side by side and
chant together: *' Calvin burned Servetus." A gainsayer,
cornered, squelched, and extinguished in controversy, can
say that much^ anyhow: "Well, Calvin burned Servetu?."
Now, 1 am prepared to say, and I hereby say deliberately,
that Calvin did not burn Servetus; neither did dk
CONSENT to his BURNING BY OTHERS. "The facts about that
sad affair were these:

1. Calvin believed in punishing incorrigible heretics
with death.

2. Servetus himself, and his follower, Socinus, cherished
the same belief.

3. Calvin instigated the arrest of Servetus, and furnished
the evidence against him in the trial.

4. The authority that pronounced the sentence on Serve-
tus was vested in the Senate of Geneva.

5. Calvin exerted all his influence to secure a modification
of the sentence from burning to death by the sword.

It is true, this bears a most painful resemblance to the
humaneness of the French Infidels, when they discontinued
the use of the awkward axe, and proceeded to chop each
other's heads off with the more graceful guillotine. Never-
theless, let the truth be said, even of John Calvin.

6. That age gave a general endorsement to the execution
of Servetus. The cantons of Berne, Zurich, Bale, and

272 THE HCMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Schaffhausen concurred in the action of Geneva. Melanc-
thon Beza, Farel, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Zuingli, Viret,
Peter Martyr, BulUnger, Tarretin, and the cotemporaneous
theologians and statesmen generally approved of it.

This was confessedly a dark spot on the character of
Calvin. But he should be judged in the light of his own
age and surroundings. He was trained a Romanist; and it
was hard for him to shake off entirely the dregs of intoler-
ance. Even Draper says: "He was animated, not by the
principles of the Reformation, but by those of Catholicism,
from which he had not been able to emancipate himself
completely" (Conflict between Religion and Science, p.
864). Besides, he found himself in Geneva under an an-
cient law that declared heresy a capital crime. The public
opinion sanctioned that law. And we know how hard it is for
mortals to be several centuries ahoad of their times. Cal-
vin's crime was the crime of his age; but I admit that it was
a cHme nevertheless.

I cannot see why Presbyterians should suffer reproach on
account of the Calvin and Servetus affair any more than
other denominations. Calvin was no part of the Piesbyte-
rian Church. If the Westminster divines adopted, to a
great extent, his system of doctrines, they did no more than
the Baptists, and the earlier Episcopalians and Congrega-
tionalists.

The world should not forget its many obligations to John
Calvin. Bancroft, in his History of the United States,
traces the germination and development of republican prin-
ciples to his system. Froude has shown that " Calvinism "
has been no secondary force in the progress of civilization;
and he has testified as to Calvin's private character, that
he "-made truth, to the Imt fibre of it, the rule of practical life."

There are extant ever so many discussions of "Calvin
and Servetus." But no one has been just to the memory of
Calvin until he has seen what may be said in his favor
by reading Beza's, Waterman's, McCrie's, Mackenzie's, and

THE ^U^rPHTlEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 273

especially Henry's Life of Calvin; Rilliet's Calvin and Ser-
vetus; Cbauffpie's article on Servetusin bis continuation of
Bayle's Dictionary; the Encyclopedia Britannica; Coleridge's
Table-Talk; the Biblical Repertory, vol. viii, pp. 74:-96, and
the Biblii.theca Sacra, vol. iii. pp. 51-94, There are two
sides to this question; and no conclusion can be fair where
both sides have not been thoroughly investigated.

I deny that Biot is accepted by the best scientists and
theologians as good authority on Sir Isaac Newton. David
Brewster contradicts him flitly, and proves conclusively
that Newton's greatest religious works were thought out and
written before the temporary cloud passed over his mind.
(Life of Newton, ch. xvi, Lynn's ed.)

To me it is one of the clearest things in the world that
Infidelity is of a disintegrating character. I mean, of
course, unmixed Infidelity. Many Infidels are unconscious-
ly restrained by the internal and external influences of
religion. As many professed Christians are worse than
their principles, so many professed Infidels are better than
their principles, or, rather, non principles. Imagine a world
of universal skepticism. God is denied or ignored. Where
then is Moral Obligation ? Will you say that society
shall declare its own requirements, by enacting laws to
direct and govern itself ? But what right has society, any
more than a body of bishops, to think for the individual ?
Plainly enough, the spirit of Infidelity is inimical to every
thing organic among men. This is illustrated by palpable
facts. All Infidels are making an onslaught on the Church.
The Free-Love Infidels are waging war on the Family.
And the Communistic Infidels are breathing out threaten-
ings and slaughter against Civil Government.

So you think Infidelity is consistent with Morality 1 You
are then far in "advance" of some of your predecessors.
D'Holbach grunted under the burden of showing that Athe-
ism furnished the strongest motives for virtue and justice.
Voltaire requested D'Alembert and Condorcet not to talk

274 THE HXJMPHBBT-BEHNETT DISCUSSION.

Atheism in the hearing of his servants, giving as his reason
that he "did not want to have his throat cut that night."
Hume says that *'Hobbes* politics are fitted only to pro-
mote tyranny, and his ethics to encourage licentiousness " (His-
tory of England, vol. v, p. 97). He says farther in one of
his E=says: "Disbelief in futurity loosens in a great meas-
ure the ties of morality, and may be supposed for that
reason, to be pernicious to the peace of civil society."
Bolingbroke says: "The doctrine of rewards and punish-
ments in a future state, ha3 so great a tendency to enforce
the civil laws and to restrain the vices of men, that, though
reason would decide against it on the principles of theology,
she will not decide against it on the principles of good
policy. ... No religion ever appeared in the world,
whose natural tendency was so much directed to promote
the peace and happiness of mankind as the Christian. The
Gospel of Christ is one continual lesson of the strictest
morality, justice, benevolence, and universal charity."

But this question needs no backing by quotations. It
stands to reason, as they say, that a man who thoroughly
believes in a God who will certainly punish iniquity, and
as certainly reward goodness, will be more raoral than
another one who has no God to fear or love; no Hell to shun,
no Heaven to seek. A man who believes that he is only a
beast is quite likely to live like a beast.

Let us now consider some of the popular objections to
Religion:

1. There is a lurking fallacy, and a sly begging of the
question, in some of r.he words which Infidels are very fond
of using. For instance, they persist in speaking of the
entire clergy of Christendom as priests, priesthood, and
'prleUcraft. They ought to be more just and accurate.
They ought to know that the great body of Protestants do
not regard a minister as a priest in any sense different from
the lay believer. In other words, there is no distinct
order called the Priesthood, under the Gospel Dispensation.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 275

(Hodge's Systematic Theology, vol. iii, p. 689.) The Infi-
del use of these words is only an unfair attempt to liover
Protestantism with the odium that is associated with Ro-
manism.

It is frequently assumed that ** common sense" is all on
the side of unbelief. This is both gratuitous and egotistic.
As Huxley says, common ignorance passes very often by the
more deceiving name of Common Sense (Lay Sermons, p.
330). There is not a book in the world that contains as
much "common sense " as the Bible.

What self-eomplacency there is in the skeptic's use of the
word "Liberalism"! It takes for granted what does not
exist in fact, viz., that Infidels are more truly liberal than
Christians. What is popularly called "Liberalism" is
really an unwritten creed, which runs about as follows:

Art. I. Every individual is the smartest fellow in the
world.

Art. IL It is to be presumed that anything and everything
may possibly be true, provided always orthodoxy is ex-
cluded from this supposition.

Art. III. It makes no difference what you believe or do—
you'll fetch up all right.

How much superior to all this is the Liberalism of the
New Testament: *'Be kindly affectioned one to another
with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another" (Rom.
xii, 10). " Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only
use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love
serve one another" (Gal. v, 13).

Similar things may be said of the words " Freethought, "
and "Freethinker." The Infidel is not more /ree as a
thinker than his religious neighbor. For one, I can testify
that my mind enjoys unbounded freedom. I think exactly
as I please. Freethought! That is certainly a high-sounding
name. But we should remember that great names are fre-
quently given to very insignificant concerns. You will
often see a low corner grogshop dubbed "London House,"

276 THE HT7MPHRET-BENNETT DISCtJSSTON.

or " Paris Hotel." But it is a low corner grogshop after all.
It is so with Infidelity. It may style itself " Freethought,''
"Liberalism," " Progress," and all that; but its true char-
acter will still remain the same. In the language of Prof.
Huxley, "many a spirited free-thinker makes use of his free-
dom mainly to vent nonsense " (Lay Ser., p. 62). From the
way many Infidels stagger through History, bungle Philoso-
phy, and blunder over Scripture, I should say that Freetinker
would be a more appropriate term than "Freethinker."

How often it is assumed that if a man is a t1iinlcei\ he is
sure to be an unbeliever. When we remember that such
men as Columbus, Descartes, Locke, Blackstone, Milton,
Bacon, Cuvier, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Pascal, Da Vinci,
Brewster, Burke, Faraday, Herschel, Morse, Mitchell, Gui-
zot, Handel, Haydn, Rawlinson, Chalmers, Agassiz, etc.,
etc., etc., were firm believers in the Christian Religion, this
assumption is at once ridiculous and contemptible. There
are ever so many "Sages " and "Thinkers" who are not
"Infidels;" and there are hosts of Infidels who are neither
" Sages " nor " Thinkers." It might be well for some peo-
ple to keep in mind that long hair, weird looks, spectacles,
funny clothes, and other eccentricities, all put on, do not,
ipso facto ^ constitute a thinker.

2. It is sometimes objected to Religion that it makes peo-
ple insane. But is this a sound argument ? Is it applied
to anything else ? News, good and bad, have caused some
to lose their minds. Should newspapers, telegraph com-
panies, and all post-offlces, be suppressed on that account ?
Disappointment in love has made many a bonnie lass and
sighing swain crazy. Does it follow that courtship should
be dicountenanced the world over ? Financial embarras-
ments have overwhelmed the mind of many an enterprising
merchant. Does that prove that business, commerce, and
money should be banished from the earth ? Childbirth is
often followed by derangement. May we thence argue that
marriage is dishonorable in all? It is probable that Newton's

•fflB HXJMPHRET-BENNErT DISCUSSION. 277

temporary aberration of mind was caused by the intensity
of his scientific studies. May "we therefore conclude
that scientific investigation should be discouraged ? Every-
body will answer, No. ThenVon the same ground precisely,
I will answer No, in behalf of Religion.

But why is this argument not passed around ? Why not
insist that Spiritualism is a very bad thing, since it sent
even the strong-minded Robert Dale Owen into the insane
Asylum ? George Francis Train is either a lunatic because
he is an Infidel, or else he is an Infidel because he is a luu-
atic. Why not blazon this as a knock-down argument
again-t Infidelity ? Intemperance has made a thousand
crazy, where religious excesses have made one. Why is it
that Infidel journals do not use this fact as the ground of a
thunderiDg appeal against the Liquor Traflic ? It is all be-
cause they will not turn their style of caviling against
Christianity against anything else. It is because they are
given to straining out religious gnats, while they can swal-
low irreligious camels.

3. Some people, and some very intelligent people, say
they cannot determine anything ^bout the Christian Re-
ligion, because of the multiplicity of sects. Now, it is too
true that there are far more denominations than are neces-
sary. Divisions have subdivided until the sections are very
numerous. But the " Freethinker " should be the last man
to find fault with this. It is the result of the liberty which
Protestantism vouchsafes to every man, and body of men,
to think and act as they see fit. Thus a place is furnished
for almost every variety of taste and opinion. As to the
vital difference between these denominations, it is not so
very great, after all. The Evangelical Alliance could meet
on a common basis. And it is the united voice of Prot-
estant Christendom that that basis contains all the essentials,
the saving truths, of Christianity. The distinguishing
marks are non-essential — matters of taste, education, local
and historical attachments.

278 THE FUMIPHIIEY - BEls^ETT DISCUSSION,

But let US admit that the variety of sects and denomina
tions is perplexing and bewildering. I will still claim that
the denial or ignoring of religion on that account is un?-ea-
sonable, and contrary to human practice in other respects.
The world has a great many different forms of government-
Empires, Kingdoms, and Republics. Will any intelligent
man use this as an excuse for refusing citizenship anywhere?
Let us be thankful that our country actually swarms with
most amiable and excellent young ladies and gentlemen.
Do any of them put matrimony out of the question, on
account of the wide room for choice ? Would an emigrant
refuse to settle in any part of America, simply because there
are so many States and Territories ? Would a traveler
refuse to go to any hotel, and sleep out doors, because he
was met by so many contending runners at the depot ? Do
our talented young men decline going to any college or
university, because there are so many colleges and universi-
ties ? What are our political parties but political sects ?
How many American citizens are there who make the
variety of parties a reason for identifying themselves with
no party ? Should the fabled ass that starved between two
bundles of hay, because he could not determine which was
the best, so that he might eat it first, be the model of rea-
sonable men ?

Such questions as these answer themselves. They show
that the objection to Religion, now under consideration, is
more of an excuse than anything else. But where is a man
to flee to get rid of this excuse ? Certainly not to Infidel-
ity ; for sectarianism prevails even there. He will there be
stunned by the conflicting clamors of Deism, Atheism,
Pantheism, Materialism, Spiritualism, Free-Loveism, Com-
munism, and a hundred Nondescriptisms. Nothing can
be better and easier for him than to study the cardinal truths
of the Divine Book, absorb them into the very marrow and
fibres of his being, enter the Master's great vineyard, and
work at the row of vines he may choose.

THE HUMPIlItEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 279

4. But the commonest objection of all to the Christian
Religion is the inconsistencies of many who profess it. This
objection is as old as Siu and Sophistry. And it is still
full of life and vigor. It lives on in defiance of logic, good
sense, and consistency. You have gone to the trouble of
furnishing quite a list of fallen ministers. Doubtless some
of your sympathizers will mistake this list for reasoning.
They will probably keep it as an Infidel reference bible.
Very likely they will learn some of it by heart. It fur-
nishes them with a great supply of cartridges — blank,
every one of them. What a sweet scrap book you must
have had 1 You have certainly been a diligent gleaner on
the fields of the "Police Gazettes" ; and now you come to the
thresbing-floor with your blasted sheaves. But you forgot
the case of the "confidence game" man, who,, the other
day, donned a clerical suit, and was thereby enabled to
" borrow " quite a sum of money from a rustic. He was a
capital illustration of the principle you try to bring out.
The apostates whom you mention were only social and
moral " confidence game " men. The Bible and Chris-
tianity are no more responsible for them than the Consti-
tution and the good citizens of the United States are culpable
for the existence among them of the criminal classes.

I have no inclination to doubt that your sketches of the
disguised wolves are in the main correct. I offer no apology
for those who were guilty. I will say of the Protestants that
have transgressed, and died in their sins, as Moehler, the
great Catholic controversialist, said of the "priests, bish-
ops, and popes, whose scandalous conduct and lives extin-
gnisbed the still glimmering torch, which they ought to
have kindled: Hell hath swallowed them up" (Symbolism,
Robertston's trans., 3d ed., p. 270). But in your ventilation
of this matter you reveal a spiteful spirit, and a readiness to
make unwarrantable assertions. You are not careful to
mention all the cases that have been deposed. You give
some names twice, in order to swell your list. You expatiate

2$0 THE HUMPHREY-BENKETT DISCUSSION.

on the doings of individuals wliose names you can not or
dare not produce. You accuse others merely because gos-
sipers, quack-doctors, and possibly, blackmailers, have
wagged their " froward tongues" against them. Yea, you
have been so unjust, and illegal, to say nothing of illiberal,
as to assume that many are guilty against whom a whisper
has never gone forth.

But it is only the genuine Christian that can consistently
condemn such e'rreligious and wnchri^tian characters as you
have mentioned. It was against the Bible most of all that
they sinned. Their conduct was quite in harmony with the
teachings of prominent Infidels Those who committed
suicide were only doing what Hume and D'Holbach pro-
nounced not only justifiable, but brave and noble. Those
who appropriated to themselves, without leave, the prop-
erty—or, as the Infidel Proudhon would call it, the "rob-
Ijery "— of others, were only making a private application of
that growing child of " Freethought," namely, Communism.
The adulterers and whoremongers were nothing more than
Free-Lovers in disguise. It was the practice of Infidel doc-
trines that made them what they were.

But will you say, as Mrs. Woodhull said of Beecher, that
tbeir sin consisted chiefly in their hypocrisy? According to
the Scriptures, hypocrisy is a damnable sin. Bat I have
shown in my last that the skeptical Hume recommended,
and that Toland, Paine and Voltaire practiced dissimulation
and duplicity. To them may be r.dded Simon Magus— whom
you have hung up in your gallery of Infidels— lying, and
uniting with the Apostolic Church with the expectation of
receiving thereby extraordinary powers (Acts viii, 9-24); Col-
lins and Shaftesbury partaking of the Sacrament in order to
qualify themselves for civil oflice; and Hobbes clinging to
the Anglican Church, though he hated its doctrines. By your
showing— which, as we have seen, is incorrect — President
White is a hypocrite, sanctioning and participating in daily
prayers— only to " cater " to religious young men 1 O Mr,

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 2f^l

Bennett, Mr. Bennett, where is consistency ? If suicide,
dishonesty, licentiousness, and hypocrisy are wrong in
clergymen — and they are eternally so — they are also wrong
in all men. But where did you learn that these things are
unlawful ? Was it from Hume's Essa)^ on Suicide ? Was it
from the utterances of Free-Love Conventions ? Was it
from the ring-leaders of Communism ? No, dear friend : it
was from the blessed old Bible which you despise, and
which your batch of disgraced clergymen have disobeyed.

It seems that you have given us some of the advance
sheets of your forth-coming " Champions of the Church,"
which you took occasion to advertise, I have seen your
prospectus, and found that those whom you have selected
for ** Champions " are, with very few exceptions, divisible
into two classes: 1st. Those who were no champions at all;
and 2nd. Those who were champions only in evil doing. I
hope you will proceed to give us, on the same principle, a vol-
ume entitled "Champions of the American Republic," con-
taining exclusively sketches of Benedict Arnold, Aaron
Burr, Preston S. Brooks, John B. Floyd, Jefferson Davis,
Mrs. Surratt, J. Wilkes Booth, Raphael Semmes, Oakes
Ames, James Fisk Jr., Wm. M. Tweed, John Morrissey,
Brigham Young-, Tom Thumb, Justus Schwab, Joseph
Coburn, and the like. If your method is fair in religious
it is fair in political history.

Ministers, as a class, are good men. Of course, there are
exceptions among them; but exceptions never disprove a
rule. When we remember that there are between seventy
and a hundred thousand ministers in the United States, it
is a marvel that far more of them do not prove to be wolves
in sheep's clothing.

There are two reasons why the sins of a minister at-
tract unusual attention : First, the height of bis station
gives special conspicuoiisness to his downfall. Impropriety
in one clergyman will elicit more remarks than greater im-
moralities in a hundred men of the world. ** Irregularities "

283 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION

in the latter are taken almost as matters of course; and very
little is said about them. I would not have it otherwise as
regards the clergy. They should be holy men. If they sin
against God, and forget their awful responsibilities, they
deserve to feel the keenest edge of disgrace and remorse.

Another reason for this is to be found in the fact that
men do not generally speak of the sins of ministers and those
of other people in the same terms. Dishonesty makes a
preacher a thief outright — as it ought to; but it only
makes an irreligious man a little "crooked," but "mighty
smart." A violation of the Seventh Commandment in a
church-member is adultery, fornication, lechery, and whore-
dom ; but in an unbeliever it is only a ^^liamn,'" " un
arrangement,''' "a gallantry," "peccadillo," "mistake,"
and "something not menial." This manner of selecting
words misleads many into the belief that sin is really sinful
only in a religious teacher.

There are two reasons why your catalogue of hypocrites
makes nothing against the Christian Religion. The first is
the fact that the Bible does not sanction, far less command,
vice and sin. It was because they disobet/ed the Scriptures
that those whom you have named, fell. There is no book
in the world that speaks so severely of the unfaithful minis-
ter as the Word of God. For examples of this, read Zeph.
iii ; Mic. iii, 8-12; Mai. ii, and many other places. To see
what a minister is required to be, read 1 Tim. ch. iii.

The second reason consists in the fact that the Church has
neither tolerated nor connived at the sins of its Judas Iscar-
iots and Ananiases. By your own showing, conviction of
iniquity has invariably been followed by expulsion. What
more, what better, could the Church do ? The glaring fact
that the Bible condemns uncompromisingly, and prohibits
emphatically and repeatedly, not only evil, bul " all appear-
ance of evil," and the other fact that the Church, as rapidly
as consistency with justice and fair trials will permit, de-
poses, excommunicates, and disowns, such of her mem-

THE HU:\rPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 2S3

bers aud teachers as reveal wicked hearts by tangible acts,
effectually shield Christianity against your imputations.

Infidelity has nothing to compare with this. It possesses
and recognizes no authoritative Statute-Book which says :
"Thou Shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor." It admits of no supreme standard
of right and wrong. Neither does it know aught of such
a thiug as discipline. It owns and acknowledges as teachers
such men as Bolingbroke, Rousseau, Voltaire, whose pri-
vate characters were an abomination— owns them, though
they professed no repentance, but rather justified their
loathsome practices.

Your reasoning — if such it may be called — amounts to
this : That inconsistency idth^ and violation of, any given prin-
ciples^ are a proof lliat those principles are in themselves *had.
No man would think of reasoning in that way about any-
thing on earth but religion. When you find a dishonest
man, do you scold the multiplication-table ? Will you
point to the pickpocket and the burglar as evidences that
all statutes against stealing should be abolished ? Will you
endeavor to prove by the fallen women that the law of
chastity and marital fidelity should be annulled ? Do you
despise genuine money because it is counterfeited ? Do
you want to annihilate doctors and drug-stores because
disease and death are still in the world ? Do you want
to dissolve all civil governments for the reason that so
many office-holders are corrupt ? Would you point to
Benedict Arnold as a type of American patriotism ?
Would you, if required to show specimens of American
horses to a company of foreign equestrians, take them to a
back stable, and there direct their eyes to some scrawny,
wheezing creatures, infected and disfigured by ringbone,
founder, spavin, glanders, and epizootic ? Suppose — we
may suppose anything now-a-days — suppose that Science
were to establish interplanetary travel, and a committee of

284 THE HUMPHKEY-BEKITETT DISCUSSION.

Jupiterians were to make you a visit to request some models
of terrestrial beings to take back with tbem — would you
go to the Penitentiary or the Lunatic Asylum to select the
models ? Do you despise Liberty, because — as Madame
Roland said a-dying — crimes are committed in its name ?
You will say a thousand times No to these questions.
Then, in the name of Secse and Consistency, I demand that
you shall give Just the same answer in regard to the Bible
and the Christian Church. I insist that we are to judge of
the principles of the Scriptures only by those who obey
them.

You disparage ministers generally. You say they are
useless and unproductive. But you said that with your
eyes closed. You forgot that many clergymen, such as
Leyden and Priestley, have been scientific discoverers.
You forgot that nine-tenths of the Chancellors and Presi-
dents of the world's Universities and Colleges from time
immemorial until now, have been ministers of the Gospel.
You forgot that the needy and distressed in every village
and city in Christendom go most hopefully to the Christian
pastor for sympathy and assistance. You forgot that a vast
number of our best Biographies, Histories, and Cyclope-
dias of Art and Science, are the works of clergymen.

The Infidels are more truly the unproductive class.
Where is the Hospital, or Benevolent Institution that they
have founded and supported ? Where, in oar broad land, is
the Orphan Asylum, or Home for the Aged, that they have
endowed ? What are they doing to teach the rising genera-
tion to love Virtue, Patriotism, Righteousness, and Holi-
ness ? What great ideas have they ever given to the world?
In the language of Carlyle, whom you have. called a '* Giant
Infidel," (?) "What Plough or Printiug-Press, what Chivalry
or Christianity; nay, what Steam-Engine, or Quakerism, or
Trial by Jury, cMd these Eucyclopedists invent for mankind?
They invented simply nothing : not one of man's virtues,
not one (f man's powers, is due to them ; in all these re-

THE HUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 285

spects the age of Louis XV. is among the most barren of
recorded ages " (Essay on Voltaire).

Pardon the length of my letter. I could not review your
Reply, and expose the popular sophistries of Infidelity, in
less space. Your obedient Servant,

G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BKNNETT.

Rev. G. H. HmiPHRET, Dear Sir: Your letter No. 10
contains a great many words, displays a good deal of inge-
nuity, a respectable amount of skill and ability in quib-
bling, evading, and dodging, but, candidly, I cannot sco
that it has much bearing upon the subject under dis-
cussion. I cannot see that yoti have refuted any of the
arguments I have advanced, or disproved any of the facts I
adduced. With all respect for your ability, I must say, you
seem to me more like a shrewd lawyer who, conscious of the
weakness of his case, artfully defends it with sophistry and
clap-trap, than like a solid reasoner, who is firmly con-
vinced that his cause is founded on eternal truth, which
needs not cunning nor sophistry to defend it. Permit me to
remark, that I think you have the faculty of proving the
most from the least amount of evidence of any person I
remember to have met.

It seems hardly worth while to follow you through your
wild meanderings and flounderings, and I will stop only to
show you some of your deficient arguments, and how en-
tirely you failed to rebut my assertions — for instance, I said
Girard did not make his wife crazy. To refute it you quote
that he married the daughter of a shipbuilder, that the union
was unhappy, that be was eccentric, ungracious and ill-tem-
pered. Did those qualities cause his wife's insanity? or
did her insanity produce those qualities in him ? One is a;i

38ft THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

reasonable as the other I Insanity is a disease. Girard was
no more responsible for any disease that his wife was
afflicted with than you or I would be for any disease, men-
tal or physical, that our wives might be suffering under.

I said you had do grounds to insinuate that Paine lived in
adultery with Madame Bonneville. To refute it you quote
Vale to the effect that one of her children was named after
him, and that he was godfather to another, which amounts
to just no refutation at all. If the fact that one of Madame
Bonneville's children was named after Mr. Paine was a
proof that he was father to it, what a great number of ille-
gitimate children Franklin and Washington must have been
fathers to I Was it a criminal affair in Paine that the child
of a friend should bear his name ? Let me ask you, why is
it that you are so much more inclined to condemn Paine
for offenses of which he was not guilty, than you are to try
and refute his arguments? What is the reason for your
wishing to make him appear worse than he really was ?
Do you not find it easier to make false charges than to
refute solid arguments ? What you said about Chester-
field, Goethe, and John Stuart Mill virtually exonerates
them from all your slanderous charges.

You seem, however, so fond of stirring up these charges
of adultery, etc., against Infidels, that I feel constrained to
fulfill the promise made in my last to give you more cases of
clerical derelictions, if that kind of literature proved inter-
esting to you. I will, then, continue the recital, where I
left off, with the assurance that if you still want more I will
endeavor to accommodate you.

You err in supposing I am actuated by a spiteful spirit in
the reference I make to the heinous crimes of the clergy.
I assure you it is more in sorrow than in anger that I re-
count the great shortcomings of this pretentious class of
men. I would far rather have it in my power to speak in
praise of every clergyman in the land. Some of them are
very fine men, and were they really engaged in a meritorious

THE HUMPHREY - BENNETT DISCUSSION. 287

cause I could wish them all tlie success iu the world. But it
is a sad fact that their profession of godliness does not keep
them from the worst of crimes; and inasmuch as they claim
to be so much better than unprofessing people who prate
less of God and Jesus, I feel it to be only right to show them
up in their true colors that their real character may be bet-
ter understood by the unsuspecting and confiding. Your
talk about fallen clergymen acting contrary to the example
and teaching of the Bible worthies seems to me mere
twaddle, for their weaknesses were precisely in keeping
with the prominent Bible characters and those acknowl-
edged to be the favorites of God himself. They certainly
acted quite consistently in their adulterous practices with
Bible examples. Your attempt to make it appear that
the filthy and lecherous conduct of the Christian clergy is iu
accordance with the teachings of prominent Infidels is slan-
derously false, and I am surprised that you should have
the hardihood to say that it was the practice of Infidel doc-
trines that made them what they were. I pronounce your
aspersions wholly uncalled for. Their conduct was emi-
nently Christian. You speak about the names of the sinful
clergymen not being given in some instances. In some of
the most horrible cases the names were omitted for obvious
reasons; but if you feel anxious to have the names you can
be accommodated by calling upon me. You are wrong, as
usual, in asserting that some cases are put in twice to en-
large the list. The truth is, on the contrary, that thousands
of cases were omitted that might be named. You must
know there is more than one Smith, more than one Jones,
more than one Thompson, who pretends to stand up for
Jesus, and yet lamentably fails to do so.

You must understand that, from a Christian standpoint,
it is a much greater crime for an embassador of Jesus — the
shepherd who assumes to fold and feed the little lambs; he
who has bathed in the fountain filled with blood drawn
from Emanuel's veins; who has the grace of God, the power

2§8 THE EUMPHSEY - BENNETT DISCUSSION.

of the Holy Ghost, and the sweet influence of the Son to aid
him; who has sanclification, regeneration, and consecration on
his side — for this class of men, I repeat, it seems a much
worse offense to commit adultery, sodomy, etc., than for a
mere Infidel to deviate from the strictest propriety, when he
has nothing to depend upon and help him save his own sin-
ful nature and his own "total depravity"! For a wretched
sinner to err is not, perhaps, strange, but for a saint who
has experienced the joy of the New Jerusalem, and who
has partaken of the manna of the heavenly world, to de-
scend to the slums of filth, of vice and corruption, his crime
is far less excusable. You may possibly look on the rela-
tive criminality of sins committed by Christians and Infi-
dels in the same light in which another clergymen viewed
it whom I heard of when a boy. He was asked what the
difference was between a Christian's sinning and a sinner's
sinning. "Oh," said he, in pious tones, "a sinner sins
willingly and without protesting, but the Christian sins with
a most gra-aa-cious reluctance ! "

I admit that it is a foul, offensive narrative, but the guilt
consists altogether in the commission of the crimes, and not
in the exposure of them. Besides, believing the clergy to
be dead weights and dead beats upon the body politic, I
conceive it to be a part of my duty to expose to public gaze
their hypocrisy, their villainy, and their unworthiness of
reverence and esteem, and I give you the positive assurance
that for every prominent Infidel who has been guilty of
adultery and sexual improprieties, I can furnish the names
of fifty — not common members of the churches, but the
bright lights, the leaders, the men who spout most about
"holiness." Let me resume the offensive recital.

Grafton Brown, one of the saints of the Carroll, M. E.
church, seduced a daughter of Mr. Thomas Sellmon. He
had a wife and eight children, but insisted that his wife had
become too cold for him. His case required one warm
and ardent.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 289

Rev. James Bradley, a brilliant preacher of the Ironside
Baptist denomination at Huntsville, Mo., seduced one of
the church sisters and lived in adultery with her for five
years, when the arrival of a little infant brought his guilt
to light, and he suddenly had business that called him
elsewhere. The girl and her relatives were left to mourn
her sad fate.

Rev. Mr. Wolfe, Presbyterian, Brooklyn, K Y., was
placed under bonds to keep the peace, for knocking his
wife down with an umbrella.

Rev. R. T. Green, of the English church at Ailsa Craig,
Out., was impiisoned for forging endorsements on a note.

Rev. John J. Thompson, Presbyterian, Washington City,
was caught in his night-shirt crawling in the v.'indow of a
sleeping-room where two young ladies slept. They made
an outcry, when he threatened to shoot them if they were
not still. He tried to get into bed with them. Members of
his church tried to get him clear on the plea of insaoity.

Rev. Levi S. Bettinger, in Baltimore county, Md., had
placed in his charge a young lady to educate. He seduced
her and then deserted her, but was allowed to retain his
position.

Rev. A. J. Culver, of the Evangelical Association in
Eastern Iowa, a good-looking man and a strong-voiced
preacher, whose field of labor was in the moral vineyard
of Lisbon, Iowa, was so zealous in the cause of his
Master that he was called a Lieutenant of Jesus. Being
a single man, he engaged board with a widow who had
a pretty and engaging daughter. It is not strange that
Culver loved her, and he ought to have married her, for he
was the father of a bouncing big boy of which she was the
mother. Previous to the birth of the child she married a

fine man in the neighborhood, a Mr. H- . When, soon

after marriage the child was born, her husband asked her
TTho was the father. She answered it was the Rev. Culver.
He was arraigned before a council of clergymen ; he w?i^

290 THE HUMPHKET-BENXETT DTSCUSSIOIT.

found guilty and expelled from his church. The confer-
ence, however, reinstated him in the holy calling of shep-
here to the gentle lambs, and he is now delivering the bread
of life to the sinners of Illinois. The girl swore to tlie
paternity of the child before Peter Heller, Justice of
the Peace. The husband, not wishing to raise any Culver
stock, separated from his unfortunate wife and obtained a
divorce fron her. Thus her life was saddened and made
wretched by the lusts of this pious man of God.

Eev. Mr. Speare, Mason, 111., an intimate friend of a
banker of that city, while the latter was busy with a custom-
er, pocketed a roll of bank bills amounting to $1,000, took the
train to Bloomington, deposited the money, and returned
as if nothing had happened. He is now under $3,500 bonds
to appear before the criminal court.

A colored preacher in Early county, Ga., was fond of
watermelons. One night he strayed into the melon-patch of
a neighbor, who, having been preyed upon, was on the
watch. He fired upon the intruder and killed him on the
spiDt. The colored reverend died with the fruit still in his
mouth. Oh ! water-melon-cholly affair.

Rev. T. M. Dawson, Presbyterian, San Francisco, Cal.,
was guilty of the prevailing intirmity — too much "true in-
wardness." His love for the sisters was too ardent.

Rev. Lorenzo Dow, presiding elder in Eastern Kentuckj'^,
son of a clergyman, grandson of a clergyman and name-
sake of a great clergyman, sent his wife to her father's
without money, borrowed all the money he could from the
brethren and eloped with a girl, a daughter of another
clergyman, at Louisa, Ky. He used a great amount of du-
plicity and falsehood to carry out his foul designs. It cast a
o^reat gloom over the entire community. A particular fea-
ture of the case was that the father of the girl could not
say much, for years before, when a clergyman, he played
the same trick with another man's daughter. Thus they go.

Dr. Harlan, Methodist, in a Nebraska town, was driven

THE HUMPHREr-BENNETT DISCUSSION". 291

from the pulpit for lying, vulgarity and defaming his
brethren.

Rev. Alexander McKilvey, of Westfield, N. J., was de-
posed from the palpit for criminal conduct.

Rev. R. Petteplace, ot Lowell, Mass., was accused by his
wife of committiog adultery with the nurse-girl in their
employ. An inquiry was instituted, when he confessed
his guilt, and stepped down and out.

Rev. Wm. H. Lee, Jersey City, was guilty of grossly
beating his wife, and was tried for the offense.

Rev. F. D. James, of Somerville, Mass., was guilty of
forgery by placing other people's names to deeds and other
documents.

Rev. William Henry Jones, pastor of Grace Episcopal
Church, Toronto, was subjected to a trial upon fourteen dif-
ferent charges, among which were getting drunk, telling
falsehoods, embezzling money, vulgar conversation and
other unsaintly offenses.

A clergyman of Oxford, England, was sentenced to
twenty month's imprisonment for foully assaulting a girl of
fourteen years of age whom he had but recently con-
firmed.

Rev. P. P. Wimberly, of Atchinson, Pa., started out on
a grand begging campaign to raise money to pay the debts
of his church; but he was overcome by the weakness of the ^
flesh, and spent the money in sinful pleasures.

Rev. K L. Phillips, Monticello, Iowa, of the United
Brethren Church, was guilty of immoral conduct with sis-
ter Barnes, wife of Herbert Barnes. After playing a base
game with the unsuspecting husband in obtaining money
from him, the guilty ones eloped together. The villainous
clergyman left a legal wife and children behind, whom he
piously recommended to continue family worship and
prayer.

Rev. Prof. Wm. F. Black, the leading clergyman in the
Christian or Campbellite denomination in the West, and

292 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

formerly president of tlie Northwestern Christ" an Univer-
sity at Indianapolis, fell from grace and was guilty of crim-
inal conduct with Miss Corinne E. Voss, a gay and beauti-
ful woman, daughter of a very wealthy lawyer and specu-
lator. She started ostensibly to make a journey and visit
some friends in Kansas, and by agreement he met her at
Terre Haute and accompanied her to St. Louis, where they
stopped over night at the Planter's Hotel, and passed them-
selves off as man and wife.

Rev. E. Hopkins, St. Johnsbury, Yt., was arrested on a
charge of forgery, and was proved guilty.

Rev. Rudolph Weizerbeck, pastor of Bloomingdale Ger-
man Lutheran Church, was arrested for defrauding the
pension agency. When searched, two forged pension cer-
tificates were found upon his person.

Rev. Albert Rublete, Hoboken, N. J., was committed to
prison for twenty days for fraudulent begging and intem-
perance.

Rev. Jerome D. Hopkins swindled the people of Brook-
lyn by falsely representing himself as poor, and as having a
sister lying sick at Washington. In this way he raised con-
siderable funds.

Rev. J. H. Foster, whose last field of usclessness was in
the First Congregational Church at Hannibal, Mo., though
talented, and prepossessing in appearance, and very popu-
lar with the sisters, turned out to be a bold, bad man— in
fact, a regular wolf in sheep's clothing. It was proved that
he had wives living to the number of five, and that he was
a gambler and a dissolute person. He wore a most saintly
countenance, but the Devil was too near his heart. He dis-
creetly resigned his charge, and betook himself to other and
more congenial fields of labor.

Rev. John H. Morris, who a portion of the time preached
at the Passyunk Baptist Church in Philadelphia, proved
himself to be a criminal of the most revolting character.
In 1875 he lost his wife, and subsequently naarried her si^-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 293

ter. Soon after that he adopted a little girl eight years of
age, named Mary Rue, daughter of a widow, and it turned
out that for a year the brute — worse than any brute —
had been holding criminal relations with that small. child.
His wife caught him in bed with the child at two o'clock in
the night, and in the criminal act. The girl subsequently
confessed all about it to her mother, and stated that the
pious man by intimidation and threats had subjected her to
his vile uses. He was imprisoned for trial which has not
yet taken place.

Rev. John C. Simpson, of Oregon, Mo., was convicted of
illicit distilling, the jury finding him guilty on all five
counts. He is fifty years of age, and has been preaching
twenty years.

Elder Samuel H. McGhee, of the Christian or Campbellite
denomination, v/hose last flock attended upon his minis-
trations at Ashton, Lee Co., 111., had the weakness to fall
in love with a pretty, intelligent young lady of his church,
named Lorilla Paddock, and that he might take her to his
bosom, he procured poison and administered it to his wife,
who died in great suflferinir. His trial was held in Dixon,
and the verdict of guilty was rendered against him. He is
now working out his sentence of fourteen years at hard
labor in the State prison of Illinois.

Rev. J. P. Roberts, Mothodist, of Ulien, Wis., was sub-
jected to a trial for lying and slander.

Rev. J. F. Leak, Methodist, at Troy, Kansas, an aged
clergyman, who for many years has been looked upon as
a saint of the first water, brought himself into great tribula-
tion by making love to an interesting young lady of his
flock, who weekly attended upon his ministrations and
drank in the words of piety that fell from his lips. He
wrote her a number of letters, and plead with her most
earnestly to fly with him to England where, by the side of
a beautiful lake, like Como, they could make a paradise of
their own, and where the rude eyes of curiosity could never

294 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

find them out. For some reason, they did not start for
that lovely paradise; and an ugly feature of the interesting
case is that the young lady has given birth to a child, and
the dear pastor is in about as much trouble as he wishes to
feel. The mishap is seriously regretted by all the faithful
of the church, but such things seem to happen very fre-
quently.

Rev. Mr. Keely, of Madison, was led into trouble by the
bewitching airs of a pretty woman, named Clemmens.

Rev. John Moody, Cincinnati, was imprisoned for appro-
priating to his own use money that he had collected for
building a church.

Rev. Dewitt Knowlton, Boltonville, was brought to great
disgrace by the persistency with which a sister of the
church demanded that he should acknowledge the pater-
nity of her child. The affair cast a cloud over his other-
wise fair name.

Rev. A. J. Warren, of the M. E. church. North Vernon,
Ind., eloped with sister Stanton, carrying with them all the
church and Sabbath-school funds of which he was pos-
sessed. He left a wife and four little children.

Rev. Mason Noble, of Sheffield, Mass., a popular Con-
gregational clergyman, was formally charged with seduction
by Miss Bella J. Clark, a former pupil of Westfield Normal
School, and where she had been employed as a seamstress in
the clergyman's family.

Rev, W. S. Crow, Hinsdale, 111., by his unlawful inter-
course with a deacon's family, succeeded in breaking it up
and getting himself deposed from the pulpit.

Rev. Dominck McCaffray, of the Church of our Savior,
Third avenue, this ciiy, was accused by the pretty Mrs.
Leavitt of laying his hands upon her and kissing her
when she called upon him in his study. He denied it, of
course.

Rev. Martin Hoernlein, of Buffalo, was convicted of
arson in the second degree for setting fire to his own house

THE HUMPHKEY-J8ENNETT DliSCUSSlON. ii95

to obtain a large insurance he had placed upon the prop
erty.

Rev. R. W. Pearson, Baptist clergyman in Pittsburgh, had
a sad time of it. Before a court of his own church he was
proved guilty of lying, drunkenness and numerous adul-
teries. He had resided in various parts of the country and
had sinned in all of them. He was emphatically what is
familiarly called a * ' bad egg. "

The case of John D. Lee, Mormon bisliop, who was en-
gaged in the Mountain Meadow massacre twenty years ago,
and who was shot by United States authorities for his
heinous crime, is fresh in the public memory. Although
his hands had long been red (metaphorically speaking) with
the blood of his helpless fellow-beings, he died full of con-
fidence and love of Jesus and felt sure of going straight to
him as soon as his breath left his body. He boasted at the
hour of his death that he was not an Infidel, but died a good
Christian.

Abbe Beaugard, vicar of an important post in Paris, was
in 1877, sentenced to fifteen years transportation for crinji-
nally assaulting two little girls and communicating to them
a loathsome disease.

Rev. G. R. Williams, while preaching in Griggstown, N.
Y., was engaged to marry a nice young lady of his congre-
gation, when a former wife very inopportunely put in an
appearance and broke up the little arrangement. The cler-
gyman soon found he had business that called him else-
where.

Rev. Paul T. Valentine, Ph.D., and D.D., and LL.D. was
tried and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment by Re-
corder Hackett in General Sessions in this city, April, 1877,
for the most revolting and despicable crimes in the entire
criminal calendar — the corruption anJ vile use of little
boys and girls under his charge in what he called a " Col-
lege for Homeless Children," where he pretended to teach
them useful employment and to fit them for the actual

296 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

duties of life, wlien in reality he practiced the grossest
crimes known to man. Nine witnesses testified in the most
pointed manner against him. Rtcorder Hackett said the
case was the most atrocious that had ever come to his
knowledge during his long service in the criminal courts of
this wicked city, and he was only sorry that the extreme pen-
alty for the crimes was not death. He gave the culprit the
full extent prescribed by the law — ten years' imprison-
ment at hard labor.

Rev. Joseph Jones, a Baltimore Methodist clergyman,
greatly gifted in revivals, got hold of a bequest of $50,-
000 which bad been made to his church, and diverted
it to his own benefit. He got involved, and when the
crime was exposed he committed suicide.

Rev. E. J. Baird, a Richmond (Va.) Presbyterian clergy-
man, Secretary of the Presbyterian Publishing Committee,
was tried for embezzling $22,000 of funds belonging to the
Committee, and which he was unable to replace, and of
course was summarily deposed.

Rev. Leaven Fausette, of Port Huron, La., was hung for
murder.

U. S. Senator Brownlow, of Tennesee, who was for many
years a clergyman, as well as an editor and afterwards
Governor of the State, in his book published some years
ago, uses this language in reference to clergymen in the
South: '*I have no hesitancy in saying, as I now do, that
the w.orst men who make tracks upon Southern soil are
Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Episcopal clergymen,
and at the head of them for mischief are the Methodists "
(p. 187). *' A majority of the clergymen have acted upon
the principle that the kingdom of their divine master is of
this world, and as a consequence many of them have em-
barked in fighting, lying, and drinking mean whiskey " (p.
190) " Here, as in all parts of the South, the worst class
of men are preachers. They have done more to bring about
the deplorable state of things existing in the country [refer-

THK HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 297

ring to the war of the Rebellion] than any other class of
men. And foremost in this work of mischief are the Meth-
odist preachers. Brave in anticipation of war, and prone
to denunciation on all occasions, even in the pulpit, they
have been among the first to take to their heels" (p. 392).

To give some idea of the Catholic clergy, let me make
some quotations from one who had excellent opportunities
for knowing their habits and customs. Father John W.
Gerdermann, ex-Catholic priest of St. Bonifacius Church in
Philadelphia. After renouncing the hypocritical priest- life
which he had led for, ten years, in a lecture delivered to an
immense audience in that city, in the summer of 1875, drew
this faithful picture of the false-hearted fraternity he har'
forsaken :

" I come now to the last great blot on the character of
the Roman clergy, which you will allow me to treat in a
cursory manner out of respect to the audience I have the
honor to address. Priests are not allowed to marry; would
to God they were. They are called Fathers by the people,
and unfortunately, with many it is not only a name but a
sad reality; not the honored, hallowed name of father, but
a name whispering of shame and a broken heart, if not a
ruined family. Undoubtedly the young men who are or-
dained priests are generally pure, sincere, and good; but
alas I the system of celibacy, at all times the bane of the
Catholic ministry, too often ruins them. I spoke to a
priest last year about this time, about getting married and
leaving the Church. He called me a fool, and advised me
not to leave the easy life of the priesthood, but to do like
him and keep a mistress. I thanked him for his advice and
told him I was no dog. Bishop Wood told me of more than
one priest in his diocese whom he characterized as immoral,
and thoroughly bad men, who to this day hold their offices.
Marry, forsooth, in an honorable way, the priest is not al-
lowed, but ruin a poor girl he may. It is better, the Pope
teaches, for a priest to have two concubines, than marry

398 THE HUMPHBET-BENNETT DISCUSSIOKT.

one woman lawfully. Shame upon such morality! Shame
upon the Church with such teaching 1

" I repeatedly have heard good and sincere priests say it
was a blessing the American people did not know the true
character of the Roman priesthood, for if they did, Ihey
would sweep them out of the country, and 1 assure you if
you should know them as I do, you would not consider the
remark any too harsh. Firstly, they have an inordinate
desire for money. The poor people are asked for money at
all times and occasions. The more a man gives the be .ter
he is liked. He mu?t pay every time he comes to church,
and every time the priest comes to him. No matter how
poor the family may be, how hard the man may work, how
much the mother may slave, how poorly the children are
clad, no matter whether the grocer is paid, the priest must
have his dues. Baptisms, marriages, and funerals, must be
paid for, and woe to the poor Catholic who offers a priest
less than five dollars. Too much he can never give. Go
to any Catholic church in this city on Sunday, and you
hear something about money always. The more a priest
returns to the bishop, for the seminary or other purposes,
the higher he rises in the bishop's esteem. Provided a
priest is sound on the money question his other qualities
are of minor importance. I know over five hundred priests
and sixty bishops in this country; I have frequently been
in priests' and bishops' company, and whenever the question
came on the congregations they never asked, ' How are
your people? are they temperate? faithful in attendance
t;t church? do they raise their children well?' but always,
* How much pew-rentii do you get ?' ' What do your col-
lections amount to ?' ' What do you get at Christmas ?'
' What are your fees for baptism and marriage ?' and if the
sums did not seem large enough, you woald hear a 'Damn it,
that's little.' I know priests who have been scarce ten
years in the priesthood and who own from $20,000 to
$40,000. And the poor people who give are never told

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 299

where the money goes to. No priest knows what the bishop
owns. No congregation hears what a priest receives nor
how it is spent. And how is it spent ? A good deal of it
in gambling, cigars, grand dinners, and good drinks.
Priests are, without doubt, the best livers in the country.
Whenever you meet a company of priests, be it on Sunday
or week day, night or day time, you nearly always find
them at a game of euchre, and not for mere pastime, but
for money. I often saw, especially Irish priests, play for
quarters, halves, and a dollar a game. The German priests
were generally content with a game for ten cents. Then
come the grand dinners, served in the most approved style,
for which the good people foot the bill. Those dinners are
not gotten up on a small scale, either, but cost from $500 to
$3,500. The bishop gives generally three or four grand
dinners a year, when the priests are invited, and God knows
how many on a smaller scale. Priests give their dinners
on stated occasions — at the funeral of a priest, and the day
of a corner-stone laying, or at the dedication of a new
church, and annually on the last day of the forty hours.
The poor people fcre in at their prayers, while the good
fathers are enjoying their terrapin, canvas-back, and cham-
pagne.

'*But the great curse of the priesthood in this country is
the vice of drunkenness. Of the extent of this vice I can
give you no adequate idea. When priests meet, the first
and the las'-; thing is a drink; early in the morning and late
at night, the whiskey-bottle is their consolation. If you
would not offer whiskey and wine— and plenty of it, to your
visitors, you would soon be spotted and cried down as a
fool. Bishop Wood, who was a frequent visitor at my
house, said he did not want any ' Teutonic acid,* meaning
good German wine, but insisted on having champagne.
And let me show you that his capacity is rather a large one.
I was traveling with him in Schuylkill county, three or
four weeks before I left the Church, and I will now give

300 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

you his day's work. Early that morning he confirmed in
the German church at St. Clair. After having administered
confirmation, a good breakfast was spread before him.
He did not touch it but asked for a bottle of wine.
Good Father Froude was rather surprised, and said:
• Hallo ! wine for breakfast 1' After the wine was finished
we went to the Eni^lish church. There the bishop com-
plained of the poor wine of Father Froude, and asked for
and received a bottle of champagne. After he had given
confirmation there, a few glasses of lager beer were enjoyed.
Then came dinner, and a good one it was, and he partook
freely of beer, wine, champagne, and brandy to wash it
down. Before we left St. Clair for Mahony Plain, on the
Superintendent's special car, a few more bottles of cham-
pagne were opened and dispatched by him and the priests
present. Scarcely had we reached Father O'Connor's house
when he asked for goat-milk punch, of which he took two
or three glasses, afterward he followed it with a few glasses
of champagne. Still he got through with confirming about
two hundred people, only complaining of not being quite
well; the dinner of terrapin, pheasants, and other choice
things served afterward, he did not enjoy, and he went to
bed, where I brought to him the last glass of champagne
after eleven o'clock. When you hear that a bishop can do
so much in that line, and still be able to give confirmation,
you will not be surprised to hear that bills for liquors and
wines are large with a priest who often enjoys his visits.
To be serious, the greater part of the priests who have died
in this diocese since I was ordained died of too much drink,
and many priests are serving there now who more than
once suffered from delirium tremens.

" To see priests drunk in their houses is bad enough, but
how much worse, how much more disgraceful is it for them
to be drunk in the pulpit and at the altar 1 Even in Sep-
tember last, I heard a sermon preached at the close of the
forty hours' devotion, one of ihe most solemn occasions in

THE HTJMPHBBY-BE2TNETT DISCUSSION. 301

the Catholic Church, by a priest when under the influence
of liquor. That man arrived about two o'clock in the
afternoon, completely drunk. He slept off, it is true, partly
the effects of his debauch, siill, when he preached at seven
o'clock, he was anything but sober. After the ceremonies
were over, he re- commenced his potations, mixing whiske}'',
beer, wine, and champagne, till he fell on the floor beastly
drunk. That man is in the mission to-day, pastor of a
large congregation, although it is well known that not a
week passes in which he is not druuk once or twice. On
another occasion, a priest — who now rests in a drunkard's
grave — was so completely drunk when carrying the wafer
in procegsion through his church, that I and another priest
who acted as deacons, had to support him to keep him from
falling. I might adduce many more instances of the fear-
ful intemperance as prevailing among the Roman clergy;
but I suppose enough has been said to convince you that
temperance is a virtue almost unknown among them."

I will now give you a few paragraphs upon the American
clergy from the ex-reverend E. E. Guild, who was for many-
years a Protestant clergyman, but who from honest investi'
gation and conviction was induced to abandon the profes-
sion he no longer believed it was right for him to follow.
He is now an old man, highly respected by those who know
him, and his testimony may be received with all confidence.
I quote from his " Pro and Con of Supernatural Religion":

" Undoubtedly the priesthood, like ail other learned pro-
fessions, is composed of both good and bad men. But on
the score of merit, it cannot justly claim any superiority
over the others. Doubtless the clergy are no better, nor any
worse, than the average of men, only so far as the false
position which they occupy makes them so. With them
the business of theological and religious teaching is a pro-
fession and a means of obtaining a livelihood: Before they
enter upon their work, they must, before God and man,
make solemn professions of faith in a certain creed to which

m

THE HCJ.MPnUEY-J3ENNETT DISCUSSION.

they are expected to adhere and defend during life. On
their doing this, their living depends. They have a pecun-
iary interest at stake. The creed must be maintained, mis-
sionary work must be done, contributions must be raised,
revival excitements must be gotten up, converts must be
made, for all this brings grist to their miU. They are con-
servative in their tendencies, opposed to all innovation,
tenacious and bigoted in their opinions and blind to all
newly discovered truth. They can seldom see the word
truth, because, with them, it is covered by a dollar. Their
occupation leads them into the practice of conscious or un-
conscious hypocrisy. They assume a character before the
people that they by no means maintain in their families, or
when in company with each other. However grave, sancti-
monious, and circumspect tney may appear in public, when
assembled in company by themselves, they are the most
jolly of men. They can crack their jokes, tell funny sto-
ries, relate smutty anecdotes, and indulge in low gossip to
an extent unequaled by any except protessional libertines.
Tliey denounce human selfishness, and are of all men the
most selfish; declaim against avarice, and are mercenary
and avaricious; preach against pride, fashion and love of
the world, and yet are as proud, as servile imitators of fash-
ion, and manifest as much of the love of the world, as other
men. They insist on the necessity of seif-denial, but think
themselves entitled to the most comfortable places, the best
bits, the choicest dainties, the lion's share of a.i the good
things of life. They profess to be awfully concerned and
anxious for the welfare of poor sinners, but their sleek,
smooth, well-to-do appearance gives no indication of tlieir
excessive anxiety. They claim that men in their natural
state are totally depraved, and yet, in this country at least,
they profess to believe in a free government, founded on the
piinciple that the people have a right to govern themselves,
an inconsistency so glaring that it makes us suspicious of
their sincerity

THE HUMrHllEY-BEN:4ETT i>l:SCUiSSI02<. (J03

*'The art of proselyting they understand to perfection.
This is an important part of their business. However
ignorant they may be on all other subjects, this they per-
fectly well understand. They are in possession of all the
accumulated experience of a long line of predecessors ex-
tending through all of the past ages. They know human
nature well, and how to take advantage of ils weaknesses.
They make their appeals to the superstitious, selfish hopes
and fears of ignorant men, and having what Archimedes only
wanted, another world on which to plant their machinery,
it is no wonder that in almost all past time they have moved
this at their pleasure. They tax all their ingenuity and elo-
quence in describing the beauties of a heaven about which
they know nothing, and of a hell of which they are equally
ignorant— the one they promise as a reward to all who em-
brace their doctrines, the other they threaten as a liuaish-
ment to be inflicted on all who do nut. In this way they
may succeed, perhaps, in luring some and entrancing others,
but no man was ever made really any better by being actu-
ated by such selfish considerations. They condemn human
selfishness and yet cultivate and strengthen it by making
constant appeals to it. They are the greatest beggars in the
world. Their horseleech cry of give, give, can he heard on
the mountains and in the valleys, in the public streets and
in the churches. At every public meeting ostensibly for
the worship of God, the contribution-box is passed around
and the people are entreated in God's name to give. The
people are assured that if they will give, God will restore
to them four-fold, but not one of them will stand sponsor
for the fulfillment of the promise or guarantee the refund-
ing of the gift in case it is not. In a thousand varieties of
ways vast sums of money are raised by these men which
goes to help the warring sects to vie with each other in
building costly churches and to support a class of useless
drones in the human hive.

*' The same envyings and jealousies that exist among the

304 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

members of other learned profe-sions exist among them.
They will unscrupulously resort to measures to supplant a
brother in an advantageous situation, or in the esteem and
affections of the people, which lawyers and physicians
scorn to adopt, and have too great a sense of honor and
manhood to think of adopting. If one of their number
happens to become convinced of the erroneousness of his
creed, and has independenc<3 and moral courage enough to
avow his honest opinions, the rest will pounce on him lilie
a hawk upon a chicken. They will pursue him with mis-
representations and slander, hurl at him the epithets of
' Infidel,' ' emissary of Satan,' ' enemy of religion,' call him
a Judas, a renegade, an apostate, ostracise him from
society if they can, and all to counteract his influence in
opposition to their sectarian views. On the other hand, if
one of their profession is accused of any crime, the rest of
the fraternity will gather around him, form a solid phalanx,
and shield him from exposure if they can. The peculiar
position occupied by these men brings them into close rela-
tion to the female sex. They, knowing that women are
more susceptible of religious as well as superstitious influ-
ence than men, regard them as their right-hand weapon of
offensive and defensive war. They rely mainly on them
to further their designs. Women, educated to believe that
they must depend on men for support and protection, will
inevitably be inclined to look up to the clergy for religious
guidance and instruction. This brings them into frequent
and familiar intimacy with that class of men. What has
been the result ? Not only are our sectarian churches
made up principally of women and children, but the history
of the priesthood in all ages and countries proves that by
no other class of professional men have so many crimes
against female virtue been committed as by them.

" The clergy profess to look upon what they call Infidel-
ity and Materialism with the utmost horror and detestation.
They represent that the Materialistic doctrines are destruct-

l-ttE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 305

ive of all joy and peace on earth, and dpprive us of all our
bright hopes and aoticipations in regard to the future.
Apparently they are entirely unconscious of the fact that
they themselves are constantly promulgating a doctrine as
much more horrible than anything in Materialism as it is
in the power of the human imagination to conceive. At
the very worst, even, ultra-Materialism would do nothing
worse than consign us to the quiet sleep of non-existence
or annihilation, whereas the doctrine of the clergy would
involve a majority of our race in miseries untold, never-
ending and indescribable. Ail, therefore, who hope for a
future blissful existence, must desire it with the full knowl-
edge that it they have it, they enjoy it at the expense of the
endless and inconceivable sufferings of millions of their
fellow-men. Can a more monstrous exhibition of supreme
selfishness be conceived ?

"These men claim, too, that by some mysterious super-
natural process they have experienced such a change of
nature, such a regeneration of character, such a sanctifica-
tion of mind and heart as fits them to be the mouth-pieces
of God, and the leaders and instructors of mankind. But
of what use is it for them to pretend to any superior
sanctity, when all intelligent men know, and all the world
ought to know, that they *'are men of like passions as
others," that they have the same appetites, passions,
desires, faults, and foibles that all men have. The criminal
records of the country prove that in proportion to their
numbers no class of educated men furnish a greater number
of the inmates of our jails and prisons than the clergy.

"There are in the United States over seventy thousand
clergymen. We would utilize this element of society.
That portion of them who, by their education, talents and
moral worth, are qualified for the work, we would have
converted into teachers in our schools and seminaries of
learLing, public lecturers, and leaders of the people in the
great work of reform. "We would have them teach their

806 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

fellow-men on those subjects about which they have some
positive knowledge, and in relation to which it is of the
utmost importance that they he informed. We would have
them teach the people to know themselves, to do their own
thinking, to form their own opinions, to understand the
laws of their own nature, and the conditions on which the
prosperity and happiness of human beings depend. We
would place them on a level with the rest of mankind,
give them the same chances, the same opportunities, and
let them depend on themselves, instead of being merely
dependants upon others. As for the rest, we would have
them expend the force and energy, which they now spend
for naught, in some branch of trade or agriculture, and
thereby make themselves a blessing to the world.

"To this, or something like this, it must come at last.
The people will not always suffer themselves to be led
hoodwinked to their own destruction. A revolt is sure to
come, and when it dees come, it is to be hoped that the
crimes of the priesthood against humanity will not be too
vividly remembered against them, and that the sins of their
predecessors who lived in the dead past will not be visited
upon those who exist in the living present."

The lesson to be learned from all this clerical sinfulness
and crime is, that the claim that the religion of Jesus is a
protection or safeguard against licentiousness and corrup-
tion, is wholly untrue, for the proof is clear that there is no
class of men more "liable to yield to the allurements of car-
nal pleasures than the clergy. So far from their religion
being a safeguard agiinst the weaknesses of human nature,
it is the means of exposing them to the blandishments and
temptations which the good sisters so frequently lay in their
way. If they were working in the fields — plowing and
hoeing — or in the shops at planing and filing, they would
be far less liable to be overcome by temptations than by
visiting the sisters in the absence of their husbands, and
conversing with them on the subject of " true inwardness."

The HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 807

You are incorrect when you state that sinning clergymen
are always sought out by the Church and deposed as soon
as found to be engaged in wrong doing. Tlie truth often is
the opposite of this. Their crimes are many times hushed
up and smothered, and concealed from the public gaze as
long as possible, and very often after the " guide " has been
exposed, he has removed to another locality and resumed
preaching with increased fervency and mock-sanctity.

What if, as you would gladly show, Goethe was a little
wild in his younger days, and in mature life lived with a
woman— as he honestly believed he had a right to do —
whom no priest had declared to be bone of his bone?
What if the love between Rousseau and Madame de War-
rens was not sanctioned by the Church ? What if Chester-
field was a man of the world ? What if somebody, in three
lines, has accused Voltaire of untruthfulness ? What if
Paine did act the part of friend toward Madame Bonneville?
What If John Stuart Mill was a sincere friend to a lady he
had reason to esteem ? What if Shelley, in the days of his
boyhood, did contract a union which he afterwards found
uncongenial and impracticable ? These are events that are
occurring in the world every day of our lives, and though
you place the worst possible construction upon them that
your enmity can prompt, they are but "a drop in the
bucket " when compared with the peccadilloes, adulteries,
and crimes of priests and preachers who profess to be sons
of God, and to have light and guidance superior to men
of the world. As lu^dels, we have no saints ; we make no
boast of holiness or heavenly-miudedness. Our highest
object is to discharge our duties to our fellow-men, doing
naught to infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of
others. We have left to the priestly class the entire busi-
ness of saintship; yielded to them the monopoly of divine
favor and aid, and a pretty mess indeed they have made of
it. They have made the terms " men of God " and " shep-
herds of the flock " a reproach among mankind.

308 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

You would fain have it that these sensual priests in their
lewd practices have violated the instructions of the Bible.
Not so. They have simply followed the example of the
favorites of the Bible God. They have done nothing more
than follow the common practices with the old patriarchs
and favored kings of God's chosen people.

In passing, let me quote a passage from a tribute to John
Stuart Mill by Moncure D. Conway: "There was blended
in his intellectual work other that required a yet higher
nature, work that needed preponderating sensibilities, a
deep human sympathy, a rich emotional nature. I have
said Mr. Mill always felt what he thought — and whenever
he spoke, the blood in his cheeks spoke too. But there
were two themes only upon which, as he spoke, his mind
caught flame and rose into passionate emotion. One of
them was when, before emancipation had taken place in
America, he saw humanity enslaved and a Republic fettered
by the same chain it had bound around the negro. The
other was when he saw women struggling to break the
galling political and social chains, inherited from ancients,
from a barbarous past. Into their cause he entered with
an enthusiasm which brought again the age of chivalr^'^,
and the brave efforts he made to secure woman from heredi-
tary wrong made him in our prosaic time the figure of St.
George rescuing the maiden from the dragon. The world
has felt a silent sympathy, as in the French town he sat,
studied, wrote, at a window overlooking the grave that
held that treasure of his soul, beside whom he now reposes;
but it has admired as it saw this personal devotion to one
noble woman consecrating him to the cause of all her sis-
ters. Ah, ye women, who amid many buffets and sneers
are striving to attain a truer position and larger life, to help
man raise the suffering world to a higher plane — ye
women, what a friend have you lost I Daughters of
England, weep not for him, but weep for yourselves
and for your children " (Memorial Discourse, pp. 20, 21).

THE HTJMPHHEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 309

Well would it be for our race if the world could produce
more men equal in virtue and intelligence to John Stuart
Mill. If twenty-five per cent, of your seventy thousand
clergymen in the United States were equal to him, what a
blessing it would be to our country ! It is better to be one
such man than a thousind flash-in-the-Pan-Presbyterian
Councils of ministers, with their forty-nine modifications
and varieties.

In regard to Shelley, in justice to his memory, I will add
to what I have said, that he did not forsake his first wife.
He made a settlement upon her, corresponded with her
during his travels, called upon her on his return, and did
all in his power to render her condition comfortable.
Their separation was not the cause of her suicide. She
indulged in peculiar notions of love which her spinster sis-
ter and her father strongly condemned, and he turned her
from his door. In a fit of grief at her treatment, she threw
herself into the river. Shelley was greatly grieved in con-
sequence. His second marriage was considerably hastened
by the advice of Mr. Godwin, father of his second wife (see
Keegan Paul's Letters and Peacock on Shelley, as given in
the World of July 15, 1877).

You claim to be unable to find anything in Thiers or
Chambers indicating that Robespierre was a Christian. I
am not particularly anxious to show him to have been a
Christian, but that while he was the head and front of
the Reign of Terror he assuredly was not an anti-relig-
ionist, but a wild political leader, who came to the sur-
face under a peculiar combination of circumstances, and
was not a man really so bad at heart as many of his harsh
and tyrannical acts would indicate. The French Revolu-
tion was brought about by the tyranny and corruptions of
the royal family, the nobles, and the clergy. Michelet states
the case clearly, thus : "The clergy had so well kept and
augmented the property of the poor, that at length it com-
prised one-fifth of the lands of the Kingdom " (Lewes' Life

310 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

of Robespierre). The remainder was in the hands of the
nobks. It is not strange that, under this state of things,
all the land and wealth of the nation engrossed by the
nobles and the priesthood, the oppressed masses should
revolt. It was but human nature. Even a worm, when trod
upon, will turn and show resentment. We have recently
had in our own country sad proofs of this tendency. We
have seen the working classes uniting in mobs and reck-
lessly destroying millions of dollars' worth of property. It
was because they were without employment and were suffer-
ing for want of necessary food. It was not because they
are Infidels, or unbelievers in the prevailing system of re-
ligion. It was the rebellion of human nature against
oppression. It was the same in the French Revolution,
and it is not strange in the consequent reaction that en&ued
that excesses were committed. It was not because the
actors in the fearful tragedy were unbelievers or Free-
thinkers, and it is very unfair in you and your Christian
friends to be continually making that false charge. True,
the Goddess of Reason was set up by a clique to be wor-
shiped, but, in the ruling frenzy of the hour. Reason was
worshiped and followed very indifferently.

As to Robespierre's political and theological character,
we can probably get as clear a view of it from his own
words as from any other source. "It is true," said he,
*'tbat our most dangerous enemies are the impure rem-
nants of the race of our tyrants. I vote in my heart that
the race of tyrants disappear from the earth; but can I shut
my eyes to the state of my country so completely as to
believe that this event would sufQce to extinguish the flames
of those conspiracies that are consuming us. . . . Is it
true another cause of our calamities is fanaticism ? Fanat-
icism; it is dying; nay, I may say it is dead. In directing,
for some days past, all our energies against it, are we not
diverting our attention from real dangers ?" Grappling at
once with the question of Religion, Robespierre thus pro-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 811

ceeded: " Let citizens, animated by a firm zeal, deposit on
the altar of the country the useless and pompous monu-
ments of superstition, that they be rendered subservient to
the triuDjphs of liberty; the country and reason smile at
these offerings; but what right have aristocracy and hy-
pocrisy to mingle their influence with civism ? What right
have men hitherto unknown in the career of the Revolution
to seek amidst all these events the means of usurping a
false popularity, of hurrying the very patriots into false
measures, and of throwing disturbance and discord among
us ? What right have they to violate the liberty of religion
in the name of liberty, and to attack fanaticism ? What
right have they to make the solemn homage paid to pure
truth degenerate into wearisome and ridiculous farces ? .
. . It has been supposed that in accepting the civic offer-
ings, the Convention has proscribed the Catholic worship.
No, the Convention has taken no such step, and never will
take it. Its intention is to uphold the liberty of worship
which it has proclaimed, and to suppress at the same time
all those who shall abuse it to disturb public order. It will
not allow the peaceful ministers of the different religions to
be persecuted, and it will punish them severely whenever
iLey shall dare to avail themselves of their functions to
mislead the citizens, or to arm prejudice or royalism against
the republic. . . . There are men who would fain go
further, who upon the pretext of destroying superstition,
would fain make a sort of religion of Atheism itself. Every
philosopher, every individual, is at liberty to adopt on that
subject what opinion he pleases; whoever would make a
crime of this is a madman; but the public man, the legisla-
tor, would be a hundred times more insane who should
adopt such a system. The National Convention abhors
it. The Convention is not a maker of books aad of sys-
tems. It is a political and popular body. Atheism is aris-
tocratic. The idea of a great Be.iag, who watches over op-
pressed innocence, and who punishes triumphant guiit is

313- THE HUMPHKEY-EENNETT DISCUSSIOlT.

quite popular. The people, the unfortunate, applaud me.
If there are any v*ho censure me, they must belong to the
rich and to the guilty. I have been from my college years
a very indifferent Catholic; but shall never be a cold friend,
or an unfaithful defender of humanity. I am on that
account only the more attached to the moral and political
ideas which I have here expounded to you. If (^od did not
exist, it would 'behoove man to invent him " (Thiers' French
Revolution, vol. ii, pp. 375, 376). I have thus quoted this
religious politician at some length to give a fair presenta-
tion of his views and motives, deeming this fairer than
merely to quote a line or two here and there as is your
style.

On page 380, vol. ii, Thiers thus speaks: " The policy of
Robespierre and the Government was well known. The
energy with which this policy had been manifested intimi-
dated the restless promoters of the new worship, and they
began to think of retracting and of retracing their steps.
. . . The Convention declared on its part that it had
never intended by its decrees to shackle religious liberty,
and it forbade the plate still remaining in the churches to be
touched, since the exchequer had no further need of that
kind of aid. From that day the indecent farces performed
by the people ceased in Paris, and the ceremonies of the
worship of Reason, which hud afforded them so much
amusement, were abolished. "

Touching Robespierre's religious sentiments, I will quote
a few passages from Lewes' Life of that individual: *' I at-
tribute it to his sincere religious convictions, rather than
to any political foresight, such as Michelet discerns, that he
should have relied upon the lower clergy (a powerful body
of 80,000 priests) as well as the Jacobins lor his support "(p.
148). " On the 16th of June he asked the Assembly to pro-
vide for the subsistence of aged ecclesiastics who had no
benefices or pensions" (p. 148). He thus quotes Robes-
pierre's words: "How could I be equal to struggles which

THE HUMPHKEY-BENNErT DISCUSSION". 313

are above human strength, if I had not elevated my soul to
God " (p. 237). French journalists of that period thus speak
of Kobespierre: "He is a kind of priest who has his devo-
tees, his Marys and his Magdalens. " "He has all the char-
acteristics of a founder of religion ; he has a reputation for
sanctity." " Robespierre is a priest, and never will be any
thing else." " He is a priest who wishes to become a God."
On the 7th of May, 1794, when in the height of his power,
Robespierre proposed the following decree: "Article I. — The
French people recognize the existence of the Supreme Be-
ing and the immortality of the soul. Article II. — They
acknowledge that the worship of the Supreme Being is
one of the duties of man " (Thiers', vol. iii, p. 13). By these
extracts it is clear (hat Robespierre was no Freethinker or
Infidel. He was an ardent religionist, and almost a Chris-
tian. He acknowledged himself a Catholic, though an
' ' indifferent " one.

Had it been desirable on your part to claim Robespierre
as a Christian, you have far more reason for doing so than
for several whom you have claimed. He was far more
religious — far more a believer in the dogmas of Christianity
— than were Franklin, Washington, or Jefferson.

Of course, there were Freethinkers in those days, and
many of them were active in the measures that character-
ized the time, but they suffered quite as severely from the
work of the guillotine as any class, and Thomas Paine
escaped by the merest chance. In the National Con-
vention, which ordered and sanctioned so many executions,
a majority were believers in Christianity. By this it is easy
to see how unjust and untruthful is your effort to throw
the odium of the wild conduct of those in power upon the
unbelievers. To show the truth of the whole business I
have hardly occupied too much space. This dishonest
charge against the opposers of the theological dogmas of
that era has so often been made by your sort of people that
it is time the lie was nailed to the inast,

314 THE HUMPHREY-BEKN'ETT DISCUSSION.

I made no special effort to convict the Jews of cannibal-
ism, but merely called attention to such texts in the Bible
as went to show that they not only pi act iced human sacri-
fice but cannibalism also. I will also add that it has been
urged by writers more distinguished than either of us that
the Bible does show that the Jews were cannibals. Moses
told them that unless they observed his ceremonies they
should not only have the itch, but that mothers should eat
their children. Ezekiel makes a similar threat in chapter
xxxix. He tells tbem that God will not only cause them
to eat the horses of their enemies, but the horsemen and
the rest of the warriors. Yoliaire asked the question:
*' Why should not the Jews have been cannibals ? It was
fhe only thing wanting to make the people of God the
most abominable people upon earth." That the Jews did
eat human bodies at the tia^.e of the siege of Jerusalem we
have the authority of Josephus. I give, however, the facts
for what they are worth, and it must bo admitted that the
texts of Scripture quoted, and several others, squint very
strongl}^ of Hebrew cannibalism. That they were a race of
semi-barbarians I have sufQciently shown, and that Herodo-
tus did not mention them when writing his history of Syria,
of which Palestine formed a part, is most clear. If he
mentioned it at all it would have been when he was writing
his account of what he saw when in that country. It is well
known that some of his histories have been lost, but his
history of Syria was not one of them. His writings relative
to Rome might have been among the lost books.

Your attempt to show that Infidels have died recanting
and in terror is a complete failure. It requires but little
talent to repeat that stale slander about Voltaire's recanta-
tion. Why do you not prove it and thus get the thousand
dollars in gold which Col. IngersoU has offered to any man
who will prove it. The N. Y. Observer, the old war-h(>r;e
of Prcsbyterianism, it is said, has accepted ti^e challenge and
will attempt to prove that Voltaire did recant. Perhaps you

THE HUMPHBBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 315

can enter into partnership with the Observer and get at least
half the money. A similar amount was offered by the
same party if it is proved that Thomas Paine recanted on
his death-bed. Here is an excellent opportunity for you to
make another thousand dollars in gold. Col. Ingersoll is
good for the promises he makes, and two thousand dollars
would be a very comfortable sum to make these hard times,
especially if it can be done easily and in the interest of a
God who would be greatly relieved and glorified thereby.
Remember, though, the matter must he proved. The stale
slanders and falsehoods of Christian clergymen, which for-
nesrrly fourscore years have been peddled out from the
pulpit for the delectation of the credulous faithful ones of
the flock will not answer the purpose. It must be truth
and not lies.

You do injustice to the memory of Hume by attempting
to show that he died ignobly and improperly. What a*deck
of cards in his hand could amount to, more than any other
pasteboard, is not very clear. They might have served his
purpose equally as well as a prayer-book, a catechism,
a confession of faith, or even a Testament. The insinua-
tion which you throw out is what I object to. Perhaps he
should have had a copy of your *' HeU and Damnation " in
his hand. No doubt the mind of the dying man would have
been wonderfully cheered by its soothing tone. Hume died
like a man and a philosopher. In the sequel to his Auto-
biography is a letter written by Dr. Adam Smith, author of
"The Wealth of Nations," addressed to William Strathan,
Esq., giving an account of the last moments of Hume. In
this letter Dr. Smith gives a copy of one wliich he received
from Dr. Black, Hume's physician and friend, the day after
Hume's death, as follows: "Edinburgh, Aug. 26, 1776.
Dear Sir : Yesterday, about four o'clock, Mr. Hume ex-
pired. The near approach of his death became evident in
the night between Thursday and Friday, when his disease
became excessive and soon weakened him so much that he

316 THE HtJMPHRET-BElTNETT DISCUSSION.

could not rise out of bed. He continued to the last per-
fectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings of dis-
tress. He never dropped the smallest expression of impa-
tience, but when he had occasion to speak to the people
about him, he always did it with affection and tenderness,
. . When he became very weak, it cost him a great effort
to speak, and he died in such a happy composure of mind
that nothing could exceed it," Dr. Adam Smith closed his
letter in these words: " Upon the whole, I have always con-
sidered him, both in his life-time, and since his death, as ap-
proaching as near to the ideal of the perfectly wise and virtu-
ous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will admit. "
In the face of such testimony as this, I will submit it to
yourself and to our numerous readers, whether insinuation
about the " deck of cards " is not simply contemptible.

You do nearly equal injustice to the memory of Thomas
Hobbes, by attempting to show that he died an unhappy
dealh, by saying "he contemplated the inevitable with
trepidation." Lord Clarendon describes the personal char-
acter of Hobbes as "one for whom he always had a great
esteem as a maU; who besides his eminent parts of learning
and knowledge, hath always been looked upon as a man of
propriety, and a life free from scandal," and thus he died.
Collins, in his Biography of Hobbes, thus explains his nat-
ural timidity of character: " He was naturally of a timid
disposiiion; this was the result of an accident which caused
his premature birth, and being besides of a reserved char-
ter, he was ill-fitted to meet the physical rebuffs of the
world. It is said he was so afraid of his personal safety
that he objected to being left alone in an empty house; this
charge is to some extent true, but we must look to the miti-
gating circumstances of the case. He was a feeble man,
turned the age of three score and ten, with all the clergy of
England hounding on their dupes to murder the old philos-
opher because he had exposed their dogmas. It was but a
few years before that Protestants and Papists complimented

THE auMPrtREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 317

each other's religion by burning those which were the
weakest, and long after Hobbes' death, Protestants mur-
dered, ruined, disgraced and placed in the pillory Dissen-
ters and Catholics alike, and Thomas Hobbes had positive
proof that it was the intention of the Church of England
to hum Mm alive at the stake, a martyr for his opinions.
This, then, was a suflScient justification for Hobbes feeling
afraid, and instead of its being th own out as a taunt at this
illustrious Freethinker, it is a standing stigma on those who
would reenact the tragedy of persecution, if public senti-
ment would allow it " (page 6).

It has little connection with the subject under discussion,
how Robespierre acted when he was arrested at the Hotel
de Ville, and whether he attempted suicide; whether Hen-
riot got druok; whether Los Basas shot himself with a pis-
tol; whether Cauthou cut his bosom with a knife, and
whether St. Just begged his comrades to shoot him. These
were not known or distinguished as Freethinkers, and
neither of them acted in the way named because they re-
canted Infidelity. If you have not better proofs of Infidels
recanting their views upon their death-beds, your case is
weak indeed, and I would advise you as a friend to never
make the charge again.

Why did you not represent Edward Gibbon, who has
been classed as an Infidel, as having died carousing-,
gambling, cursing, or trembling with terror ? I should,
however, be inclined to take the statement of Lord Shaftes-
bury, the confidential friend of Gibbon, as given in the
sequel to the autobiography of the latter. He wrote as fol-
lows: " To the last he [Gibbon] preserved his senses, and
when he could no longer speak, his servant having asked
him a question, he made a sign to him that he understood him.
He was quiet, tranquil, and did not stir; his eyes half shut.
About a quarter of an hour before one he ceased to breathe.
The valet de chambre observed that he did not, at any time,
evince the least sign of alarm or apprehension of death."

318 THE HUMPiIREY-BE>XETT DISCUSSION.

The untruthfulness of Ohrisiiau representations relative
to the death of Infidels may be instanced in the attempt to
cast insinuations upon the death of Mlrabeau, the Atheist,
by the Rev. J. P. Newman who put it in this waj : "The
dying words of Mirabeau must be the dying words of every
man who relies upon science rather than religion—' Cover
me with flowers, banquet me with music, delight me with
perfume, for to die is to lake a leap in the dark.' " In the
American Cyclopedia it is narrated in this way: "After a
night of terrible suffering, at the dawn of day he addressd
Cabaais, his physician, 'My friend, I shall die to-day.
When one has come to such a juncture there remains only
one thing to do, that is to be perfumed, crowned with flow-
ers, and surrounded with music, in order to enter sweetly
into that slumber from which there is no awakening.'
He ordered his bed to be brought near the window, and
looked with rapture on the brightness of the sun and the
freshness of the garden. His death was mourned by a
whole nation. Every one felt that the ruling Spirit of the
Revolution had passed away." The reverend gentleman's
version had just enough truth in it to enable one to deter-
mine positively the falsity of the very point he wished to
emphasize, namely, the "leap in tlie dark." It-is the dis-
honest effort of Christian clergymen to make it appear that
unbelievers die terrible deaths; and you are no exception to
the rule. But if you fail to make out a case, could these
unbelievers at the hour of death be induced to believe for
a moment your delightful doctrine of Hell and Damnation,
it might enable you to talk with more truth about the terror
in which you would gladly make it appear that they have
died.

Your quotation of the words of Paul as being his dying
words are hardly honestly quoted. You know very well
that he was not dying when he made those utterances, but
was simply writing a letter to his friend Timothy, and
might have been years from the hour of death. When he

THE HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 319

really did breathe his last he may have been as fvfll of
terror as was the founder of Christianity himself when he
was forced to face the King of Terrors. Many zealous Chris-
tians at the time of death might truthfully have said: "I
have fought the bloody fight; I have finished my murder-
ous course; I have caused many poor heretics to bite the
dust. I have kept the faith that our Church proclaims,
and put to death scores of those who presumed to deny it.
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of unrighteous-
ness, or a garment of terrible damnation, which I have
justly earned."

Brother Humphrey, you will have to try again before
you can make it appear that the deaths of Infidels will not
compare favorably with those of Christians.

You are courteous enough to speak of D'Holbach as having
''grujited under the burden of showing that Atheism fur-
nished the strongest motives for virtue and justice."
Would you represent him as a hog, that he should "grunt"?
Let me quote from his works a few specimens of his
grunts, that it may be seen whether he grunted well or not:
" Be just, because equity is the support of human society.
Be good, because goodness connects all hearts in adamant-
ine bonds. Be indulgent, because, feeble thyself, thou
livest with beings who partake of thy weakness. Be gentle,
because mildness attracts attention. Be thankful, because
gratitude feeds benevolence, nourishes generosity. Be
modest, because haughtiness is disgusting to beings at all
times well with themselves. Forgive injuries, "because
revenge perpetuates hatred. Do good to him who injureth
thee, in order to show thyself more noble than he is; to
make a friend of him who was once thine enemy. Be re-
served in thy demeanor, temperate in thy enjoyment, chaste
in thy pleasures, because voluptuousness begets weariness,
intemperance engenders disease, froward manners are
revolting; excess at all times relaxes the springs of thy
machine, will ultimately destroy thy being, and render

320 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

thee hateful to thyself and contemptible to others. . . .
In short, be a man; be a sensible, rational being; be a
faithful husband, a tender father, an equitable master, a
zealous citizen. Labor to serve thy country by thy prow-
ess, by thy talents, by thy industry; above all, by thy
virtues. Participate with thine associates those gifts which
nature has bestowed upon thee. Diffuse happiness among
thy fellow-mortals; inspire thy fellow-citizens with content.
Spread joy over all those who approach thee, that the
sphere of their actions, enlivened by thy kindness, illum-
ined by benevolence, may react upon thyself. Be assured
that the man who makes ethers happy cannot himself be
miserable. ... A life so spent will each moment be
marked by the serenity of thine own mind, by the affections
of the beings who environ thee, will enable thee to rise, a
contented, satisfied guest, from the general feast, conduct
thee gently down the declivity of life, lead thee peuceably
to the period of thy days, for die thou must; but already
thou wilt survive thyself in thought; thou wilt always live
in the memory of thy friends; in the grateful recollections
of those beings whose comforts have been augmented by
thy friendly attentions; the virtues will beforehand have
erected to thy form an imperishable monument. If Heaven
occupied itself with thee, it would feel satisfied with thy
conduct when it shall thus have contented the earth " (Sys-
tem of Natuie, p. 334). I could continue "grunts" as
good as those to fill h. ndreds of ordinary pages. It strikes
me that Jesus, Peter, or Paul never "grunted " out much
better or more sensible moral instructions than these.
Seriously, my friend, do you not think you belittle your-
self and injure your cause by calling such beautiful senti-
ments "grunts"?

I perceive that you are anxious to extricate your patron
saint, Calvin, from the very unenviable reputation which
he enjoys. You ring the changes on " Calvin burned Ser-
vetus" with consummate skill, but I am sorry for you that

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 821

you are unable to relieve him from the disgraceful dilemma
in which history places him. I see that honesty forces you
to admit nearly all I claimed against him: 1, That Calvin
believed in burniug heretics — that is, those who did not
square Iheir theological lines according to his standard; 3.
That his followers and co-reformers entertained the same
views; 3. That Calvin instigated the arrest of Servetus.
You are quite right in confessing that the transaction was a
dark blot on the cLaracter of Calvin. The facts are, Calvin
not only caused the arrest of Servetus, but he urged on the
trial. The accusation was in his own handwriting. He
was at the head of the Theocracy, or Council, of two hun-
deed, and it is idle to claim that he could not have prevent-
ed the execution. Calvin and Servetus were enemies, and
when Calvin had the latter in his power he was the last
man to loosen his grasp.

IngersoU describes the character of Calvin so graphically
and forcibly, in connection with this affair and others,
that I cannot refrain from quoting him: " This man [Cal-
vin] forged five fetters for the brain. These fetlers he
called points. That is to say, predestination, particular
redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the per-
severance of the saints. About the neck of each follower
he put a collar bristling with these five points. The pres-
ence of all these points on the collar is still the test of
orthodoxy in the Church he founded. This man when in
the flush of youth was elected to the office of preacher in
Geneva. He at once, in unison with Farel, drew up a con-
densed statement of the Presbyterian doctrine, and all citi-
zens of Geneva, on pain of banishment, were compelled to
take an oath that they belived this statement. Of this pro-
ceeding Calvin very innocently remarked that it produced
great satisfaction. A man named Carol! had the audacity
to dispute with Calvin. For this outrage he was banished.

'*To show you what great subjects occupied the attention
of Calvin, it is only necessary to state that he furiously dis-

823 THE HDAIPHKET-BEK2fBTT DISCUSSION.

cussed the question as to whether the sacramental bread
should be leavened or unleavened. He drew up laws regu-
lating the cut of the ciiizens' clothes and prescribing their
diet, and all those whose garments were not in the Calvin
fashion were refused the sacrament. At last the people be-
coming tired of this petty theological tyranny, banished
Calvin. In a few years, however, he was recalled, and re-
ceived vsith great enthusiasm. After this he was supreme,
and the will of Calvin became the law of Geneva. Under
this benign administration James Gruet was beheaded be-
cause he had wriiten some profane verses. The slightest
word against Calvin or his absurd doctrines were punished
as a crime.

"In 1553 a man was tried at Vienne by the Catholic
Church for heresy. He was convicted and sentenced to
death by burning. It was apparently his good fortune to
escape. Pursued by the sleuth-hounds of intolerance, he
fled to Geneva for protection. A dove flying from hawks
sought safety in the nest of a vulture. This fugitive from
the cruelty of Rome asked shelter from Calvin, who had
written a book in favor of religious toleration. Servetus
had forgotten that this book was wriiten by Calvin when in
the minority ; that it was written in weakness to be forgot-
ten in power ; that it was produced by fear instead of prin-
ciple. He did not know that Calvin had caused his arrest
at Vienne, in France, and had sent a copy of his work,
which was claimed to be blasphemous, to the archbishop.
He did not then know that the Protestant Calviu was acting
as one of the detectives of the Catholic Church, and had
been instrumental in proving his conviction for heresy.
Ignorant of this unspeakable infamy, he put himself in the
power of this very Calvin. The maker of the Presbyterian
creed caused the fugitive Servetus to be arrested for blas-
phemy. He was tried, Calvin was his accuser. He was
convicted and condemned to death by fire. On the morn-
ing of the fatal day, Calvin saw him, and Servetus, the vie-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 333

tim asked forgiveness of Calvin, the murderer. Servetus
was bound to the stake and the fagots were lighted. The
wind carried the flames somewhat away from his body, so
that he slowly roasted for hours. Vainly he implored a
speedy death. At last the flames climbed around his form;
through smoke and fire his murderers saw a white, heroic
face. And then they watched until a man became a charred
and shriveled mass.

"Liberty was banished from Geneva, and nothing but
Presbyterianism was left. Honor, justice, mercy, reason
and charity were all exiled; but the five points of predesti-
nation, particular redemption, irresistible grace, total de-
pravity and the certain perseverance of the saints remained
instead. Calvin founded a little theocracy, modeled after
the Old Testament, and succeeded in erecting the most de-
testable government that ever existed, except the one from
which it was copied.

"Against all this intolerance one man, a minister, raised
his voice. The name of this man should never be forgot-
ten. It was Castellio. This brave man had the goodness
and the courage to declare the iauocence of honest error.
He was the first of the so-called reformers to take this noble
ground. I wish I had the genius to pay a tribute to his
memory. Perhaps it would be impossible to pay him a
grander compliment than to say, Castellio was in ail things
the opposite of Calvin. To plead for the right of individ-
ual judgment was considered as a crime, and Castellio was
driven from Geneva by John Calvia. By him he was de-
nounced as a child of the Devil, as a dog of Satan, as a
beast from hell, and as one who, by this horrid blasphemy
of the innocence of honest error, crucified Christ afresh,
and by him he was pursued until rescued by the hand of
death.

" Upon the name of Castellio, Calvin heaped every epi-
thet, until his malice was satisfied and his imagination ex-
hausted. It is Impossible to conceive how human nature

324 TK£ HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

can become so frightfully perverted as to pursue a fellow-
man with the malignity of a fiend, simply because he is
good, just and generous.

•• Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin,
sickly, iiritable, gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical,
heartless and infamous. He was a strange compound of
revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious char-
ity, egotistic humility, and a liind of hellish justice. In
other words, he was as near like the God of the Old Testa-
ment as his health permitted.

"The best thing, however, about the Presbyterians of
Geneva was, that they denied the power of the Pope, and
the best thing about the Pope was, that he was not a Pres-
byterian.

" The doctrines of Calvin spread rapidly and were eagerly
accepted by multitudes on the Continent; but Scotland in a
few years became the real fortress of Presbyteriauism. The
Scotch succeeded in establishing the kind of theocracy that
flourished in Geneva. The clergy took possession and con-
trol of everybody and everything. It is impossible to exag-
gerate the mental degradation, the abject superstition of
the people of Scotland during the reign of Presbyteriauism.
Heretics were hunted and devoured as though they had
been wild beasts. The gloomy insanity of Presbyteriauism
took possession of a great majori y of the people. They
regarded their ministers as the Jews did Moses and Aaron.
They believed they were the special agents of God, and
that whatever they bound in Scotland would be bound in
Heaven. There was not one particle of intellectual free-
dom. No man was allowed to differ with the Church or to
even contradict a priest. Had Presbyteriauism maintained
its ascendency, Scotland would have been peopled by sav-
ages to-day."

It relieves Calvin of none of the odium resting upon his
name to say that the cantons of Berne, Zurich, Bale, and
SchafEenhausen concurred in the action of Geneva, and that

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 82o

Melancthon, Beza, Farel, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Zuingli,
Viret, Peter Martj^r, Bullinger, Turretin, and Co., ap-
proved of his damnable and murderous treatment of poor
Servetus. It is a terrible commentary on their improved
religion that they should be in favor of burning people to
death for opinion's sake. It will hardly do to attribute it
to their having recently left the Mother Church. The child
is no better than the parent, and it was not until the higher
and ennobling influences of civilization had time to produce
their better results that the desire to burn those who did
not graduate their belief according to the Calviuistic stand-
ard left the hearts of Protestants,

As your very scathing remarks about " callow striplings
that never saw a life of Calvin " evidently were not aimed
at myself, I will let them pass unnoticed. I presume you
will allow that I am not "callow." Your characteristic
observations also about "long hair, weird looks, spectacles,
funny clothes, and other eccentricities, all put on," etc.,
may pass unnoticed. I presume you did not mean them as
personal icsinuations. What you were driving at, however,
I am at a loss to decide.

You advertise the fact that I have presented a copy of
Paine's Works to the library of the Cooper Institute. Yes,
when you previously remarked that a copy of his works
was not in that noble institutioD, and when I saw that you
were endeavoring to argue from that fact that Mr. Cooper
did not believe in Paine's writings, I resolved to test the
correctness of your conclusions, and to remove the stigma
that the Cooper Institute Library did not contain a copy of
Paine's Great Works. I accordingly presented it with a
copy of Paine's Works and a copy of Lord Amberley's
"Analysis of Religious Belief," a work equally as radical as
Paine's writings. I am pleased to say that the volumes
were kindly accepted, and I have in my possession a letter
which I prize very highly, acknowledging the receipt of the
two books, and bearing the signature of the venerable and

326 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

excellent Peter Cooper himself. I doubt not that a cop^ of
the revised and enlarged "Sages, Thinkers, and Reform-
ers," which will soon be issued, and a copy of the " Cham-
pions of the Church " will be as graciously accepted. I
here venture the prediction that Peter Cooper will value
both works more highly than you will. Let me ask you,
now, whether you are willing to accept the force of your
arguments. You sfrougly took the position that there was
not a copy of Paiue's Works in that library because Mr.
Cooper did not believe in Paiue's writings. Now that Mr.
Cooper has graciously accepted these works, with others
equally destructive to the dogmas upon which your Church
is founded, is it not proof positive that he believes them? (!)
If your arguments are worth a cent, this is the only conclu-
sion that can be reached. If you refuse to acknowledge the
corn, it will be an additional proof of your sophistry and
want of candor.

You again refer to the disintegrating character of Infidel-
ity, and aim to make a point in your own favor in that di-
rection. Now, I will humor you to this extent: so far as
Christianity is aggregating or unifying, binding a heteroge-
neous conglomeration of absurdities into a compact system
— so far as it is an idol or image which all its devotees, on
pain of excommunication, are required to bow down to,
acknowledge and worship — so far as this subserviency to a
creed or bundle of dogmas destroys the right of individual
judgment, sinks the individuality of its worshipers, and
makes them mere machines instead of free men and
women, free to think according to the dictates of reason
and common sense — so far, I say, I freely admit that Infi-
delity is dmntegrating , and I rejoice that it is. It is far
nobler and grander than the slavish system which binds mill-
ions of human minds to accept a prescribed form of belief
nolens wlens, instead of being left free to embrace truth
wherever presented. Oh, yes; disintegration and individu-
ality are far preferable to stereotyped bondage. The beauty

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 327

of Infidelity in contrast with ortliodoxy is, that it gives the
mind liberty and room to act ; every man and woman is
allowed to decide matters of belief for themselves. None
are obliged to accept what tbey cannot believe and under-
stand. Yes, indeed, for this reason Infidelity, with its dis-
integration, is vastly to be preferred to the iron mask which
orthodoxy wears and insists that all its devotees shall sub-
mit to. I rejoice to see this work of disintegration going
on, even in the Churches. People are daring to think for
themselves. It is taking place in your own Church as well
as in the sister Churches. The Rev. Mr. Blauvelt has had
his trial and been deposed; the Rev. Mr. Miller has had his,
the Rev. Mr. Sagemen has had his, and now the Rev.
Mr. Ashenfelter is to have his^ and will doubtless be made
to "walk the plank," and more and more will follow.
Active minds are emerging from darkness into light; the
bonds of Church and creed of centuries are being snapped,
and the right of opinion is being maintained. Infidelity,
individuality, and disintegration, all hail ! Spread over the
land ! Take off the mental shackles and fetters which bind
human beings ! Remove forever the obligatory edict that
everybody must think just according to the prescribed
model or go to hell. Let freetlom and mental liberty be
the rule, though all cannot think alike and contract their
minds into one narrow groove. Universal mental freedom
is the genius of the age.

I perceive you chafe at having Protestant clergymen
classed among priests, and your position strikes me as being
a ludicrous one. The cleigymen of the Protestant churches
are as really priests as those of the Catholic Church, or
the Mohammedan or Jewish religions, and all the pagan
religions of which the world has seen so much. All that
class of men who claim the right to perform the priestly
Dttice, to make known the will of the gods to the people, to
pray to the gods to be merciful to their own children, and
to send blessings to their own creatures, and who take money

338 THE HUMPHKEY-BENKETT DISCUSSION.

and other perquisites from the people for the performance
of these services, are priests; and Protestant priests come
within tlie category as reall}' as any that have lived within
the last ten thousand years. All that other priests do, they
do. They claim that they have a freer intercourse with
God than the masses have ; that God hearkens more
benignantly to their supplications, and that by their cries
and intercessions he softens his rule over his numerous
children. These preachers claim that they have the abil-
ity to explain the mysteries of godliness, and that they can
tell where God is, what he is, and what his tastes and wishes
are. They have grand institutions of learning which cost
many thousands of dollars per year to condiMJt, and here
striplings and young men are sent, and by being put through
a course of Latin, Greek, the classics; etc., are taught to be
priests. It is a curious process, and the support of these
70,000 priests which you say this country contains, costs the
people of the nation, it is estimated, $200,000,000 per year!
Thus, you ste, learning God's will and pleasure is an expen-
sive business. To support this learned and trained priest-
hood the people are compelled to labor and toil in the
dirt, in the burning sun, the biting frosts, and the pelting
storms — all to feed and clothe the fat, sleek priests who are
shrewd enough to get the best there is produced, and to de-
mand reverence and obedience from the people who will-
ingly toil for them. The rule of this priestly class is being
greatly broken. Many thousands of people are learning
that they can get along just as well wilhout priests as with
them, and that they can do their own praying and thinking
just as well and just as acceptably as the priest can do it for
them, and thereby make a great saving of money, food and
clothing. It has taken ages to learn this simple bit of infor-
mation, but at last the light is dawning upon the human
intellect. The slavery of thousands of years of priestly
rule is being overthrown, and men and women are learning
tobe/?-etf; to be their own priests and their own saviors.

IfHk HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 3a9

Gods and devils and hells are losiHg their terrors, and the
office of the priest is fast being superseded. Glorious day of
light and liberty! I pray these may prevail, until not a sala-
ried priest to say prayers, to hear confessions, and to bestow
God's blessing upon his own offspring, will be employed
in the whole world.

Tour "three articles" of the creed of Liberalists, which
appear to be an invention of your own fertile brain, and
by which possibly you might make a fortune could you
get them patented in time, deserve a passing notice. Art.
I. " Every individual is the smartest fellow in the world."
Now, friend Humphrey, there is a depth of thought, a per-
fect originality in that which speaks for itself. Indeed! in-
deed! Is an Infidel more conceited, more egotistical, more
positive that he has the truth, than a Christian clergy-
man ? It strikes me in this respect they stand about on a
level. Art. II. does not amount to much, and is not worth
repeating. Art. III. " It makes no difference what you be-
lieve or do — you'll fetch up all right." Really, friend Hum-
phrey, can it be possible that a man like you, who professes
to speak the truth, seriously asserts of Infidels that it
makes no difference what we do ? Why, there are no peo-
ple in the world who hold that actions are a factor iu secur-
ing happiness so strongly as Infidels. "We assert on all oc-
casions that it is our own conduct that decides our hap-
piness or unhappiness, and that it is not decided by the
merits or demerits of another. It is your own creed that
holds that it makes no difference what you do, "you'll fetch
up all right, if you only have faith in Jesus." Here is an-
other instance, my Christian brother, where you are entirely
wide of the truth. With lis conduct is everything in mak-
ing up happiness, present or prospective. With you, faith
is the only necessary ingredient ; conduct, good or bad,
has very little to do with it.

You insinuate thai in quoting two verses from St. Paul,
I took them from the Investigator, and that the quota-

OdU THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

tions are wrong. You are at fault. You have no grounds
for such an insinuation. I do not remember ever having
seen those quotations in that paper, and there is certainly
no difficulty in quoting them directly from the Testament
itself. I made the quotations accurately, and I have at least
an equal right wilh yourself to decide whether Paul was
advocating lying or not.

You carp again about Infidels not having founded insti-
tutions of learning, orphan asylums, etc. It would seem
that you had said enough upon that subject to let it rest
awhile. I have shown fairly and beyond contradiction
that heretics and unbelievers have been munificent in their
generosity towards institutions of learning, and that liberal
bequests have been made by them. Unbelievers have not
been organized into societies as Christians are, and have
not anywhere been nearly as numerous. Organizations are,
however, now being extensively effected among Infidels in
Europe and America, and in a few years we shall become
sufficiently organized for all practical purposes. As I said in
my last repl}^ for many hundreds of years Christians were so
busy at murdering unbelievers and heretics that they got
them pretVy well killed off. It will, of course, take some
little time for Infidels to "pick up " enough to become as
numerous and as rich as Christians, and as able to give
to colleges, asylums, etc. There is no good reason why a
Liberal should not be as generous as a Christian, except that
the later gives his ill-gotten dollars with the insane idea
that he is buying a front seat in Paradise, and escaping that .
terrible lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, the idea
of which (for the benefit of others, and not yourself) you hug
so fondly to your bosom. The notion that parting with
his filthy lacre may be counted to him as righteousness,
knowing^that he cannot take it with him across the river
Styx, and the selfish hope that it will make his heavenly
crown brighter and heavier, has made many a sordid Chris-
tian give up the cash he has acquired by oppressing the labor-

THE HUMPHHEY-BENNEIT DISCUSSION. 331

ing man, and grinding the face of the poor. Infidels, I will-
ingly admit, do not give from any motive of this kind.
When they give, it is for the earthly benefit of their fellow-
beings — the noblest of human incentives.

There are numerous other sophistries and false positions
in your letter that ought to 'ue exposed and corrected, but
for want of room I will be compelled to pass over for
the present. I indulge the hope that you will ultimately
come to take a more correct view of things, and will be
able to arrive at more correct conclusions. I hope at all
events, you will cultivate a spirit of candor and fairness
which, pardon me, I fear you are now slightly deficient in.
It behoves you to be accurate and to fairly meet the issue
we have under discussion, and to make correct representa-
tions only.

The various topics touched upon by yourself and myself
possess more or less importance, but they are not the sub-
ject immediately before us. Let me remind you that the
proposition that we should be discussing is, *' Is there a
stronger probability that the Bible is divine than that Infi-
delity is true ?" So far the subject has not been touched.
It seems to me you purposely avoid it. I also made in
my last the assertion that the Christian religion is made up
of Judaism and Paganism, and called upon you to disprove
it if it is not so. I charged that every Christian rite, ob-
servance, symbol, sacrament and dogma were directly bor-
rowed from the older systems of religion that had existed
in the world, and that not one of them was really oriUnal
with the Christian Church. If this is not so, I called upon
you to disprove it. I stated as a fact that Jesus was not the
first demi-god said to have bsen begotten by a god upon the
person of a virgin ; that some forty persofis of this class
wore believed iu before the time of Jesus, and I hoped you
would endeavor to refute it if you Cuuld. You took no no-
tice of it. Am I to understand that you acknowledge the
truth of the statement ? If it is true ; if the Pagans for

33^ THE htjmPhrby-bbnnett Discussion.

many Hundreds of years before the dawn of Christianity
believed that their gods cohabited with young virgins ;
that the progeny were beings half god and half man ; that
they lived for a time, had little bands of disciples who fol-
lowed them around and listened to their teachings, and those
sons of gods were finally crucified or otherwise put to
death for the salvation and happiness of man, it robs Chris-
tianity of all its originality and of all its truth. You do not
try to refute this. I judge it is because you cannot do so
successfully. These are facts too well attested to be con-
troverted. And here, let me say, if the Christian religion
is of divine origin ; if the begetting, the birth, the life and
death of Jesus are facts, and were necessary for the salva-
tion of the world, it is very singular indeed that in getting
up such a stupendous system as the only possible means by
which Grod's lost children could be saved, he was com-
pelled to follow in every minutia and adopt in full the
myths and fables of pagan systems of religion. If he has
no more originality than that, and is under the necessity of
adopting old and worn-out legends and vagaries, it is ques
tionable if he is fit to be considered God Almighty, and
whether he ought not to resign the position in favor of some
god that has originality. Do you believe your God did, in
getting up his grand system of salvation, borrow it from
the pagans ? If not how did he come to pattern after
paganism so closely ? Will you please answer ?

I charged you with defending and supporting a borrowed
system of myths and superstitions, handed down from the
past ages of darkness, ignorance, and supernaturalism,
which system you are pleased to call the Christian religion.
It is a serious charge, but you take no notice of it, you do
not deny it. I leiterate it now, and again call upon you to
disprove it if you are able to do so. If you do not, I and
our readers will be justified in deciding that you acknow-
ledge the truth of the charge.

You, in common with your brethren of the "cloth,"

THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 333

claim to act unsler a commission from the King of Heaven
to perform glorious deeds in his seivice. It is perhaps
most honorable to be engaged by so exalted a personage;
and may I here ask you to fcho w your credentials ? If you act
by such high authority, you certainly can furnish the papers
under v. hich you act. It will not be sufficient to hold up
the Bible to me. I have the copy of that antique volume
which my mother gave me nearly half a century ago. I
can concede no prerogative to you from that book which I
do not possess myself. If you can show no authority from
the king under whom you claim to serve, is it unjust that
you should be regarded as un impostor ? I again ask for
your credentials.

Again let us revert to the question under discussion: Is
the Bible divine? To answer this question in the affirma-
tive you have to assume the existence of supernaturalism.
That there is a power in existence greater that the entire
Universe, and that the Bible is a divine revelation from this
superior power. I hold that you cannot prove this to be
true. I hold that the Universe embraces all substances, all
forces, all powers, and all existences. That there is nothing
above if, nothing superior to it, nothing contrary to it,
and that there can be no supernaturalism. I call upon
you to prove the existence of the supernalffi'al power. I
want other proof than Bible - pre of. Before that book
can be taken as evidence it must itself be proved — equally
as hopeless a task as to prove the existence of super-
naturalism.

If this supernatural power is proved, it will be next in
order to show that the compilation by different autliors,
called the Bible, was written or dictated by that Supreme
Power. If that power is all-good, all- wise, and all perfect,
his productions must also be all-good, all-perfect, with-
out blemish, contradiction or fault. I call upon you,
then, to show why the Bible his hundreds of contradictions,
why it is full of absurdities and obscenity, and why it re-

334 T^E HUMPHBEY-BENTy-ETT DISCUSSION.

lates the adventures of an obscure race of semi-barbarians
instead of giving tlie principles of science and knowledge,
most needed by men of all nations and all time.

I ask you to explain if the Bible was dictated by the
various writers, why Moses, Joshua, Solomon, and the
rest of them, did not do as much as to say so, and that the
divine power controlled them ?

If revelation from God is assumed to be a fact*to the
person to whom it is made known, I ask you to show how
it is a revelation to all the world, to whom it is n( t re-
vealed, but to whom it comes second hand, and who have
no authority upon which to base a belief in it save the naked
assertion or say-so of the first party, who claims to have
had a revelation. If God, in a secret manner, reveals a
certain piece of information to me, and I relate it to you, is
that a revelation from God to you, oris it simply a narrative
of mine, reliable or unreliable as my credibitity may war-
rant ? Are you compelled to believe me under penalty ( f
burning in hell forever ? Ought God to compel you to be-
lieve my assertion without any corroboration when be does
not give you the slightest proof that I state the truth ? If
God wants to reveal anything to you, should h^ not do
it direct, and not by the roundabout way of telling me and
then having me tell you ?

In order to enable me to believe that the Bible was writ-
ten or dictated by a being superior to man, I must be con-
vinced that it contains wisdom, knowledge, beauty and per-
fection superior to the ability of man. As I do not believe
that the Bible contains anything that man has not been ca-
pable of writing, that the knowledge and literary ability in
it is not superior to the Bibles of the Hindoos, the Persians,
the Egyptians, and of other nations, and which were writ-
ten at an earlier date than the Jewish Bible, as well ag the
productions of Menu, Ossian, Homer and others, I specially
ask you to point out wherein that superiority consists, and
Wbat there is in the Bible that man could not ha^e written.

THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 835

I hold that for every event that has ever occurred there
has been a natural cause sufficient to produce it, and that
there never has been a result without a natural cause.
If you are able to prove to the contrary of this, I
ask you to do so. I also ask you to show why I am any
more under obligations to accept as divinely inspired the
writings attributed to Moses or Paul, than those of
Mohammed or Joseph Smith. I ask you to show why I
am any more under obligation to believe that Jonah swal-
lowed the whale or that Joshua stopped the sun and moon
in their course, than the equally beautiful and intellectual
stories about Jack and his bean-stalk and Aladdin and
his wonderful lamp.

As the Infidelity we have under consideration is an un-
belief in the divinity of the Jewish Scriptures, I call upon
yon to show how and wherein that Infidelity is more untrue
than that the Bible is divine. Before Infidelity can be
shown to be false, you must show that the Bible is divine.

Begging paTdon for the lengthiness of my. reply, which
seemed necessary to refute your errors, I remain sincerely
yours, D. M. Bennett.

MR. HUMPHREY.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear bir : Owing either to my lack
of acumen, or to your paucity of arguments, the perusal of
your Reply brought to my mind those words of Shakspeare:

" Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than
any man in all Venice. His reasons are his two grains of
wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek all day
ere you find them; and when you have them, they are not
worth the search."— TAe Merchant of Venice.

You have scraped up another installment of men that
did not practically believe in the precepts and example
of Christ, who have crept into the pulpit iinder the

336 THE HUMPHBET-BENNETT DTSCnSSIOK".

mask of hypocrisy. Go ahead ; you are only showing
how that the predictions of Scripture are being fulfilled :
"Fori know this, that after my departure shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts
XX, 29). As I have no objection to helping you along in
this matter, let me suggest that you drag your muck-rake
through Dante's Inferno. You will there find quite a num-
ber of names which your cotemporaneous standards — The
PoUce News, The Beformer & Jewish Times, etc.,— know but
little about. "What a lean, lank, gaunt, ghastly old spindle-
shanks Infidelity must be anyhow, that she is obliged to be
continually coloring her sunken cheeks with the blood of
papistic persecutions, and to be giving curvature to her
fleshless calves, and plumpness to her hollow bosom, with
pads made of the fleece that hypocritical wolves have worn !

You have confirmed me in the conviction that Infidels
do not hold up the lapses of clergymen because they love
Morality, but because they hate the Church. It appears
from their journals that they regard Immorality as quite
excusable in anybody, provided he is not a Christian. In a
"Freethinker" a " peccadillo" is almost admired. As
it is the envious and spiteful farmer that is continually
pointing out an occasional thistle or tare in his neighbor's
fields, never saying a word about his acres of waving grain,
so the malignant spirit of Infidelity is revealed by its gabble
about the imperfections of the Church, while it is as silent
as the grave about her many excellent qualities and innu-
merable services to mankind.

You will have it that the Jews were cannibals, because
they may have eaten human flesh in the desperation
of famine. Will you reason after the same fashion, and
say that the American people are mule-eaters, because some
of our soldiers had to eat mule-flesh in some of the priva-
tions of the late civil war? I am somewhat curious to
know who those "distinguished '' writers are who say that
the ancient Jews were man-eaters. Names, please.

THB HUMPHRBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 337

Keither did the Jews offer human sacrifices. Abraham
did not slay his son Isaac (Gen. xxii, 11-14). Even if Jeph-
thah did immolate his daughter, he was violating the Mosaic
Law (Deut. xii, 31). But there are mauy critics who be-
lieve that he fulfilled his vow by devoting her to perpetual
virginity (See Lange on Judges xi, 29-40).

You do not seem to know that Herodotus wrote a missing
" History of Assyria," or Syria, as the Greeks often called
that country. You will see that such was the fact by look-
ing into Rawlinson's Herodotus, London, 1858, vol. i, pp.
29, 249, 321, and vol iv, p. 63.

Your attempt to show that Robespierre was a Catholic is
fut:le and inconsistent. By your style of reasoning in
regard to him it could be shown that others, in whose Infi-
delity you boast, were Christians. If his belief in a God
made him a Chrisiian, it also did as much for Thomas
Paine. If his talk about being an '* indifferent Catholic "
really made him a Catholic, then Voltaire, who talked
about reverently kissing the Pope's feet, was a better Cath-
olic still. When you appeal to Robespierre's tolerance and
protection of the clergy as an evidence that he was a relig-
ious man, are you not reversing the everlasting boast of
Infidelity, ihat Infidels are far more "liberal " than Chris-
tians ?

You quote rather profusely from Mr. Ingersoll. Poor
Ingersoll ! His presentation of Paine to an occasional
audience will be a greater failure than his presentation of
Blaine at the Cincinnati Convention. His "Orations" are
mostly slashing tirades — frantic tongue-lashings — tissues of
delirious dogmatism— pills, coated with pretty rhetoric, but
filled with historical blunders and biographical caricatures.
The sickly suckling that swallows them will become sick-
lier still. Give me Bancroft's, or Froude's, or even Bayle's
delineation of Calvin and Calvinsm, rather than the rav-
ings of a man who is apparently unable to distinguish
reasoning from betting and blustering.

838 THE HUMPH IJET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

I repeat that Voltaire tried to make up with the priests
before his death. Speaking of a hemorrhage that had
seized him a short time before the end of bis life, the Ency-
clopedia Britaunica says: "Voltaire, thinking himself iu
danger, said he did not wish his body ' to be cast to the vul-

itures,' and bargained with the Abbe Gauthier, to whom he
committed it for the rites of sepulture, if nothing else. The
^preliminaries for duly receiving such a deposit were soon
settled ; Voltaire had no objection at all to the ceremonies
proper to the occasion. He made a declaration that he wished
to die in the Catholic religion, in which he had been born, asked
pardon of God and the church for the offenses he had committed
against them^ and received absolution.''* As Longchamps and
Wagniere, Mazure, and Condorcet — an Atheist, who died
by his own hand — all corroborate this statement, there is no
reason for disputing it. It is true that Voltaire recovered
somewhat from that attaek of sickness. But it is not on
record that he expressed any disapproval of the arrange-
ment with Abbe Gauthier. His last hours are enveloped
in a cloud of uncertainty, owing to contradictory testimo-
nies. The majority of authorities state that he approached
death with agony and remorse. The Infidel Strauss says
that Tronchin, his attendant physician, wrote a letter to
Bonnett in which he compared his death to a raging storm,
and to the mad ravings of Orestes. The same authority
tells us further that he was buried in consecrated ground,
and that the usual burial service was said over his grave.
It is true that some bishops and other ecclesiastics were dis-
pleased with this ; but the fact remains that Voltaire was
buried as a Roman Catholic (Strauss' Voltaire, pp. 340-
3). Thus it is clear that Voltaire did not die an avowed
Infidel.

But I waive all claim to Mr. Ingersoll'a reward. Mine is
a labor of love — a chat with friend Bennett on points of
difference between us. As Col. lugersoU is presumably out
of debt, I would suggest that he send his superfluous change

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 339

to save Paine Hall from sheriff sale. If anything is left
after that, he might send a purse to each of the Infidel jour-
nals that have of late been lavishing their soft soap ou him
— possibly with their eyes squinting toward his wallet.

I have already admitted that Thomas Paine died as he
had lived, a Deist (Letter iv). But that he did so is surely
nothing to boast of (Phil, iii, 18, 19). It would have been
far more creditable to him if he had recanted more and de-
canted less.

I will now take up some of the difficulties that will often
occur to thoughtful men as they study the Bible histori-
cally and hermeneutically. Infidels are not alone i^ know-
ing of these difficulties. Every minister, of average educa-
tion, is familiar with them. And they are not unfrequei^tly
considered in the higher classes of the Sabbath-school. I
wish to treat them with every due respect. I only regret
that my time and abilities are not such as to enable me to
discuss them more thoroughly.

Let me, however, premise that it is not at all remarkable
that the Bible is made the subject of hypercriticisms and
objections. As long as men are as they are, such a code of
morals as would be exempt from their fault-finding is in-
conceivable and impossible. They would peck at absolute
Perfection itself. There is therefore no presumption in
the mere cavilings of men that the Bible is anything less
than it claims to be. But let us examine the objections :

1, The question of the Canon is perplexing to some minds.
The Bible was written by different men at different times.
Many centuries intervened between Moses and St. John.
It mentions several documents of high authority which it
does not contain, and which are irreparably lost (Num.
xxi, 14; Josh, x, 18; 1 Kings xi, 41; 2 Chron. ix, 39; xxxii,
33, etc.). And then there are several books known as the
Apocrypha. The Church of Rome has declared those of
the Old Testament canonical. And considerable weight
has been attached now and then to some of the books com-

340 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

posing the Apocryphal New TLStament. The Canons of
the Old and of the New Tcotament were compiled and com-
pleted some time after their constituent parts had been
written. Such are the grounds of the difficulty under
consideration.

On this it may be observed (1) That the lost books men-
tioned in the Old Testament were not of vital importance.
They are referred to only on points of history, biography,
or natural science. We have no intimation that they con-
tained any new light on moral and spiritual truth. While
they might gratif}^ curiosity and elucidate some points of
sacred history, they could add nothing to the central idea
of the Scriptures.

(2) As to the Apocrypha, they are before us; and their
contents show that they would modify the doctrines of the
Scriptures in no perceptible degree, even if they should be
received as authoritative. Those writings serve to show
by contrast the supreme excellence of the Scriptures proper.

(3) It was well that the parts of the Old and New Testa-
ments were not compiled until some time after they were
written. If undue haste had been exercised in this matter,
the objector would say that other prophecies and epistles
may have been thereby shut out. The compilation was
deferred only until the prophetic and apostolic writings
had indisputably ceased.

(4) The separate books of the Bible were Law and Gospel
before they were put together in one volume. They are not
authoritative because they are in the Canon, but they are in
the Canon because they are authoritative.

(5) We have the endorsement of Christ on the Canon of
the Old Testament (Mat. xxii, 29; Luke xxiv, 27;
John V, 39; x, 35). And the writers of the New were
men personally prepared and approved by Himself. The
Apostles spoke of each other's writings as Scriptures (2 Pet.
iii, 16) We have thus the Imprimatur of Christ and the
Apostles on the Canon of both the Old and New Testameuly.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 341

(6) The Bible, taken as a whole, presents such an appear-
ance of completeness that there is no room for doubt about
its Canon. Though made up of many parts, it is manilostly
a unit. Its contents are abundant without being redun-
dant. Tliere is in it such a correspondence of predictions
and fulfillments; types and Anti-type; parts and counter-
parts, that we may reverently say of it in the dying words
of its Heart and Life, "It is finished."

(7) The Theist, who believes in the overruling Providence
of God, rises entirely above all misgivings on this matter.
A God that has a personal Being, and that loves his
creatures, would certainly make his "Will known to those
creatures; and he would as certainly take care of that Will
after it was given.

The thorough student will examine the works of Gaussen,
Alexander, Cosin, Jones, Stuart, Furst, Davidson, Weber,
Credner, and others on this subject.

2. It is sometimes objected that the Bible is no Revela-
tion to us, even if it should be admitted that it was a Reve-
lation to its original writers. This objection is as sophistical
as it is old. Suppose a truth, unknown before, is made
known to some individual, and he records it in writing,
properly attested : is that truth not made known to everybody
who reads that record? A number of witnesses in court
give testimony in regard to certain facts of which they
have personal knowledge: does the jury reject their testi-
mony because those facts are not personally and immedi-
ately known to them? Do you reject all history, because
you were not an eye-witness of its innumerable events? Do
you deny the conclusions of the astronomer, because you
yourself can make no use of his observatory, nor compre-
hend his sublime calculations? In art, history, and physical
science, the discovery of the individual is the discovery of
the world, and that for all lime to come. As mankind came to
know of an America through Columbus, and learned of the
existence of Neptune through Le Verrier, so it came to

342 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

understand the mind of God through the inspired Prophets
and Apostles.

3. It is frequently urged against the Bible that it contains
nothing new. Now, it is true that the Scriptures contain
those truths that are common to all mankind — the truths of
nature, instinct, and reason. In this the Word of God
coincides with many things contained in other sacred books,
so-called. And this is an argument for the Bible rather
than against it. We hereby see that it is a Book correspond-
ing to all the nobler instincts and sentiments of man, and
that it is adapted to all his conditions. As it is no dishonor
to American civilization that it has many things in common
with uncivilized races, so you cast no cloud on the grand
precepts of the Bible by showing that many of them are con-
tained in the Vedas and the Zend-Avesta. This only shows
that the Bible, like the Sabbath, was made for man ; and
that its principles are such as must commend themselves to
man's nobler nature everywhere. The Divinity of this
Book is shown by the perfection of its Ideal Humanity.

But it is not true that the Bible contains no new doctrines.
The Monotheism of Moses was new to polytheistic Egypt
at the time of its first announcement. That a Jew should
be un- Jewish, and world-wide in the scope of his philan-
thropy, was a new idea to the Pharisees, and unexpected by
the Gentiles, in the time of Christ and his Apostles. And
the sight of a dozen Jews that had thus overcome every
selfishness and prejudice, was indeed a novel spectacle to
the world. The rite of Baptism received a new significance
from the lips of Christ. The heathen conception of saucti-
fication by ablutions and expiations, is very difi"erent from
the New Testament doctrine of Holiness, which contem-
plates not only the spotless purity of the body, but also of
the desires, volitions, thoughts, and conscience (Heb. ix,
9, 14; X, 22).

There must be something peculiar and unique about the
Bible, since, wherever it goes, it remodels society, gives

THE HUAiPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. olo

a new impetus and direction to the human mind, and
deflects the very currents of history. It would be wide of
the mark to reply that the Romish Church has persecuted,
and done her part to bring on Europe the darkness of the
tenth centur3^ While that is granted, it must not be for-
gotten that she proceeded to do so only after she had taken
the Bible from the hands of the people, having abandoned it
herself, to follow traditions and commandments of men.
Wherever the Bible is freely circulated, diligently read,
heartily believed, and faithfully obeyed, the condition of
man is at once improved. Most assuredly such a volume
must contain not only new doctrines peculiar to itself, but
also a new life, inspiration, and motive power in such doc-
trines as it inculcates in common with other venerated
books.

4. Some would fain find fault with the Bible because it is
so variously understood and interpreted. They would
thence infer that it cannot be the Word of God. Now, it
must be admitted that the meaning of the Scriptures is, on
some points, differently apprehended by different readers.
But this should not awaken a suspicion in regard to its
divinity. It could not be otherwise with anything couched
in human language. In our day, no sooner is a law passed
by the legislature than it is differently construed by lawyers
and judges. The Constitution had scarcely been ratified
before even the framers of it expressed opposite views as to
its meaning. How much contending there is oftentimes
over the wording of wills, contracts, etc. All this goes to
show that words are inevitably liable to be half understood,
and misunderstood.

And this is not altogether the fault of the book or the
document. It is because the readers are so different that
they read so differently. A man's taste, training, and nat-
ural endowments cannot but influence his conception of
what he sees and hears. Articulate the word " sound " in a
mixed company, and tke doctor will think of a surgical in-

344 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

strument ; the sailor's mind will run to a narrow passage of
water ; the ichthyologist will remember a species of fish ;
while the musician will be reminded of musical strains.
The cause of this difference is not so much in the word
** sound " itself as in the individuals who hear it. It is
on the same principle that men take different meanings
from the Scriptures. Like ventriloquists, they throw their
own voices into it, and then censure it if they do not
like Hs tone. In the study of Scripture it is necessary to
examine every word, sentence, and statement in the light
of its age, context, occasion, and aim.

But this objection may be urged against Nature as well as
against the Bible. From age to age man has been reform-
ing and changing his theories of the Universe. Is the
Universe, therefore, of human origin ? Is it to be rejected
as a fraud ? No. But why not treat the Scriptures — the
Christian's Bible — as fairly as Nature — the Deist's Bible ?

But, after all^ the different interpretations of Scripture
bear mainly on unessential matters. They do not refer so
much to the facts of Redemption as to the manner and
methods of those facts. All Christians are agreed in re-
gard to the Being of God ; Rerlemption through Christ ;
and the necessity of Repentance, Faith, Love, Righteous-
ness, and Holiness. As men may differ in their notions
about the earth, and yet manage to get their sustenance
from its ample resources, so the students of the Bible may
vary in their theological views, and at the same time be all
inheritors of Eternal Life from the riches of Divine Grace.

5. Considerable noise is sometimes made about the "dis-
crepancies of the Scriptures." Some fool has collected and
collocated a lot of passages and called them " Self-contra-
dictions of the Bible." By following his method it could be
shown that Shakspeare was the greatest ass that ever lived ;
that Gibbon's History contains not "144," but 144,000
" self-contradictions "; and that even Euclid's theorems and
demonstrations are not self-consistent.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 345

There are confessedly diflacult and obscure passages in
the Bible. This obscurity is caused by a combination of
circumstances :

(1) Different writers have sometimes used the same words
■with different meanings. Poets took liberties with language
that historians and prophets did not indulge in. Some
Hebrew words had acquired meanings in the time of Mala-
chi which they did not have in the age of Moses. The
translator had to study each writer's peculiar idioms, men-
tal characteristics, and age, before he could understand
him, and clothe his thoughts in another language. In this,
doubtless, the prof oundest scholar has occasionally failed,
or but partly succeeded.

(2) Our present version of the Bible is sometimes mis-
understood because the English language has passed through
vast changes since the age of King James. Some words
have changed their meanings, while others have become ob-
solete. There is a sprinkling of such words throughout the
English Bible. For instance, it has " advertise " for inform
(Numb, xxiv, 14); "artillery" for armor (1 Sam., xx, 40) ;
" bestead '' for situated (Is. viii, 21) ; "bonnets" for caps or
liats (Ex. xxviii, 40); "by and by" for immediately (Mark
vi, 25) ; "charity" for love (1 Cor. xiii, 13) ; "convenient"
for becoming (Eph. v, 4); "corn" for grain (Luke vi, 1) ;
"daysman" for Umpire (Job ix, 33) ; "hardly" for with
difficulty (Mat. xix, 23); "leasing" for lying (Ps. iv, 2);
"lewd" fov low (Acts xvii, 5); " neesings " for sneezing
(Job xli, 18); "prevent" for anticipate (Ps. cxix, 147);
"provoke" for incite (Heb. x, 24) ; "usury" for interest
(Luke xix, 23). For more of such examples see Swinton's
"Bible Word-Book." Thus the Bible is liable to be misun-
derstood, or not understood at all, on some minor points, in
consequence of a circumstance — the changeableness of lan-
guage^which is no fault of its own. The forthcoming
version will be free from this misfortune.

(3) The language of the Bible is interwoven with cus-

346 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

toms and modes of thought that are well-nigh unknown to
moderns, and especially to Europeans and Americans.
This is another source of occasional embarrassment. We
must know all about those early times — the fashions of
dress ; manner of salutation ; styles of furniture ; social
customs; political peculiarities; and religious ceremonies —
before we can understand the Bible to a nicety.

But it is certainly irrational to conclude that it-is " self-
contradictory " simply because it is not everywhere well
understood. Let us treat the Bible like any other book.
No one affects contempt for Shakspeare because his English
is antiquated. We feel that we have in Rawlinson's Herod-
otus, and Jowett's Plato the important ideas of those au-
thors, though some minute points may be blurred. We al-
ways decide that the language of an ancient writer is to be
explained from the peculiarities of his own age, and not
from those of our own. Apply these principles to the
Scriptures, and the phantoms of " self-contradictions" will
vanish. A good, scholarly commentator is a great assist-
ance in this matter. Anything that throws light on antiq-
uity is at once an explanation and a vindication of Holy
Writ, which is understood only in the proportion that it is
understood self-consistently.

6. The remark is sometimes made that the Bible is
"coarse," " vulgar," *' indelicate," and "obscene." We
have already seen (Letter ix.) that Infidels cannot consist-
ently say anything about this. But let us consider the
objection for the sake of others that may not be in their
predicament.

The assertion that the Bible is more " objectionable" in
this respect than other venerated books, proves nothing but
the egregious ignorance of those who make it. It is well
known that the ancient worship of Venus was nothing but
a bestial debauch. Neumann found the Thirteenth Article
of the "Catechism of the Shamans" too disgusting to
translate (London, 1831, p. 128). The "Asiatic Researches "

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. o47

will show you ad nauseam that the literature and rites of
the ancient and modern Hindus and Persians have always
been tainted by impurities. The Koran contains many " in-
delicate" passages (Chapters ii, vii, xi, xii, xv, xxxvii, etc.,
etc. Sale's trans.). Of all venerated writings the Bible is
the freest from what its enemies call '• objectionable " plain-
ness. It has given but the minimum of such truth as might
pain genuine modesty.

Wantonr)ess is always a feature of vulgarity. There may
be plainness and undisguisedness, and yet no indelicacy.
The family physician is not coarse because he asks ques-
tions and gives directions in his professional capacity, that
would be improper at an evening party. A witness may
narrate all he knows bearing on a case oa trial in a crimi-
nal court, without being considered obscene.

The Bible is simply a narrative of facts. Such matters
as fell within its province it told clearly, and without eva-
sion. This was necessary in order to show all the aspects
of human nature. The Bible is a truthful witness giving
testimony as to the character of man. It is also a good
physician, propounding plain inquiries and prescribing its
remedies without mincing its words.

" Unto the pure all things are pure ; but unto them that
are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure" (Tit. i, 15).
The nasty-minded will find food for lascivious thoughts in
a treatise on physiology. Even a glimpse of a lady's ankle
will turn the hearts of some human brutes into Sodoms.
There are those whose vile passions will be inflamed by
reading Shakspeare. Such as these will, of course, wrest the
Scriptures unto their own destruction. But the manly and
pure-minded will find in them only a full and faithful nar-
ration of Truth. The Bible inculcates modesty on men and
women, as you will see by consulting such passages as Ex.
XX, 26 ; xxviii, 42 ; 1 Tim. ii, 9, 10.

We should instruct children about the Bible as we teach
them about the human body. Whilst we talk less to them

348 THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

about some parts than others, and permit them to regard
some parts as "less honorable" than others, we should
teach them to regard every portion as necessary to the
whole, and all as the workmanship of God (1 Cor. xii,
22-25).

7. The charge is frequently made against the Bible, but
more particularly against the Old Testament, that it sanc-
tions cruelty and inhumanity. Honest minds have been
puzzled over this apparent fact. It behooves us, then, to
pause and ponder over it. Perhaps we can best reach
the true solution of it by means of a few distinct con-
siderations:

(1) In regard to any given case of alleged atrocity, we
should, first of all, see whether it had the Divine sanction
or not, The Jews were sometimes guilty of taking ven-
geance into their own hands. In such an event they were
inexcusable criminals.

(3) It is never fair to pass judgment on any seeming se-
verity until its circumstances and antecedents have all been
ascertained. You look over a field and see afar off a woman
whipping a child. You only see the flogging. You hear
the shrill whiz of the lithe switch as it falls thick and fast,
every stroke bringing out a more vigorous shriek from the
writhing victim. Your sympathies are at once with the little
boy. You are ready to pronounce the woman inhuman. But
suppose you draw near and inquire into the affair. Suppose
you discover that the woman is the b?y's mother; that she
is an intelligent lady; that her little son has been disobe-
dient, though frequently forewarned; that he has been
truant, untruthful, quarrelsome, incorrigible. You change
your mind about the matter. You regard the castigation
not only as just but benevolent. It is exactly so as we look
back at the slaughter of the Midianites and Canaanites. If
we look only at their final destruction, we are apt to say
their doom was unmerited. But when we search sacred and
profane history, and find that they were the most corrupt,

THE HUMPKRBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 849

unrighteous, villainous, crime-abandoned, and blood-thirsty
tribes in the whole world, we cannot but conclude that
their treatment was not so very inexcusable after all. If
ever desperate and murderous savages deserved summary
punishment, they were the Midianites and Canaanites. The
Bashi-bazouks, Modocs, and followers of Sitting Bull are
almost gentlemen in comparison with them.

But granting that they deserved the penalty, does it fol-
low that the Israelites had a right to inflict it ? I answer
that tJiey had, if the Almighty is the Ruler of the Universe ;
if he has a right to authorize his rational creatures to apply
the penalties of his outraged laws; and if hedid so authorize
Moses and his successors. If the Commonwealth may em-
power a sheriff to execute a murderer, and that without
bringing the least reproach upon his character, why might
not the Lord have made Moses and Joshua the executioners
of the Midianites and Canaanites? And if they were so
made, why charge them with inhumanity, any more than
a sheriff and his assistants at an execution?

Will you reply that such severity is unworthy of God ?
that a Book which records a sanction of such proceedings
cannot be superhuman? I will answer by asking, Is Nature
then, a human invention? Is she, too, unworthy of a Divine
Creator? She is exposed to this objection as much as the
Bible. Look at the ravages of her Floods, Droughts, Pes-
tilences, Thunderbolts, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, and
see if her annals are not fuller of judgments and severities
than even the Old Testament. It will pay you to read on
this subject the third Letter of Watson's Reply to Paine—
that book so unfamiliar to Infidels, though they ialk a vast
deal about hearing both sides before deciding.

Instead of nursing a mawkish sentimentality over the
fate of the Midianites, let us rather learn to realize that "sin
is exceeding sinful," and that "the wages of sin is death.''
And let us not lack candor to admit that the Divine Gov-
ernment, like human governments to-day, may have vested

350 THE HUMPHBBY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION.

men with authority to administer the penalties of its capi-
tal crimes.

8. But the commonest objection of all in these days is,
that the Bible is at variance with Science. On this objec-
tion it is proper to observe:

(1) That it is urged, for the most part, by second-class
scientists, and more vehemently still, by men who are no
scientists at all. Allusions to this " variance " are compar-
atively rare in Spencer's, Tyndall's, and Darwin's writings.
Such scientists as Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Herschel, Mur-
chison, Davy, Brewster, Faraday, Morse, Wbewell, Agassiz,
were not, in their time, alarmed by this alleged "conflict."
And at the present day, it seems to arouse no apprehension
in the minds of men like Argyll, Gladstone, Sir William
Thomson, Guyot, Mivart, Dawson, Prof. Owens, Dana,
Henry, Peters, Winchell. So fearless of the result are such
Christian gentlemen as William E. Dodge, William Thaw,
Henry W. Sage, John C. Green, George H. Stuart, that
they have made munificent bequests to promote Science
and education. There need be no scare or panic on ac-
count of a war of extermination between Science and the
Bible.

It should be remembered in this connection that some
scientists are at fault, as well as some theologians. They
are disqualified by their very position to be the best judges
of moral truth. What Tyndall said of Newton will apply
to physical scientists generally: "When the human mind
has achieved greatness and given evidence of extraordinarj^
power in any domain, there is a tendency to credit it with
similar power in all other domains. Thus theologians have
found comfort and assurance in the thought that Newton
dealt with the question of revelation, forgetful of the fact
that the very devotion of his powers, through all the best
years of his life, to a totally different class of ideas, not to
speak, of any natural disqualification, tended to render him
less instead of more competent to deal with theological

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 351

and historic questions " (Adv. of Seience). In addition to
this disqualifying influence of an exclusively scientific
study, some scientific men show a tendency to magnify the
discrepancy and widen the breach between Science and
Religion. It is noteworthy that treatises on the "recon-
ciliation " of the two come almost entirely from the relig-
ious side.

(2) It is unreasonable to speak of an antagonism between
the Bible and Science, where Science is not fixed and estab-
lished. Science, generally speaking, is in a transitional
state, subject to daily modifications and readjustments; and
this is especially true of those branches of Science that are
said to contradict the Scriptures. Even astronomy is, in
many respects, vacillating and fluctuating. It is an "exact"
science only in a limited sense. Mathematicians have de-
termined the distance of the sun from the earth variously,
between five millions and ninety -five millions of miles (Dra-
per's Conflict bet. Rel. and Sci., pp. 173-4); and this ques-
tion is still unsettled. The great prevalence of round
numbers in astronomical calculations is rather suspicious,
showing that they are at best but approximations to truth.
Geology is more unsteady still. Take up the last edition of
any work on the subject, and you will find it to be '* re-
vised," " corrected," and " changed." One of Mr. Huxley's
Lay Sermons is on "Geological Reform.^' The Evolution
Theory doubtless contains some truth; but it is yet in its
infancy. Prof. Tyndall "deems it indeed certain that
these views (of Darwin and Spencer) will undergo modifica-
tion " (Advancement of Science). Until Darwinism finds
its "missing links," and stands demonstrated, we are not
prepared to alter the Lord's Prayer, and say: " Our father,
which art in Africa." It is folly to talk of a disagreement
between the Bible and such departments of Science as are
continually changing.

(3) Such things as Science has finally settled corroborate
the Scriptures. You have incredulously asked questions

8j2 the HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

about the Deluge. I will answer that Geology is a
witness for Genesis. The shell on the mountaia-top
contains still the lingering roar of a former cataclysm.
You would do well to read Hugh Miller's " Testimon}' of
the Rocks " on this subject. Layard's excavations in Nine-
veh have confirmed many points of Biblical archaeology.
Modern chemistry has proved that "all nations" are, sci
entifically speaking, " of one blood" (Acts xvii, 26; comp.
1 Cor. XV, 39). Physiology has confirmed that much-
fought clause of the Decalogue: "Visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth gen-
eration," And the law of natural generation, transmitting
physical defects and mental tortuosities, does not add the
important words, too often overlooked, " Of them that hate
me"— of those who themselves repeat the sins of tbeir
parents. Genuine Science has brought its gold, and franK-
incense, and myrrh, to the feet of the Bible. Herodotus
was formerly disbelieved, almost with hootings, on account
of the "incredibility" of his narratives. But recent inves-
tigations have changed that sneering incredulity into enlhu-
siastic admiration. It has been so with the Bible. Igno-
rance has scoffed at its testimonies ; but modern delvings
into the remains of antiquity and the meanings of Nature,
are vindicating it most triumphantly.

{^ Whatever the state of the question maybe, it is clearly
inaccurate to say that Nature and the Bible are at variance
The exact truth is, that only the human interpretaiions of
each occasionally clash. Grant the commentator the lib-
erty which the scientist claims, and we need hear no more
about a collision between Scripture and Science. Let tho
Biblical critic modify his interpretations, where demon-
strated truth requires it, just as the natural philosopher
'nodifies his interpretations, in his department, when new
light demands it — let this be done, and all will be peace,
good-will, and cooperation.

Put these facts and considerations together — that the best

TttE HUMPHREY-ftJNNETT DISCUSSION. 353

scientists have not recognized a conflict between the Bible,
rightly understood, and Nature, rightly understood; that
the established truths of Science have corroborated the
Scriptures ; that theologians and scientists may modify
their respective interpretations as new knowledge is ac-
quired— put, I say, these facts and considerations together,
and it will become manifest that there is no cause for dis-
pute between the student of God's Word and the student of
God's Works.

In my eighth letter I referred you to some excellent
works bearing on this subject. Let me again commend
them to your attentive perusal.

And now I take my leave of you once again. I entreat
of you, dear friend, give this subject a dispassionate, can-
did, and thorough examination. Many of the purest hearts
and clearest heads of the world have pondered and reflected
over that singular Book — The Bible. They became con-
vinced that it was indeed the Word of God. It is no more
than fair for you to weigh the reasons they have given for
thinking so. It is true that there are perplexities connect-
ed with believing and accepting the Bible ; but to every
thoughtful man there are far greater perplexities in con-
nection with disbelieving and rejecting it. The Bible was
opened toward the morning twilight. From the very first
the capital letters composing the name of The Saviour
WHICH IS Christ the Lord could be easily read. That
was the vital matter. Like Simeon, mankind could then
say, "Mine eyes have seen thy salvation" (Luke ii, 30).
But other sublime truths have been becoming legible. Life
and Immortality are already brought to light. Dim sen-
tences are appearing more and more distinctly. But there
are still some things which we see only as through a
glass darkly. No lexicon has ever given all the meanings
of that portentous word, ETERNITY I O to know the
Christ of the Scriptures as our Redeemer and Example !
Clinging to him, we shall penetrate the mysteries of Futu-

354 THE HUMPHBET-BEIIlftTT DISCUSSION.

rityonlyto discover new blessedness. "Now I know in
part ; but then sliall I know even as also I am known " (1
Cor. xii, 12). Yours sincerely, Q. H. Humphrey.

MR. BBNNSSTT.

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: I have thought the
arguments in some of your former letters were rather weak
and sophistical, but your last letter, in this respect, sur-
passes all the others. If you have no better arguments to
bring in support of your belief, I cannot see how, as a
sensible man, you can continue to give your allegiance to it.

You seem at length to be satisfied with the cases of
clerical licentiousness and filthiness that I have presented
you, and would fain turn and asperse me for enumerating
them, when you must well know I did so in self-defense.
With a chuckle you paraded the licentiousness of a few
Infidels, and argued that because they had done those things
their doctrines must necessarily be false. To offset those
charges, many of which were untrue, I called your atten-
tion to some of the sins of your holy brethren, and I am
glad if I have succeeded in satisfying you. If, however,
you are not fully satisfied, or if you delight in magnifying
the mistakes of some unbelievers, I will try and get you up
another chapter of the sins of divine scoundrels who seduce
the young and inexperienced and blast their reputations for
life, because, under the guise of being shepherds of the
flock and servants of Jesus Christ, they have the power to
corrupt and despoil the ewe lambs placed under their pro-
tection. I assure you there are thousands of glaring cases
of this kind that I have not even hinted at. Friends are
nearly every day sending in accounts of ministerial lechery
and adultery that I have not mentioned. It is in vain that
you try to evade the odium of their conduct by calling

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 355

them wolves in sheep's clothing. There are a large number
of cases where clergymen far advanced in life, who have
broken the bread of life from twenty-five to forty years,
have been so weak as to fall an easy prey to their fleshly
lusts, and again, large numbers who have been guilty of the
gravest indiscretions are still allowed to serve in the temples
as servants of the Most High. It is hardly worth your
while to condemn them for the commission of adultery,
when your Master failed to condemn it in the case of a
person who was "caught in the very act." It is not at all
improbable that those sinniug clergymen argued that if
Jesus did not see fit to condemn adultery when he was on
earth he would not now condemn them for commiting
the same offense.

You affect to regard it as an indication that Infidels hate
the Church if they presume to allude to the numerous
crimes committed by its priests, when the object is to show
that they are hypocrites, pretending to be better and holier
than they are, and that they are as sensual and licentious as
the worst sinners. If you did not want those heinous cases
alluded to, you should not have begun the game by harping
about the sins of unbelievers. I repeat that I am glad if
at last your taste for that kind of literature is satisfied.

You seem rather to question my statement that distin-
guished writers have believed the Jews were cannibals, and
call upon me to give names. I will mention the name of
Voltaire. He is somewhat distinguished, and you will find
his remarks upon the subject on page 159, vol. i, of his
Philosophical Dictionary.

I do not wish to contend further with you about Robes-
pierre. I showed clearly from his own words and from
the opinions of his contemporaries that he was a religious
zealot who still retained a portion of his Christian faith and
education. He was not at heart so bad a man as his acts
would seem to show him. He ran wild in some of his ideas
of political reform; and when his entire nation was in a

I

356 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

State of frenzy, lie failed to preserve that calmness aud that
high sense of human rights which, as a leader, he ought to
have maintained- If it gratifies your hatred of Infidels to
continue to call Robespierre an Infidel, I shall not attempt
to prevent y .u; but he was not an Infidel in the sense that
Mirabeau, Voltaire, and Paine were. He was not regarded
as an Infidel, and did not fraternize with them. In a word,
he was a wild, religious, political adventurer, who cooper-
ated with Christians quite as much as with Infidels, and
whose severity was shown quite as much against Infidels
as against Christians. You well know he signed Thomas
Paine's death warrant, whose life was spared by a mere
fortuitous circumstance, and that he sent many Infidels to
the guillotine during his mad career.

You show your venom at IngersoU, and possibly may
think it argumentative and dignified to call him "Poor
IngersoU," He evidently disturbs you as much as he did
your clerical brethren in San Francisco. Instead of answer-
ing his rhetoric and his logic, they called him hard names.
You do the same. Perhaps epithets and slander are the
natural weapons of a Christian when reason and argument
are not at hand. Despite your hatred of IngersoU, you
cannot successfully deny that his popularity was never so
great as at this moment, and that his heavy blows upon
this greatest sham which the world has ever known are
sending it, tottering and reeling, to the earth. Abuse him
as much as you will. Call him hard names if you wish to.
His utterances are wielding a powerful influence over the
entire land, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and you and
all the satellites of a false theology cannot prevent it. If
you can prove his assertions false, why do you not do so ?
If he falsifies history, why do you not show it ? Probably
it is easier to call names and wield epithets and abuse.
Perhaps he ought to be grateful to you for telling him how
to use his money, but it is doubtful if he is. It is hardly
worth while for you to let the indebtedness of Paine Hall

THE HTJMPHTIET-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 357

trouble you too much. The hundred millions of dollars
owing by Christian Churches demand ;;fOur more immediate
attention. If there has been some lack in the management
of Paine Hall affairs, the probability is that its seventy-five
thousand dollars of indebtedness will be paid long before
the hundred millions of dollars of church debts will bo
satisfied.

You fain would establish it as a fact that at least one
Infidel did recant on his death-bed, and you quote a letter
from two authorities to show that Voltaire was that indi-
vidual. There may be a species of cruelty in removing this
last peg upon which you would be glad to hang your for-
lorn hope, but it is better that the truth be told, though you
do fail to establish a single point in this discussion. Let
me give the whole truth about Voltaire which you but par-
tially disclosed. Voltaire did not recant because he had
changed his views or because he was afraid to die with his
heresy still clinging to him. He was reared in the Catholic
Church, and had never severed his connection with it, and
in all he wrote against superstition he had to so write that
if tried for heresy he could, like Queen Elizabeth of Eng-
land, or Cervantes of Spain, make it impossible for men to
show that there really was heresy in his writings. In those
days to oppose Christianity was to incur the risk of the
rack, the gallows or the fagot in this world, and an endless
hell in the next. Voltaire was trained among the Jesuits,
and he became a consummate master of their ait, for he
well knew that he wrote with the halter around his neck,
and he had to launch his thunderbolts of sarcasm against
the Church and the fathers with at least an appearance of
outward respect for them and their dogmas.

It was because of this mental tyranny that Voltaire was
compelled to die like a Jesuit. He wished to be buried as
the other great men of France had been buried, and not as
an outcast, which would have been the case had he persist-
ently and outwardly maintained his heretical views. The

358 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Abbe Gauthier confessed Voltaire and received from him
a profession of faitli, by which he declared he would die in
the Catholic religion in which he was born. When this
circumstance became known, it offended enlightened men
more than it edified the devotees. The curate of St. Sup-
lice ran to his parishioner (Voltaire) who received him with
politeness and gave him, as was his custom, a handsome
offering for the poor. But mortified that the Abbe had
anticipated him, the curate pretended that he ought to have
required a particular profession of faith, and an exp.ess
disavowal of all the heretical doctrines which Voltaire had
maintained. The Abbe declared that by requiring an abjur-
ation of everything wrong all would be lost. During this
dispute Voltaire recovered. Irene was played and the pro-
fession of faith was forgotten. But at the moment of his
relapse the curate returned to Voltaire absolutely resolved
not to inter him if he could not obtain the desired recanta-
tion. The curate was one of those men who are a mixture
of hypocrisy and imbecility. He spoke with the obstinate
persuasiveness of a maniac and the flexibility of a Jesuit.
He wished to bring Voltaire to acknowledge at least tlie
divine nature of Jesus Christ — a dogma he was more
attached to than any other — and for this purpose he one
day aroused him from his lethargy by shouting in his ear:
"Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?" where-
upon answered Voltaire: " In the name of God ^peak to me
no more of that good man, but let me die in peace." Vol-
taire died on the 30th of May, 1778.

The curate was dissatisfied with his recantation — if
recantation it can with any propriety be called — and de-
lared that he was obliged to refuse him barial, but he was
not authorized in this refusal, for according to law it ought
to have been preceded by excommunication. He was
buried at Secliers and th-e priests agreed not to interfere
with the funeral. However, two pious ladies of distin.
guished rank, and very great devotees, wrote to the bishop

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 359

of Troyes to engage him in opposing the burial ; but fortu-
uilely for the honor of the bishop, the letters did not reach
him till after the funeral, and he consequently made no
interference. It is no wonder that the Church hated Yol-
taire after his death as much as they had feared him while
living, for according to their own statement he is now a
saint in glory, and yet they admit that he died as he lived —
a friend of Reason and the enemy of Superstition; for his
last words were that he regarded Jesus — the man-god of the
Church — only as a man.

Condorcet concludes his admirable Life of Voltaire with
these words: "It ought not to be forgotten that Voltaire,
when in the height of his glory, exercised throughout
Europe a power over the minds of men hitherto unparal-
leled. The expressive words, ' The little good I have done
is my best of works,' was the unaffected sentiment that held
possession of his soul."

Thus let it stand forever recorded that Voltaire did not
recant his anti-theological views, but that he made only a
formal general confession to Abbe Gauthier simply to have
an honorable burial. The great anxiety of Christian ma-
ligners to make it appear that the Sage of Ferney died a
horrible death, imploring the pardon of God and Jesus, is
thus effectually thwarted. It would be a matter of general
congratulation could every Christian devotee from this time
henceforth desist from placing himself in the ridiculous
light of trying to show that Voltaire did what he certainly
did not do. Lamartine pays the following eloquent tribute
to Voltaire: " If we judge of men by what they have done^
then Voltaire is incontestably the greatest writer of Mod-
ern Europe. No one has caused through the power of
influence alone, and the perseverance of his will, so great a
commotion in the minds of men. His pen aroused a world,
and shook a far mightier empire than that of Charlemagne,
the European empire of a theocracy. His genius was not
foi'ce but light. Heaven destined him not to destry but to

360 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DI8CU8SI0H.

illuminate, and wherever he trod light followed him, for
Reason (which is light) had destined him to be first her
poet, then her apostle, and lastly her idol."

I am glad you have the frankness to acknowledge that
Paine did not recant on his death-bed, but died a firm Infi-
del as he had lived. In this respect you are far more hon-
orable than your brethren of the clergy, who every year,
for more than seventy-five years, have declared that he died
denouncing his unbelief, and calling upon Jesus to save
him. More lying has been done by the clergy of America
in this one direction than they will ever be able to atone
for. The story, however, about Paine's recanting is no
more false than that about Voltaire's recanting. Your
closing fling about Paine's decanting is rather characteristic
of you, but you had better have omitted it. It may show a
little wit, but it is devoid of truth. The calumnies that
Paine was a drunkard are equally as false as that he recant-
ed upon his death-bed. Both are the reiterated lies of
Christian clergymen.

We come now to the consideration of the divinity of the
Bible. Before it can justly be assumed to be divine, it
must be shown to be superhuman. If there is nothing in it
that man could not have written it is the height of absurd-
ity to say that it is so grand that God must have written it.
I asked you to give me son;e proofs of its being the work
of God. You have failed to do so. It is impossible for
you to give them. Like all other books in the world it is
of human origin, and of human origin alone, and of rather
low human origin at that. There is not a passage in it that
a man of fair literary ability could not have written. There
is nothing in it that proves a supernatural power. There is
nothing in it worthy of the Supreme Power of the Uni-
verse.

I asked you to prove to me that there is a power above,
outside of, or independent of the Universe. You did not
tittempt it, and it is doubtless well you did not, for it is

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 361

impossible for you to do it. I defy you to present the first
item of real proof that such a power exists. As I said be-
fore, the Universe contains all substances, all matter, all
forces, all existences, and outside of it or above it there can
be nothing. If there is, I implore you to give me some
proof of it. If you believe there is such a power, why can
you not give your reasons for such belief ? The Bible will
not answer as proof for me. The men who wrote it knew
no more about a supernatural power than we do at this day.
In fact, they knew much less, for the Universe, in its infin-
itude, in its eternality, in its omnipotence, and in its omni-
presence, was far less understood then than now.

I asked you to show me why, if the unknown writers of
the Bible were controlled by God, they did not say so.
There is scarcely a writer in the whole eighty books, in-
cluding the apocrypha, who even claims that he had divine
assistance, or that God either moved his hands or told
him what to write. The writers did not claim that they
were doing anything more than simply narrating the stories
they were writing, employing their own language and
stating it in their own way. If they were conscious that
they were writing for God, or that he was controlling them,
they ought at least to have told us so. I insist that the
claim set up one thousand years after the books were writ-
ten that God controlled the authors, is wholly unauthor-
ized and utterly devoid of proof or of probability.

I asked you to show how, if even an individual received
a revelation from God, and he repeated it to somebody
rise, it could be a revelation to a third person. You at-
tempt to evade it by saying "the objection is as sophistical
as it is old." Whether old or not, it does not affect its
truth or reason. All truth is old. Your efforts to get over
the difficulty by talking about a person writing historical
facts that come to his knov\ledge, do not meet the case and
are only mere subterfuge. If God spoke to Moses in an
audible voice, or if he showed his face to him, or even bb

863 THE nUMPHREY-BETT^TETT DISCUSSION,

bajk parts, it may have been very satisfactory to Moses,
but the story that it was so is not worth a cent to you and
me. If God revealed his back parts to Moses and Moses
told of it, does that constitute a revelation to those he told
It to or to you and me ? Moses msey have known how those
back parts looked, but can you or I have the slightest idea
what Moses really saw? Quibble as you will, Bro. Hum-
phrey, a revelation to Moses was a revelation to nobody
else in the world, and everybody has the right to believe
Moses or to disbelieve him, according to the nature of the
story he tells and the character for veracity which he main
tained. As there is not a scintilla of proof that Moses wrote
a word of all that is attributed to him, every individual has
the right to form his own conclusion whether Moses was
the writer or not. This is unfortunately another great de-
fect in the Bible, the names of the writers even, are not
given except in a very few instances, and the reader only
has the guess-work of persons who knew nothing about
wh3 the writers were to guide him. A miserable founda-
tion, truly, upon which to establish the divinity of the
compilation.

While you take very little notice of the points to which I
called your attention and carefully avoid them, you array
numerically many imaginary objections, and it is amusing
to peruse ycur efforts to set them aside. Your renewed
attempt to show that the Bible is a scientific compilation,
or that the Bible and science are in harmony, is simply
laughable. Why, those old writers knew but little more
about science than the Esquimaux or the Hottentots do. It
might as truthfully be said that the gibberish of these about
their gods and their devils is in harmony with science as
that the tales about the exploits of the Jewish God are. In
my sixth reply I examined at some length the science of the
Bible, and it seems hardly necessary to repeat the arguments
therein used. To me the assertion that the moon is made
of ^reen cheese is about as scientific as the yarn about the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 363

earth, sun moon and stars being gotten up in six days,
about the earth producing plants, herbs, grasses, shrubbery
and forests, with fruits and seeds of each in perfection, be-
fore the sun was brought into existence; about man being
fashioned out of the earth; about woman being made of a
rib-bone; about water enough falling out of the atmosphere
to raise the ocean all over the face of the earth fire miles in
height; that all the animals and insects of the varied climes
of the earth, living on a great variety of food, could exist
together in a close box for over a year; that that vast body
of water, equaling nearly half the bulk of the earth, could
find a place to go to; that seas and rivers divided and the
waters piled up on either side like a wall; that a man was
able to arrest the sun and moon in their courses for nearly
the space of a day; of another man causing no rain or dew
to fall upon the earth for over three years, or that life could
exist so long on earth without it, and that at the expiration
of that time he produced copious rains; that men were able
to reanimate dead bodies; that men were able to soar bodily
into the upper air, and survive there— all these and many
other equally silly stories have about as much of the ele-
ments of science in them as of truth and good sense. It is
only a marvel to me how a man of intelligence, like your-
self, can believe such idle, senseless talk, and can gain your
own consent to attempt to prove them true and that God '
busied himself in writing them. The only way I can ac-
count for it is that they belong to the system that your
career and success in life depend upon, and that reason,
truth, and common sense must be sacrificed to hold up
those old fables and cause the masses to still accept them as
truth. But your task is a laborious one. As intelligence
gains ground, and as the principles of science are more and
more understood, it will be more and more difficult for you
to make sensible people accept and swallow such childish
nursery tales.
In your every argument you seem to me to virtually

364 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

acknowledge that the Bible is a human production. You
tacitly admit that it contains contradictioEs, and you ap jIo-
gize for it by saying that Gibbon also contains apparent
contradictions. You do not deny that it contains coarse-
ness, indelicacy, vulgarity, and obscenity, but you try to
apologize for it by saying that the pagan bibles, and even
Shakspere, contain some obscenity. Indeed, are those the
best arguments you are able to advance in favor of t.ie siily
old Jew book? Can you do no better for it than to show
that it is not very much worse than some otlier books that
men have written? By such kind of arguments do you not
practically acknowledge all that I have claimed — that it is
a human production, and no more worthy the respect and
veneration of mankind than any other book of equal antiq-
uity? These arguments that the Bible compares with toler-
able credit with other works proves to me that you really do
not believe in its divinity, or that it deserves more consid-
eration than other books produced in various parts of the
world. Why should it ? It does not treat upon any more
elevated subjects ; it teaches no better morals ; it gives no
better nor truer history; it contains no more beautiful poe-
try; it shows no more sympathy with the world of man-
kind; it imparts no more information; it tells no more
about this world; it attempts to impart no more informa-
tion about the future world, than hundreds of books that
were written by people of very ordinary capacity.

Your effort to set aside the objection against the Bible
that it is susceptible of a great variety of constructions and
interpretations strikes me as being, like the rest of your
arguments upon the same subjects, quite insufficient. A
reasonable person must certainly admit that if the God of
heaven and earth, the source of all knowledge, wisdom,
power and love, should make up his mind to write a book
and dedicate it to the inhabitants of the earth, he would
couch it in such plain, uamittakable, unambiguous lau-
s^uage that they could not by any p^-'Ssibility mi^uudevbtauU

THft HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. , 365

it; that it would not be written iu riddles and parables, and
that it would not require five hundred thousand priests
throughout Christendom to spend their lives in attempting
to explain its hidden mysteries, its obscure meaning:, its
contradictions, and its ambiguity. He would not write ic
so that his children should be under the necessity of wrang-
ling and quarreling and fighting century after century over
its diverse interpretations and commentaries. He would
not be likely to write in a language subject to mutation and
change, the meaning of the words of which, as you show
very clearly, have so changed since the book was written
that the original signification is entirely lost. If God wrot«
that book for our use and benefit he did us great injustice
to couch it in language that we do not understand, or that
when it comes down to us is so changed and perverted that
we are at a loss to know what the original meaning was.
This is especially true if he has decided 'to torment us
throughout eternity, or employ his devil to do it for him,
because we do not comprehend and believe his obscure
language, according to the whim he indulged at the time of
writing.

You claim to regard it as no argument against the divin-
ity of the Bible because it contains nothing new, and you
even assume that it is an argument in favor of its divinity.
You have peculiar modes of drawing inferences and build-
ing up your theories. I should arrive at different conclu-
sions from yourself. If the Bible has nothing but what is
found in other books, if it contains nothing new, it would
argue that it was not a vital necessity to the race, that it
was not superior to other productions, and certainly that it
would not require an omnipotent God to produce it. There
would seem to be just as much reason for claiming that the
Divine Being is the author of other reproduced works as
this. In fact, there is not a single argument in favor of
God's being the author of the Jewish Bible that would not
apply with about equal force to almost any other book.

366 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DlSCtJSSIOif.

You say " there must be something peculiar and unique
about the Bible, since, wherever it goes, it gives a new impe-
tus and direction to the human mind, and deflects the very
currents of history." You have no warrant for making
this assertion. The Bible has produced no such results. It
has never exerted any marvelous iafluence. There is no
proof that the Jewish Scriptures had an existence till a few
centuries before the Christian era, and it was not long after
they were adopted as a sacred canon before the Jewish
nation was broken in pieces and scattered to the four winds.
It was nearly three centuries after the origin of Christianity
before the books of the New Testament were even know n,
and it was two or three centuries more before the canon
was settled, and even down to Luther's time it was not fully
settled. He did not accept the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Book of Jude, and the Book of Revelations. The influence
that has been shed abroad in the nations that have acknowl-
edged the Bible, has resulted from the advance of civiliza-
tion and science far, far more than from any teachings the
Bible contains. If the Bible contains little that is new how
could it have an effect much more wonderful than the other
books that contain the same or similar matter?

The Institute? of Menu, the teachings of Zoroaster, the
Zend Avesta, the Vedas and Puranas, the Buddhistic Sacred
Writings, the morals and teachings of Contucius, the Egyp-
tian Sacred Writings, tbe doctrines of Pythagoras, the
Philosophy of Socrates and Plato, the inculcations of Epi-
curus, Zeno, and Aristotle, as well as much other of the
wise and sage instructions of ancient times, have wielded
ten times the influence in the world that the Jewish scrip-
tures hav: done, and you cannot truthiully deuy it. After
thousands of years the Bible is accepted by hardly one-
tenth of the inhabitants of the earth, and that tenth part
has been doing more fighting, killing and persecutmg than
all the rest ol the world. Had you said that the Bible had
resisted civilization, that it had been a source of contention

THB HUMPHREY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 367

and bloodshed, and that it had, in fact, been a curse to the
world, you would have come much nearer the truth.

You are wrong in claiming that the Jewish Bible pos-
sesses superiority over the sacred books of oUier nations.
Had I the space to spare, I could make copious selections
from the Institutes of Menu, the Vcdas, the Puranas of the
Maharbharata, the Ramayana, the Bhagavad-Gita. the Zend-
Avesta, the Shaster, the Buddhistic Sacred Scriptures, the*
Pymander of Egypt, the Moral Instructions of Confucius,
the teachings of numerous Grecian sages and philosophers,
the Koran of Mohammed, and much else that was written
thousands of years ago, which in point of morality, spirit-
uality, elevated thought, beautiful diction, and everything
that goes to make up a high order of literature, are fully
equal, if not superior, to the Jewish Scriptures, which are
in many places so crude and objectionable. Some of the
Hebrew poetry in the Bible is very fine, but by no means
superior to the poetic productions of other nationalities
which were wholly the work of human beings.

You are wrong, too, in supposing that there is no more
obscenity in the Jewish Bible than in the bibles of other
nations. A much larger percentage of low, vulgar allu-
sions to sexual affairs, so far as my observation extends, is
found in the Jewish Scriptures than in the sacred writings
of any other nation. In the translations of no other
bible that I have looked over have I found such filthy stuff
as the incest committed by the drunken Lot and his daugh-
ters, the low, unnatural crimes of the Sodomites, the details
of Jacob's connections with his wives and concubines, the
story of Schechera and Dinah, the amours of Reuben and
his father's concubine, the whoring of Judah and Tamar,
the licentiousness of Mrs. Potiphar, the instructions about
determining the virginity of young girls, the adultery of
Zimri and Cozbi, the rules about who shall be admitted into
the congregation of the Lord, the story of the sodomy of
the Benjamites, the account of the Benjamites ravishing

6m THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

over four hundred young females, the lustful story of David
and Bathsheba, the rape of Amnon upon his sister Tamar,
the story of Absalom holding connection with his father's
concubine on the housetop in the sight of all the people,
the story of Solomon and his thousand wives and concu-
bines, the amorous Song of Solomon, the threat about
spreading dung over the face-aud causing urine to be used
as drink, and the mixing of cowdung and human excre-
ment with bread, various stories of fornications, whore-
doms, and filthiness, and more and more ad nauseam. In
fact, there is not a book printed in the English language,
except, perhaps, a few, the sale of which is a crime punish-
able with imprisoment, that contains so much coarseness,
indecency, and obscenity, as this old Jewish Bible. It is
really a blot upon the civilization of our limes that such an
objectionable publication should be offered for sale, and
more especially, that the children of the country should be
compelled to use it as a reading-book in schools. It helps
the case very little to say that there are other books con-
taining something of a similar character. If God must be
as bad as, or worse than other obscene writers, I wish to
cast my vote against his writings being recognized as
authoritive, or even as worthy to be placed before the ris-
ing generation of our land.

You have the courtesy and mildress to say '* Some fool
has collected and collocated a lot of passages and called
them * Self-Contradictions of the Bible.' " This is harsh
language to apply to a gentleman who has correctly quoted
certain passages of Scripture and arranged them side by
side, without a word of comment, giving the reader the
choice to draw his own inferences as to whether they are
contradictory or not. If a man who faithfully quotes pas-
sages from that book classifies and arranges them without
putting in any of his own comments, is a fooly what a con-
summate fool that man must be who swallows every word
the book contains and swears it is the word of God, and

*^HE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 369

was written out by his divine hand, and that all the absurd,
impossible stories it contains are as true as the eternal hills
are firm I This last fool is much the most foolish, and by-
far the most hopeless in his folly. According to your argu-
ment, any man who quotes Bible language as showing its
character and meaning is &.focl, and come to think of it, I
don't know but there is a shade of truth in your assertion.
Perhaps few things more foolish are done than to quote
passages and texts from the old Jewish book with the least
idea that it is the language or sentiment of the Great and
Eternal Ruler of the Universe.

But in the matter of " Contradictions," are there none in
the Bible? Let us take up a few that that "fool" has
"collected and collocated," that our readers may judge
whether he is wholly a fool, and whether these contradic-
tions are real.

In Gen. i, 31, it says: "And God saw everything he had
made, and behold it was very good." In Gen. vi, 6, it says :
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man in the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Is there any con-
tradiction there ? Was God in precisely the same mood on
both occasions ?

In 2 Chron. vii, 12, 16, it says the Lord came unto Solo-
mon by night, after the latter had built the temple, and
said: *' For now have I chosen and sanctioned this house,
that my name m ly be there forever ; and mine eyes and
my heart shall be there perpetually." In Acts vii, 48, it
says: "Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples
made with hands." Is there any contradiction in these pas-
sages ?

In Ex. xxxiii, 23, it tells how God showed his back parts
to Moses. In the eleventh verse of the same chapter it
describes how God and Moses talked together " face to face
as a man speaking unto his friend." In Gen. xxxii, 30,
Jacob says : "I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved." In Exodus xxiv, 9, 10, 11, it describes how

370 THB HPMPHRKY-BKNNETT DISCUSSION.

Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders
of Israel went up to the Mount and saw the God of Israel.
, . . On the other hand, in John i, 18, it says : " No
man hath seen God at any time." In John v, 37, it says:
" Ye hath neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his
shape." In Exodus xxxiii, 20, it says ; "Thou canst not
see my face, for there shall no man see me and live," and in
1 Tim. vi, 16, it says expressly, in speaking of God,
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." Is there the
slightest shade of contradiction in these passages ? and is
it only fools who can see it ?

In Deut. XXX ii, 4, it says that God is a God of truth and
without "iniquity, just and right is he." In James i, 13, it
says, " God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth
he any man." But in Isaiah xlv, 7, it says, "I make peace
and create evil. I, the Lord do all these things." In Amos
iii, 6, it says, " Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord
hath not done it ?" and in Ezek. xx, 25 it says, " Therefore,
I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judg-
ments whereby they should not live." Is there any want
of harmony between these passages ? Do they read pre-
cisely alike ?

In Mat. vii, 8, it says, ' ' Every one that asketh, receiveth,
and he that seeketh findeth." In Prov. viii, 17, it says,
" Those that seek me early shall find me." In Prov. i, 28,
it says, "Then shall they call upon me, but I will not
answer; they shall seek me early but shall not find me."
In Isaiah i, 15, it says, " When ye spread forth your hands
I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye shall make
many prayers, I will not hear." In Psalms xviii, 41, it says,
'' They cried, but there was none to save them; even unto
the Lord, but he answered them not." Is there not a won-
derful unison of seutiment and promise in these passages ?
Could anybody but a fool see any disagreement in them ?

In Rom. XV, 33, and 1 Cor. xiv, 33, it says God is a God of
peace, and that he ia not the author of confusion but peace.

THE HtJli^HRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 371

But in Ex. XV, 3, Is. li, 15; Psalms cxliv, 1, it says, *'The
Lord is a man of war. He is called the Lord of Hosts,"
and that he "teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to
fight." In many other parts of the Bible he is made to
take great pleasure in war and bloodshed, and in leading
armies to a bloody conflict. Is it not curious to see how
completely these passages of the Word of God run together
in perfect accord ?

In James v, 11, Lam. iii, 83 ; 1 Chron. xvi, 34, Ezek.
xviii, 32 Psalms cxlv, 9; 1 John iv, 16, and numerous other
passages, it is said that God is love, that his mercy endureth
forever, that he doth not willingly afflict and grieve the
children of men, that he hath no pleasure in the death of
him that dieth, that he is good to all, and that his tender
mercies are over all his works, and much more in the same
line; while in Jer. xiii, 14, Deut. vii, 16; 1 Sam. xv, 2, 3;
1 Sam. vi, 19, Deut. iv, 24, Josh, x, 11, and many similar
passages, it is said that God will not pity nor spare, nor
have mercy, but will destroy his people; that he should
deliver people to be consumed without pity, that he com-
manded that Amalek be smitten and utterly destroyed, and
spared not, but to slay man, woman, child, and suckling;
that God is a consuming fire, and that he cast down stones
out of heaven and killed lots of his own offspring. Cannot
a man who is not a fool see a beautiful agreement in these
diverse passages ?

In Psalms ciii, 8, and xxx, 5, does it not say that God is
" merciful, gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy,
and that his anger "endureth not a moment;" while in
Num. xxxii, 13, Num. xxv, 4, Jer. xvii, 4, Psalms vii, 11,
Ex. iv, 24, it stales how God's anger was fearfully kindled;
that he commanded that the heads of the people who had
been beheaded be taken and hung up in the sun that the
fierce anger of the Lord might be turned away, that the fire
of his fierce anger should burn forever, that he was angry
every day, that he sought on many occasions to kill people,

373 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

and much more of the same character. Is here not a most
lovely and heavenly agreement ?

In Ex. xxix, 36 ; Lev. xxiii, 27 ; Ex. xxix, 18 ; Lev. i, 9,
God commands burnt oJSerings and delights in them, says
they are a sweet savor unto him, and all that, while in
Jer. vii, 23 ; Jer. vi, 20 ; Ps. i, 13, 14 ; Is. i, 13, 11, 12, he
says he did not command burnt offerings, that they were
not acceptable nor sweet to him, and that he was full of
burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts ; that he
delighted not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he-goats, and he even coolly asked the people who had
required sacrifices at their hands. Is not such harmony
perfectly delightful to the sainted clergy who despise the
l)OOTfools?

In Deut. xii, 30, 31, Q-od discountenanced and forbade
human sacrifices, while in Lev. xxvii, 28, 29 ; 2 Sam. xxi,
8, 9, 14 ; Gen. xxii, 2, and Judges xi, 30-39, is not the prac-
tice approved and commanded ? More harmony and con-
sistency!

In James i, 13, it says God " tempts no man," while in
Gen. xxii, 1 ; 1 Sam. xxiv, 1 ; Job ii, 3 ; Jer. xx, 7, and
many other passages, it says God tempted Abraham, that
he tempted David, that he deceived Jeremiah and was him-
self tempted of Satan. Of course this is perfect harmony
to all but fools.

In Num. xxiii, 19, it says God cannot lie, while in Jer.
iv, 10; xiv, 18; 2 Thes. ii, 11; 1 Kings xxii, 23; Judges ix, 23;
Ezek. xiv, 9, and elsewhere, it declares that God deceived
the people, that he sent strong delusions that his people
should believe a lie, that he put a lying spirit into the
mouths of his prophets, that be sent an evil spirit, that he
deceived the prophets, etc., etc. How blessed it is to find
perfect harmony in the " Holy Scriptures" 1

It is easy to show, by quoting conflicting passages, that
God not only commanded robbery but forbade it; that he
sanctioned, approved and commanded lying, and also pro'

THE HUMPBTRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. S^

hibited it ; that he commanded men to kill and not to kill ;
that he said blood-shedders should die and that blood-shed-
ders should not die ; that the making of images was com-
manded and forbidden; that he commanded and prohibited
slavery; that improvidence was enjoined and condemned;
that anger was approved and that anger was disapproved;
that good works should be seen of men and that good
works should not be seen of men; that judging others was
forbidden in one place and commanded in another; that
non-resistance was both enjoined and disapproved ; that
public prayer was both sanctioned and condemned; that im-
portunity in prayer is commanded in one part and forbid-
ded in another; that the wearing of long hair by men is
sanctioned in one place and condemned in another; that cir-
cumcision is commanded in one place and condemned in
another ; that the Sabbath is instituted in one place and
repudiated in another; that baptism is commanded in one
instance and not commanded in others; that every kind of
animals is allowed for food in one place and many kinds
forbidden in others; that the taking of oaths is sanctioned
in one place and forbidden in others; that marriages are
approved in some instances and condemned in others; that
adultery is both sanctioned and condemned; that hatred of
kindred is both enjoined and condemned ; that woman's
rights are both denied and affirmed ; that obedience to
masters is both commanded and countermanded; tbat there
is an unpardonable and that there is no unpardonable sin,
and much more in keeping. Now you will doubtless still
insist that there is not the least contradiction in all. these
instances, except in the minds of fools, and I insist that he
must be a fool who cannot readly perceive them.

Among the historical statements of the Bible there is fre-
quently as much agreement as in the doctrinal which we
have been glancing it. We will take a peep at a few of the
large number: In Gen. i, 25, 37 it says that man was cre-
ated after the other animals; while in the next chapter,

8t4 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

verses 18, 19, it says he was created before the animals.
Could both ways be stated without a contradiction ?

According to Gen. vlii, 23, seed-time and harvest were to
never cease, but according to Gen. xli, 54-56 and Gen. xlv,
6, seed-time and harvest did cease for seven years. This
would seem to be a contradiction, but only to fools.

In Ex. iv, 21, and Ex. ix, 12, it says God hardened Pha-
raoh's heart; but Ex. viii, 15, says Pharaoh hardened it
himself. Of course both are correct; no contradiction here.

In 2 Sam. xxiv, 1, it says the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to
say, Go number Israel and Judah. In 1 Chron. xxi, 1, in
narrating the same event, it says, ^'And Satan stood up
against Israal and provoked David to number Israel." Can
you see any signs of a contradiction here ? Are both state-
ments true? Are, then, Satan and God the same individual?

In Mat. xi, 14, it says that John the Baptist was the Elias
which was to come; but in John i, 21, it says directly to the
contrary. A divine agreement.

According to Mat. i, 16, the father of Joseph, Mary's hus-
band, was Jacob; while in Luke iii, 33, it says it was Heli.
It only needs a little faith and godliness to see the perfect
agreement in these two statements.

Ill Matt, ii, 14-23, it says the infant Jesus was taken into
Egypt, while in Luke ii, 22, 39, it states that he was not
taken into Egypt. More agreement.

According to Mark i, 12, 13, Jesus was tempted in the
wilderness forty days and nights, but according to John ii,
1, 2, nothing of the kind took place. How harmonious!
It must be divine 1

According to Matt, v, 1, 2, Jesus preached his first ser-
mon on a mount, but according to Luke v, 17, 20, it vv^as on
a plain. It must have been both ways.

By Mark i, 14, John was in prison when Jesus went to
Galilee, while by John i, 43, and John iii, 22-24, John wab
not in prison at that time. Beautiful consistency 1

THiE HUMPHHEY-BBSNKErT DISCtJSSlOIt. StS

According to Matt, xx, 80, two blind men besought Jesus
to have mercy on them, and called him the son of David,
while by Luke xviii, 35, 38, it was but one man. Of course
both statements are true.

In Matt, viii, 28, it says two m6n coming out of the tomb
met Jesus, while Mark v, 2, says it was but one man. Do
one and two in Christian theology mean the same as one
and three do ?

According to Mark xv, 25, Jesus was crucified at the third
hour, but John xix, 14, 15, says it was the sixth hour.
Probably three hours is not much of a mistake for Deity to
make.

According to Matt, the two thieves reviled Jesus, while
according to Luke it was but one. The exactness of the
divine author is reassuring indeed.

Matthew (xxvii, 34) says vinegar with gall was given
Jesus to drink on the cross ; but Mark (xv, 23) says it was
wine mingled with myrrh. Both true of course. God un-
doubtedly knew what he was talking about.

John (xiii, 27) says Satan entered into Judas while at
supper, but Luke (xxii, 3-7) says it was before supper.
Which of them saw the entrance made ?

Matthew says (xxvii, 3) that Judas returned the thirty
pieces of silver, but in Acts i, 18, says he did not return the
money but invested it in real estate. Of course both were
correct.

Matthew says Judas hanged himself, while in Acts it
says he fell headlong and burst asunder and all his bowels
gushed out. In an ordinary newspaper account of a similar
catastrophe a reporter would not be allowed to make such
a blunder; but God, in getting up statements, is not
governed by any ordinary rules of accuracy. The statement
in Acts is not credible. Judas might have fallen headlong,
but he would hardly burst asunder and aU.his bowels gush
out. When men fall from house tops and other heights,
and suddenly kill themselves, they do not burst asunder,

376 TFE TTTT\rpailET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

nor do their bowels all gush out. Still, God ought to know
how to report the case, and both ways must be true. Per-
haps Judas hung himself first, and the rope breaking sud-
denly, he fell very heavily and burst asunder and all his
bowels guished out. It is probable he did not survive the
injury.

John (xx, 1) says but one woman came to the sepulchre;
but Matthew (xxviii, 1) says there were two; but Matthew
was liable to stretch things a little, and perhaps his state-
ment should be discounted about one Mary. But no, that
will not do. It is the Word of God, and it must be
correct. The heavenly harmonies fllust not be disturbed.
Mark (xvi, 1) says there were three of the women, while
Luke has it that there were five or six. This beats the
celebrated "crow" story; but the correctness of the four
different statements can be doubted only by fools; a few
women more or less make but little difference.

Matthew says the women came at sunrise, but John says
it was before sunrise and while it was yet dark. As
neither of them were there, perhaps they should not expect
to agree to within hour or two.

Luke says two angels were seen at the sepulchre, but
Matthew shrinks the number and says it was but one an-
gel. John and Mark say the one angel, and the two angels
were seen within the sepulchre, but Matthew insists that it
was without the sepulchre, for he rolled back the stone and
sat upon it. These little discrepancies of course are not
essential. They must all be accepted as the exact truth.

Matthew and Luke say the women went and told the dis-
ciples about the resurrection of Jesus, but Mark says they
said not a word about it to anybody. Of course you can
see nothing but perfect agreement here.

Mark and John say Jesus appeared first to Mary Magda-
lene only. Matthew says he appeared to the two Marys,
while Luke says he appeared to neither of the Marys. A
godly man can see that all of these statements must be true.

tflE HUMPHBEY BENNETT DISCUSSION. t^H

According to Mat. xii, 40, Jesus was to be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth, but, according to
the testimony of the other evangelists, he was in the sep-
ulchre but two nights and one day. The agreement here is
again perfect. Possibly Jesus found the heart of the earth
so intensely hot that one hour counted for two, and thirty-
six were the same as seventy-two. It must all be correct,
by some process of reasoning.

In Acts i, 8, 5, and ii, 1, 4, it says the Holy Ghost was be-
stowed at Pentecost, while John says it was bestowed
before Pentecost (xx, 23). As the Holy Ghost is rather an
uncertain quantity, perhaps we ought not to expect that all
accounts of him will perfectly agree.

According to Matthew, the disciples were commanded,
immediately after the resurrection, to go into Galilee, while
according to Luke, they were at the same time commanded
to tarry at Jerusalem. But it is only fools that will mind
these apparent contradictions.

According to Luke and John, Jesus first appeared to the
eleven in a room in Jerusalem, while, according to Mat-
thew, it was on a mountain in Galilee. This discrepancy
is only apparent; the real harmony is deific. When a slight
allowance is made for Matthew, who sometimes told the
truth by accident, the agreement is truly wonderful.

According to Acts i, 0, 13, Jesus ascended from Mount
Olivet. According to Luke (xxiv, 00, 51) he ascended from
Bethany. According to Mark (xvi, 14, 19) he went up in
the presence of his disciples as they sat at meat in a room ;
while Matthew does not say any thing about his going up
at all. It is almost a wonder he did not have the ascension
made feet foremost. Who can doubt that God wrote these
different accounts ? Probably if there had been a few
more " Evangelists " to write up the wonderful affair, not
only Jesus but all his disciples would have "gone up," and
never been heard of more. Many evangelists are "going
up," even at the present day.

878 THE HUMFm&SY-BEKNEIZ DISCUSSION.

In Acts ix, 7, we learn that Paul's attendants stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. In Acts
xxii, 9, it says they heard not the voice, and in chap, xxvi,
14, instead of saying they stood, it says ih^jfell to the earth.
Possibly the Great Being who instructed the writers forgot
just how it was.

It is generally understood that Abraham had two sons —
one by his wife Sarai, named Isaac, and one by his hand-
maid, or concubine, Hagar, named Ishmael — but in Heb.
xi, 17, it speaks of Isaac as Abraham's '''■only begotten son."
Perhaps Ishmael was not begotten. He might have been a
divine bastard, like Christ.

According to Gen. xxi, 2, and Rom. iv, 19, Abraham be-
got his son Isaac when a hundred years old, by the assist-
ance of God, but after "getting the hang of the business,"
he was afterwards able to get six more children without
any particular help from the Divine Power, notwithstand-
ing his great age. " Never to old to learn."

By Gen. xiii,, 14, 15, and xvii, 8, and many other passages
we learn that God promised the land of Canaan to Abra-
ham and his seed forever, but according to Acts vii, 5, and
Heb, xi, 9, 13, Abraham never so much as set a foot on it,
and the promise was never fulfilled. **A bad promise is
better broken than kept."

According to 2 Chron. xxii, 1, Ahaziah was the youngest
son of Jehoram, while by 2 Chron. xxi, 16, 17, we learn it
was not so. Those who pay their money (to the preachers)
can take their choice.

By 2 Kings, viii, 17, 24, 26, we learn that Ahaziah was
twenty-two years old when he began to reign, being eigh-
teen years younger than his father; but by 2 Chron. xxii,
1, 2, we learn still further that Ahaziah was forty-two years
old when he began to reign, two years older than his
father. Probably according to theological science a man
may be a few years older than his father. At all events,

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 379

the little difficulties should not be questioned. "All things
are possible with God."

When David numbered the people, according to 2 Sam.
xxiv. 9, there were 800,000 of Israel and 500,000 of Judah;
while according to 1 Chron. xxiv, 10, there were 1,100,000
of Israel and 470.000 of Judah— a difEereace of only 300,000.
But God did not have the advantage of a common-school
education, hence these discrepancies — apparent only to the
poor fools who have not studied divine mathematics in a
theological Feminary. There is nothing like divine exact-
ness. "We always know what to depend upon when we
read a book that God wrote with his own finger. In point
of reliability and mystery it is on a par with boarding-house
hash.

According to 2 Sam. x, 18, David, on a certain occasion,
slew 700 Syrian charioteers; but according to 1 Chron. xix,
18, it was 7,000 Syrian charioteers. Probably the latter
are David's own figures, but both must be true. There can
not be an error in that Great Book.

By 1 Sam, xxiv, 24, we learn that David paid fifty shekels
of silver for a certain threshing-floor; but 1 Chron. xxi, 25,
it says he paid six hundred shekels of gold. This was too
much — don't believe David paid it. Divinity must have
been mistaken. He ought, to be reasonable, at any rate.

Accordiug to 1 Sam. xvii, 4, 50, we find that it was David
who slew Goliah; but by 2 Sam. xxi, 19, we further learn
that it was Elhanan who slew the giant. The words, "the
brother of," are not in 'the original, but were supplied by
the translators to avoid a contradiction. They should have
played that card much oftener, if they meant to reconcile
all the discrepancies.

In the speculative doctrines there is little better agree-
ment between the various parts of the book. For instance,
Jesus said his mission was peace and he also said it was not
peace; that he was all-powerful and that he was not all-
powerful; that he was equal with God and that he was not

S80 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

equal with God ; that he did receive testimony from men
and that he did not receive testimony from men; that his
witness was true and that it was not true; that it was law-
ful for the Jews to put him to death and that it was not
lawful ; that children are punished for the sins of their
prsents and that they are not so punished;, that man is jus-
tified by faith alone and that he is not justified by faith
alone; that it is possible to fall from grace aad that it is not
possible to fall from grace; that no man is without sin, and
that Christians are not sinners; that there is to be a resur-
rection of the dead, and that there is to be no ressurrection
of the dead; that rewards and punishments are bestowed in
this world, and that they are not bestowed in this world; that
annihilation is the portion of all mankind, and that endless
misery is the fate of a large part of the race; that the earth
is to be destroyed, and that the earth is never to be de-
stroyed; that no evil shall happen to the godly, and that
evil shall happen to the godly; that worldly good and pros-
perity is the lot of the godly, and that worldly misery and
destitution is the lot of the godly; that worldly prosperity
and blessing is a reward for righteousness, and that worldly
prosperity is a curse and a bar to future rewards; that the
Christian's yoke is easy and that it is not easy; that the
fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness, and that the
fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury; that prosperity
and longevity are enjoyed by the wicked, and that they are
denied to the wicked; that poverty is a blessing, and that
riches are a blessing— also, that neither poverty nor riches
is a blessing ; that wisdom is a source of enjoyment, and
that it is a source of vexation, grief and sorrow; that a good
name is a blessing, and also that a good name is a curse;
that laughter is commanded and that it is condemned; that
the rod of correction is a remedy for foolishness, and that
there is no remedy for foolishness; that temptation is to be
desired, and that it is not to be desired ; that prophecy is
sure and that it is not sure ; that man's life was to be one

THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 381

hundred and twenty years and that it was to be but seventy
years; that miracles are a proof of divine mission, and that
they are riot a proof of divine mission ; that Moses was a
very meek man, and that he was a very cruel man ; that
Elijah went up bodily through the air into heaven, and that
Christ was the only one who'had thus ascended into heaven;
that all the Scriptures are inspired, and that some Scripture
is not inspired (to which opinion I decidely incline); that
servants are taught to obey their masters, and also that they
are to be the servants oX no man ; again, that they should
be subject to their masters with all fear — not the good and
gentle alone, but a^so to the froward — and that they should
worship the Lord God, and him only should they serve ; that
those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost have never
forgiveness, and that all that believe are justified from all
things; that Jesus and his father were equal, or one, and
that the Father was greater than he. It is said that Jesus
was the Prince of Peace, and again, that he did not come
to bring peace but a sword; that God is a jealous God, vis-
iting the iniquities of the fathers upon the third and fourth
generations, and that the son shall not bear the iniquity of
the father; that there is not a just man upon the earth that
doeth good and sinneth not, and that he that committeth
sin is of the Devil.

And thus that perfect divine book, direct from the man-
sions of bliss, goes on almost interminably on both sides of
almost every subject that may be named. I could cite
many more positive contradictions, but perhaps I have
named enough to satisfy our readers that the book is full
of palpable incongruities, if I cannot satisfy you of the
fact. They may see, too, that the man who arranged them
without a word of comment was not necessarily a fool, and
that the foolishness consists in believing that such a mass of
contradictious and absurdities are an emanation from the
great source of truth, harmony, and intelligence. The
marvel is how so intelligent a man as yourself can believe

383 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

that the old book had any higher origin than the minds and

hands of men, and that you can so easily see the hand and
intellect of a God in it. I would repeat, that the absurdity
of ascribing to a superhuman power a book, or a collection
of books, that most assuredly are not superior to human
production almost transcends comprehension. If the Jew-
ish Scriptures, with all their foibles, contradictions, absurd-
ities, and senselessness, is the best their God can do in
getting up a book, he certainly is not a success in that line,
and had better give his attention to killing people, conduct-
ing wars, etc., and leave book-making to those who possess
a greater degree of skill in that direction than himself.
Can you possibly believe that a being who could speak into
existence the earth, the sun, the solar system, and the entire
Universe, with its constellations of suns and stars and its
vast congeries of constellations, causing all to move
together in wonderful beauty and harmonj'^; who was also
able to organize and perfect the equally wonderful micro-
scopic world — the vast kingdom of minute, invisible anima-
tion— the infinitesimal leviathans that disport in a drop of
water, and the herds of inconceivably small animals that feed
upon a single leaf, all the systems and grades of life being
conducted with consummate skill — could not produce a
more perfect book than the Jewish Bible ? If that is the
best that such a Deity can do in book-making, had I his
private ear I would &ay, "Confine yourself to world-mak-
ing, to devising the various systems of vegetable and animal
life, but don't try again to write a book. It does you great
discredit. "

As serious as the subject is, I can hardly help being
amused at your efforts in trying to extricate your Bible God
from the odium connected with the villainous slaughter of
the Midianiies, and I cannot understand bow so amiable
and peaceable a man as yourself can apologize for and jus-
tify such a murderous, cruel and damnable transaction.
(J&u it be possible that you can think that the adultery of

THE HITMPHREY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 883

the Hebrew Zimri with the Midianitish woman Oozbi, or
even that a thousand such instances would justify the plun-
dering, despoiling, robbing, massacring and exterminating
an entire peaceful nation, or five nations rather, for they
had five kings? It would seem that the Midianites were
eminently a peaceful, agricultural people. They seemed
not to understand the arts of war, for they appeared to fall
an easy prey to the twelve thousand red-handed murderers
that Moses sent over to slaughter them, and they seemed so
incapable of self-defence that they killed few or none of
the brigands that despoiled them. That the Midianites
were an agricultural people is evident from their great herds
of sheep, cattle and asses. They were just such prey as
the Jews and their blood-thirsty God were partial to.

Of all the murderous details of which history informs
us, there is nothing so utterly monstrous and cruel as the
treatment of the Midianites by God's chosen people. The
males were all put to the sword, in the first place, and all
their wealth, their jewels, their wearing apparel, their
675,000 sheep, 72,000 beef cattle imd 61,000 asses were
stolen They then burnt their cities, their goodly castles,
despoiling their homes and spreading devastation over the
entire country. The robbers, it seems, possessed a moiety
of humanity, and saved the women and children alive, but
when that man of God, Moses, learned this, he flew into a
rage, shrieking out in demoniac rage, "Have ye saved all
the women alive ? Kill every male among the little ones,
and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with
him, but all the women-children that have not known man
by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. " Was ever
any order from any tyrant or murderer so merciless, so
cruel, so monstrous ? And that devilish order was carried
out. From fifty thousand to one hundred thousand — as
near as can be estimated — of women and male babies were
murdered in cold blood in the sight of the young girls who
had never laid with man, and thirty-two thousand of the

884 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOIT.

latter were turned over for the indulgence of the base, lust-
ful passions of the men who had murdered their fathers,
their mothers and their little brothers. O, was anything
ever so shocking, so villainous ? Did devils ever do any-
thing so bad as this ? Were Turks or savages ever so lost
to every fine feeling of the human heart ? And yet the
Rev. G. H. Humphrey — a professed follower and teacher
of the meek and lowly Jesus — stands up in this day of cul-
ture, civilization and refinement and attempts to justify this
most abominable and damnable business! I am truly sorry
that he has espoused a religion that makes it necessary for
him to do a deed so abhorrent to every noble feeling and sym-
pathy of his nature. Good grounds had Theodore Parker
for saying to an orthodox clergyman, "My friend, your
God is my Devil." If there was nothing else vile and ab-
horrent in that Old book, the thirty-first chapter of Num.
bers is alone sufficient to eternally damn the compilation in
the eyes of every kind-hearted, just and sympathizing man
in the world, and to cause him to contemplate with perfect
abhorrence a being capable of ordering and approving such
a bloody, diabolical piece of business. I never will love
nor worship such a monster, and it is only a wonder to me
how any good man or woman possibly can.

Among the great objections that the Hebrew Scriptures
should be accepted as the infallible word of God is the
monstrous, unlovable character it gives to that being. By
the chapter just referred to (Num. xxxi,) we get a vivid
and, in fact, a lurid picture of him, and, as I remarked, it
constitutes him a fiend incarnate. There are other parts of
the Bible not much behind in painting him as a most gro-
tesque and horrible monster. Let me quote a few passages.
" Smoke came out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth,
so that coals were kindled by it" (3 Sam. xxii, 9). "He
had horns comijg out of his hands, and these were the
hiding of his power " (Hab. ii, 4). " Out of his mouth went
a sharp two-edged sword " (Rev. i, 16). "Out of his mouth

THB HITMPHBBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 885

goeth a sharp sv/ord" (xix, 15). "The Lord shall roar from
on high. He roareth from his habitation. He shall shout
as they that tread the grapes " (Jer. xxv, 30). " He awak-
ened as one out of sleep, and shouLelh like a man drunken
with wine " (Ps. Ixxviii, 65). "In his anger he persecuted
and slew without pity " (Lam. iii, 45). " His fury is poured
out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him " (Nah.
i, 6) "He became angry and swore " (Ps. xcv, 11). " He
burns with anger; his lips are full of indignation, and his
tongue as a devouring fire " (Is, xxx, 27). " He is a jealous
God" (Ex. xxxiv, 14). "He stirred up jealousy" (Is. xiii,
13). " He was jealous to fury " (Zach. viii, 2). " He rides
upon horses " (Hab. iii, 8). "He cried and roared "(Is.
xlii, 13). " He laughs in scorn " (Ps. ii, 4). " The Lord is
a man of war" (Ex. xv, 3). "His anger will be accom-
plished, and his fury rest upon them, and then he will be
comforted" (Ezek. v, 13). "His arrows shall be drunken
with blood" (Deut. xxxii, 42). "He is angry with the
wicked every day " (Ps. vii, 11). "They have moved me
to jealousy; I will provoke them to anger. . . A fire is
kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell.
I will heap mischief upon them; I will spend my arrows upon
them. . , They shall be burnt with hunger and devoured
with burning heat, and with bitter destruction. I will also
send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of the
serpents of the dust. The sword without and terror within,
shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suck-
ling also, and the man of gray hairs" (Deut. xxxii, 21-25).
"If I whet my glittering sword, and my hand take hold on
judgment. I will render vengeance to mine enemies "
(Deut. xxxii, 41). "The Lord said I will be a lying spirit
in the mouths of all his prophets " (1 Kings, xxii, 23). " The
Lord hath put a lying spirit ia the mouths of all his proph-
ets" (1 Kings, xxii, 23). " I frame evil against you, and
devise a device against you " (Jer. xviii, 11). " I wiL liugh
at your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh " (Frov,

386 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

i, 26). * * I myself will fight against you with an outstretched
arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath " (Jer.
xxi, 5). " He reserveih wrath for his enemies " (Nah. i, 2).

Hundreds of sinicilar passages from the Bible might be
cited, were it necessary, to show the malicious, vindictive,
and merciless character of Jehovah, whom we are com-
manded to love as a being of transcendent excelleuce,
goodness, and love. Such an idea of God could only be
devised by cruel, barbarian minds, and it cannot be natural
and easy for refined and intelligent people to love and wor-
ship such a monster. Truthfully did IngersoU exclaim:
" There can he little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant
in heaven. "

It is a consoling view in considering the Bibie character
of God that the picture drawn of him there must not be
regarded as the true one. The crude and undeveloped race
of men have been making gods for many thousand years,
and they have all made their gods after their own models.
Warlike, fighting nations have devised warlike and fighting
gods. Peaceful and quiet nations have had peaceful and
quiet gods. As the Jews have been regarded as one of the
meanest nations of men, in some respects, that ever had an
existence, it is perhaps not strange that their God should be
one of the meanest and most blood-thirsty that has been
heard of on the earth. This is strictly true. Take all the
gods of pagandom — horrible as many of them were — and
roll them all into one, and they would not, in point of
maliciousness, blood-thirstiness, vengeance, petulence, an-
ger, unreasonableness, vindictiveness, selfishness, injustice,
and all the attributes that are horrible and detestable equal
old Jehovah, the God of the Jews. Probably the most
unfortunate thing that ever befel the people of Christen-
dom was the adoption of Jehovah and the abhorrent sys-
tem of theology connected with him.

It is becoming more and more evident that God— what-
ever the word may mean — is wholly a creation of the

THE HTTMPHREY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 887

human brain. Every man gets him up according to his
own fancy. There are no two persons who have the same
conceptions of God; and it is amusing to listen to the varied
and ever-varying, wild, crude, and incongruous conceits
about God that different persons will present you. Nobody
that lives knows anything about God. Nobody that ever
has lived knew anything about him. A-1 that anybody
knows he imagines from what somebody else told him, and
the one who told him got it from somebody else who knew
less, if possible, upon the subject than he knew himself.
This shadowy conception that such a God has ever written
a book, and embarked in the publishing business, is one of
the wildest vagaries that has ever seized the human mind.

I regard the belief in gods as wholly unfounded and
unwarranted. This belief dates back into man's crude and
unprogressed condition, when demons, satyrs, gnomes,
genii, hobgoblins, furies, fairies, naiads, byaderes, and all
the monstrosities of that class were supposed to walk the
earth, but not one of whom was ever seen or known, save
in the distempered minds of ignorant and superstitious men
and women. The belief in gods has, in fact, been the grand
central superstition of all the superstitions in the world. It
has dragged poor humanity down into the chilly damps and
mouldy fogs of mysticism and ignorant credulity more than
all the other beliefs man has hugged to his heart, and the
Jewish Bible has wielded a great and injurious influence in.
this direction. The gods have done nothing for man save
make him a slave to a designing priesthood, who pretend
to interpret and declare his will. Had man depended less
upon gods, and more upon himself, it would have been
greatly to his advantage.

The following remarks from a sermon by Henry Ward
Beecher are to the point and worthy of attention: "No-
body can see God. He is to everybody but an idea. It is
an idea, too, which we fashion in our own mind and pro
ject into some external form, for every man in this life

388 THE HmiPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

must put into form anything which he distinctly conceives
of. The mode ©f forming that idea makes the difference
between barbarians, semi-civilized and civilized men all the
way up. All form the God they icorsJiip ; some by one
method and some by another. Some with higher materials,
representing the elements of thowght and beauty — that is
the Greek ; some with moral qualities and dispositional
affections representing the true Christian conception of
God, not magisterial, but paternal, as if paternity itself was
the highest conception of which the human mind is capa-
ble, as if, under the element of divine paternity, justice,
power and law rank themselves as subordinate, love being
the highest, and parental love the noblest conception, and
all moral quality, inhering in the supreme, superlative idea
of love-— an idea yet struggling for birth into human light,
not yet born or grown. If we could throw upon a screen,
as objects in science are thrown and magnified, the real
conception which a Christian man forms of God, it is not
probable they would come nearer together than the generic.
Specifically they would differ ?rom one another, as one man
differs from another. This Being is represented to us as
compassing the Universe — as having scope that is simply
immeasurable. The element of time, as well as scope of
being, must needs belong, and does belong to our inherent
conception of God."

I must confess to you that the picture you draw of an
affectionate mother whipping her offspring with such un-
natural severity as to make it shriek and writhe with agony,
as an excuse for the still greater torment, which you fain
believe your God inflicts upon his offspring, almost shocks
my finer sensibilites. Can you for a moment see anything
in such cruelty and severity commendable in a parent ? Is
such a government your highest ideal of love and affec-
tion ? Can you indeed respect a parent or a Heavenly
Father who finds an excuse for beating unmercifully or
torturing endlessly his own flesh and bloody the children

THE HUMPTTREY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION. 389

of his own begetting ? By far do I prefer ttie sentiments
of Ingersoll, whom you seem to so greatly dislike. In a
late lecture he said: ** What right have you to tyranize over
a child ? I have very little respect for a man that cannot
govern his child without brute force. Think of whipping
children ! Why, they say that children tell lies. Suppose
a man who is as much larger than you are larger than a
five-year old child, should come to you with a pole in his
hand, 'Who broke that plate ?' you would tremble, your
knees would knock together, and you would swear you
never saw it, or it was cracked when you got it. Think of
a member of the Exchange whipping one of his children
for prevaricating ! Think of a lawyer beating his own
flesh and blood because he had evaded the truth ! Think
of a Wall street gambler in stocks striking one of his
children for lying ! What an inconsistency ! Think of it ;
and some of these men, some of these women, that whip
their children, that beat their own flesh and blood, I wish
they could have a photograph taken of themselves when
they are doing it, their brows corrugated with anger,
their cheeks red with wrath, and the little child shrinking,
trembling, crouching, begging ! If this child should hap-
pen to die, wouldn't it be sweet in the autumn, when the
maple trees are turning to gold and when the scarlet vine
runs like a sad regret out of the earth — wouldn't it be de-
lightful to go and sit on the little grassy mound that cov-
ered the flesh they had beaten, and look at that photograph
of themselves in the act of whipping that child ?

"Now, think of it, think of it; and if all I say to-night will
save one blow from the tender flesh of infancy, I am more
than paid. I have known men to drive their own children
from their doors and then get down on their knees and ask
God to watch over them. I will never ask God to do a
favor to a child of mine while I can do it, never. There
are even some Christians who act as if they really believe
that when the Savior said, ' Suffer little children to come

390 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCtlSSION.

unto me,' that he had a whip under his mantle, and simply
said that to get them within striking distance. I will tell
you what I say to mine. I say to my children this: *Go
where you may; do what you will; there is no crime you
can commit, there is no depth of infamy to which you can
sink, that will shut to j^ou my door, my arms, or my heart.'
Another thing. There is nothing in the world like being
honest with these little children. Do not pretend you are
perfection; you are not; and if one of them happens to tell
a story, do not let on as if the whole world was going to
burst. Tell them honestly you have told thousands of
them. Do like the man did in Maine when he said to his
boy, *John, Honesty is the best policy; I have tried
both.* Do not pretend j^ou are perfectif»n. You are not.
But tell them the best way is the right way. Make them
courageous, and, first of all, teach them not to fear you.
So raise your children that the meanest thing they do they
will tell you. And if you are honest with them they need
not be ashamed of it, because you will simply compare
experiences."

We see here the difference between the true conceptions
of parental love in an Infidel, who believes in no God that
sits above the clouds frowning and raving at his children
below, but does believe in improving the human race and
raising them up to the highest plane of human perfection,
and a pious Christian, who believes that the kind father of
all delights in torturing his little frail, helpless children
continually and hopelessly through all the endless years of
eternity.

I am happy to think that we agree upon one point. You
say: " Let us treat the Bible like any other book." Here I
join hands with you, and say Amen ! Let us treat it pre-
cisely as we would any other book. Let us criticise It ;
let us examine it ; let us apply to it the test of reason
and science; let us condemn its defects, its errors, and
its absurdities, precisely as we would any other book that

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 391

has "ever been written. Let us despise to cloak or cover
its fallacies and its ignorance. Let us give it due credit for
all it contains that is beautiful, commendable, and of value;
but let us not swear that it is a book sent from the throne of
God in heaven, when there is not a passage nor a sentence
in it that might not easily have been written by an ordinary
human beiug. Let us not try to make jnore of it than it
really is; let us not revere it. Let us not make a fetish of it;
let us not claim that it is froni a supernatural source, when
there are not the slightest grounds for setting up such a
claim.

I have already taken up too much space, and I must omit
several remarks which I would like to make, until my next
reply. I am sincerely yours, D. M. Bennett.

MR. HUMPHRST.

Mr. D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir : I am neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with your flaunting of soiled "cloth." Know-
ing that Infidels have a chronic weakness for this kind of
thing, I rather expected it. I thought it probable that you
would compass sea and land to gather names, and come
out a graduate, with first honors, from the "School for
Scandal." But I confess you have gone ahead of my antic-
ipations. I did not suppose you would believe everything
you heard even about ministers. T thought you would
make some allowances for malicious charges. I did not
dream that you would include instances of notorious black-
mail, such as the case of Mr. McCaffrey of this city. I ex-
pected you would remember that there are still some
Potiphar's wives in the world. But in all this I was signally
mistaken. You can put very sweet and sentimental con-
structions on the more than questionable conduct of men
like Voltaire, Shelley, Paine, and Pike. But ministers must

393 THE HITMPHTIET-BBNNETT DtfiCUSStON.

have no charity, no benefit of a doubt. Everything that
every old hag, blackmailer, quack, or professional liar may
choose to say about any of them, must be accepted with
"blind credulity," and licked down like sorghum molasses.
This is the conduct of a gentleman who has so much to say
about being liberal, and hearing both sides before deciding !

But inflate your list as you will, you cannot shov/ that
more than a very small percentage of the Miaistry is spu-
rious. I believe that there is a larger proportion of it
genuine to-day than in the days of Christ. In his time,
one out of twelve fell in three years. Putting the number of
tbeAmeiican clergy at seventy thousand, a triennial fall
of one twelfth of them would amount to almost two thou-
sand a year. But everybody knows that no such a number
is found unfaithful. That Jackal, TJieJtwish Times, after the
most diligent scratching, failed to dig up more than forty
for the year 1876. Your list covers thousands of years, and
yet it does not aggregate three hundred. It is clear, there-
fore, that the percentage of faithful ministers is very high.

In your handling of this matter you are far less candid
than even IngersoU and Paine. The former says: " I most
cheerfully admit that most Christians are honest, and most
ministers sincere" (Oration on Paine). The latter declares:
" It is not because right principles have been violated, that
they are to be abandoned" (Age of Reason, p. 67).

We are not comparing Infidelity and hypocrites, but Infi-
delity and the Bible. In order to see what the Bible
teaches we have only to search it. But as Infidelity has
adopted no set of principles, or standard of right and wron^,
we have no resort but to determine its chaiacter from the
writings and lives of individual Infidels. We have found
that many of the " Champions" of Infidelity were men of
corrupt lives. It would not be logical to mention these
shortcomings as arguments, were it not for the fact that
they have been defended, justified, and even eulogized, by
eminent " Freethinkers." This brings us right back to the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNRTT DISCUSSION. 893

postulate that Infidelity and Immorality are consistent. In
final confirmation of this let me give you the following
sentence from a report of a meeting held recently in " Sci-
ence Hall": ** The lecture at the Manhattan Liberal Club
last night was an attack on the foundations of all morality,
an apology for murder and an invitation to adultery." — N.
Y. Herald, Aug. 25, 1877. In the report of a lecture before
another New York "Liberal Club " we read that "Mr.
Warner continued his defense of the Commune, and described
some of the bloody scenes of which he was an eye-witnesp,
and the retaking of Paris by the government troops.
•Though we may not, future generations will dare to call
these men (the Communists) brave.*" — N. T. Herald, Sept.
1, 1877. Thus you see that your brethren are going about
to preach the holiness of vice and the righteousness of
crime. You had better heed the Scriptural invitation:
" Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye sep-
arate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing;
and I will receive you " (2 Cor. vi, 17),

You doubt that the Bible has produced a marked efi"ect
where it has been freely circulated and diligently searched.
In evidence of my assertion let me refer you to the Princi-
pality of Wales. Perhaps the Scriptures are not so pro-
foundly understood by the masses in any other country as
in that Principality. What is the result ? That there are
fewer instances of murder, robbery, defalcation, sedition,
and riot, in Wales than in any other part of the world.
Though it has its shortcomings, that little nook of rocks
and rills is a model of Frugality, Industry, Honesty, Peace-
fulness, and sterling Manliness. The Scotch, too, are re-
markable for their knowledge of the Word. And are they
not eminent for their sound common sense and unflinching
adherence to principle ? John Adams' picture of a nation
that made the Bible its rule of action, was not overdrawn.
(See Letter in.)

You intimate that the Bible is of no value because it is

894 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

old. Now, will you try to realize what the world would be
without its ancient books ? What would history be with-
out Herodotus, Thucydides, Siculus, Xenophon, Suetonius,
Livy, and Tacitus ? Where would poetry be in the absence
of Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, Virgil, and Horace ?
Who can estimate the surviving influences of Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, on philosophy ? Archimedes,
Ptolemy, Galen, Euclid, must all be classed with the an-
cient scientist?. May modern Science therefore despise
them, and claim that it is under no obligations to them ?
You will answer in the negative. Why, then, make mere
oldness an objection to the Bible ? We possess every facility
to get at its meaning that we have to obtain an understand-
ing of the Greek and Roman classics, which we profess to
appreciate and admire. The long caravan of the successive
centuries only serve to show how that the inculcated prin-
ciples of the Scriptures ever commend themselves to human
Reason and Conscience, and how that they have come out
of a thousand conflicts only more polished and irrefragable.

You endeavor to show that the God of the Bible is a
"monstrous, unlovable Being.'' Your quotations are
mostly figurative expressions, designed to set forth the
Lord's great abhorrence of Sin, and the terrible conse-
quences of it. Could God be a perfect Being, and look
upon iniquity with anything less than infinite displeasure ?
And is it not an omnipresent fact that vice and crime do
continually plunge men into unutterable woes ?

The jumble you quote to " satisfy our readers" that the
Bible is *'self-contradictory" is unworthy of a serious refuta-
tion. I was astonished to see you spreading out such, such,
such— well, I had rather not nnme it. It musi be attributed
to the desperation of your cause. You would not think of
treating any other book in so uncritical a manner. The
helter-skelter, hit-or miss "justice" of a police-court is
much more equitable and considerate than the trial you
give the Bible. After I had shown you that the Jews did

tllB HTTMPHREY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 395

not offer human sacrifices, you still repeat that they
did. You will have it that the two expressions "God
tempteth no man," and " God did tempt Abrahjim," are in-
consistent. Do you, then, not know that the word ** tempt"
sometimes means "to entice to what is wrong," and at
other times "to test; to prove " (Webster)? Is it contrary
to "liberal" principles lo exercise a liitle reason and
knowledge of philology in the interpretation of language ?
You say "Jesus did not see fit to condemn adultery." Fy,
Mr. Bennett! How could you so shut your eyes against
the plain language of the Apostle ? The expression,
" Neither do I condemn thee," clearly means that he did
not condemn the woman to be stoned to death, according
to the Mosaic law. He did regard her adultery as a Sin,
for he said, " Go, and sin no more " (John viii, 3-11). You
ask, " If the unknown writers of the Bible were controlled
by God, why they did not say so ?" I answer that they did
say so. The prophets generally introduced their messages
with some such phrase as, "Thus saith the Lord." Paul
declared that the Holy Ghost spake by Esaias the prophet "
(Acts xxviii, 25); and ihat " all Scripture is given by inspira-
tion of God" (2 Tim. iii, 16). Peter wrote that " holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " (2
Pet. i, 21). You repeatedly employ the word " but " in a
tricky kind of a way. Let me point out some specimens of
your interpolations:

" By Luke xviii, 35, it was hut one man " (D. M. B.).

"A certain blind man sat by the Wayside begging**
(Luke).

"Mark v, 2, says it was but one man" (D. M. B.

" There met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean
spirit " (Mark).

" According to Luke it was hut one" (D. M. B.),
"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed
on him " (Luke xxiii, 39).

396 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

' ' Matthew shrinks the number and says it was but one
angel " (D. M. B.).

"The angel of the Lord descended from heaven and
came and rolled back the stone " (Mat. xxviii, 2).

"John says but one woman came to the sepulchre "(D.
M. B.).

"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene"
(John XX, 1).

The reader will notice that you tack on the Scripture a
limitation and exclusion which its language does not ex-
press. Saying that one person did a certain thing is not in
itself saying that nobody else did it. How you butt against
the truth!

Did space permit, I would love to go over your "self-
contradictions" one by one, and show that they are no
contradictions at all. You follow hostile "critics :" sup-
pose you show at least some candor, and read such works
as B irnes' Notes, and Clarke's or Lange's Commentaries on
the passao^es you have quoted. They were fully as honest,
and infinitely better Biblical scholars than Voltaire, Vol-
nej% Paine, and the entire cortege of the Boston Investi-
gator.

But this kind of a weapon has another edge with which
we may clip off the head of your god, more effectually
than it has even bruised the Bible. Let me give you some
samples of "self-contradictions" taken from the writings of
Thomas Paine. I will give them with Infidel fairness^
* ' without comment. " Here they are :

" I will endeavor that my future conduct shall as much
engage your honors' approbation, as my former has merited
pour displeasure " (Petition to the Board of Excise, 1766).

" I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind; my
time has been spent in doing good ^' (Will, 1809).

" The memorial before you, met with so much approba-
tion while in manuscript, that I was advised to print 4,000

THE HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 897

copies. . . It is my first and only attempt " (Letter to
Dr. Goldsmith, 1773).

"I never published a syllable in England in my life"
(Crisis, No. 2. 1777).

" ' Not to be led into temptation,' is the prayer of divin-
ty itself " (Case of Ihe Excise Officer).

" He was a virtuous and an amiable mail" (Age of Reason).

" The idea of his concealment, not only agrees very ill
with his reputed divinity, but associates with it something
of pusillanimiiy " (Ibid).

'* I have furnished myself with a Bible " (Ibid).
"I keep no Bible " (Ibid).

" It has been the error of the schools to teach astron-
omy " (Discourse to the Theophilanthropists).

"Every house of devotion ought to be a school of sci-
ence " (Age of Reason).

"All believe in a God " (Ibid).

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools
, . . has been that of generating in the pupils a species
of atheism^' (Discourse to the Theophilanthropists).

"As individuals we profess ourselves Christians " (Crisis,
No. 7).

" All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish,
Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human
inventions" (Age of Reason).

"Any system of religion that has anything in it that
shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true system " (Ibid).

"Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others
must be shocked into it " (Letter to Elihu Palmer).

" I hope for happiness beyond this life" (Age of Reason).

" I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article
of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter"
(Thoughts on a Future State).

898 THE HUMPHBET-BENNBTT DISCUBSIOK.

*' Come, we shall be friends again, for all this " (Common
Sense).
" *Tis time to part " (Ibid).

"Nothing is criminal " (Ibid).

**What wickedness there is in this pretended word of
God " (Age of Reason).

"There shall be no laws but such as I like" (Common
Sense).

" I have always strenuously supported the right of every
man to his opinion " (Age of Reason).

"King William never appeared to full advantage but in
difficulties and in action ; the same remark may be made on
General Washington, for the character fits him " (Crisis,
No. 1).

"The commencement of his (Washington's) command
was the commencement of inactivity. . . . No wonder
we see so much pusillanimity in the President, when we
see so little enterprise in the OeneraZ" (Letter to Wash-
ington).

" Let it be brought forth, placed on the divine law, the
word of God " (Common Sense).

"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call
it the word of God " (Letter to Mr. Dean).

" I have an established fame in the literary world " (Let-
ter I. to the Citizens of the U. S.).

"jHi's unTcnown humble servant and admirer, Thomas
Paine " (Letter to Dr. Goldsmith).

" It is my fate to be always plagued with fools" (Letter
II. to the Citizens of the U. S.).

"I attended the philosophical lectures of Martin and
Ferguson, and became afterwards acquainted with Dr.
Bevis, of the society, called the Royal Society*' (Age of
Reason).

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 399

" The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo** (Of the
Word Religion).
"I did not learn Latin " (Age of Reason).

It would be very easy thus to arrange ** 144 self-contradic-
tions of Thomas Paine." But I am afraid that Infidel
"critics" do not always go by the Golden Rule, " Do unto
others as ye would that they should do unto you."

Having exposed the common objections to the Bible, I
will now offer some positive evidences of its superhumanity,
or Divinity. Lest we may seem to assume anything unwar-
rantably, let us begin at the beginning.

I. You will hardly deny that the material Universe exists.
I will suppose that you have confidence in the testimony of
consciousness and of the SQnses. You believe in the real-
ity of the Human Mind. You admit that that Mind is gov-
erned by certain inherent laws of thought. In short, it is
taken for granted that Man has an actual, personal, con-
scious, and rational existence.

II. it is further self-evident that something must have
existed from eternity — either Matter, or Mind, or both. It
is true that the unbegotten being of either is an unwieldy
idea. But from the very nature of the case, it must be
admitted and entertained. It is an axiom that nothing can
come of nothing.

To assume the beginningless self-existence of Matter, and
of Matter alone, is to accept the most difficult of two sup-
positions.

1. By adopting this view we do not escape the Mysteri-
ous, the Unknowable, and the Incomprehensible. Even the
building-lots of the Universe — Space and Duration — are too
vast for the mind's survey. Force is in itself inscrutable. The
immensity of the Creation eludes the grasp of the human
intellect. Our own little sphere is a Sphinx, whose ultimate
secrets no one can coax out. Yea, ^e are lost in the laby-
rinths of our own personal being. Nature has written over

400 TFE nUNrPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

many of her gates: "Positively no Admittance." We must
•' Inquire at the Office "—we must consult the Divine Scrip-
tures, if we would be admitted into the inner courts of her
significance. And even there we are often refused an
entrance. Mystery! Mystery! Mystery! is inscribed all
over the Universe ; and this Mystery is multiplied a thou-
sandfold by the hypothesis that Matter is self-existent and
self- evolving.

2. This supposition is discountenanced by the familiar
law, That nothing can rise higher than its source. If man
were entirely of the earth, he would be entirely earthy.
But we know that such is not his character. He has ideas
and desires that soar above and beyorwl all material things.
His thoughts wander through Eternity. He has longings
after Immortality, and aspirations after the Infinite.
Now, if the artesian well of the human mind cannot eject
thoughts higher than its own source; and if that mind sends
up longings and conceptions that terminate on the Super-
mundane and Extramundane, it follows that it is itself the
emanation of a supernatural Power.

3. If nothing exists but Matter and its properties, we have
then the incredible and unthinkable phenomenon of
thought without a thinker; law without a law-giver; fore-
sight without a foreseer ; and design without a designer.
The Creation exhibits innumerable indications of plan,
ingenuity, arrangement, beneficence, and wisdom. The
hypothesis that all this has taken place independently of
Mind violates at once our experience and necessary con-
viction.

4 If atheistic Materialism is true, nothing can have a
moral character. Right and Wrong are mere figments.
There can be no virtue or crime where everything is ground
out from between the \yhirling millstones of Fate and
Chance. The assassin's and the thunderbolt's stroke are
equally irresponsible. Man ia not a free agent. Volition
and gravitation are alike unmoral. Thought, desire, love.

tHE HUMPHRET-BteNNETT DISCUSSION. 40t

malice, charity, envy, are as really mafter as the rock,
tide, volcano, or Dismal Swamp. This excludes Respon-
sibility and Morality from existence.

But man is conscious of mental liberty. He is born with
a judgment that certain acts are commendable, while others
are culpable. He feels that he is to Uame for being foolish
or mean. There are Responsibility, Right, Wrong, and
Free Agency in the Universe : therefore Materialism is
untrue.

ni. A God exists. This supposition is not only the most
reasonable, but it also involves the fewest diflSculties. We
have here indeed the overwhelming thought of eternal self-
existence ; but it is the self-existence of Life and Mind.
This is a more genial and probable necessity than the oppo-
site one.

But if the eternity of God is inscrutable, the fact of his
existence is not hard to prove:

1. Suppose we apply the Darwinian Theory to this ques-
tion. We find that the stages of man's ascent are from Athe-
ism, through Polytheism, up to Monotheism. The Ape is an
Atheist. So are the races of men next to him (Lubbock's
Origin of Civilization, N. Y., 1873, pp. 244, 253-6; Dar-
win's Descent of Man, N. Y., 1873, vol. i, pp. 62-66). As
man advances in knowledge, culture, and morality, he
leaves Atheism behind, and pa?ses through a region where
the gods are many, but all finite, until at last he reaches the
ultimate conception of One God, who is a spirit, infinite,
eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power,
holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Theism is the point
of man's highest dovelopment.

2. The most learned and intelligent Infidels have been
believers in the existence of God. We may include in
this list Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Tindal, Toland,
Collins, Shaftesbury, Herbert, Hobbes, Bolingbioke,
Hume, Gibbon, Woolston, Blount, Voltaire, Cabanis, Bar-
low, Volney, Allen, Strauss, and Robert Dale Owen. Dar-

403 THE HUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCTTSSION.

win, Tyndall, Huxley, Draper, and Spencer deny that they
are Atheists. It is the stinted conclusion of the specula-
tions of J. Stuart Mill that an Intelligent Mind has fash-
ioned the present order of things (Three Essays on
Religion, pp. 243-3). Goethe called D'Holbach's "System
of Nature" a "cadaverous spectre." All these men denied
the authority of the Scriptures, and professed to follow only
the light of Reason. But in that light they learned to shun
Atheism. Some of them attacked it with vehemence.
Paine pronounced it a " scandal to human nature." They
held that the being of God is '' undeniable," "self-evident,"
*' reasonable," " demonstrable." This admission from men
who denied so much is weighty in favor of Theism.

3. It is not dogmatism to say that there is something in
human nature which must assume and recognize the being
of God. It is true that the intensity of this something may
vary in different indi\^duals. The brutality of some
natures is so rank that its effluvia absorbs and corrupts the
aroma of the heart's noblest promptings. It is possible too
for a man to read and speculate in such a way as to greatly
modify, if not reverse, the spontaneous workings of his
mind. But we are now talking of natural human nature.
I say that there is an innate recognition of a Supreme Being
in such a nature. If we analyze consciousness carefully,
we will find in ourselves, as Schleiermacher said, a constant
feeling of dependence. We may not be always conscious
of it. But let a tornado sweep the ocean, or a thunder-
storm shake the firmament, and this dormant feeling will
become a vivid reality.

This native disposition is sometimes brought out by some
special circumstance. Even a godless man, when over-
whelmed by some great agony, will ejaculate an appeal to
an unseen Power. He does not mean Nature, Force, or
Fate. He addresses Personality. But how did he come to
shriek that appeal? Was it automatic? No; he had never
trained his lips to pray. Was it the result of deliberation ?

THE HUMPaRET-BElNNBTT DISCUSSION. 403

Not at all, for it sprung from his soul unawares to himself.
Was it the result of a religious education ? Not necessa-
rily. He may have lacked such an advantage. Possibly he
lived only to despise it. That ejaculatory prayer— for a
prayer it may be called — was nothing less than the soul's
constitutional belief in a God, bursting its encrustments
under the pressure of distress.

How, on any other theory, are we to account for the uni-
versality of this belief ? We find that man, in every age and
under all circumstances, when he has taken but a second
slfep from the brute, ceases to be an Atheist. There must
be a cause as universal as this effect. Tradition, imitation,
and education are all inadequate to account for it. Why
not explain it as we would some of the other universal
traits of human nature. We find that mothers love their
offspring, the world over. There is a conviction as exten-
sive as the race that marital fidelity is a virtue and that
adultery is a crime. No interpretation of these facts is cor-
rect and sufficient that ignores the inborn instincts of the
human heart. Though mothers manifest their love very
differently, in manner and degree, and though the laws of
marriage vary almost infinitely, the great underlying instinct
remains the same. It is so with the intuitive conviction
that there is a God. It is the product of man's constitu-
tion. His ideas of the Most High are diversified. But
the one great fundamental feeling that there is such a being
is as general as the instincts of the heart and the intuitions
of the mind.

All this is admirably supported by Phrenology — a system
of philosophy adopted by many Infidels. According to
that "science,'' there is a group of Faculties that have the
Supreme Being as their object. They are called the Moral
and Religious Faculties (Fowler's Phrenology pp. 48, 123).
They terminate on God. Their function is righteousness,
love, adoration, and worship. They are the organs of the
religious sentiments.

404 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DlSCUSStON.

But if man is constituted "with faculties whose object is
God, does it not follow that a God exists ? We find the
world full of such correspondences. A full udder answers
to the lamb's instinctive craving and seeking for nourish-
ment. The tendrils of the vine do not stretch out their fin-
gers into vacuity. Throughout Nature, an instinct or a
faculty indicates the reality of its object. According to
Phrenology, the being of God is as certain as the existence
of the crowns of our heads.

4. The argument from Design is absolutely conclusive.
I am aware that this argument has been attacked of late.
T\^ or three famous writers have made some belittling
criticisms on it, and the thousand and one parrot-Infidels
have learned to repeat their words. The gist of their denial
is, that Nature contains evidences of design, as such.

To be convinced of the contrary, we have only to open
our eyes. The Universe is full of arrangements. The stars
in the firmament are not pitched together pell-mell. The
solar system is systematic. In our own world we find in-
numerable instances and varieties of contrivance. Guyct
has shown that the very positions of the earth's mountain-
ranges are indicative of a far-seeing and beneficent plan
(Earth and Man), The vegetable kingdom exhibits iryri-
ads of most delicate, ingenious, and admirable adaptations
of means to ends. It is no less so in the animal kingdom.
The study of physiology, anatomy, gestation, incubation,
and instinct ushers us into an immense museum of marvel,
ous wisdom, foresight, and purpose.

There are doubtless many things whose utility we cannot
always perceive. Nature seems to contain some Instances
of failure. But we ought to remember that we are not om-
niscient. An apparent fizzle may be in fact a splendid suc-
cess. The flower in the desert does not re.ally waste its fra-
grance. It throws its mite of perfume into the circumam-
bient treasury of the air. The city swell, visiting a country
cousin, may say that the dunghill behind the stable answers

THE HTJMPHRBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 405

no purpose. The country couEin knows better. Let maie-
rialistic swells keep in mind that there may be — as there
certain]y is — adaptation, contrivance, and success even
where they are utterly unable to detect them.

I know of nothing so well worth reading on this subject
as Paley's "Natural Theology." Let no Infidel turn up his
nose at it, and say that it is old. It is not near so old as Vol-
taire's Works; nor is it quite so antique as Paine's "Age of
Reason." It is unfair to sneer at it before it is read, lam
confident that if you will give it a thorough study you will
admire it and receive immense benefit from it.

There are other arguments for the being of God ; put
they are mostly of a metaphysical character. The curious
reader will find an excellent £unimary of them in Hodge's
Systematic Theology, N. Y., 1872, vol. i, pp. 204-215. They
need not be given here. The foregoing considerations — the
insurmountable difllculty of conceiving of the eternal self-
existence and self -arrangement of Matter; the fact that only
the very lowest races, fne quasi-apes, are atheistic; the
admission of the most distinguished Infidels ; the universal
conviction of mankind; the testimony of Phrenology; and
the plans, designs, previsions, and contrivances so strikingly
manifest in the world— all attest and, together, demonstrate
the existence of God.

IV. We are now prepared to assert the supernatural.
God is Himself the Great Supernatural. His existence
being established, Miracles are possibilities and probabili-
ties. Since there is a Revealer, a Revelation is to be ex-
pected. If a Creator exists, is it not credible that he would
pay attention to his creatures, and especially to his rational
creatures? Is it not likely that he would make his Charac-
ter and Will known to them ? In looking over the world
we find that the condition of man is such that he needs such
assistacce. By contemplaiiug the beneficence of his works,
we must infer that his Maker is disposed to give it. Will you
reply that his works are a sufficient revelation of his Being,

406 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

Attributes, and Requirements? I deny it. The twilight of
Nature has never satisfied the human soul. This is shown
by the sad, unsatisfactory guess-works of the Greek and
Roman philosophers, and by the alleged communications
from above cluDg to by nearly^ every nation and tribe.
Even Spiritualism is an undesigned testimony to this fact.
There is an ic destructible belief in the unsophisticated mind
that the material creation is but the first volume of the
Divine Revelation. Every eye turns to look for a Volume
Second, wherein is contained the sum and conclusion of
the whole matter. Man is dissatisfied and uncertain with-
out it. Under such circumstances it is presumable that a
benevolent God would bestow on his creatures and children
that which they so much need and desire.

V. The claim of the Bible to be such a Revelation, is
stronger than that of any other book or set of books. This
I shall endeavor to show by reference to a few palpable
facts:

1. The size of the Bible is an argument in favor of its pre-
tensions. It is neither so small as to be contemptible, nor
so large as to be impracticable. The "sacred books " of
the Chinese and Hindus are ponderous and almost count-
less. A life time would be insufficient to read them over.
It is highly improbable that the Most High would reveal
his Will, and then practically conceal it in immense and
innumerable folios. It is reasonable to expect that a
book given for his guidance would be tractable. Now the
Bible bears this characteristic more plainly than any other
venerated writings. The Koran is of a similar size ; but
in this, as in many other respects, it is only an imitation of
the Bible.

2. The simplicity of the Scriptures is extraordinary. It is
very natural to auihors occasionally to put on airs, and
make some flourishes of style. But there is nothing of this
kind in the Bible. As we read it we never feel that its
^vrilers are making an effort. It is free from pedantry. It

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 407

has steered clear of the dry formalities of legal documents.
There is no affectation about it. It narrates its histories
and states its doctrines with the grand plainness of a hale
old sage that has outgrown the pomposity, sophomoritj,
vanity, and aflfectedness of his younger years. This would
be remarkable in a volume composed by a single author.
How much more remarkable must it be in a book written
by about forty different menl

3. Another striking feature of the Bible is its candor. It
is common for a nation to magnify the virtues and to pal-
liate or conceal the imperfections of its heroes. But the
sacred writers did not seem to be even inclined in that
direction. They told of the faults, sins, and crimes of the
Hebrew patriarchs, prophets, and kings, as undisguisedly
as if they had been recounting the deeds of their enemies.
Where did the Infldel find out so much about the iniquities
of the ancient Jews ? Strange to say, it was from the Jew-
ish annalists. Never did a nation's official historian draw
such a dark picture of it, as the Bible has given of the
Israelites. It is a marvel that Jews should write such a
history, and a greater marvel still that the Jewish people
should adopt it. Was not all this -wnhuman, to say the
least ?

4. Still another unique characteristic of the Bible is its
incuriosity. Man is prone to follow up incidental thoughts
and events. He is apt to forget his main theme and become
absorbed in side-issues. He is fond of episodes. Hints
and peeps have a strong tendency to lead him away from
his central pursuit. But a little observation will show that
the Bible is unlike human nature in this respect. It starts
out to give an account of the origin, development, trials,
and fulfillment of a certain scheme call^ti Redemption.
Nothing has distracted its attention from thjs one object.
The lightnings, thunders, and earthquakes of cotempora-
neous events, did not even turn its eye from the mark set
before it. It does not say anything merely to gratify curi."

408 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOK.

osity. It throws no light on the destiny of the ten tribes.
It does not tell us how the ship got along after Jonah had
been hurled from it. It gives no account of Mary's closing
years. It contains no pen-pictures of the Apostles. It
never indulges in guessing, theorizing, or speculation. It
ignores man's curiosity, and regards only his needs. It is
like a father carrying his sick child to the doctor. He does
not linger by the way to tell the little one all about every-
thing it may chance to point its finger at. He hastens to
his destination. In its unbroken seK-possession and unin-
terrupted mindfulness of its one aim, the Bible is consist-
ent with all that is claimed for it.

5. The Bible makes God the all-important idea. He is
King of kings and Lord of lords. Men are only his crea-
tures, children, and servants. Viewed in one aspect, they
are very insignificant beings. They are but of yesterday,
and know nothing. They are carried away as with a flood.
Their lives are but a sleep— a mere nap. Only the Almighty
is great. It is the eternal duty of man to love him with all
his heart, soul, strength, and mind (Luke x, 27). Now all
this is reasonable — nothing else would be reasonable— on the
supposition that there is an everlasting and infinite God, who
is our Creator, Preserver, and most bountiful Benefactor.

6. To me there is an evidence of the superhuman in the
Bible in its immense thoujhtfulness and infinite suggesiiveness.
It is not a large volume. But there never was a man that
could place his hand on it and^ay, "I know and understand
all it contains." The most diligent student closes his inves-
tigations of it, feeling, liKe Newton in ihe presence of the
Universe, that he was but a gatherer of shells on the shores
of the unfathomable sea. Men can master other books. It
does not require much application to comprehend all that
Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, or any other philosopher, ever
wrote. Whatever proceeds from man can be grasped and
mastered by man. But the Bible cannot be so grasped and
•mastered. Hence it must be more than human.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 409

7. The Bible is exposed to the same objections, and de-
fensible by the same arguments, as Nature. Is the Bible
old ? The world is older. Have men quarreled over the
Bible ? They have waged fierce wars for the possession of
disputed tracts of the earth's surface. Is it said that the
Bible is self-contradictory ? Polytheistic nations have
brought and still bring the same charge against the physical
forces. Does the Old Testament seem to approve of heart-
less severity, under some circumstances ? It is not equal in
this respect to the remorseless elements. Even the genial
sun strikes men dead. Has the Bible been differently under-
stood on some minor points ? The Creation has shared the
same misfortune for thousands of years. Is the Bible ex-
posed to human blundering and tampering ? So is Nature.
The original channels of rivers have been changed. The
white man's cities arebuiit on the Indian's hunting grounds.
The woodman clears the forest, and thereby lessens the
average quantity of rain and diminishes the mean depth of
streams. Hills are made low and valleys are filled up by the
picks and shovels of civilization. Does the Bible seem to
contain dry and worthless portions? They are neither more
dry than the Sahara desert, nor more worthless than Nova
Zembla. Are there some things in the Bible " that would
shock the mind of a child "? The mind of a child would be
shocked by a big dog, a thunderclap, or a corpse. Does
somebody say the Bible is generally a very defective book?
J. Stuart Mill pronounced Nature generally a very imper-
fect concern. Thus we might go through the whole list
of cavils and objections, and show that every one of them
presses as hard against the constitution and course of Na-
ture as against the Old and New Testaments. Now, does
this exposedncbs to the very same criticisms not show that
Nature and the Bible emanated from the same Mind, and
that they were constructed on the same plan ? But no
one contends that Nature is of human origin. Why, then,
not admit that the Bool^ that is made on the sarnie geii-

410 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

eral principle, that is open to the same objections, and
defensible by the same arguments as Nature, is of super-
human origin ?

8. An argument may be based on the exhaustivenesa of the
Bible. It embraces every moral duty. While some of its
regulations were expressly local, national, and temporary,
the great bulk of its precepts are adapted to all times,
places, and conditions of man. It may not have an explicit
rule for every possible emergency; but it has a principle
out of which a rule can be made impromptu. It will be
extremely embarrassing to account for this feature of it,
and claim that it is all of man, and especially such men as
the Hebrews were. How could an ancient people compile
a system of morals adapted to the varying conditions of all
coming ages ? Above all things, how could a secluded and
narrow-minded people like the Jews give being to a set of
principles suitable to the whole world no less than to them-
selves? We find that all human ordinances, laws, and
constitutions become impracticable with time. But Chris-
tendom has never felt that the Bible needs a codicil or
amendment. The occasional revisions of versions are
made expressly to keep it from changing with the constant
mutations of language. Who but an All-wise God could
thus prepare a Book of universal and permanent adapta-
tion ?

9. This brings us to another kindred argument, viz: That
the cardinal principles of the Bible were far in advance of
the ages when they were first announced. Its pronounced
Monotheism came forth from a country notorious for its
Polytheism. The credit for this can be hardly given to the
Jews, for Monotheism continued among them more in spite
of them than with their favor. Nor can this be accounted
for by attributing it all to Moses, for he was raised and edu-
cated for forty years under polytheistic influences. The
idea of an absolutely holy God was new to the world at the
time of its first promulgation (Ex. xv, 11 ; Lev. xix, 2). The

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 411

conception of a spiritual Being origitated in an age of uni-
versal idolatry. The Messiah, the Son of Man, or Human-
ity, came forth from among the Jews when they were the
most clannish and bigoted. That great doctrine, peculiar to
Christianity— Justification by Faith — was expounded
most thoroughly, and advocated most heartily by a man
who had been a life-long Pharisee I

How could all this be, on the principle that like begets
like ? How could such lofty ideas spring up from the low
level of Polytheism, Idolatry, Carnality, Bigotry and Self-
righteousness ? The phenomenon has no parallel in his-
tory. Mahomet borrowed his best " revelations " from the
Bible. Buddha was only the apex of the mountain of co-
temporaneous sentiment. But the leading doctrines of
Scripture were, at the time of their first announcement,
above, ahead of, different from, and uncongenial to, the
people through whom they were given. The most rational
explanation of this anomaly is found in the words of the
Apostle : " God, who at sundry times and in divers man-
ners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets "
(Heb. i, 1).

10. I have concluded long ago that the teachings of the
Bible are reasonable and practicable, if for no other reason
than that they must he caricatured before they can be attacked.
The doctrines of Christianity are not the monstrosities they
are declared to be by Infidels. Let me make a few specifi-
cations.

It is not meant by the doctrine of Total Depravity that
unregenerate men have no conscience ; or that they do not
admire virtue ; or that they are incapable of noble aclions;
or that they are as corrupt as they can possibly be. By it
is only meant that man is by nature alienated from God ;
that that alienation tends to increa?e ; and that there is no
recuperative power in the soul independently of Divine aid
(Hodge's Outlines of Theology, p. 251). Now, is it not
true that human nature is more disposed to evil than to

412 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

good ? Is it not true that the majority of mankind love
and indulge in sin ? Is it not true that the average boy will
remember a dirty couplet much more readily than a noble
sentiment ? Does the deep depravity of the natural heart
not reveal itself in a special lust for defiling Purity and de-
flouring Virtue ? The facts of daily life establish the doc-
trine of Total Depravity, in its authorized sense.

Bepentance is a most reasonable requirement. If a man
has sinned, should he not be sorry for it ? Should he not
determine to sin no more ? Should he not confess his sin —
or, in the language of Society, apologize — to him whom he
has wronged ? Should he not do his utmost to repair the
injuries of his misdeeds ? You will answer, Yes. Well,
that is .Scriptural Repentance (3 Cor. vii, 10 ; Prov. xxviii,
13 ; James v, 16 ; 1 John i, 9 , Luke xix, 8).

You have repeatedly sneered at Faith. By doing so you
attack the foundation of everything. The child, like the
just, lives by Faith. The value of civil tribunals is only
proportional to Faith in testimony. Withhold Faith from
human veracity, and all history is worthless. People
would not travel if they did not have Faith in engineers,
conductors, and sea-captains. The whole superstructure of
mathematics is founded on Faith in unproved axioms and
postulates. Science is based on Faith in the uniformity of
natural laws. How can Faith be preposterous in Religion,
when it is indispensable, practical, and scientific every-
where else ?

The Faith expounded and inculcated by the New Testa-
met, is not the silly thing that Infidelity would make it.
It rests on knowledge, reason, an(j argument (2 Tim. i, 12 ;
1 Peter iii, 15). It is confidence in the Being, Veracity, and
Goodness of God (Heb xi, 6 ; Rom. iv, 3). It is a firm
reliance on his Wisdom and Love (Rom. viii, 28). It in-
cludes in its character and manifestations all the duties and
privileges of life: " Faith without works is dead" (James
ii, 20). "Add to your faith virtue j and to virtue, knowl-

TSE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCtJSSION. 4lS

edge ; and to knowledge, temperauce ; and to temperance,
patience ; and to patience, godliness ; and to godliness,
brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness, charity " (2
Peter i, 4-10). " If ye love me, keep my commandments "
(John xiv, 15). Thus, we find on examining the New Tes-
tament that Faith is indeed a " reasonable service" (Rom.
xii. 1).

Belief in a personal Demi is not absurd. Absurd uses
have doubtless been made of it. But the existence of evil
spirits is made highly probable by experience and observa-
tion. Wicked thoughts often spring up in o^ir minds inde-
pendently of our volitions and excogitations. And they
come at times when we least invite or desire them. They
cannot come from God ; for nothing but good can proceed
from him. Nor are they the fruit of our own thinking ;
for they often come so unexpectedly that they surprise and
shock us. They lire forced upon us. It is not irrational to
suppose that those evil thoughts are the suggestions of a
personal tempter, coming, in some undiscovered way, in
contact with our minds. We know that the nearness of
some persons occasionally affects our minds in a peculiar
way, before we are aware of their presence. Why mtiy the
proximity of Satan not act on our thoughts in a similar
manner, operating both as a suggesting and catalytic force ?
How is it that you frown so indignantly over the notion
of a personal Devil, while you can bestow such pretty
smiles on Spiritualism ?

The everlastivg misery of the wicked is a doctrine you affect
to abhor. In order that you may abhor it the more, you
deform it. Such words as "seething," " roasting," " fry-
ing " beloDg exclusively to the Infidel's vocabulary. They
are not round in the Bible, in connection with this subject.
It would be no more than just for you to confine yourself
to the language and ideas of the Scriptures when you speak
of it.
This matter is too vast to be discussed here. Suffice it to

414 THE humphrey-:bennett discussioK. .

say that Nature and the Bible agree iu regard to it. Society
never forgives where there is sin and no penitence. End-
less punishment is often the penaltj' of violating physical
law. We see continually that it is the tendency of a bg^d
character to solidify and become permanent. This fact
aloue places the doctrine of eternal puni&hment on the ba-
sis of jn'ohahility. Where there is continued sin there must
be continued wretchedness. Observation leaches us fur-
ther that there is no efficacy in mere svfftring to regenerate
the sufferer. There will be nothing in the inner character
of the wicked, and there will be still less in iheir surrourd-
ings, to inspire a hope that they will ever become good,
and consequently, happy. For a fuller discussion of this
subject let me refer you to the sixth chapter of my little
work on " Hell and Damnation."

You will scarcely deny that such Scriptural requirements
as Humility, Patience, Contentment, Industry, Frugality,
Benevolence, Charity, Forgiveness, Forbearance, Peace-
ableness. Gentleness, in short, the precepts of the twelfth
chapter of Komaus, are all well and good.

I have enumerated some considerations which, to my
mind, show that the Bible is of superhuman origin. If you
take these considerations separately, you may be able to
dispose of them on some other theory ; but when you unite
them, they become a ten-stranded cable that canuot be
broken. When I lake up the Bible and find that it is tract-
able ; that it is as simple as Wisdom ; that it is a marvel of
candor ; that'll is strangely incurious ; that it is absolutely
and permanently exhaustive as a code of morals ; that it is
of immense thoughtfulness and suggestivcness ; that if
subordinates everything to the one idea of God ; that it is
open to the same objections and defensible by the same ar-
guments as Nature ; that its characteristic doctrines were
in advance of, and uncongenial to the times when they were
first proclaimed ; and that its teachings, when correctly
apprehended, correspond to the realities of life and the die-

TAB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 415

tales of reason— when I ponder over this nexus of facts, I
cannot but conclude that the Bible is superhuman, and con-
sequently Divine.

I do not think that I am given to visionariness, mysti-
cism, or Irauscendentalism. I can hardly bear such things
as Dr. Cummings' writings. But I am nevertheless satis-
fied that the Old Testament contaiDS such a thing as
Prophecy, that is, definite predictions of future events, given
prior to any foreshadowings of their character. I refer
only to such predictions as stand fulfilled in our presence
to-day, namely, the destinies of certain cities, governments,
and nations. When this argument is examined critically,
minutely and cumulatively, it will be found overwhelming
and invincible. I cannot too highly recommend to you
Keith's great work on this subject. It is even a demonstra-
tion. But the reality of Prophecy involves the actuality of
Revelation.

The character of the Apostles will bear the closest scru-
tiny. They were sensible, unsophisticated men, coming
neither from the murky miasma of degraded ignorance on
the one hand, nor from the mystic haze of scholasticism on
the other. They were in the prime of manhood when
called to be disciples. They could read and write. They
were familiar with the Scriptures. Whilst they were docile,
they were not credulous. Thomas would not believe in the
Resurrection of Christ until he had had the evidence of
sight and touch. They went forth to preach only that
which they had seen and heard. They warned the churches
against credulity, admonishing them to try the spirits
whether they were of God. They were certainly sincere
and conscientious, for they yielded up their lives rather
than their convictions. They consecrated their time and
energies to proclaim a risen Lord. Their ministry was an
amazing success. And their success was not owing to the
emoluments they offered, as ih the case of Julian; or to the
sword tliey wielded, as in the case of Mahomet ; or to the

4i6 THE HUMPHKEY-BENKETT DISCUSSION.

prestige of a noble ancestry, as in the cases of Buddha and
Confucius ; but to the simple story of a Crucified Christ.
They would not have undertaken such a work if they had
not themselves believed, clear down in the deeper depths of
their souls, the message they had to deliver ; and they could
not have succeeded, under the existing circumstances, if God
had not been with them. The words of Robert Dale Owen
will apply to their case : " The longer I live, the more 1 set-
tle down to the conviction that the one Gkeat Miracle of
history is, that a system of ethics so far in advance as was
the Christian system, not only of the semi-barbarism of
Jewish life eighteen hundred years ago, but what we term
the civilization of our own day, should have taken root, and
lived, and spread, where every opinion seemed adverse, and
every influence hostile" (Greeley's Recollections of a Busy
Life, p. 582).

Perhaps you will allow a word of personal experience.
It will at least show that the Bible does not strike every-
body who studies it in the same way that it does you. The
more I acquaint myself with it, the more am I astonished
at its contents. It is a perennial fountain to my soul. I
rise from it ready to say, like Jacob at Bethel, "How
dreadful is this place 1 this is none other but the house of
God, and this is the gate of heaven." I find in it a feast
both for the intellect and for the heart. It is as full of
wisdom as a father's counsel, and as full of affection as a
mother's bosom.

"How precious is the Book divine.
By inspiration given I
Bright as a lamp its doctrines shine.
To guide our souls to heaven."

There are many masterly treatises on this subject. No
Infidel is consistent, not to say just, until he has given them
a thorough examination. In addition to the works men-
tioned already, here and there, I will specify Butler's "Au-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 417

alogy''; Paley's, Chalmers', Ad lison's, Alexander's, and
Barnes' "Evidences of Christianity"; Lardner's Works;
Pascal's ''Thoughts"; Walker's " Philosophy of the Plan
of Salvation"; and Henry Kogers' "Superhuman Origin of
the Bible." These were remarkably clear-headed men,
Christianity invites the world to study their writings.

The Bible has always had its defense. Perhaps the tac-
tics of the defenders have sometimes been injudicious; but
the fortress has never been taken. The cry has repeatedly
gone up, "Raze it! Raze it!"" The criers have become first
hoarse, and then silent ; but the old citadel has always
stood. The new armor and new attacks of the enemy have
been promptly met by new equipments and renewed valor.
Weapons that have served their time are honorably laid
aside. The ancient castles of England are useless to-day,
except as objects of curiosity to an occasional traveler or
antiquarian ; but formerly they were the salvation of the
realm. So some of the former arguments for Christianity
have fallen into disuse, the implements of the foe having
changed. But castles are changed only for Gibralters.
The Gospel was never so unconquerable as it is today. It
is only suicide to attack it. " God is in the midst of her ;
she shall not be moved : God shall help her, and that right
early. The heathen raged : the kingdoms were moved : he
uttered his voice, the earth melted. The Lord of hosts is
with us ; the God of Jacob is our refuge " (Ps. xlvi, 5-7).
Your well-wisher, G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BENNETT.

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: Miss Ophelia, in Har-
riet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin," when brought
in contact with the improvidence and thriftlessness in the
South, used often to exclaim, "How shiftless, O, how
shiftless." Upon reading over your la-t letter, and perus-

418 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

iug your arguments in favor of the divinity of the Bible, I
am impelled in a similar manner to exclaim, How weak, 0,
7iow flimsy! Is this the best that can be done to hold up
the heavenly origin of that Jewish book ? With all the
works before you of learned professors, bishops, and
clergymen of all grades and denominations, who have
spent their lives in the cause of theology and ecclesiasti-
cism, and with whose arguments you are familiar, are your
lucubrations all that can be said in favor of the superhuman
character of that antique volume ? I must confess myself
not a little disappointed. I certainly expected you would
present some arguments that possessed weight and po-
tency, but you have not done so. They show ingenuity
and shrewdness, but 1 think there is not a solid, convincing
argument in all you have said. In giving your reasons why
we should regard the Bible as superhuman, that it is supe-
rior to human effort and abiliry in a single particular, the
question arises, upon reading your defense of the book,
can it be possible that Mr. Humphrey has succeeded in
convincing himself ? Have you assuredly found proofs that
that melange of legends, big stories, narratives, tales,
accounts of wars, rapine, and murder, poems, wild songs,
incantations, collected maxims and proverbs, amorous-
ness, crudity, obscenity, and vulgarity, is something
higher, purer, and grander than man has been able to
produce ? I cannot believe that you have, and I am half
inclined to think that even you need fuller proofs of the
workmanship of the (rod of the Universe in that promiscu-
ous volume. I cannot think you find in it such evidences
of divinity as to entirely satisfy your own mind. There is a
question, too, whether you are fully sincere in your alle-
giance to it. It seems to me you have too much intelligence
to fir-mly believe that man has not been able to produce
such a book, and that God must needs descend from heaven
and write it, superintend its countless transcriptions, its
changes, its additions, its translations, its printing, its bind-

THE HTJMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 419

ing, and all the rest of it. No, I believe you comprehend
that everything that has ever been done towards that com-
pilation has been the work of human hands and human
minds — and minds, too, of not an extraordinary and ex-
alted character.

Before examining your cable of ten strands or divisions, I
will briefly notice some of your other points. You are
yet hardly able to get over the exhibit of your brethren of
the cloth. Well, perhaps it was a little rough and a little
unkind to show them up in that wholesale manner, but
while you were striving so hard to establish that Infi-
delity is consistent with immorality, and worked so laboriously
to show that certain unbelievers were sensual, I deemed it
quite in order to enquire whether Christianity is not also
consistent with immorality, and whether many of its
brightest teachers have not shown special fondness for that
which is regarded as low and sensual. It seemed proper to
enquire whether the Christian religion keeps all its advo-
cates strictly in the paths of purity and self-denial. It may
perhaps be unpleasant to find that the followers of Jesus,
who have a divine religion to aid them, have been much
more inclined to stray into by and forbidden paths of sin
than unbelievers are who lay no claim to guidance from on
high. I mentioned only such cases as were at hand, and
hardly thought you would complain because I did not make
out a fuller report, but let me assure you the subject is not
exhausted. I gave not one case in twenty of clerical sin-
fulness that has come to the light, and probably not one
case in twenty is ever suffered to come to the eyes of the
public. I promised you that for every case of a prominent
Freethinker whom you could show had led an immoral or
sensual life, I would point out twenty or fifty shepherds of
the flock who had despoiled the lambs of their folds, and
have been more governed by the influence of fleshly lusts
than the spirit of heavenly purity. I still adhere to that
promise.

430 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSStOK.

I hardly expected you would endeavor to justify the con-
duct of lecherous clergymen by the apostles. If the
clergy are better now than when Jesus was upon earth, he
must have gathered a gay and festive set around him. I
think I never before beard Judas cited as an excuse for the
frailties of modern divines. I had been more inclined to
suppose that he was one of the actors in the great scheme
of salvation that had been devised from the beginning of
eternity. That in the foreknowledge of God, the necessary
work of Judas was laid out and apportioned to him, and
that he helped in acting his part to make the salvation of
one in a hundred of the human race a matter of possi-
bility. "Was not the betrayal of Christ a necessary link in
the chain of the divine plan of salvation ? Did he not
have to be betrayed to the authorities before he could >^e
arrested, tried and put to death, and thus be made an atone-
ment for the sins of the world, or rather one hundredth
part of it ? Credit Judas, then, with having faithfully
acted his part in the grand divine drama and not constitute
him a scapegoat for the filthy sins of the modern clergy.

You must be "hard up " for arguments to bring in the
lectures that have been delivered before the Liberal Clubs.
They have nothing whatever to do with the questions we
have under discussion. I will use no more space than to
say that nothing immoral has been rendered before either
Club, and that the Herald did not comprehend the lecture
it undertook to criticise, was clearly shown in the Oraphic
on the following day. It is a part of the constitutions of
the Liberal Clubs of this city that they do not endorse and
do not hold themselves responsible for any sentiments that
may be uttered on their platforms. They simply allow free
speech. Any lecturer may avow what he believes to be
right, subject to the free discussion of the members which
follows. Is this system so shocking to you that you feel
impelled to specially denounce it ?

You introduce Wales and Scotland with their high degree

tHB tiUMPHRBY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 421

of morality and intelligence, where the Bible is most read
and best understood, as an evidence of its divine character.
They may read the Bible very much in those countries,
but the facts brought out in the recent Bradlaugh-Besant
trial in London, and which too are well known truths,
are that in one of your Bible countries at least, Scotland,
there are more illegitimate children than in any other
portion of Great Britain, and is exceeded by no other coun-
try of Europe. In the use of ardent spirits, in propor-
tion to population, it has long been known that Stot-
land leads all the nations of the earth. Do you mean,
then, that those come from Bible influences ? Let me
call your attention to a general truth connected with this
question. The Bible is distinctively a book of the Protest-
ants. Catholics attach but little importance to it, and
read it very little, while their opponents, the Protestants,
look upon it as an emanation from heaven, read it with the
greatest reverence, and absolutely make a fetish of it as
really as any old fetish-worshipers ever did of their crude
idols. Well, in Protestant countries there are nearly double
the number of children born out of wedlock that are born
in Catholic countries. It is possible the examples of Abra-
ham, Jacob, David, Solomon & Co., may have their effects.
So much for Bible influences 1

You represent me unfairly; you say I intimate that the
Bible is of no value because it is old. I used no such argu-
ment. I have never disapproved of the Bible on account
of its age. I will rather concede that its antiquity entitles
it to some consideration. 1 have a natural veneration for
everything that has great age. The Universe is old, truth
is old, matter and force have existed for a very long time —
I have great respect for them, but because a book is old, it
does not necessarily follow that God wrote it. Men were
able to write thousands of years ago, and God was under no
necessity to write their books for them. Unfortunately,
the Bible is not so old as many suppose. There is not a

422 THE HUMl'HREY-BENNETT DTSCTJSSION.

particle of proof that any part of it (save, perhapg, the
Gentile Book of Job) had an existence seven centuries
before the Christian era. In the reign of Josiah (630
B. c.) HirKiah the priest claimed to have found the Book of
the Law in the temple, and it was read before the king. It
produced great consternation, and it was very evident that
they had never heard it before During ;he Jewish cap-
tivity it is said that their sa T' d writings were lost, and
that Esdras and his scribes reproduced th^^m. This was
about five centuries b. c. Others strenuously claim that
much of the Old Testament was not written until the time
of the Maccabees (250 b. c.) There are in several of the
books idioms and expression"! whi'^'h show that they
were written at a comparatively modra date. One thing
is painfully certain — the by whom written^ and when toriiten^
of those books are very little known

You don't seem to like the Bible picture I gave you of
Jehovah. You say they are mostly figura'ive expressions
designed to set forth the Lord's great ahhorrt-nce of sin. I
call that a priestly dodge, and it fails entirely to meet the
case. These positive assertions that Q-od has horns in his
hands, that smoke comes out of his nostrils, and a sword
out of his mouth ; that he roars and shouts like a drunken
man; that his fury is poured out like fire; th-t he throws
rocks from heaven upon his children; that he gets angry
every day ; that he swears; that he is full of iodignation ;
that he is stirred with jealousy; that he delights in war and
bloodshed ; that his arrows are drunken with blood ;
that he whets his glittering sword, and does a great deal
more in the same line, seem hardly the happiest method of
representing the character of a being who is all love, kind-
ness, sympathy and mercy 1 The picture is brutal and
repulsive. I could not love a being answering that descrip-
tion.

You appear desirous to dismiss the subject of the Bible
contradictions which 1 mentioned, by saying they are "a

THE HUMPHHEY-BKNNETT DISCUSSION. ^8

jumble " and unworthy of refutation. If a defense of that
kind explains the hundreds of self-contradictions which
the Bible contains, the most damning proof on any subject
can be rebutted. If a man is arraigned for murder, and
hundreds of witnesses swear that they saw him do the
deed, he wouM only need to say, with a sanctimonious
drawl, " Such evidence is a mere jumble, and is unworthy
of a serious refutation " — and he would be acquitted. It
has been noticed that in several instances you have adopted
the tactics of the small boy who, when reading, could not
pronounce the hard words, and so skipped them whenever
he met them. And, like him, you have found it conven-
ient to *' skip " several difficult words. Among other things
I stated emphatically that Christianity is a system of relig-
ion made up of the rites, ceremonies and dogmas of pagan
systems that existed before it. I charged that there is noth-
ing new nor original in the Christian religion, and called
upon you to disprove it if it is not so. I charged you with
upholding a borrowed system of myths and superstitions
purloined from the old pagan religions that had existed at
an earlier date. I averred that the world had believed in
some forty saviors, mostly born of virgins, and a large por-
tion of whom had been crucified for the salvation of the
world. These you very prudently skipped over without
a word. Your style of defense may explain, to your own
satisfaction, why God in some places is said to have been
seen and talked with face to face, that Moses, Aaron,
Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders saw the God of Israel,
and in other plnces that no man had seen him at any
time, or could see him and live; why in one place it
is said that God moved David to number the people of
Israel, and in another place that it was Satan who caused
him to number them; why the important matter of Christ's
bodily ascension into heaven is stated in three or four dif-
ferent ways — to wit : in Acts, that he ascended from Mount
Olivet ; in Luke, that it was from Bethany; and, in Mark,

434 THE HUMPHKEY-BEXNETT DISCUSSION.

that it was from a room in which the eleven sat at meat,
while Matthew and John did not deem the affair of
sufficient moment to mention it at all— and hundreds of
other contradittic ns positive and palpable — but to me it
is no explanation at all. Nor can you, or any other the-
ologian, explain these things to the satisfaction of honest,
sensible people. You may call a selection of quotations
like these a *• jumble" — and that term is correct enough
when applied to the booii us a whole — but it does not sat-
isfactorily reconcile the contradictions.

I see that, as a kind of excuse for the blunders of your
God and his scribes, you undertake to show that contradic-
tions may be found in the writings of Thomas Paine! You
present one or two that appear to be such, but the others
bear no resemblance thereto. But what of it all? Thomas
Paine was only a man. He claimed nothing more. He
wrote his own thoughts, and made no pretensions to guid-
ance from on high. No one claims that his works are
divine, unless truth adds divinity to a man's writings. If
his productions were full of contradictions, it would be no
excuse for the conflicting statements and blunders made by
your God. A single self-contradiction or imperfection in a
work which is claimed to be divine completely overthrows
its claims to divinity. God must be too perfect to make
mistakes or to contradict himself.

As a specimen of your fairness in showing up Paine's
self-contradictions, you quote these two passages from his
"Age of Reason": " I have furnished myself with a Bible,"
and, "I keep no Bible." Now, you must know that the
latter passage is found in the first part of the "Age of Rea-
son," which was written when he had no Bible at hand,
and the other passage is in the second part, written after he
had provided himself with a copy. Is there the slightest
contradiction in a person's saying, "I keep no Bible," when
he had none, and, " I have furnished myself with a Bible,"
after he had procured one? You have thus reversed the

THE HUMJ»HREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 425

order of the quotations, putting the one first written when he
had a Bible, and setting the one from the first part, when he
hacj not yet obtained one to contradict it ! Is that a strictly
honest presentation of Pa'ne's words? Is it indeed the best
excuse you have to offer for the positive and oft recurring
contradictions of your BVble God, or his writers? Is God
not better than Paine ? Cjinnot you aff'ord to be just to-
ward Thomas Paine?

In your eleventh letter you attempt to prove the truth of
the absurd flood story, that the ocean was raised to the
tops of the highest mountains, by showing that some sea-
shells and marine deposits have been found on elevated
portions of the earth This does not prove that the
surface of the ocean was once raised up to where the
tops of the mountains now are. Had this been the case the
sea shells and other marine deposits would not have been
taken up there, because shells donot float on the surface
of the water; but it is another proof that the mountains of
the earth, sometime in the long ages of the past, have been
raised up from the bed of the ocean, and of course taken
marine debris along with them. Sir Charles Lyell thus
speaks of the remains of ancient corals which he found at
the falls of the Ohio, near Louisville: '^Although the water
was not at its lowest, I saw a grand display of what may be
termed an ancient coral reef formed by zoophytes which
flourished in a sea of earlier date than the carboniferous
period. The Alps and their related mountains, and even
the Himalayas, were not yet born, for they have on their
high summits deep sea beds of the cretaceous and even of
later dates" (Story of Earth and Man, p. 89). Your scieJi-
Usls who wrote the Bible knew nothing of this fact, nor
that this continent presents indisputable proofs that it is
older than the Himalayas of Asia, and that the hignest
mountains of the earth have been forced up from the sea
level. But I would give more for the testimony of one
such man as Lyell than for the word of the combined forty

426 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

or fifty writers who got up your wonderful Bible, with all
the divine aid they had to help them, included.

You attempt to prove, too, that excavations at Nineveh
confirm Biblical archaeology. They do nothing of the kind;
but they do prove that the Jews, during their captivity,
borrowed from the Babylonians and Ninevites their views
of cosmogony and incorporated them into their Bible
stories which were written after their return to their own
country.

Let me next examine your ten-stranded cable in favor of
the superhuman origin of the Bible, and which you say can-
not be broken. The proper way to become acquainted with
any cable or rope and with the material of which it is com-
posed, is to examine it closely, strand by strand. If the
individual strands, as you almost confess with regard to
your cable, are weak or rotten, or are composed of bad
materials, it is impossible to have a good cable, that cannot
be broken. It will be little better than a rope of sand, that
must part at the first heavy strain that is brought to bear
upon it. To prove the Bible is superhuman you ought to
understand that it is incumbent on you to show that at least
portions of it are above the power of man to produce. If
there is nothing in it but what man can write, it is perfectly
proper to relegate it to human minds and not to an unseen,
unknown power outside of the Universe. Before it can be
admitted to be divine, I repeat, it must be shown that it is
not in the power of man to produce it. This you have
failed to do.

The first strand of your cable is that the Bible is just
about the right size. Who has the authority to say what is
the exact size of divinity ? Who shall say it is not larger
or that it is not smaller than the Bible ? If a certain size
must be attained before a piece of manuscript can be divine,
how is it with the parts that were written first, the Penta-
teuch, which is popularly supposed to be the oldest book
in the collection— though it is not ? If size is an essential

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 437

to divinity, the first books could not have been divine
because of this defect. If the New Testament is essential
in making up the right size, the Old Testament could not
have been divine without it. If the book is just the right
size to be divine, it is perhaps fortunate that several books
were lost, among which may be named "The Wars of
Jehovah," "Joshua's Division of the Holy Land," " Solo-
mon's Natural History," " The Annals of Solomon," " The
Annals of Nathan," " The Annals of Gad," " The Life of
Solomon by Ahijah," "The Life of Solomon by Iddo,"
"The Acts of Rehoboam," " The Chronicles of Judah or
Israel," "The Book of Jashar," " The Life of Hezekiah,"
"Tiie Life of Manasseh," "The Prophecy of Ahijah,"
"The Book of Shemaiah," "The Sayings of Hosea," etc.,
etc. ; if these had all been preserved they would doubtless
have increased the size to such an extent as to destroy its
divinity. What if the councils which decided which books
should constitute the sacred canon had voted in or voted
out a few more, would not the efiect upon the divinity of
the whole been most disastrous ? How came you to know
just how much it takes to equal divinity ? How can you
decide that, inasmuch as Deity is infinite, that his book
also must not be infinite, and therefore the Hindoo
Scriptures, which are so voluminous as to be almost infinite,
are not more divine than the Jewish Scriptures ? Your first
strand will certainly not bear much of a strain.

Your second strand is simplicity. Now, I am disposed to
concede the simplicity of any one who would present such
an argument in f hvor of the divinity of the Bible, but is it
any simpler than the story of Blue Beard, Cinderella, the
Cow jumping over the Moon, and the whole catalogue of
Mother Goose's Nursery Rhymes ? If simplicity proves
the divinity of the Bible, may it not be used as a criterion
by which to determine the divinity of these other and
similar works. s all that is simple necessarily divine?
Bad yon the Book of Daniel or the Book of Revelations in

4^ THE nUMrHEEY-BENlJETT DISCUSSION.

view when you were so struck with the simplicity of
the volume ? I have known men to spend almost a life-
time poring over those two books, and they knew as little
about their meaning at last as they did at first. If the
Bible possesses such extraordinary simplicity, why is it
that legions of priests, at an expense of many millions of
dollars per year, are necessary to explain its meaning to
the people ? and why is it, if its simplicity is so marked,
that the several branches of the Christian Church spend
generations in bitter contention over its language? Finallj'-,
how does your admiration for its perfect simplicity agree
witlfyour sixth strand, where you say "Tiiere never was a
man who could place his hand on it and say, 'I know and
understand all it contains.' The most diligent student
closes his investigations of it, feeling, like Newton in the
presence of the Universe, that he was but a gatherer of
shells on the shores of the unfathomable sea. Men can
master other books. It does not require much application
to comprehend all that Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, or any
other philosopher ever wrote. Whatever proceeds from
man can be grasped and mastered by man. But the Bible
cannot be so grasped and mastered by man. Hence, it
must be more than human." Here is a striking case of
blowing hot and cold at the same breath. Your second
strand is that the Bible is so simple that it can be easily
understood — no " pomposity," or " sophomority " about it,
everybody can understand it — hence it must be divine; but
in your sixth strand you say it is so complex and hidden
that no man can understand it — hence, it must be divine.
These strands certainly w^ill not unite in making a strong
cable. I must confess that I do not think much of either
of them.

Your third strand, candor, does not have much strength.
The Bible has no more candor than thousands of other
books that men have written. This strand adds nothing to
your cable.

THE HTJMPHRBY-BBNNBTT DISCUSSION. 429

Your fourth strand, incuriosity, I can make very little of,
How you make incuriosity^ proof of divinity is a puzzler to
me. Was not God a little curious when he came down in the
cool of the day and walked in the garden to see what Adam
and Eve had been doing? Was he not a trifle curious when he
descended from heaven to see what the Sodomites had
done, and whether their conduct was in keeping with the
cry that had gone up (o him ? Was ht not a little curious
when he put Abraham to the severe test of proving if he
would put his own child to death and offer him as a burnt
ojffering ? Did he not show commendable curiosity on
many other occasions ? No, no ; incuriosity is not a proof
of divinity. Try again, Brother Humphrey.

Your fifth strand I cannot comprehend sufficiently to get
its full meaning. I believe you mean that the Bible is
divine because God is King of kings and Lord of lords.
I fail to see the connection. This is a very weak strand.

Your sixth I have quoted and found it completely neu-
tralized by your second. They utterly contradict and de-
stroy each other.

Your seventh strand, the close resemblance between tTie
Bible and nature, is decidedly far-fetched. The Bible bears
no more resemblance to nature than any other bOi>k does.
In fact it bears less. It tells many impossible stories that
are in utter variance with every principle of nature. There
is very little harmony between nature and that qneer old
book. No. 7 is very weak.

Your eighth, exJiaustiveness, has no more strength than
the preceding. With all its exhanstiveness^ what great truth,
what science, what field of knowledge or philosophy has it
exhausted ? Did it exhaust cosmogony, astronomy, geol-
ogy, chemistry, archoeclogy, mathematics, geography, biol-
ogy, physiology, zoology, the nature of force and matter,
the character of mind or intellect, philology, meterology,
pneumatics, hydrostatics, and all the numerous arts that
ei^ist in the world ? No, it exhausts none of these, and

430 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

scarcely touches them. It exhausts nothing except it be
the stories of wars, bloodshed and the sexual relations of a
crude, semi-barbarous people. No. 8 might as well have
been omitted.

Your ninth, that the Bible was far in advance of the ages
in which it was announced or written, has little more
streEgth than its fellow strands. It is impossible to see
that the Bible had this peculiarity. "Wehav^ just seen that
in none of the sciences which afterward came to be well
understood in the world did the Bible advance beyond its
age and time. You aim to make a good deal of Monothenm.
The Jews, like their brothers, the Arabs, seemed more
inclined to Monotheism than many of the ancient nations,
but whether this quality possesses much f^pecial excellence
is a debatable question. If Monotheism has proved mom
advantageous to the world than Polytheism or iVbtheism it
is hardly yet ascertained. There is as much proof of the
existence of a hundred gods as there is of one, and it is
hard to be discovered how the belief in a single god is
more conducive to virtue than the belief in numerous
gods. Besides the Jews were not confined to one God. In
the first chapter of Genesis the word translated Qod — Elo-
him is plural and means God%. Further along in the orig-
inal Hebrew we have Til, El-Shadai, Adonai, Yahveh, Jah,
Jehovah and others. The greater part of these were sepa-
rate characters, but the tran?lators rendered them all Lord
ao'd God— another exemplification of the dishonesty which
the Scriptures cover. No. 9 contains no strength.

Your tenth and last strand I judge was thrown in for
"good count," or as a makeweight. You wish to establish
the fact that the Bible is the most reasonable wild practicable
of books. You could hardly Fet up a more absurd claim.
A great portion of it is opposed to reason, and its practica-
bility is of a very thin quality. In this respect it certainly
does not surpass great numbers of other books. Who goes
to the Bible when he wishes to learn the dictates of reason

THE HUMPHHEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 431

and gain practicable information? It is only pious souls
v*ho imagine that the book is a voice from the throne of
God and go to its pages for anything of a practicable char-
acter.

I have thus examined your "ten-stranded cable," and I
cannot find that the strands amount to anything separate or
that they possess any more strength when united. It seems
very strange that you and the Christian world should
depend upon such an imperfect cable to hold the ship of
truth to her moorings. I must again express my surprise
that you are able to present no stronger arguments in proof
of the divinity of the book you so ardently revere. I can-
not see how you were yourself won by such weak and inad-
equate reasoning. It is strange, too, that the world of
Christendom is led along year after year and generation
after generation by such deficient arguments. Millions,
like yourself, give their assent to the divine origin of the
Bible, when, as now, if the actual proofs of its divinity
are called for, they turn out like the strands of your cable,
possessing neither tenacity when alone, nor the ability to
give strength to one another when combined.

I think I can give better reasons why the Bible is not
divine than your ten are in favor of its divinity. In doing
so I may repeat some that have already been used, but will
arrange them in numerical order, similar to yours; and you
may, if you please, call them strands in the great anti-bibli-
cal cable which is impossible to be broken. •

1. There is no assertion from the writers themselves that
they were directed or influenced by God.

3. It is wholly unknown, in nearly every instance, who
the writers of the various books were, or whether they
were men of credibility.

3. The time is not known when many of the books were
written. A discrepancy of one thousand years, or more,
exists between the time when it is claimed that they were
written and the time when they really were written.

432 THE H.UMPHRET-BENNSTT DISCTTSSIOK.

4. The matter contained in the book is largely crude and
coarse, and is principally a mere narrative of events that
■were supposed to have occurred within the limits of an
obscure nation occupying an area, in a hilly country,
smaller than many of the small States in this Republic.

5. As everything the Bible contains could have been
written without aid from any god, it is utter folly to
assume that such a party had anything to do with it. There
is not a chapter nor a verse in the whole compilation supe-
rior to human ability, and it is the height of absurdity to
accord to divinity that which is wholly within the scope of
humanity.

6. It is largely historical in character, and contains mat-
ter in the narration of which no divine aid would be neces-
sary. It presents no more proofs of divinity than thou-
sands of histories and detailed descriptions of 'chat with
which the world has been filled.

7. The coarseness and indecency of large portions of the
book repudiate the idea of its being the woi'k of the supe-
rior spirit of the Universe.

8. It is full of errors and contradictions, stating many
points and incidents in language bearing two or more con-
structions.

9. It has many errors in chronology and in fact, making
mistakes in some instances of handieds of years.

10. The writers of the book were ignorant of the simplest
'4ruthsof Nature which the merest schoolboy now clearly

comprehends, such as the rotundity of the earth, the sun
being the centre of the solar system, the phenomena of
rain, rainbows, eclipses, the recurrence of day and night,
the seasons, etc.

11. It contains many absurd and impossible statements
which are opposed to the system of Nature and the laws
which govern the Universe, as the story of creation, the .
snake story, the story of the flood, of the parting of seas
and rivers, of Joshua stopping the heavenly bodies, of

THB HUMPHBBT- BENNETT DISCUSSION. 433

Jonah three days in the belly of a fish, of three men being
thrown unharmed into a superheated furnace, etc. Its talk
about the "ends," ''pillars" and " foundations" of the earth,
and of the stars falling to the earth, is simply ridiculous.

13. Its writers were unscientific and mostly unlearned
men who were entirely ignorant of hundreds of things in sci-
ence and general knowledge that are familiar in the world
to-day. The Bible writers had no knowledge imparted to
them beyond what had been attained by the nations then
existing upon the earth.

13. It contains no greater literary ability, no finer lan-
guage, no more elevated thought, no purer morals, than
are contained in other writings and books written as early
or earlier and which are not supposed to have been written
by gods.

14. It imparts very crude ideas of Deity, the Supreme
Power of the Universe, giving it the form of man, with all
the passiont, impulses, whims, and foibles that pertain to
an unprogressed, passionate, ungovernable human being.
The description which it gives of his form and appearance
is revolting even to a child.

15. It imparts very little practical, useful information
touching the affairs of life, and gives imperfect instructions
upon such subjects as man most needs to know.

16. It is largely made up of accounts of savage wars, car-
nage, and bloodshed, with plentiful details of marrying,
concubinage, of the begetting and bearing of children, of
experiments in cattle-raising, rapes, adulteries, etc., etc.,
disgusting to the refined^mind.

17. If it was of any value to the people of the earth at
the times in which it was written, and if it was the highest

•form of literature and science which the world then pos-
sessed, it has ceased to be of any vital importalice to man-
kind save as a work of antiquity, and in this view it is
worthy of preservation and respect but not as a boplv
written by God,

434 TFE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

18. The Bible teaches that God made the earth, aud all
the stars and worlds that compose the Universe less than
six thousand years ago, while science teaches us with uner-
ring truth that some of the far away isuns and stars whose
light meets our eyes on a clear night are so far distant that
at the velocity at which light travels it would require liun-

' dreds of thousands and even millions of years for their
' light to reach our globe. Geology and its students have
made it positive that this earth has existed as a globe for
millions of years, and innumerable proofs can be brought
to confirm it. How idle then to talk about this world and
those distant crbs being less than six thousand years old.

19. The Bible teaches that vegetation of all kinds, includ-
ing herbs, grasses, shrubbery, trees, etc., flourished aud
perfected their flowers, seeds and fruits before the sun came
into existence, and before rain had ever fallen upon the
earth. Every sensible person knows that this cannot be
true.

20. The Bible teaches that the first created organic exist-
ences were grass, herbs and fruit trees, but geologists have
found imbedded in the primitive rocks of the earth fossils
of low forms of animal life found only in water which
existed on the planet. It is established beyond a doubt that
thefuci, the mollusca and the polyparia and other low forms
of animal life existed ages before there was a spear of grass,
a plant, a shrub or a tree upon the face of the whole
earth.

21. The Bible teaches that the race of man has existed
less than 6,000 years, while numerous discoveries have
been made of the bones of men which have been excavated
from deposits in caves and caverns, and other localities
where they are found side by side with the bones of cave-
lions, cave-bears, cave-hyenas, mastodons and various other
animals which passed from the earth many thousand years
ago. Crude implements, belonging to a primitive period
chilled "the Stone Age," when man only knew how to

THE HTJMPHRfiY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 435

form his knives, his axes, his spears, his arrow-heads, etc.,
of stoue and flakes of flint, have been fonnd in such quanti- .
ties and in so many localities, as to entirely set Bible chro-
nology aside :.nd prove positively that man has existed on
the earth at the very least one hundred thousand years, and
probably much longer.

22. The errors of omission on the part of the Bible
writers were as great as those of commission. They never
alluded to the original fiery condition of the earth when its
heat was so great for incomputable ages that organized
life of any kind was utterly impossible on the earth.

23 "Nothing is said in the Bible about the Glacial Period^
which scientists have positive proofs existed for a long
time on the earth, when" vast bodies of ice were moved by
the water a little as icebergs are now, when immeuse rocks
were frozen in the ice and thus transported great dis-
tances. If it was the intention of the Bible writers to
give information of what had taken place on the earth,
the glacial period should not have been omitted.

24. The Bible teaches nothing of the topographical
changes that have from time to time taken place upon the
earth. It says nothing of islands and continents and
mountains emerging from the ocean, while the plainest
teachings of science give the positive information that the
Alps, the Appeniues, the Himalayas, the Ural Mountains,
the Rocky Mountains of our own continent, the Andes,
the Alleghanies, the Catskills, and all the other mountains
on the face of the globe have either emerged from the bed
of the ocean, or by internal fires and forces, have been up-
heaved from comparatively low ground. This was not all
done at one time, nor .within the same period. On the tops
of some mountains are found remains of the devonian age;
on others, of the carboniferous period; on others again, of
the cretaceous period, showing that the several mountains
of the globe were elevated at different periods, and at long
eons of time apart.

436 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

25. The Bible neither contains a hint about the rotund-
ity of the earth, nor does it contain a lisp of the existence
of the vast Continent of America extending from theNorih
Pole, or near it, to the 60th degree of south latitude, a dis-
tance of nearly ten thousand miles, and embracing every
variety of climate, soil and topography, though it ante-
dates, in existence as a continent, Europe, Asia and Africa.
It was not because the Bible writers did not regard
this older part of the world as worthy of mention, but be-
cause they were so ignorant of the facts of geography that
they knew nothing about its existence, that made them
neglect to speak of it ; and the source of their information
and inspiration was as ignorant as themselves.

26. While the most important truths of the Universe
were entirely omitted and ignored, rambling tales, stories
of blood and carnage, sketches of the lives of worthless
priests and prophets, heartless tyrants, shameless women,
stories filthy enough to cause the boldest man or woman to
blush at their recital, genealogical descents, unpronounc-
able names, enigmatical and meaniugless passages, and
repetitions of semi-historical events make up the great bulk
of what you reverently call the " Holy Bible," the " Book
Divine," the "greatest gift of God to man," etc., all of
which is hallucination— a fallacy of the strongest kind.

27. Many parts of the Bible are so far fetched, obscure
and unintelligible that they are totally worthless to every-
body. How much good has the Book of Daniel, the Book
of Revelations, and many other parts of the Bible, ever
doae to the world? None at all; but have been a cause for
interminable puzzling, disputing, speculating and conjec-
turing.

28. Scarcely any book ever published has contained
so many errors and inaccuracies. King James' trans-
lation was published in 1611 ; in 1711 it was corrected
by bisliops Tenison and Lloyds, thousands of errors having
crept into it. In 1669 Dr. Blayney corrected a multitude of

TtTE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 4B7

new errors, reformed the text in many places and rectified
some material errors in chronology. More recently "the
British and Foreign Bible Society, after having circulated
millions of copies of it, have declared that a faithful exam-
ination of it gives rise to senous doubts uhether it can he truth-
fully called the word of God.'" The American Bible Society
in 1847 appointed a committee of its members to prepare a
standard edition of King James' version, free from typo-
graphical errors. They accordingly prepared such an
edition, correcting, as they stated, twenty-four thousand
errors, but so alarmed were they at the attacks made upon
it, that it was withdrawn, and the American Bible Society
continues to this day to circulate a book, for the word of God,
containing — according to their own confession — twcnty-f ouv
thousand errors. The Bible Revision Committee at present
remodeling and improving the Word of God, in Etigland,
are said to have reported one hundred and fifty thousand
errors of one kind and another in the present version.
"When they bring out their new version it will be so changed
from the one in use that it is questionable whether the mos^
ardent Bible-worshipers will be disposed to accept it as tneir
revered loord of God.

29. The several books of the Bible are all of them mere
transcripts of transcripts, not one of the original manuscripts
being now in existence and has not been for the last thousand
years. It is easy to understand that copies from cop^'es
must become, very full of errors. Of the New Testament
books alone there are said to be thirty-two thousand
different versions. God would hardly be likely to trust an
important word of his to such possibilities of mutation and
corruption.

30. The Bible misleads men by inducing them to believe
that God can be placated and gratified by spending one day
in seven in idleness; by slaying and burning bulls, rams,
he-goats and other animals; and by praise, adulation, and
prayer. It is not reasonable to suppose that the God of the

488 THE HTTMPTTRElr-'BENNETT ftTSCUSSIOlT.

"Universe is in any way affected by any Piich frivolous per-
formances.

31. The Bible leads people to believe that sin can be
forgiven by certain ceremonies or penances being per-
formed, while Nature teaches that there can be no
forgiveness for a law once violated or a wrong act once
committed.

32. The Bible has made millions of human beings
miserable by the inculcation of a belief in hell and in a
devil to torment them through the endless ages of eternity.
There is nothing in Nature that gives the least foundation
for such a horrible belief.

33. The Bible has done more towar^ls degrading woman
and towards keeping her in subjection to the masculine
gender than any other influence in the world. From the
passage, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall
rule over thee," unto "Wives, submit yourselves unto
your own husbands as unto the Lord," woman has been
made a mere slave to tyrant man, and it is only when the
spirit of the Bible, in this respect, has been disregarded that
woman has assumed her true position in life, an equal of
man in all respects.

34. The Bible sanctions slavery. From its earliest chro-
nology, when the oldest books were written, down to the
close of the Book of Revelations, the Bible has justified
and enjoined human slavery. It established it in many
instances, and haraly ever has condemned it. The influ-
ence which the Bible shed in favor of slavery cost thi.<j
country a protracted, bloody, and expensive war, costing
hundreds of millions in treasure and at 1' ast a million of
the best lives in ttie jan i. Mrs. Annie Besant, the cour-
ageous Freethinker and eloquent orator of England, uses this
language: " 'Cursed is Canaan; a servant of servants shall he
be unto his brethren,' said the Bible from ten thousand pul-
pits, but man arose and swore that, Bible or no Bible, the
slave should go free. The Bible has bolstered up every injus-

THE MUMPH KEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 430

tice — it has bulwarked every tyranny— it has defended every
wrong. With toil and pain and bloodshed have the sol-
diers of Liberty wrung from the reluctant hands of priests
and Bible-worshipers every charter of our freedom and
every triumph of our cause."

35. The Bible has retarded the progress of science. The
Jewish Scriptures have been brought forward to knock
down and strangle every new thought and every effort to
reach something higher. The priests have stood like high-
waymen on the road to progress, and to every passerby
have shouted : *' Your reason or your life!" Prof. Denton
says, "Science has flourished not because it has had the
Bible to help it, but in spite of its direst opposition. As-
tronomy discovered that the earth is round and revolves,
but the Bible taught something else, and hence the astron-
omer was an Infidel and astronomy a dangerous science.
Geology proved the world to be millions of years old, and
the wail over its infidelity has not yet subsided. It is well
known that man was on earth ages before the time of the
the creation of Adam, according to the Bible, but how cau-
tious men are in saying so! and how theologians denounce
those who dare to do so; for it is not in agreement with the
unknown writer of Genesis. It will be generally acknowl-
edged that universal man is not descended from one pair,
and that man had a natural origin; but our scientific men,
especially Americans, have a padlock on their lips, and
orthodoxy keeps the key."

36. The Bible approves Polygamy — one of the twin-relics
of barbarism. In the cases of Abraham, Jacob, David and
Solomon we have abundant proof that the Bible did not
condemn the multiplicity of wives and concubines which
these patriarchs and saints indulged in.

37. The Bible sanctions murder and the reckless taking
of human life. This was carried to such excess that some
days as many as five hundred thousand are reported killed in
a single day, and ©f God's own people. There is nothing in

446 THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

the Bible that represents God as being opposed to the effu-
sion of human blood. On the other hand, there are many
places showing that he delighted in it. He is often styled
the God of battles, the Lord of Hosts, etc. In fact he
seems to have a special fondness for blood, both of men and
animals.

38. The Bible recognizes the right and justice of putting
people to death for very trivial offenses ; for instance for
picking up sticks on the Sabbath, the refractoriness of
children, committing adultery and other offenses no greater
than these.

39. The Bible discriminates in favor of the Jews and
against other nations, making the God of the Bible to be
partial and deficient in justice. Meat unfit for the use of
the Jews was allowed to be sold to aliens and strangers, and
these were submitted to many exactions and indignities not
visited upon the Jews.

40. According to some passages in the Bible, it approves
of human sacrifices, as in the case of Jephtha, the hanging
of two sons and five grandsons of Saul to stop a famine,
and the law given in Leviticus xxvii, 29, which requires
that everything, whether man or beast, devoted to the Im^d,
shall surely be put to death.

41. The severity of the Bible against witches has been
the apology for a great amount of cruelty and taking of
human life, The Bible injunction, " Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live," has indirectly caused the torture and death
of probably hundreds of thousands of persons entirely
innocent of witchcraft. The inhuman zealots who in
Europe and in this country so cruelly persecuted, tortured
and put to death the thousands of unfortunate wretches who
were stupidly supposed to be witches or to be bewitched,
got their warrant, their authority, their impetus from the
Bible. They were persistent admirers and worshipers of
that book.

43. The Bible teaches that belief is a merit wortlu^ of

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DIHCUSSION. 441

eternal life and disbelief a crime deserving of eternal pun-
ishment. This doctrine which seems to me totally absurd,
has been the cause of incalculable mischief in the world.
As belief and disbelief are arbitrary qualities or conditions
not subject to choice or whim, but to evidence and reasons
presented — a person being unable to believe anything and
everything that maybe required of him, the injustice of this
doctrine is most apparent.

43. The entire sentiment of the Bible that God selected
the Jews from among all the nations of the earth to be his
chosen, peculiar people — the only nation to be loved while
all others were hated — does great injustice to the Universal
Father, and has imparted very wrong estimates of his char-
acter and attributes, and has worked much evil in the
world.

44. The Bible inculcates the absurd idea that labor is a
punishment, and was inflicted upon man in consequence
of his disobedience in eating a certain fruit. It tenches
that but for this disobedience man could have lived in
perpetual ease and idleness, everything he needed growing
spontaneously for him. This pernicious belief has worked
vast evil in the world. It has placed a disgrace upon
honest labor, and kept man back in the night and indolence
of barbarism. We well know that labor has been man's
salvation. It has raised him from the low estate of the
savage; it has aided him to subdue this planet to his use;
it has enabled him to plow the ocean with his countless
sails and steamers; to build cities, construct highways,
canals, railways, and to make a delightful garden of a large
share of the earth's surface. It has been the direct
cause of the civilization and progress that exist in the
world to-day, and without it man would have remained a
brutal savage, and this in spite of the fundamental teach-
ings of the Bible. Labor, instead of being a curse, a stigma,
has been the greatest blessing that has befallen mankind.

45. The doctrine the Bible teaches, that the end of the

442 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

world is near at hand, has been a source of immense dam-
age. It has caused thousands upon thousands to neglect
their business and the i ecessary cares of life, to abandon
and give away their property; to become hopelessly insane,
to wander over the country like vagabonds until, miserable
mendicants, they become the most pitiable objects in the
world.

46. The doctrine that it is the height of excellence and
virtue to live abject lives here, to take no thought for the
morrow, to court ignominy, to practice painful self-denial,
to live in want and penury, to neglect the common duties
of life for the sake of riches in the future world, for the
sake of crowns of gold to wear upon the head, for the sake
of living in a city with gates of pearl and with streets paved
with gold, has worked incalculable mischief with the
simple dupes who have believed this syren song. Poverty
and degradation here, for the sake of riches and splendor
hereafter, has been a source of great evil, retarding enter-
prise, encouraging indolence and mendicancy. Its influ-
ence has been most pernicious.

47. The Bible is inferior to many works which men
have perfected. It has been produced since the pyramids
of Egypt were builded, since the Sphinx was executed,
since the Obelisk was erected — which is cut from a single
stone, weighs three hundred tons, and is still standing —
since the colossus of Ramses II., which weighs nine hun-
dred tons, was constructed: long since the construction of
the monolithic temple weighing five thousand tons de-
scribed by Herodotus, the one immense stone of which it is
made having been transported, no one knows how, the
whde length of the valley of the Nile to its delta; since
the sculpture, bas-reliefs, obelisks, monuments, and tem-
ples with the most elaborate inscriptions, which were ex-
ecuted more than thirt5^-five centuries ago. These works
were performed by men, and they certainly were far more
difficult of accomplishment, and would seem to need the

THE HUMPHBET-BENNETT DISCUSSION". 443

aid of the gods far more than the writing of tlie tedious
details, the fllttiy stories, and the questionable history of
the Bible. Why not as well insist that the gods or a god
helped them to perform those stupendous works as to force
us to acknowledge that a god must have assisted the writers
of the Jewish Scriptures ?

48. The greater portions of the Bible were undoubtedly
written since the Institutes of Menu were penned, since the
voluminous Yedas and Puranas were written, since the
grand teachings of Zoroaster and the Avesta were committed
to parchment; long since the cuneiform inscriptions of
Nineveh and Assyria were executed; since many of the
sacred writings and inscriptions of Egypt were produced;
about the time, perhaps, of the Indian saint, Buddha,
and the wonderful sayings he uttered, and the grand old
Chinese philosopher, Confucius, with his eminently practi-
cal and useful precepts and morals. All these were written
by men, and you will hardly claim that Jehovah had
anything to do with them; and as they are, in point of
ability, purity, and grandeur, equal, and more than equal,
to the Jehovistic sacred writings, it is preposterous to insist
that these could not have also have been written by men.

49. The Bible is an advocate and supporter of kings and
tyrants. It recognizes the divine right of kings to rule over
the masses of the people, who are required to render im-
plicit obedience and to be nothing more nor less than slaves.
It does not introduce nor advocate the republican and
higher forms of government, which, as civilization and
intelligence advance in the world, are found to be vastly
better for the masses of men than monarchy and tyranny.
The God of the Bible was little more than a big king or
despot who, with an arbitrary power, led his hosts, and
proudly tyrannized over a nation of slaves.

50. The Bible establishes and sustains a privileged class,
a divine aristocracy which has ever been a most oppressive
burden to mankind. I mean the priesthood. One twelfth

444 THE HTTMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSIOl^.

of the men of Israel were set apart to be priests to the
other eleven parts. They performed no manual labor, bu^.
served in the sanctuary or temple, and performed divine
ceremonies, such as slaying the bullocks, rams, and he-
goats used for sacrifice (very likely thev helped to eat them,
too), together with making peace offerings, offerings of
prayer and praise, and attending to the various celestial
affairs of like character. For these very important services
they were granted an immunity from toil, and were sup-
ported in an easy, idle life. One tenth of the products of
the labor of the entire people had to be paid in to support
this privileged class, and the masses were required to look
up to theiu and revere them almost as though they were
little gods. Priestcraft has ever been an onerous burden
upon the backs of the people. Priests have ever been an
unproducing, idle class of ecclesiastical aristocrats for
whom the laboring people have been compelled to toil.
The priests, in all systems of religion, have claimed that
they knew more about the gods, the devils, and their wills
and purposes, than all the world beside, and have claimed
to be able to act as mediators between the gods and the
people, that they had great influence at the cowrts of the
gods, that they could influence them with their prayers and
placate them by their adoration, their praise and their offer-
ings. The people have for thousands of years been fools
enough to believe these representations, and to think they
must have priests to perform their business with the gods
for them to tell the gods what the people wanted, and to tell
the people the will of the gods toward them and what they
required of them. For performing this heavenly broker-
age business, for thus acting as go betweens to and from the
gods and their vassajs, the priests have made an extremely
good thing of it. They have lived upon the fat of the land,
they have dressed in the finest of linen, broadcloth and
costly furs, they have received a great amount of reverence,
and thousands of exquisite favors have been granted them

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 415

by the female portion of their flocks which 3^ou prefer I
should not allude to, and all this without blistering t':eir
hands, without soiling their fine garments, or without caus-
ing the perspiration to start from their brows. They have
been par excellence, the celestial arif-tocracy here below, and
to prove that they were entitled to all the honors bestowed
upon them they claim they have a commission from the
throne above the clouds. Though they have been liberally
rewarded for their very valuable services, they have not
proved to be always useful or always harmless. They
have been extremely busy and extremely officious. They
have instigated many theological dissensions among men ;
they have raised many ecclesiastical points and formulated
many new creeds which they have required the people to
accept. Nor have they been willing to keep out of the
political field. They have instigated countless quarrels,
embroglios, contests, wars and caused incalculable blood-
shed. O yes, they have been a very costly luxury to poor
credulous mankind, and I cannot think a kind, heavenly
Father, full of kindness, love and compassion, whom you
tell us sits upon his throne a little way above the clouds,
keeping his loving and benignant eye always upon us,
would ever have devised or countenanced such an institu-
tion as the priesthood. It is wholly of human origin.

I have thus given you my fifty-stranded cable of reasons
why the Bible should not be regarded as the production of
the Supreme Power of the Universe in place of your ten-
stranded cable. I modestly think my strands are at least
five times as strong, individually, as yours, and as there are
five times as many of them, my cable, mathematically
speaking, must be two hundred and fifty times as strong
as yours! The relative difference between the two is un-
doubtedly as great as that — as thousands are daily coming
to see. The book which so many have made a fetish of
and worshiped almost precisely as fetish worshipers used
to worship their idols, is being daily more and more under-

i46 TttE nu?.rPH"REY-"BENNETT DTSCTTS5T0K.

stood in its true character. It is becoming widelj'- compre-
hended that it is a book entirely of human production, and
manufactured, as all other books are, and that it exhibits no
metre marks of divinity than any other book. Let me here
give one more somewhat extended quotation from Col. R.
G. Ingersoll, whom, I am sorry to notice, you regard with
little favor:

"According to theologians, God, the father of us all,
wrote a letter to his children. The children have always
differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. In con-
sequence of these honest differences, the=e brothers began
to cut out each other's hearts. In every land where this
letter from God has been read the children to whom and
for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and
malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other,
and the wives and children of each other. In the name of
God every possible crime has been committed, every con-
ceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender
and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes
have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For
more than fifty generations the Church has carried the black
flag. Her vengeance has been measured only by her power.
During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been
forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated ; with
the clutch of avarice she has grasped ; with the jaws of a
dragon she has devoured; pitiless as famine, merciless as
fire, with the conscience of a serpent. Such is the history
of the Church of God.

" I do not say, and I do not believe, that Christians are as
bad as their creeds. In spite of church and dogma, there
have been millions and millions of men and women true
to the loftiest and most generous promptings of the human
heart. They have bfeen true to their convictions, and with
a self-denial and fortitude excelled by none, have labored
•and suffered for the salvation of men. Imbued with the
spirit of self-sacrifice, believing that by personal effort they

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 447

could rescue at least a few souls from the infinite shadow
of hell, they have cheerfully endured every hardship and
scorned every dacger. And yet, notwithstanding all
this, they believed that honest error was a crime. They
knew that the Bible so declared, and they believed that all
unbelievers would be eternally lost. They believed that re-
ligion was of God and all heresy of the Devil. They killed
heretics in defense of their own souls and the souls of their
children. They killed them because, according to their
idea, they were the enemies of God, and because the Bible
teaches that the blood of the unbeliever is a most accept-
able sacrifice to heaven.

"Nature never prompted a loving mother to throw her
child into the Ganges. Nature never prompted men to ex-
terminate each other for a difference of opinion concerning
the baptism of infant?. These crimes have been produced
by religions filled with all that is illogical, cruel and hide-
ous. These religions were produced for the most part by
ignorance, tyranny and hypocrisy. Under the impression
that the infinite ruler and creator of the Universe had com-
manded the destruction of heretics and Infidels, the Church
perpetrated all these crimes.

"Men and women have been burned for thinking there
is but one God ; that there was none ; that the Holy Ghost
is younger than God ; that God was somewhat older than
his Son ; for insisting that good works will save a man,
without faith ; that faith will do without good works ; for
declaring that a sweet babe will not be burned eternally
because its parents failed to have its head wet by a priest, ;
for speaking of God as though he had a nose ; for denying
, that Christ was his own father ; for coiatending that three
persons, rightly added together, make more than one ; for
believing in purgatory; for denying the reality of hell ; for
pretending that priests can forgive sins ; for preaching that
God is an essence ; for denying that witches rode through
the air on sticks ; for doubting the total depravity of the

448 THE HUMrHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

human heart ; for laughing- at irresistible grace, predestina-
tion and particular redemption ; for denying that good
bread could be made of the body of a dead man ; for pre-
tending^- that the Pope was not managing this -world for
God, and in place of God ; for disputing the efficacy of a
vicarious atonement ; for thinking that the Virgin Mary
•was born like other people ; for thinking that a man's rib
was hardly sufficient to make a good sized woman ; for
denying that God used his finger for a pen ; for asserting
that prayers are not answered, that diseases are not sent to
punisli unbelief ; for denying the authority of the Bible ;
for having a Bible in their possession ; for attending mass,
and for refusing to attend ; for wearing a surplice ; for car-
rying a cross, and for refusing ; for being a Catholic, and
for being a Protestant, for being an Episcopalian, a Presby-
terian, a Baptist, and for being a Quaker. In short, every
virtue has been a crime, and every crime a virtue. The
Church has burned honesty and rewarded hypocrisy, and
all this, because it was commanded by a book — a book
that men had been taught implicitly to believe, long be-
fore they knew one word that was in it. They had been
taught that to doubt the truth of this book, to examine it,
even, was a crime of such enormity that it could not be
forgiven, either in this world or in the next.

" The Bible was the real persecutor. The Bible burned
heretics, built dungeons, founded the Inquisition, and tram-
pled upon all the liberties of men.

*' How long, O how long will mankind worship a book?
How long will they grovel in the dust before the ignorant
legends of the barbaric past ? How long, O how long
will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper than
death ?"

With your usual accuracy you say: "Such words as
seething^ roasting, smd frying belong exclusively to the Infidel
vocabulary." Allow me once more to correct you. They
legitimately belong to the theory of countless millions of

1?HE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 440

people being submerged in the lake of eternal fire and brim-
stone in which you so fondly believe. If the unfortunate
wretches cast in the burning lake will not seetlie, roast and
fry^ pray what is the reason, and where is the wrong in
usiug the terms? But, to show you that these words do
not belong exclusively to the " Infidel vocabulary," permit
me to make a few quotations from strictly orthodox sources
upon your favorite theme, " Hell and Damnation":

In Baxter's " Saint's Rest" he thus rapturously addresses
himself to sinners: ** Your torment shall be universal. .
. . The soul and the body shall each have its torments.
The guilt of their sins shall be to damned souls like
the tinder to gunpowder, to make the flames of hell take
hold of them with fury. . . . The eyes shall be tor-
tured with sights of horror, and hosts of devils and
damned souls. The ears shall be tortured with the bowl-
ings and curses of their companions in torments. Their
smell shall be tortured with the fumes of brimstone, and
the liquid mass of eternal fire shall prey upon every part. .
. No drop of water shall be allowed to cool their tongues;
no moment of respite peimitted to relieve their agonies."

The saintly Bunyan gives this delectable picture: "All
the devils in hell will be with thee howling and roaring,
screeching and yelling in such a hideous manner that thou
wilt be at thy wits' end, and be ready to run stark mad
again from anguish and torment. . . . Here thou must
lie and fry, and scorch, and broil, and burn for evermore."

An evangelical poet, catching the fiery refrain, thus
sweetly sings:

" Clattering of iron, and the clank of chains ;
The clang of lashing whips, shrill shrieks and groans.
Loud, ceaseless bowlings, cries, and piercing moans.
Meanwhile, as if but light were all their pain.
Legions of devils, bound themselves in chains.
Tormented and tormentors, o'er them shake,
Thongs and forked iron in the burning lake.

450 THE BrtTMPHREY-BKNNETT DISCUSSION.

Belching eternal flames, and wr^^athed with spires
Of curllni? serpents, rouse the brimstone fires.
With whips of fiery scorpions scourge their slaves.
And in their faces dash the livid waves."

The Rev. Mr. Benson, a prominent Methodist commen-
tator of England, uses this language :

'* Infinite justice arrests their guilty souls and confines
them in the dark prisons of hell, till they have satisfied all
the demands by their personal sufferings, v^^hich, alas ! they
never can do. . . . God is present in hell in his infinite
justice and almighty wrath as an unquenchable sea of
liquid fire, where the wicked must drink in everlasting tor-
ture. His fiery indignation kindles and his incensed fury
feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful pres-
ence and operation maintain their being and render all
their powtrs most acutely sensible, thus setting the keenest
edge upon their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep.
He will exert all his divine attributes to make them as
wretched as the capacity of their natures will admit. . .
Number the stars in the firmament, the drops of rain, the
sands on the sea shore, and when thou hast finished the
calculation, sit down and number all the ages of woe. Let
every star, every drop, every grain of sand, represent one
million of tormenting ages ; and know that as many more
millions still remain behind them, and so on without end."

The Rev. Mr. Ambrose, in a sermon on Dooms-day, drew
this picture :

"When the damned have drunken down whole draughts
of brimstone one day, they must do the same another day.
The eye shall be tormented with the sight of devils ; the
ears with the hideous yellings and outcries of the damned
inflames ; the nostrils shall be smothered, as it were, with
brimstone ; the tongue, the hand, the foot and every part
shall fry inflames.'*

This delicate delineation of the loveliness of hell is from
the pen of the Rev. J. Furniss, C. S. R. R., and was pub-

TfiE nUMPHRET-BBNNKTT DISCtJSSION. 451

lished by authority in England, and was pfert of the
instruction designed for the young:

"We know how far it is to the middle of the earth; it is
just four thousand miles; so if hell is in the middle of the
earth, it is four thousand miles to the horrible prison of
hell. Down in this place is a terrific noise. Listen to the
tremendous, the horrible uproar of millions and millions
and millions of tormented creatures, mad with the fury
of hell! Oh, the screams of fear, the groanings of horror,
the yells of rage, the cries of pain, the shouts of agony,
the shrieks of despair, from millions on millions ! There
you hear them roaring like lions, hissing like serpents,
howling like dogs, and wailing like dragons. There you
hear the gnashing of teeth and the fearful blasphemies
of the devils. Above all, you hear the roaring of the
thunders of God's anger, which shakes hell to its founda-
tions. But there is another sound. There is in hell a
sound like that of many waters. It is as if all the rivers
and oceans of the world were pouring themselves with a
great splash down on the floor of hell. Is it, then, really
the sound of waters ? It is. Are the rivers and oceans of
the earth pouring themselves into hell ? No. What is
it, then ? It is the sound of oceans of tears running down
from countless millions of eyes. They cry forever and
ever. They cry because the sulphurous smoke torments
their eyes. They cry because they are in darkness.
They cry because they have lost the beautiful heaven.
They cry because the sharp fire burns them. . . . The
roof is red hot; the walls are red hot; the floor as like a
thick sheet of red hot iron. See, on the middle of that red
h©t iron floor stands a girl. She looks about sixteen
years of age. She has neither shoes nor stockings on
her feet, 'i'he door of this room has never been opened
since she first set her feet on this red hot floor. Now she
sees the door opening. She rushes forward. She has
gone down upon her knees upon the red hot floor. Listen,

453 THE ntnVfPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

she speaks. She says: 'I have been standing with my
bare feet on this red floor for years. Day and night my
only standing place has been this red hot floor. Sleep
never came to me for a moment, that I might forget this
horrible burning floor. Look at my burnt and bleeding
feet. Let me go off this burning floor for one moment-
only for a short moment. Oh, that in this endlesss eternity
of years, I might forget the pain only for one single mo-
ment.' The Devil answers her question. 'Do you ask
for a moment — for one moment to forget your pain ? No,
not for one single moment during the never-ending eter-
nity of years shall you ever leave this red hot floor."

I am aware, Bro. Humphrey, of your fondness for this
kind of literature, and I would gladly favor you with many
other choice extracts of the same kind which I have in
my possession, but a feeling of mercy for our readers
prompts me to desist. I will furnish you much more of the
same kind of interesting reading matter at any time you
wish it. It is a beautiful picture, is it not ? How can any-
body help loving a religion which has such a hell and loving
a God capable of getting it all up? I trust I have convinced
you that the words seething, roasting ?ind frying do not be-
long exclusively to the " Infidel vocabulary."

In alluding to your personal experience, you say that the
more you make yourself acquainted with the contents of
the Bible, the more astonished you become at the same;
t'nat it is a perennial fountain to your soul; that you rise
from it ready to say, like Jacob at Bethel, " How dreadful
is this place. This is none other than the house of God,
and this is the gate of heaven "; that you " find it a feast
both for the intellect and for the heart. It is as full of wis-
dom as a father's counsel, and as full of affection as a
mother's bosom." I cannot but be struck with the differ-
ent effects that it produces upon you and myself. It does
not make me feel that way at all. It awakens no special
fervor in my breast, and does not enthuse me " worth a

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 453

cent." Looking upon it as I would upon any other book,
wholly man-made, it fails to arouse my religious feelings.
I presume you feel very much the same, when you
read that old book, as does the Brahmin when he reads
his Vedas, the Buddhist when he pores over the sacred
inculcations of Sayka-Muni, the Parsee when he peruses
the maxims and precepts of Zoroaster, the Chinese when
he reads the excellent sayings of Confucius, the Moham-
medan when he rises from the Koran, and the Mormon
when he has filled his soul from the fountain of the
Mormon Bible, the plates of which the prophet, Joe Smith,
asserted that he obtained in a miraculous manner, but
which were really an unpublished romance written in Bible
style by an ex-Methodist preacher named Spaulding. I
look upon you as occupying the same mental plane as they,
and I regard you all as being equally in error concerning
the divine afflatus which you severally imagine you draw
from your sacred bibles. I only hope that you may all
learn to look to the truths of Nature for guidance, and dis-
card all superstitions and antiquated myths.

I am a trifle amused at your efforts to prove the existence
of God from the "bumps" on a man's head. If the cen-
tral portion of the head being high proves a God, does not
being full over and back of the ears also prove a Devil ?
Is it not rather a weak conception that the shape of men's
skulls make the slightest difference with the existence or
nonexistence of a divine being ? If there are more men
with low heads than high ones, would not the majority be
against your God, and would he not be ruled out ? If God
has no place to exist except in men's skulls, is it not about
time that he stepped down and out? Possibly God exists
only to those with large organs of veneration, while to
those who are small in that region he does not exist at all,
or rather that the only existence that imaginary being has
is in the whims and fancies of men and women.

The question of the existence of a God does not legiti-

454 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOH. '

mately belong in this discussion, but as it has been intro-
duced, and you devote considerable space to the subject, 1
will consider it for a few moments. You say, " let us begin
at the beginning." That is very well ; but v< here is the
beginniDg ? When was it ? Before we begin at the begin-
ning, is it not well to be sure there was a beginning ? You
say, too, "It is self-evident that something muitt have ex-
isted from eternity." How about the beginning of that
something that has ever existed ? Did it have a beginning ?
Did eternity have a beginning ? Did space have a be jin-
nicg ? Of course not, and it will be impossible to find their
beginning to begin at.

I accept it as a self-evident proposition that someViing can-
not come from nothing. All the gods that men ever dreamed
of could not make something of nothing. As Ingersoll
says, " Nothing, considered in the light of a raw material, is
a most decided failure." By no process that has ever been
discovered, can nothing be converted into something. By
all the skill which the world has possessed not one grain of
matter has ever been destroyed, not one grain has ever
been created. From these premises it is very easy to arrive
at the conclusion that whatever exists to-day ever did exist
in some form, for it is, we see, totally impossible to speak
or create or evolve something from nothing. Matter may
pass through interminable changes and tr;iusformations,
but it can neither be increased nor lessened.

You speak of Force and make an effort to connect it
somehow, mysteriously, with your Deity. Force is a con-
comitant, an integral part, an eternal attendant upon Mat-
ter. There can be no Force wiihout Matter^ and equally no
Matter without lorce. These are in certain degrees con-
vertible one into the other. We well know that matter
contains latent force, and that the forces in the Universe
unite in organizing matter in comparatively solid form.
All matter by the agency of force is susceptible of taking
tlie etherial forms, and all etherial forms, by the aid

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 45o

of force and chemical affinity, are capable of taking solid
forms. All matter is charged with force or life. There
is no inert matter, there is no dead matter. Life and
force exist everywhere where matter is, and matter in some
form exists everywhere where space is. Matter or sub-
stance is as infinite as space or eternity, and had a beginning
just as much and no more. Force is as beginningless as
matter. Neither could have begun ; neither can end.

These being accepted as truths, and truths I verily
believe them to be, there is little chance of your supernat-
ural, personal, anthropomorphic, Jewish God with parts
and organs — necessarily occupying but a single point in tbe
Universe at a given time — ever coming in-to existence ; and
there is absolutely no office for him to fill, no place for him
to occupy, nothing for him to do. All the forces that
now exist in the Universe ever did exist, and they acted as
perfectly decillions of ages ago as they do to-day. In view
of these grand conceptions, how crude, how weak and
puerile is the idea that the Jewish Jehovah is superior to
them all, and, six thousand years ago, spoke the boundless
Universe into existence from nothingl Tliis is undoubtedly
one of the most baseless vagaries ever indulged in by the
human mind. To my conception it is vastly grander and
vastly truer to accept the great fact that the glorious Uni-
verse, with all its intricacies, all its potencies, all its possi-
bilities, all its ever-changing forms and forces, ever existed
in perfection as it exists to-day, than the childish belief that
a few thousand years ago it was somehow brought into exist-
ence by a deity in the form of a big man who had passed
countless eons somewhere or nowhere, surrounded hynoihlng^
and reposing in perfect idleness. For me, I repeat, it is much
easier to accept the fact that the Universe ever existed, with
all its substance and all its^ force, than to admit the eternal ex-
istence of a god capable of devising and speaking it all into
existence, or bringing it from non-cxistencc If we admit
that substance always existed, we may as well go a little far^

456 TFK HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

ther and admit that force and its immutable laws also
always existed.

You speak of Miud, of its inherent laws, etc., and seem
to think it has a domain and an existence apart from the
Universe. Nothing, to my view, can be more erroneous.
Mind belongs to the Universe, and is simply a function of
organized matter, the same as any other faculty or function
of the body. It has no domain by itself, no separate ex-
istence. There is not a particle of proof that mind or
intellect has ever existed except as produced by an organ-
ization adapted to its production. Mind or thought is only
generated through the medium of the brain and nervous
system, the same as the sight is produced by the eye and
optic nerves, hearing by the mechanism of the ear and the
auricular nerves, and muscular strength by the muscles,
tendons, etc. These are all equally sustained by the food
taken into tLe stomach, and when digested and assimilated
pass into chyme and chyle, and by means of the circula-
tory apparatus are carried over the entire system. When a
man recuperates his stomach with a healthy meal, digestion
at once begins, and the latent force in the food is assimilated
and imparted to physical functions, and whecher he walks
twenty miles, chops a cord of wood, carries three tons of
coal up as many flights of stairs, or works ten hours at writ-
ing or other mental labor, the process that goes on in his
organization is much the same; the food that has been
eaten and digested goes to suppl}^ the waste that is
produced by the effort made, be it physical or mental, and
if this effort is continued and the wr.ste is kept up, addi-
tional food from time to time must be taken. If the
food is shut off the man cannot continue to walk, he can-
not continue to chop wood nor carry up coal, and equally
impossible will it be for him to continue his mental labor.
Our thoughts are just as much the result of the food we cat
as is our muscular strength or any other function of our
organization. Truly has it been said that the finest poems

THB HUMPHBET-BSNNSTT DI8CUS8IOH, 457

and dramas that have ever been written are simply well-
digested and well-assimilated meat, bread, and potatoes.
With a good organization and proper food, good thoughts
can be produced, and without them they cannot be. There
is no existing proof, I repeat, of any thoughts, any mind,
any intellect, unless it is produced by an organization
adapted to the purpose. A Great Central Intellect, a vast
fountain of mind, is equally absurd as to talk about a great
ocean of sight, a central fountain of hearing, a grand reser-
voir of taste, or a general storehouse of muscular strength.
All are alike the production of organization, and can exist
in no other way.

Intelligence is found in lesser or greater degree in every
form of animal life, and always in proportion to the organi-
zation which produces it; and possibly in a still more lim-
ited degree in vegetable life. The Jelly-fish is a very low
form of life, and it has a very low grade of intellect, but it is
sufficient to serve its purpose in taking its food and in fill-
ing its humble sphere of existence. The oyster leads a
very secluded life. It has little brain or nervous system,
and consequently has but little intellect, but it has some,
and it is exactly in keeping with its organization, and as it
is sufficient to lead it to take the food necessary to its sub-
sistence and to close its castle-gate when danger approaches,
it is sufficient to subserve its purpose. As we rise in the
scale of animal life through the articulates, the vertebrata,
the quadrupeds, the mammals, up to man, we find that the
intellect increases as the organization is more perfect, and
that the mind of the animal is always in exact proportion
to the character of organization. We notice that bees,
ants, rats, foxes, dogs, horses, elephants and many other
animals have minds much better developed than have the
cruder animals, and it is wholly because they have better
brains and nervous organizations. They would all reason
as well as men if their mental organizations were as per-
fect, There is great difference in the intellect of different

458 THE HTJMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

men and women, but apart from culture and training, it is
wholly the difference in organization tliat mades the differ-
ence in the mind. A.S there are no two organizations just
alike, so no two minds are ever found to be alike. If the
mind is a mere spark from the great fountain of eternal
mind, as the theologian supposes, it is probable there Vv'ould
be far more similarity in the minds of men than we find to
be the case. The organizations perpetually vary, and
equally the minds must ever be unlike.

I will also assume the responsibility of saying there is no
proof in existence of any deity, god, power or force out-
side of the Universe, and until such proof is found it ap-
pears to be the height of absurdity for theologians to per-
sist in asserting that there is such force or deity. It may
be very true, that "the fool hath said in his heart, there is
no God," but he is equally a fool when he asserts dogmatic-
ally, with his lips or with his pen, that there is a Ood. All
the substance, the powers and forces, I again repeat, that
have an existence belong to the Universe and are parts of
it, and there is n'ot the first particle of proof of any supei-
natural power or of any force superior to, or outside of
the Universe. All the powers and forces, I said, that exist .
to-day have ever existed in some form, and there is no
possibility of matter or force being spoken into existence
by a power or a person outside of it, there is nothing above
it, there is nothing below it. It embraces all substance, all
force, all space and all existence, it is the all in all. A
beginning of the Universe is utterly incomprehensible. The
beginning of a god is far less absurd, for we know thou-
sands of them have had beginnings and ends.

You say, "It is self-evident that something must have
existed from eternity," and I regard that as one of the most
sensible utterances in your entire letter. It seems the most
rational conclusion an intelligent being can come to. If it
is true that something cannot come from nothing^ it is the
only conclusion that can be arrived at. If, then, we have

THE HTTMPHRHT B3NNETT DISCUSSION. 4.j9

got SO far along as to understand that something must have
existed from eternity, it is equally easy to comprehend
that all matter or all something has existed from eternity.
If you admit that anything has existed from eternity, it is
but a step further — and a very reasonable one to take — to
conclude that everything has existed from eternity. It is
far easier for the mind to admit that everything has ever
existed than to think that but a part of it, called God, has
ever existed, and he or it made the remainder from nothing.

You, as other theologians do, attach great importance to
the design argument in proof of the existence of a God, and
perhaps it is the best proof you have; but it really amounts
to nothing, for, you know, The proposition that proves too
much proves nothing. If the design that is shown, or is ap-
parent, in the Universe proves that it was designed and
created, it also proves that the designer, necessarily supe-
rior to the Universe in every particular, and much fuller of
design and wonderful adaptability — must likewise have
had a designer ; and then you may imagine designers of
designers and creators of creators, until your mind is bewil-
dered and perfectly lost. Do you not see that when you
start out with the proposition that whatever possesses
adaptability, fitness, design, potency and power must have
had a creator having all these qualities in a superior degree
to the thing created, that that creator must also have had a
creator ? And, reasoning in this way, where will you
stop? You may go on forever getting up gods, creators of
universes, and gods, creators of gods I

There are some things, or qualities, which, as you can
easily imagine, were never designed, were never invent-
ed, never had a beginning. Among these may be men-
tioned time, space, the fact that two units are twice as
many as one, that between two hills there must be a valley,
that a straight rod four feet long must have two ends, that
a three-year-old child cannot become three years old in a
minute. There are thousands of other similar truisms,

460 THE HmrPHmET-BSITKETT DMCUSSIOW.

which, you will readily admit, were never "designed."
They necessarily have an eternal existence. So, in fact,
it is with every truth, every principle, every fact in the
Universe; they were never designed, they were never in-
vented, they ever existed. You say, "the argument from
design is absolutely conclusive." Nothing of the kind. It
just proves nothing at all ; and the more the operations of
the Universe are investigated, the more it will be under-
stood, that the Universe works to no design, and operations
and events are as they are, because they can be no other
way. You flippantly use the word chance^ and insinuate
that the Universe is a chance affair. Nothing is more ab-
surd, and you ought to fully understand it. There is no
chance in the operations of the Universe. Causes and
effects are inevitable and unalterable. There is no chanct
about it. It is your God who is a cZiawc6-God. By chance
he took a notion to make the Universe after he had spent
an eternity in inactivity; by chance he made man and
woman so that they fell and spoiled his job at the very first
temptation ; by chance he made a devil that has ever since
circumvented him ; by chance he selected a race of people
as his special favorites whom he could not control ; by
chance he made men so sinful that he had to drown out the
world ; by chance the world got so full of sin that he was
obliged to to come down himself to earth and be crucified
to appease his own anger, and by chance he has miserably
managed all his complicated affairs ever since. Talk no
more about chance, unless it is in connection with your
own chance-God.

If you can comprehend the truth that there are natural
causes only, and that every event that has ever taken place
was the result of a natural cause sufficient to produce it,
you will be able to understand not only that no supernat-
ural cause or causes are necessary, but that a design was
also out of the question.

You imagine you see in every form of life an intricate

tSB SUMPHRBY-BENrHETT DISCUSSION. 461

design, but it is in imagination only. Every production of
the Universe, as I said, has been the result of natural causes
and not of supernatural causes. Every organ and function
of the animal kingdom has resulted from the forces of
nature and the environments of the animal. Take' the
organ of the eye for instance. It is an intricate piece of
machinery, and probably shows as great a degree of design
as anything in existence. But distinguished biologists tell
us that the eye is wholly the result of natural causes, and
was produced by the rays of the sun in connection with a
perfect nervous system. All animals with comparatively
perfect nervous systems and who live in the sunshine have
eyes more or less perfectly developed. Such animals as
have no nervous system or live permanently where there
is no sunlight have no eyes. In the lower forms of animal
life the eye was preceded by prehensiles or feelers which
acted in part as eyes. In the evolution of animal life, and by
the influence of the sun's rays, the prehensiles gradually
shortened and perfected until a perfect eye was produced.
It was the natural forces which produced this change, and
not the superndkiwx^l.

It is well known that if animals are kept permanently
from the action of the sun's rays the nerves of the eye be-
come atrophied, paralyzed, or useless, and the eye is
destroyed, as in the case of the fishes taken from the Mam-
moth Cave of Kentucky, where for generations they had
existed in darkness. They had spots on the head that
looked like eyes, but they were not eyes; the fish were as
blind at one end as at the other. When those fish were
exposed to the rays of the sun for an extended time the
eye was gradually re-created and the sight reproduced.
There was no superDatuml power here, no God; neither in
the original production, the loss of the eye, nor its repro-
duction. God had just as much to do with it in one case
as in the other.

You doubtless have read of the cases of the unfortunate

463 THE HUMPHHEY-DKNNETr DISGtJSStoN.

victims of religious persecution which Napoleon's aimj set
at liberty from the Roman Inquisition. Some of them had
been kept in dungeons and dark prisons for thirty or forty
years, during which their organizations had slowly adapted
themselves to surrounding conditions, and they could see a
little in the darkness of their confinement, but when
brought into the full light of the sun th 2 rays were too
powerful and they were made utterly blind. Now, God
had just as much to do with destroying their sight as he
had with immuring them in the dungeons of the Inquisi-
tion, and he had as much to do with that as he had with
designing their eyes. Very much is laid to his charge that
he is just as innocent of as are you and I.

Nearly a century ago James Hutton of Scotland, a gen-
tleman of deep reasoning, and a member, by the by, of the
Presbyterian Church, gave much thought and attention to
the secondary rocks. He was the first to advi^nce the the-
ory that rocks were formed under the ocean where the great
weight of the water prevented the volatile portions from
escaping from the effects of the great heat which prevailed
there, and that from the combined igneous and aqueous
agencies the secondary rocks were prcduced, long before
man existed on the earth. The theory startled Europe and
it was soon discovered that Hutton had unwittingly dis-
posed of God and made the Uiaiverse perform what had
been attributed to God. The theory was so damaging to
theology that Hutton was thrown into disgrace. His wife
left him because he was an Atheist. The Church and his
friends discarded him. Like a hero, however, he retained
his views, but undoubtedly the severe frigidity with which
he was treated shortened his days. But af ler his death,
James Hall, a chemist, made a series of experiments with
his crucible and retort and demonstrated beyond doubt
that Hutton was correct. Though the rocks were subject-
ed to ever so high a heat, if the gaseous parts were by
pressure prevented from escaping, a new union would take

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 463

place, with marble and other rocks as the result.' Hutton's
speculations have ripened into a settled scientific theory, and
his views are accepted by all the learned scientists of the
day, though they entirely dispense with the services of a
god in forming the rocks which compose the crust of the
earth. The more scientists investigate these subjects, the
more do they find natural causes equal to all emergencies,
and that there is no room for a God in the Universe, and
nothing for him to do.

With Tyndall I believe the Universe— or matter— pos-
sesses all the power and potencies to perform all the results
that take place, and that no outside agency is necessary or
possible. In this regard you wrong Tyndall and others.
He believes in no supernatural God that is in opposition to
the laws of the Universe, and operates outside of or above
them. There is hardly a first-class scientist of the day
who believes in a power, force or deity without the Uni-
verse. They believe that the Universe contains all the
substance and all the forces that have an existence.

You speak some three different times about the ape being
an Atheist, and assume that the nearer a man is to an ape
the more likely he is to be an Atheist. As usual, you are
entirely wrong. You know nothing about the ape being an
Atheist. He probably neither believes in a God nor disbe-
lieves in one. But this we do know, the farther back we
trace man to his primitive condition, but a remove from
the animal kingdom, the more we find he believed in gods.
He located bad gods and good gods in every department of
Nature — in the storm, in the lightning, in the winds, in the
heat, in the cold, in light and in darkness, and in every
element and condition, but as he has advanced in civiliza-
tion and intelligence, his gods have grown fewer and thin-
ner, and at length his God has become so attenuated and
etherial that he is wholly intangible and impalpable, and
the nearer he comes to nothing at all and nowhere the better
it is for all concerned. When a superstitious man becomes

464 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSIOK.

wholly emancipated from supernatural gods, he will have
more time and freedom to study the laws of the Universe
and to learn vastly more from real facts than he can ever
know from all the myths and invented gods that the world
has ever been cursed with. Your talk about *' inquiring at
the office," and the necessity of ** consulting the Divine
Scriptures " if we would be admitted into the inner courts
of nature, is mere theological twaddle. There is nothing
in it whatever.

It makes but little difference what men who have pre-
ceded us have believed upon the subject of deity. Their light
upon this subject was in proportion to their degree of intel-
lectual development. Those who lived fifty and one hun-
dred years ago were no guides for you and me to be gov-
erned by. We must investigate and decide for ourselves,
draw our own conclusions, and be guided by our own con-
victions. Of one thing I feel fully assured; and that is,
that no man who has lived in years that are passed, or is
alive at the present time, has ever been able to find a sub-
stance, a power or force outside or independent of the
IJDiverse, and when they have thought that they believed in
a god, amorphous or anthropomorphic, they have entered
entirely into the field of conjecture and speculation.

I am well aware that men have devised Brahma, Or-
muzd, Fohi, Osiris, Mithra, Indra, Baal, Zeus, Jupiter,
Odin, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, Mumbo Jumbo, and countless
other gods of more or less reputation, but I believe them
all to be figments of the human brain, having no existence
in any other locality. I have about the same respect for
any one as I have for the others and as much fear of one as
of the others. There is just as much proof that the African
Mumbo Jumbo was the author of the Universe as that the
Asiatic Jehovah was. Every nation and every man has a
right to get up a god of his own, and this right has been
very extensively exercised ; and, as I said in my last reply,
no two gods thus ix*anufactured agree in all particulars.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 465

In closing let me say, I revere the glorious Universe,
with all its powers, potencies, and pos>ibilities, some parts
of which we can all see, (and of which we are infinitesimal
fractions,) far more than an ideal something or nothing
which no man has ever seen, never can see, knows nothing
about and never can know anything about. Yes, I venerate
the grand, infinite, powerful, ever-prevalent Universe, far
more than I do the old Jewish divinty who, as has been
quaintly described, was "one who raised up enemies that
he nught conquer them — made promises that he might
break them — caused moral diseases that he might cure them
— who permitted his favorite people to go after other gods
that he might butcher them. A God who was before time
was; cogitated before there was anything to cogitate about;
who made the Universe before there was anything to make
it of, and did before there was anything to do. A God
who formed man in his own image, though his own image
had no form; created an author of evil, though not himself
the author of any evil; who caused his children to commit
the most abominable crimes, and suffer the intensest ago-
nies, though not himself the cause of either criminality or
agony. A God who saw the work he had performed was
very good, yet presently discovered that it was very bad;
foreknew that man would sin, yet was indignantly aston-
ished that he did sin ; iortknew that the forbidden fruit
would be eaten, yet damned the whole human race because
it was eaten. A God who, though always in all places,
occasionally came down from heaven just to see how the
world wagged; though always of the same opinion, occa-
sionally changed his mind ; thouLrh in good temper fre-
quently got into a towering passion; though always merci-
ful to perfection, yet often murdered millions of innocent
human beings; and though without parts, upon a particular
occasion showed his hack parts, and on another occasion
iii:-^ full fi4ure to some seventy-five men.

A God so deceptive as to send upon his people "strong

466 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

delusions " that they might believe a lie, so very silly as to
suffer himself to be checkmated by the Devil, and so fero-
ciously cruel that no human tyrant could ever equal him in
monstrous severity and vengeance. A God whose presence
would make a hell of heaven ; whose virtues are vices (Ex.
XX, 5), whose reason would disgrace an idiot (Ex. xxi, 21),
whose laws would shock a savage (Num. xv, 31-35), whose
fickleness provokes derision (Jer. xv, 6), and whose whole
character is a horrible compound, an "intense concentra-
tion" of the worst vices which have stained the worst
human natures (Ex. xxxii, 27 ; Ezek. xiv, 9 ; 1 Kings, xxii,
21, 22). " He is the all-wise being who made man upright,
but could not keep him so ; made the Devil, but could not
control him ; made all things pure, yet could not preserve
them from corruption ; who doomed countless millions for
the innocent error of an individual ; destroyed by the Del-
uge every living soul because of their wickedness, except
three pair, who begat a second race as wicked as the first ;
provided an eternal heaven for the fools who accept, and an
eternal hell for the wise who reject his ' holy Gospel '; who
after begetting himself upon somebody else, sent himself
to be mediator between himself and everybody else ; after
being derided, spurned, cursed, hated, laughed at, scourged,
and nailed to the cross, got himself decently buried as pre-
liminary to mounting once more to the right hand of him-
self, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the
dead, when there shall be neither quick nor dead. Whose
history should be written in blood, for indeed it is a bloody
history; whose name inspires disgust, for it is the name of
an imaginary fiend, and whose religion should be univers-
ally execrated, for it is the religion of horror."

I have thus given a dim picture of the God. of the Jews,
the God of the Christians, the God of the Rev. G. H. Hum-
phrey; but not the God of D. M. Bennett. You deem it a
great virtue to believe in your god and a great sin to believe
in mine. Like thousands of other theologians, you heap

tHE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 467

odium upon me because I cannot believe in your vengeful
personal God, a personal devil, a burning hell, and all the
other miserable theological rubbish of which your system
is composed, but I cannot help it. I must believe in that
which seems reasonable and truthful to me, and can only
wonder how you can accept that old Jewish monstrosity
whose portrait is feebly portrayed above. I esteem my god,
the Universe, as much superior, in every sense of the word,
to the fickle tutelary god of the Jews as the glorious sun
that illuminates the entire solar system is brighter that
the tiny lightning-bug. You go on, if you choose, in still be-
lieving your absurd superstitions, myths and fables. I can
afford to wait patiently for the steady advance of truth
and the further appreciation of the operations of the grand
Universe. I am satisfied the time is surely coming when
few sensible men will entertain the crude opinions you
still persistently hug to your bosom, and when the truths
of nature and reason will far transcend all belief in gods,
devils, holy ghosts, virgin-mothers, fatherless sons, and
every fable and myth of which theology is composed.
Begging pardon for detaining you so long, I remain,
Sincerely yours, D. M. Bennett.

MR. HUMPHRBT.

D. M. Bennett, Dear Sir : Your disquisition on Athe-
ism is a mixed mixture of theoretical errors with his-
torical blunders. You have epitomized Btichner pretty
well ; but do you not know that Dr. Biichner is only
a second-rate man among the thinkers of Germany ?
He has done but little more for philosophy in that coun-
try than Ingersoll has done for jurisprudence, science,
emancipation, and Union in this. Perhaps "Dr." is as
becoming a title for one who has added nothing to the sum-

468 THE HUMPHRET-BENiTBTT DISCUSSION.

total of scientific knowledge, as "Colonel "is for a man
who was not heard of until after the War. You go out of
your way to expatiate on Chance. Of course, you did not
remember that this word was flr<t introduced into phi-
losophy by the atheistic Democritus, the father of the atom-
istic theory. You must have been speaking at random when
you said that I '* wronged Tyndall and others." I am pre-
pared to say that the "first-class scientists of the day" do
" believe in a power, force, or deity without the Universe.*'

The late Agassiz was a religious man. Perhaps you
remember that he opened his School of natural history, on
Penikese Island, with prayer.

Principal Dawson, the leading geologist of Canada,
believes in the Bible as firmly as in the white marble layers
of the earth's crust. He has written several books to rec-
oncile Scripture and science.

Prof. James D. Dana, of Yale, accepts the records of
Genesis as implicitly as those of Geology.

Dr. Asa Gray, tj^e great botanist, concludes his Address
before "The American Association for the Advancement
of Science," 1872, as follows: ''Let us hope, and I confi-
dently expect, that it is not to last ; that the religious faith
which survived without a shock the notion of the fixedness
of the earth itself, may equally outlast the notion of the
absolute fixedness of the species which inhabit it ; that in
the future, even more than in the past, faith in oi'der^ which
is the basis of science, will not — as it cannot reasonably —
be dissevered from faith in an Ordainer^ which is the basis
of religion."

Daniel Kirkwood, the eminent mathematical discoverer,
believes in a personal God and in an exalted Christ.

Prof. Marsh, whom Huxley complimented in his Chick-
ering Hall Lectures, is a very firm believer in a living God.

The Duke of Argyll, who is no mean scientist, is an
orthodox Christian ^See his Reign of Law).

Janet stands among the first philosophers of France; but

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 469

he has written a book expressly to combat BUchner's teach-
ings.

Prof. Owen is perhaps the first comparative anatomist of
the age ; but it is well known that he has no sympathy
with atheistic materialism.

Mivart is a thorough Theist, as his late work on Evolution
shows.

Sir Wm. Thomson says: " Overpowering proof of intel-
ligence and benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever
perplexities, whether metaphysical or scieiitific, turn us
away from them for a time, they conie back to us with
irresistible force, showing to us through nature the influ-
ence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings
depend upon one ever- acting Creator and Ruler " (Address
beioFe the British Association at its meeting in Edinburgh,
18i?l).

Dr. Wm. B. Carpenter has penned such sentiments as the
following: " The Immutability of the Divine Nature is no-
where more clearly manifested than in the continuance of the
same mode of action— not merely through the limited period
of Human experience, but, as we have now strong reason
to believe (on Scientific grounds alone), from the commence-
ment of the present system of the Universe — which enables
us to discern somewhat of the Plan on which the Creator
has acted, and is still acting." "A deeper scrutiny has
shown us that the Man of Science cannot dispense with the
notion of a Power always working throughout the Mechan-
ism of the Universe; and that on scientific grounds alone,
this Power may be regarded as the expression of Mind"
(Mental Physiology, K Y., 1875, pp. 438, 691-708).

R. A. Proctor is certainly no Atheist. His first series of
Astronomical Lectures in this country was delivered under
the auspices of the Young Men's Christian Association of
New York. I find his works full of recognition of an
Almighty God (See his Our Place among Infinities, N.
Y., 1875, pp. 34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 312, etc.). In his last Lee-

4^6 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

turo in Association Hall, New York, delivered Oct. 28,
1873, he said: ** Inasmuch as the work is a study of sci-
ence— that is to say, a knowledge of the works and
ways of God — it cannot but lead to higher ideas of the
wisdom and omniscience of the Almighty."

If Tyndall is not a professed Theist, in the accepted
sense of that word, neither is he an Atheist. His works
betray a deeper belief in God than he is willing to avow in
words. He nowhere asserts that Matter and only Matter
exists, or that mere Force is sufficient to account for the
existence and condition of the Universe. In answer to
Napoleon's question, "Who made all these?" he says:
"That question remains unanswered, and science makes
no attempt to answer it. . . Science is mute in reply to
these questions. But if the materialist is confounded and
science rendered dumb, who else is prepared with a solu-
tion? To whom has this arm of the Lord been revealed ?
Let us lower our heads and acknowledge our ignorance,
priest and philosopher, one and all. . . You never hear the
really philosophical defenders of the doctrine of Uniformity
speaking of impossibilities in Nature. They never say, what
they are so constantly charged with saying, that it is impos-
sible for the Builder of the universe to alter His work. .
. . They have as little fellowship with the atheist who
says there is no God, as with the theist who professes to
know the will of God " (Fragments of Science, N. Y.,
1872, pp. 93, 121, 162). In his famous Belfast Address he
implies that Matter had "a Creator"; asserts that *' physi-
cal science cannot cover all the demands of his (man's)
nature "; and declares that " the whole process of evolution
is the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to
the intellect of man. As little in our day as in the days
of Job can man, by searching, find this Power out."

J. Stuart Mill said in the " general result" of his discus-
sion of Theism, that *' the indication given by such evi-
dence as there is, points to the creation, not indeed of the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. it!

universe, but of the present order of it, hy an Intelligent
Mind, whose power over the materials was not absolute,
whose love for his creatures was not his sole actuating in-
ducement, but who nevertheless desired their good"
(Three Essays on Religion. N. Y., 1874, p. 242).

Like Tyndal', Herbert Spencer stoutly contends that he
is neither a Pantheist nor an Atheist. True, he would not
call himself a Theist ; but he attributes the origin of the
Universe to an ''Unknown Reality." He says that "if
science and religion are to be reconciled, the basis of rec-
onciliation must be this deepest, widest and most certain
of all facts, — that the Power which the universe manifests
is utterly inscrutable " (First Priucioles of a New System
of Philosophy, K Y., 1869, p. 46).

Mr. Darwin is not so vague or "inscrutable." He is in
no sense an Atheist. He admits the agency of a First
Cause in a personal Creator. In the conclusion of his
" Origin of Species " he says : " I see no good reason why
the views given in this volume should shock the religious
feelings of any one. . . . Authors of the highest eminence
seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species
has been independently created. To my mind it accords
better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter
hy the Creator, that the production and extinction of the
past and present inhabitants of the world should have been
due to secondary causes, like these determining the birth
and death of the individual. . . . There is grandeur in
this view of life, with its several powers, having been orig-
inally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one''''
(N. Y., 1873, pp. 421428-9).

I trust you wiil not misunderstand me. I do not say that
these men all believe in God in the same sense that a
Christian does. I only hold that none of them deny the
existence of God; hence, they are not Atheists.

It is true that little imitators have tried to deduce Athe-
ism from their philosophy, and some Christians have

472 TFB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

charged it with that tendency. How prone men are to take
an ell where they get an inch 1 In the same way Calvin-
ism has been confounded with Fatalism, and Liberty with
License. We are to judge of the opinions of these men
only from their own words.

Your notion of the Universe rests on an assumption,
which, as the preceding extracts show, the " first-class sci-
entists of the day" regard as utterly inadmissible. No theory
that excludes contrivance and design from the world can
possibly account for all its phenomena. Blind force
could never contrive such wonderful compensations and cor-
respondences as Nature exhibits. Mindless matter could
not produce such prospectim arrangements as often meet
our eyes. There is nothing in the condition of an unborn
infant calculated to provide milk for it when born. There
is nothing in the life-germ of an egg that could conceivably
furnish itself beforehand with the yolk-food necessary to its
nourishment previously to hatching. The same remark
will apply to the seeds of plants. There is a pj'opJieiic ele-
ment in Nature that can not be explained without refer-
ence to a designing Mind. The words of the psalmist and
the prophet are at once more sublime and more true than
the dogmatic deliverances of atheistic Materialists : "The
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttered speech,
and night unto night showeth knowledge " (Ps, xix, 1, 3).
" Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created
these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he
calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might,
for that he is strong in power; not one faileth" (Is. xl, 26).

Your la!?t Reply bristles with distortions, garblings, half-
truth<, and untruths. No Christian believes the Bible in
the sense you attribute to it.

You speak of all the Biblical writers as "unknown."
They were not more unknown than other classic authors.
This species of " criticism " has been applied to other than

*HE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 473

Scriptural writers. It has been maintained that there
never was such a man as Homer, and that the Iliad is only
a compilation of floating rhapsodies. It has been held that
the histories of Herodotus are the work of a later hand. It
has been argued that " Shakspeare " was none other than
Lord Bacon. Some Catholic " critics " have ascribed the
Eoman classics to the mouks of the Middle Ages. These
notions are generally regarded only as erudite absurdities.
It is the conviction of mankind that the ancient classics are
really the compositions of the men to whom they have
always been ascribed. On the same principle, it is believed
that the books of the Bible were written by those whose
names they have ever borne.

As to those books that are anonymous, they are trust-
worthy, because the Jewish nation, from the very first,
received them as authentic, and because their historical
contents are attested by collateral records, while their
didactic portions carry their own recommendation. Such
pastorals as Ruth and Esther, and such lyrics as the name-
less Psalms could have no more intrinsic value from the
names of their authors. Like Junius' Letters, or the
"Nebular Hypothesis," they rest entirely on their own
internal characler. Legal documents that have been ap-
proved by the court, and duly filed, continue authentic
forever, though the names of the clerks who wrote them
may not be known. The tune of " Old Hundred " is not a
whit less precious because its composer cannot be ascer-
tained.

You put the formation of the Canon entirely too late.
Dr. Samuel Davidson is certainly Rationalistic and schol-
arly enough to suit you. Some of his statements are
extravagant, and, like all his later writings, Oermanolatrous»
But he was compelled to admit that the ten words proceeded
from Moses himself; that the song of Deborah, the Psalma
of David, and the odes of Solomon, were genuine; that
Ezra edited the Pentateuch; that the prophets were included

474 TBE EUMPHRET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

in the completed Canon; and that the New Testament was
received as an infallible guide before the close of the second
century (The Canon of the Bible, London, 1877, pp. 5, 9-11,
85, etc.)- The Greek translation of the Old Testament,
known as the Septuagint,- was made in the latter half of the
third century before Christ. From this we see that the
Jewish Scriptures were at that time already compiled and
received by the nation. That the New Testament Canon
was collected at an early date is proved by the fact that it
contains no rudiments of the Romish corruptions that began
to develop so soon, and are so manifest in the Apocryphal
New Testament, such as Mariolatry, transubstantiation,
pontifical supremacy, etc. When we remember that the
books constituting the Canon were included in it because
they had always been authoritative, we feel at once that there
is no real difficulty in this matter (See art. "Canon," in
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible).

You seem to be possessed by the "strong delusion" that
the ancient Jews offered human sacrifices. You mis-
understand Lev. xxvii, 29. That verse only says that
everything devoted of men shall not be redeemed; but shall
surely be put to death. Moses certainly would not so stul-
tify himself as to make a thing lawful in one place that he
had prohibited elsewhere. Kitto says on this subject : ' 'It is
under these circumstances (the prevalence of human sacri-
fices) a striking fact that the Hebrew religion, even in its
most rudimental condition, should be free from the con-
tamination of human sacrifices. The case of Isaac and that
of Jephthah's daughter cannot impair the general truth, that
the offering of human beings is neither enjoined, allowed,
nor practiced in the Biblical records. On the contrary,
such an offering is strictly prohibited by Moses, as adverse
to the will of God, and an abomination of the heathen "
(Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, article "Sacrifice,
Human ").

The Bible is not "an advocate and supporter " of tyrants.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 476

It is not its fault if interested men have so misconstrued it.
Tlie Hebrews were taught to rebel against the inhuman
Pharaoh. They were forbidden to "rule one over another
with rigor" (Lev. xxv, 43, 46, 53). The Jewish kings
were reproved for oppressing the people (2 Chron. xvi, 10).
The Old Testament is so far from advocating the cause of
monarchs — to say nothing of tyrants — that the Israelites
were censured for demanding a king (1 Sam. viii.). Jahn
describes the character of the Jewish Commonwealth as
follows: '' From the circumstance, that the people possessed
so much influence, as to render it necessriry to submit laws
to them for ratification, and that they even took it on them-
selves sometimes to propose laws, or to«resist those which
were enacted; from the circumstance also, that the legis-
lature of the nation had not the power of laying taxes, and
that the civil code was regulated and enforced by God him-
self, independently of the legislature, Lowman and John
David Michaelis are in favor of considering the Hebrew
government a Democracy. . . The Hebrew government,
putting out of view its theocratic features, was of a mixed
form, in some respects approaching to a democracy, in
others assuming more of an aristocratical character "
(Archaeology, Sect. 219). Thus, the Bible gives no color
of sanction to tyranny. It enjoins submission to kings as
the best course to pursue where those kings "rule in right-
eousness." It says we had better sometimes bear the ills
we have than fly to others that we know not of. It dis-
courages riotousness and seditiousness. But it recognizes
distinctly the right of the people in the affairs of govern-
ment (See Ex. xix, 7-9; Num. xxxvi, 1-9; Sam. xi, 14, 15).
The Bible has not done more toward degrading woman
than any other influence in the world. What are the
facts ? Is the Bible surrounded by more feminine abase-
ment than any other " influence "? Are the Chinese, Hin-
doo, Mohammedan, Hottentot, or the Indian women in a
belter condition than those where the Word of God is

476 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DtSCUSSION.

known and respected ? Was woman dishonored among a
people where a Miriam conducted the chorus of praise, and
where a Deborah judged the nation and led its armies to vic-
tory ? Is the doctrine — whether it be true or not is imma-
terial to this point — that she was made the vehicle of the In-
carnation degrading to woman ? Where is the book that
reflects such honor on female purity and beauty as the
Bible ? Are not the female seminaries and colleges of our
land almost all under the auspices of religious denomina-
tions ? Of course, the husband is the head of the wife.
This is no less a dictum of nature and reason than
of the Scriptures. Does Infidelity mean that a hen-pecked
husband is the finishing-stroke of a perfected civilization ?
The late M. Thiers was not "influenced " by the Bible. He
"was always a skeptic." When a young man he seduced
a stock-broker's wife, lived on terms of criminal intimacy
with her until her deaths ind subsequently made his own
bastard daughter his wife. — iV! F. Herald, Sept. 4, 1877.
Would such be your ideal method of exalting the fair sex ?
Is the " Free-Love" doctrine that woman is to be "kept"
only until Lust is tired of her, more ennobling than the in-
spired maxim, *' So ought men to love their wives as their
own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For
no man ever yet hated his own flesh ; but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church" (Eph. v, 28, 29)?
Neither did the Bible approve of polygamy. God created
but one wife for one man. The bigamy of Lamech is men-
tioned as a monstrosity. The Deluge swept these primeval
Mormons from the earth. Noah and his family were
monogamists. The Mosaic law did not commend, far less
command polygamy. That law bore a relation to it simi-
lar to that of the Constitution of the United States to
Mormonism. Plural marriages were regulated where they
could not be prevented. Their numerous wives were a
reproach and a snare to those who had them. The Apos-
tles were monogamists. Jesus says that only two are made

THE HUMPHBET BENNETT DISCtTSSIOir. 477

oac flesh by marriage (Mat. xix, 6). According to the New
Testament, the husband is the head of the wife, not of
wives (Eph. v, 23). Monogamy, then, is the Christian
Law.

The "various readings" of original copies, and the
defects of translations do not modify the meaning of the
Bible in any perceptible degree. Are Shakspeare's plays
less magnificent because editions differ in some of their
words and phrases? Is the Crystal Palace ruined by a
flaw, or a particle of sand here and there in its mate-
rials ? Do a few typographical errors materially affect any
book? Certainly not. So the slight inaccuracies of manu-
scripts and versions do not substantially change the doc-
trines of the Bible.

As has been said already, the Bible was not intended to
be a text-book of natural philosophy. Its allusions to sci-
ence are incidental, but always re pectful. It was designed
from the Tery first to be a teacher of moral and spiritual
truth. We are to expect only that from it. It has nothing
to do with such disputed matters as the Giacial Period.
When will men begin to realize that it is not a treatise on
astronomy, geology, mathematics, navigation, fashion, den-
tistry, or cookery ? When will they learn that it was only
given to answer those questions, Whence am I ? What am
I ? Whither am I going ? How may I be prepared to go ?

You say there could be no vegetation before light. Very
well ; Genesis says Light was about the first thing that was
called forth (Gen. i, 3). We cannot know all about the
order of the creation. Possibly the Light was at first dif-
fused and illocal, and that the mention of the sun on the
fourth day signified only the collection of the Light Into
that central orb. In that case, the sun was not made ex-
clusively the light-bearer until late in the evolution of the
Universe (See Lange on Genesis, ch. i).

The wonderful events recorded in the Bible do not nec-
essarily make it suspicious. A book on geology will tell

478 THB HUMPHREY-BENNETT DIftCUiSIOK.

US of tilings "quite as startling and unusual. Dinotheria,
megatheria, mastodons, hairy elephants, bats bigger than
eagles, and forests of inconceivable luxuriance and density
were miracles compared with the present products of the
earth. If marvels that have ceased to be make the Bible
iucredible, they do fully as much in the ?ame direction for
geology.

I had two objects in view when I arranged those self-
contradictions of Thomas Paine: 1st. To show that you
can half- worship some writings, though they contain dis-
crepancies, which shows that the alleged "self-contradictions
of the Bible " are not the real reasous of your enmity against
it. All would be well had you such charity for the fail-
ings of the patriarchs as you have shown to corrupt but im-
penitent Infidels. All would be peaceable, if you came to the
Bible with a tonth of the indulgence that you give to the
blundering, outgrown writings of scoffers and doubters.
Your prejudices are as inveterate against Christianity as they
arc blind in favor of Infidelity. 2nd. I wanted to show that
the ideas of any man could be made to appear self -contra-
dictory, with a little garbling, disjointing, collocation, and
then leaving them "without comment." You say I quoted
Paine unfairly. I know I did in some instances ; but I did
it in sci'upulowi imitation of your treatment of the Bible.

The Bible tloes not exactly "teacU'that belief is a merit
worlhy of eternal life and disbelief a crime deserving of
eternal punishment." It is not the mere abstract belief or
disbelief, that saves or condemns, but the inevitable out-
come of those states of the .soul. These words are used in
the Scriptures in a sense that comprehends man's entire
character, inwardly and outwardly. Besides, the Bible
does not say that there is savimr mer't even in Faith. Faith
is only a condition of salvat'on. The Merit, on the ground
of which the Divine Acceptance is accorded to the sinner,
is vested in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You fail to perceive that the Bible contains any doc-

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCtTSSION. 47d

trines peculiar to itself. I liave specified several of them,
which, it seems, you did not notice. Let me then recapit-
ulate, and give you some of them. They will show the
ori;j;inality of the Bible, and its superiority over all other
venerated books.

1. It teaches Monotheism. The Zend Avesta *' contains
prayers to a multitude of deities" (Clarke's Ten Great Relig-
ions p. 187). *'The religion of the Veda is Polytheism"
(Miiller's Chips from a German Workshop vol. i, p. 27).
Even Renau admits "that the Jewish race was the first of all
the nations of the world to arrive at the knowledge of one God "
(Ibid p. 344). The Monotheism of the Koran was borrowed
from the Bible.

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord " (Deut.
vi, 14). Such was the Jew's confession of faith. El Shad-
dai, Adonai, Jah, and Jehovah, were only different names
for the same Being. It is true that the word Elohlm is in
the plural number; but it is what Hebrew grammarians call
the plural of majesty. It is always used with singular
verbs.

I repeat, then, that Monotheism distinguished the Jews
from all ancient nations, and the Bible from all "sacred
books."

2. That God is eternal and infinite was a conception pecul-
iar to the Jews. The Gentiles did not regard even the
greatest of their gods as the "everlasting Father," and as
"the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity" (Is. ix, 6;
Ivii. 15).

3. Spirituality in worship is a requirement of the Bible
alone. The rites of Bacchus, Venus, and all other heathen
gods and goddesses were at best but sensual orgies.

4. The doctrine of Justification by Faith is not taught in
any book but 'he Bible.

5. The Idea of a divine Comforter is unknown outside of
the New Testament. " I will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you

480 THE HTJMPHnET-BENNETT BISCTJSSIOir.

forever, even the spirit of truth " (John xiv, 16, 17, 26).
The Gentiles had their succoring anJ avenging gods ; but
they conceived of none whose specific oflSce it was to con-
sole and soothe the sorrowful children of men. It ha«
never been said of but One: " God shall wipe away all tearg
from their eyes " (Rev. xxi, 4).

I am not now contending for the truth of these doctrines.
I only claim that they are peculiar to the Bible. I might add
many to their number ; but this will be sufficient for our
purpose.

We have touched on the slavery question under the first
proposition. Instead of repeating, I will refer you to Let-
ter V.

The Bible does not encourage idleness. On the contrary,
it says: "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack
hand ; but the hand of the diligent maketh rich " (Prov. x,
4). "If any would not work, neither should he eat" (2
Thes. iii, 10). "If any provide not for his own, and espe-
cially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith,
and is worse than an infidel " (1 Tim. v, 8).

You say "the Bible has retarded the progress of sci-
ence." That is farther from the truth than the East is
from the West. The grandest works of art, such as
Rciphael's, Da Vitici's, and Angelo's, are traceable to its
influence. Haydn, Mozart, Mendelss hn and Handel
founded their master-pieces on its sublime conceptions. It
was the suggester of Milton's Paradise Lost. The plays
of Shakspeare are spangled with its words and expres-
sions. The English version of it has done more than any
other agency to establish the uniformity and preserve the
purity of the English language. Christendom knows of
no University where it was not read at its dedication. We
have seen under the second proposition that believers in it
have done incomparably more than unbelievers to promote
learning and science. There is even at the Vatican — that
uapitol of Roman Catholicism — such an immense collec-

THfl HUMPHBflY-BENNETT DiaCUflSION. 481

tion of art, science, and literature as would elicit an ever-
lasting boast from Infidels if— yes, if—ihej had anything
like it anywhere on the face of the earth. While the
"Liberals" of New York are scolding everything, *' de-
fending Communism," "apologizing for murder and invit-
ing to adultery," that good old Presbyterian elder, Mr. Jas.
Lenox, is putting some of his finishing touches on one of
the finest Public Libraries in America. And so it has
always been. The Christian, deriving his motive from the
Bible, has done the work, while the peevish Infidel, inhal-
ing his inspiration from " immortal hate," has stood by,
with a magaifying and multiplying glass in his hand, to
find faults.

You say that any man of average intelligence could write
another such a book as the Bible. How then has it hap-
pened that no one has done it ? Why does somebody not
try it ? There is plenty of ink and paper in the world.
Let us see some one attempting it. Ah ! I am mocking the
inability of man. He cannot state a moral principle, or
lay down a moral precept, that was not anticipated by that
Book. There is no room for another Bible, because the one
that we have covers all the earthly duties of man.

Your wholesale condemnation of the Bible is an insult to
the intelligence of all Christendom. If it is the absurd,
indecent, inconsistent, barbarous, injurious conglomerate
that you represent it to be, the millions who read it must be
either knaves or fools. They are fools, if all its alleged
imperfections really exist, and they fail to see them. They
are knaves, if they see them, and then decline to speak of
them. You imply that only the few who are Infidels are
acute and honest in regard to this matter. It would be dif-
ficult to decide which is the greater in this case, the esteem
of these few for their own intelligence and frankness, or
their insulting disesteem of the intelligence and frankness
of everybody else.
Well, I must pass many of your misstatements by, anri

482 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

draw tbe discussion to a close. I will say but little in gen-
eral review, and will give no recapitulation. The reader will
do liis own retrospecting and summing up. I wish, however,
to mention McGuire's "Religious Opinions and Character
of WashiDgton," New York, 1836. It is a solid work, dem-
onstrating the correctness of my position. Paulding's
"Life of Washington" is also worth reading. I have
recently seen a volume with the title "The Domestic Life
of Thomas Jefferson," by his great-grand-daughter, Sarah
iST. Randolph. It pronounces Randall the " most faith-
ful" of Jefferson's biographers. This implies the great
grand-daughter's endorsement of what Mr. Randall ^ays
about Jefferson's religious views. Let me also refer
you to Carpenter's "Inner Life of Abiaham Lincflu"'
(pp. 185-196), for more light on Lincoln's religious char-
acter.

This discussion has been pleasant to me. You have made
no personal remarks calculated to wound my feelings. You
have met me wiih uniform politeness. I can say the same
of all the attaches of the office. Mr. Eugene Macdona d,
the foreman of the printers, has always been kind, good-
natured and obliging. I will remember you all not only
with interest but esteem. The heat of the controversy may
have made Uo at times a little tart, but our friend-hip, I
trust, has not failed to grow.

I am not unconscious of my deficiencies. I have omitted
many strong points. I have given but hints, which I hope
the reader will follow up. The "Evidences of Christi-
anity " fill , jlumes. I have scarcely given the alphabet of
them. Your Replies have been about twice as loDg as my
Letters. But your task was twice as difficult. A mass
of words, boiled up^ and containing endless repetitions,
was probably better calculated than anything else, to give
your cause some slight appearance of strength. It is
when the advocate has a bad or doubtful client that he
apeaks longest to the jury. For my part, I have endeavored

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 483

to avoijj the cuttle-fish's style of conducting a combat. It
has been my aim to be clear, and to the point.

I wish to protest against the common insinuation that
preachers are hampered. There are doubtless many instan-
ces where the pew exerts too much influence over the pul-
pit. But I do not think that there is a class of men more
free to give expression to their minds than ministers.
We all know how largely the press is given to time-serving.
Politicians are always trying servilely to strike the vein of
the popular humor. " Business is business ;" and policy has
usurped the place of principle in trade and commerce.
Should a clergyman become an Infidel, and begin to preach
Infidelity, he would not miss his hearers much sooner than
an Infidel editor would lose his subscribers, should he be-
come a Christian. Look at the position of an Infidel pub-
lisher and bookseller : it is not natural for him to encour-
age a change of opinion, and, like the accient sorcerers,
(Acts xix, 13,) forfeit his stock. There are no men in the
world that are trying to use and manipulate their patrons so
as to make money out of them, more persistently than
''Liberal" publishers and lecturers. "Freethinkers" are
restrained thinkers, as much as anybody.

Permit me again to warn the reader that Infidel writers
are not always reliable. John Adams was correct when he
said that Bolingbroke was a "superficial, haughty, arro-
gant, supercilious dogmatist." The American Cyclopedia
says truly that Voltaire " was not a great thinker, not a
great poet, not a great historian . . . not authentic."
Chadwick, a "liberal" Unitarian, says Paine made "ap-
palling blunders " (Lecture on Paine, p. 24). Bro. Emmett
says on the strength of hearsay — which to the reader is
"hearsay upon hearsay"— that Bismarck is a " decided skep-
tic," if not an Atheist (Sages p. 876), whereas He>:ekiel, in
his authentic "Life of Bismarck," says he is not only a
theistbut a communicant (p. 453). Mr. Mendum, of Boston
publishes a volume of Hume's Essays, without intimaJiug

484 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUflSION.

thut they are abridged and mutilated. He also continues to
circulate Macnaught on Inspiration, after the author has
reconsidered and repudiated the position maintained in that
book. My authority for saying Mr. Macnaught has given
up those views are Dr. H. E. Thomas, Pittsburgh, Pa.,
and Dr. Wm. M. Taylor, of New York— both formerly of
Liverpool, near Everton, where Mr. Macnaught resided for
many years.

The Infidel, as well as the Christian, should go himself,
as far as possible, to the original sources of knowledge.
This is the world's great need. But, unfortunately. Infidels
are very deficient in this respect. They read a skeptical
work with implicit, or blind faith, while they do not read
the other side at all' Paine's "Age of Reason " is issued
again and again ; but "Watson's Reply is out of print. This
is a reproach, not to Christians, who do not need it, but to
Infidels, who point so often to the motto, " Hear both sides,
and then decide." I have attended a great many "Liberal
Club " meetings. I know exactly what they are. They pre-
tend to be very generous. But nothing seems ever to be left
unsaid that might hurt a Christian's feelings. Malignancy
and flippancy are nearly always shown in the discussion of
a religious subject. The speakers are given to going out of
their way to make thrusts at Christianity. It is generally ob-
servable that, while a really good argument may be quietly
appreciated by a few, it is the coarse joke, the silly pun, or
the mean insinuation that " brings down the house." It is
very seldom that there are present any indications of sober
thought, wide-ranging reading, or accurate investigation of
any kind. Herein lies the danger of Infidelity: it keeps its
victims ignorant of the facts and truths of Christianity. Where
Infidels have gone to the trouble to examine thoroughly its
' many infallible proofs" (Acts i, 3), a revolution of opin-
ion has generally followed. When Thomas drew near, and
touched the risen Lord, his doubts disappeared. When
AtUenagoras proceeded to make careful inquiries into the

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION, 485

nature and support of the Gospel system, he ceased to
doubt it, and became a defender of it. When the "young
Chalmers gave Butler's "Analogy" a serious consideration,
he was compelled to conclude that the balance of probabili-
ties was in favor of the Christian Religion. When Gilbert
West proceeded to examine the proofs of the Resurrection
of Christ, in order that he might the more completely dis-
believe and disprove it, unexpectedly to himself, he was
made to see that that Fact was more undeniable and cer-
tain than anything in history. Lord Littleton started out
to show the absurdity of Christianity, from the conversion
of St. Paul ; but after studying that event in all its rela-
tions, he came to the conclusion that it was an absolute
demonstration of the truth of what he had intended to
prove false. David Nelson has written a book on '* The
Cause and Cure of Infidelity." Every Infidel in the
world ought to read it. Mr. Nelson was himself a skeptic
for many years. He had a wide experience with that class
of men. He found them, as a rule, ignorant of the Bible.
He observed that almost every one of them who gave the
evidences of Religion a dispassionate and thorough exami-
nation, ended by believing in it. Would to God that every
skeptic would fcake the experiment ! I am confident that
if the Infidel would give the works that I have mentioned
in Letters viii and xii an unprejudiced, thorough, and
thoughtful reading, he would give up his Infidelity.

Many are deluded into the belief that Christianity is los-
ing ground. It is a vain fear for the Christian, and a vain
hope for the Infidel. The last five years have been remark-
able for accessions to the churches. The world never had
so many Bibles, churches, ministers, and genuine believers,
as it has to-day. The Gospel is not losing its hold on the
people. There are no churches so well attended in New
York and vicinity, as those in which the simple Gospel is
preached. The churches of Dr. Hall, Dr. Taylor, Dr.
Bevan, Dr. Cuyler, Dr. Duryea, Dr. Armitage, Dr. Storrs,

486 TSE SUMPHREY-BENNETT DTSCUSSIOIT.

Dr. Hepworth, Dr. Deems, Dr. Tyng, Jr., etc., etc., are
full every Sunday, Tvhile tlu congregations of Frothing-
ham, Alger, Adler, etc., are never immense, after all the
coaxing, beckoning, and drumming up of sensational ad-
vertisements. The Bible Society is not bankrupt yet. Last
year it issued 881,056 Testaments and Bibles. The songs
of Sankey and the preaching of Moody have charms for
the masses that Infidelity can never emulate.

It has always been the wishful cry of its enemies that the
Christian Religion is *' dying out." They thought so when
Christ was crucified and buried ; but he arose, leading
captivity captive. They thought so when the Apostles
were dispersed from Jerusalem ; but that only spread it the
faster. They thought so when the Roman Emperors put
thousands of Christians to death ; but the blood of the
martyrs was the seed of the Cburch. They thought so
when Julian apostatized, and turned all his influence
against it ; but Julian died exclaiming, *' O Galilean, thou
hast conquered !" They thought so when the English Deists
made their big boasts ; but Deism is out of fashion, and
the Word of God is as quick and powerful as ever. They
thought so when the French Atheists set up a Goddess of
Reason, offered human sacrfjices to her, and aeclared Death
to be an eternal sleep. But those Atheists have passed
away ; and their memory is the red-liglit danger-signal of
history, warnirg the world away from their footsteps.
They thought so when the German Rationalists flooded the
Fatherland with their "destructive criticisms"; but Ra-
tionalism is on the wane, and giving place to Evangelical
truth. Some think so now, when Materia;lism is vaunting
it elf ; but Christianity has overcome that foe before, and
it will vanquish him again. The gates of Hell shall not
prevail against the Church of Christ 1

I am about to lay my pen aside. Let us. Friend Bennett
and dear readers, take a serious view of life. We all know
that the world is not just as it ought to be. There is weep-

tHE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 487

ing and wailing and gnashing of teeth all around us. O
the Niagara of souls that is plunging over the precipice of
ruin, in our eight every day /

O the havoc of sin! How shall we banish it from our own
hearts and from the world ? is the question of questions.
The possibilities of human nat. re are at once appalling and
pleasing to contemplate. How much man is capable of
suffering or ejojoyicg ! How a bad chracter keeps petrify-
ing and becoming more and more unchangeable! How vast
is the vista of Immortality, opening out before us ! Eter-
nity should be the motive power in our lives. The fashion
of this world passe:h away. The earth itself will run its
course and die. The old clock of Time, whose ticks are
centuries, will stop at last. Time shall be no more. Human
schemes and theories will sink successively into oblivion,
like a baby's dreams. But Ike Word of our God shall stand
forever. Let us take unto ourselves the whole armor of God,
that we may be able to withstand in the evil day, and hav-
ing done all to stand (Eph. vi, 10-18). Let us run no risks
about everlasting things. Good bye, and God bless you,
for Christ's sake. Yours in the bonds of friendship,

G. H. Humphrey.

MR. BBIVNBTT.

Rev. G. H. Humphrey, Dear Sir: Once more, and for
the last time, at present, it devolves upon me to correct some
of the errors you seem so disposed to fall into, and to set
you aright where you so easily get wrong. I have hoped
you would come to see the truth as it is in Nature, and
cease to be led aside by the myths and fallacies that have
led so many millions astray. I still indulge the hope that
your native good sense, with the information you have
acquired by study, will ultimately lead you to discard the

488 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

errors of ecclesiasticism and superstition which still hover
over you. This hope I will continue to indulge. Many
men with faith in the supernatural as strong as your own,
who for a large portion of their lives saw dinaly and as
through a heavy fog, have lived to see the mists cleared
away, the clouds dispelled by the breezes of Nature, and the
sun of truth and reason shine forth with permanent bright-
ness and splendor.

It is very easy for you to say that my '"disquisition on
Atheism is a mixed mixture of theoretical errors and his-
torical blunders." Instead of trying to set aside my
remarks thus with a single effort, would it not have been
better in you to have shown up the errors and pointed out the
blunders ? Probably you took the course easiest for you.
How easy, indeed, it is for you to be mistaken. You say I
epitomized Btichner. To show how wildly you strike I must
inform you— though I do it with a degree of shame — that
I have never read Btichner, but I know enough of him to
be satisfied that you wrong him by denouncing him as a
second-rate man. He was a profound thinker, and Ger-
many has produced few clearer and more penetrating
minds.

Your last vindictive fling at Ingersoll I will try to par-
don ; and while it is not an indication 'of greatness of
mind, it is to be hoped your gratuitous aspersions of him
do you a certain amount of good and aff'ord you a degree
of secret pleasure.

I will admit that Agassiz retained considerable con-
nection with orthodox dogmas ; that Prof. Dawson, of
Montreal, does the same ; that Mivart is a theologian, and
that he would denounce you as a heretic ; but most of the
others you named are very far from holding the belief in a
personal God, a persooal Devil, or a literal hell, with the
many absurdities growing out of that belief. It is much
like your trying to make a Christian of Jefferson to under-
take to show that Darwin, Spencer, Tyndall, John Stuart

THE HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 489

Mill, Proctor, Carpenter, Sir Wm, Thomson, etc., enter-
tain the faintest belief in a personal God in the shape of
a man with violent passions and impulses, with the ability
to fly into a rage upon the most trivial provocation and to
send dire judgments and fierce destruction upon his own
offspring. There is a great difference between being in-
fluenced with the grandeur of the Universe and the myste-
ries connected with its actual existences and accepting the
very imperfect and childish views of deity as the source
of all things as portrayed in the Jewish Scriptures.

I am aware there are many shades of belief, and that
tsdien of learning and science do not yet all arrive at the
same conclusion respecting the Infinite, the eternal
source of life and being. As for myself, I comprehend that
it is contained within the Universe, and it is clear to my
mind that the leading scientists and thinkers of our day
know nothing of, and believe nothing of, a force, a power,
outside of the Universe or disconnected from it. Early
teachings and early impressions are very difficult to throw
off, and the theological bias we receive in our childhood
remains with us, to a certain degree, through life.

I am aware, too, of the fact that certain minds, however
intelligent and learned, have a strong tendency to hedge,
to cater to and sustain, to a certain extent, the popular
religious theories; and they feel a strong dislike to oppose
the theolQgical notions which still prevail in this country
and in Europe. It is even painful to witness the incentive
there is offered to some scholars to bow to the supremacy
of antique faiihs and mysticisms which for many centuries
have dominated the world. It will require, however, a
greater amount of ingenuity than even you possess to make
it appear to intelligent minds that Darwin, Spencer, Hux-
ley, Tyndall, Proctor, Helmholtz, Haeckel, Schmidt, and
others of the brilliant and studious scientists of our time,
have the least afllliation with the very imperfect theories
founded upon the Jewish and Christian Bible.

406 THE HtJMPHEET-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

You would have it appear that Tyndall is not an Atheist,
or that he believes in some kind of a God. I certainl}^ do
not wish to formulate a belief for him, but will rather give
his own words bearing upon the subject. In reply to his
critics he fearlessly said: " 1 do not fear the charge of Athe-
ism. Nor should I ever disavow it in reference to any
definition of the Supreme which he or his order would be
likely to frame." While he may not be an Atheist in the
definition you give the term, he certainly recognizes no
personal being or God who devised, builded, and governs
the Universe. Upon this point he says: "As far as the
eye of science has hitherto ranged through Nature, no in-
trusion of purely creative power into any series of phe-
nomena has ever been observed. The assumption of such
a power to account for special phenomena has always
proved a failure. It is opposed to the very spiril of
science, and I therefore assumed the responsibility of hold-
ing up in contrast with it that method of nature which it
has been the vocation and triumph of science to disclose,
and in the application of which he can alone hope for
further light. Holding, then, that the nebular and all
subsequent life stand to each other in the relation of ihe
germ to the finished organism, I re-affirm here, not arro-
gantly or defiantly, but without a shade of indistinctness,
the position laid down in Belfast."

The gist of that address, after reviewing the various
theories and philosophies that had existed in the world,
and after quoting and virtually accepting the position of
Lucretius, that *' Nature is seen to do all things sponta-
neously of herself without the assistance of the gods," and
Bruno, that " Matter is not that mere empty capacity
which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the Uni-
versal Mother who brings forth all things as the fruit of
her own womb," Tyndall boldly asserts that "the ques-
tions here raised are inevitable. They are approaching us
with accelerated speed, and it is not a matter of indiffer-

*rHfi HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 491

ence whether they are introduced with reverence or irrev-
erence. Abandoning all disguise, the confession I feel
bound to make before you is that I prolong the vision
backward across the boundary of experimental evidence,
and discern in that matter. which we in our ignorance, and
notwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator,
have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and
potency of every form of life." It was this quotation, you
will doubtless remember, which especially brought dow^n
upon Tynd all's head the fiery and frantic denunciations of
theologians all over Christendom.

Herbert Spencer, as I understand, is no more a believer
in a personal God as described in the Bible than is Tyndall.
What he calls the "Unknowable" is nothing more than
the " intricate powers of the Universe, too deep, too vast
for man's comprehension." He does not believe the Uni-
verse had a designer, or that it is so imperfect as to be un-
able to run without a superintendent. The same of Dar-
win. While he does not dogmatically or offensively wish to
oppose the theoretical views of the majority of mankind, his
entire philosophy and theories, based upon thousands of
minute observations, show that he has never found a per-
sonal God, and that he sees no place for or need of one in
the operations of the Universe.

You say my " notion of the Universe rests upon assump-
tion." Indeed ! What does the existence of your God rest
upon but assumption ? The great difference betw^een the
two is that the Universe is a reality. We constantly come
in contact with it and are parts of it. We can subject it
to numerous testa which convince us that it is real and
palpable. We can see it, feel it, weigh it, measure it, and
prove thousands of times over that not an atom of it can
be forced out of existence. But your God is wholly an
assumption. No one has ever seen him. l^o man knows
aught about him, and all they have who think they know is
what one has told to another, and he to another, and so on

493 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCtTSSlON.

for thousands of year:^^^. There is not the first particle of
proof that he has an existence save in the imaginations of
men like yourself, whose position in society, whose succees
in life, whose standing in the estimation of Mrs. Grundy &
Co., whose ability to procure fine, fashionable garments,
and whose very bread and butter depend upon holding up
and sustaining the God or gods which were devised
thousands of years ago, when man was more ignorant
than now. The system of mythology, of which theology
is a branch, is in the view of its supporters and defenders
a great system. It has proved a rich mine to the millions
who have assiduously worked it for several millenniums.
It is, perhaps, not strange that a lode which has turned out
such rich nuggets of wealth, comforts, reputation, venera-
tion, with immunity from toil and hardship, should be
retained with the utmost tenacity. We could not expect
that men who are fond of a distinguished position in life,
who like to secure all the good things of the world without
toiling to produce them, who like to be venerated as almost
gods themselves, or at least the immediate agents for the
gods, would voluntarily tear down the idols they have
built and which support them so munificently, and will-
ingly throw away the myths and fallacies which have
served them so good a turn. No ; they may be expected
to cling to the gods and the myths so long as their service
jjai/s. Not until the people become better informed and are
able from increased intelligence to discard all the old myths
and superstitions, thus impelling them to discontinue the
support of the priests who make it their business to
talk about the gods and dimly reveal their hidden attri-
butes, can they be expected to discontinue the profitable
calling ? There are, of course, some honorable exceptions.
Considerable numbers of the clergy are coming to take an
entirely different view of the theological field from that
which they have hitherto held. The revelations of science
are showing them the crude fallacies of the old system, and

THE HUMPHKaY-BENNBTT DISCUSSION. 493

they have the honesty to follow where truth leads. May
many more do likewise.

Of course there is much in the Universe that is wonder-
ful, much that man is not fully able to comprehend. The
process of reproduction in vegetable and animal life is a
marvel; the intricacies of life are full of wonder. The
mysteries of crystalization are not fully understood. The
solution of a given substance when passing through the
process of crystalization always produces precisely the
same character of crystnl?, while the solution of another
substance will form crystals of an entirely different con-
struction— always foUowiDg unvarying laws. An expert
can always determine the name of a substance by examin-
ing its crystals. The formation of crystals in hundreds of
forms and angles is nearly as curious as the various phases
of life. Chemical affinity attd the numerous chemical
combinations are equally marveJous. The motions of the
heavenly bodies, the rotation and revolutions of suns and
worlds, the balancing and commingling of the forces of
the Universe, all, all are wonderful to comprehend; but
everything moves in obedience to Nature's laws, and
nothing by supernatural law; and those laws were never
made, and there was never a time when they did not exist.
It requires no supervision of a God to cause the germina-
tion of a kernel of corn in the warm soil in the spring of
the year, nor for the trees to put on their foliage, nor for
the earth to perform its daily revolutions, causing day and
night, nor to send it on its annual course around the sun,
causing summer and winter. It is the same with the mill-
ions of operations and changes that are constantly taking
place in every part of the Universe. Every effect has a
natural cause sufficient to produce it, and it has ever been
so. No result has ever taken place that was not the pro-
duct of natural causes and forces. This being so, the
supernatural is never needed and is never present. The
Universe is sufficient for every emergency, and the services

494 TFE HU:vrPTTRF,T-BENNRTT DTSCtTSStON.

of a God are not required, either ia the simplest operations
that take place around us or in the most grand and gigan-
tic that are constantly occurring throughout the vast ex-
panse of the Universe, the millions of suns and worlds,
countless billions of miles apart, and at distances from us
too vast for the mind to comprehend. The Universe, I
repeat, is sufficient for all necessities, in all localities, and
at the greatest distances; while a personal or anthropomor-
phic or Bible God could not possibly be present in millions
of spheres and constellations at the same time and at the
immense distances we know they are apart.

It is only natural for the ignorant mind, in taking a dim
viow of the Universe — all that we can see from our planet
being a mere point in the vast and boundless whole— to
exclaim, "All this must have had a designer, an architect,
a governor and controller," but, in my opinion, the
Universe is far greater and grander, more omnipresent and
omniscient, than all the gods that men have ever devised.
By the side of the vast Universe, Brahma, Ormuzd, Fobi,
Osiris, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, Mumbo-
Jumbo, and the hundreds of other gods conceived by mm,
pale into utter insignificance. One is a vast, grand reality,
and the others have no existence save in the imaginations
of superstitious men.

I cannot help observing how easy it is for you and other
theologians to speak slightly of "blind forces," "dead
matter," "mindless matter," and of their inability to pro-
duce the million of results that every moment are taking
place, when in the same breath you claim that they are the
handiwork of your God, produced by him after spec dins:
countless ages in cogitating and designing how to get them
all up. If you believe them to be the handiwork of your
God, you should at least speak respectfully of them. If you
will set aside the reality and revere a chimera in its place,
?f you believe the chimera devised the reality, you should
at least treat the reality with proper respect.

ttlE HmrPHHEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 495

I am struck with the facility with which you and others
like you disregard and set aside the reality, build up an
imaginary something or nothing in its place. It is easy for
me to believe in the existence of every form of substance
that can be demonstrate^^ whether it is in the solid, liquid,
fluid or gaseous form, and in all the forces that are insepar-
ably connected with them, whether shown as light, heat,
magncticm, electricity, attraction, gravitation, or any other
and all other forces the existence of which can be proven,
but this unknown, unreal nondescript that you call God,
which has never been seen, analyzed, tested nor demonstra-
ted— at the same dme possessing personality, form and lo-
cality— is hard for me to comprehend or believe. I have
never seen a person who knows anything about this marvel-
ous existence. All that an}' one knows about him is what
somebody has told him. But hearsay and rumor are not
satisfactory to me. When the existence of this marvelous
personality can be proven to me, I will readily believe, but
until that is done I must beg to be allowed to doubt.

It matters little who first used the word cliance in philos-
ophy, but it has thousands of times been thrown at un-
believers in a personal God and a special providence, and
has been tauntingly applied as though we believed in a
Universe which runs by chance and which has no fixed law
or government. Nothing can be more untrue or unfair. As
every event must necessarily have a producing cause there
can be no chance in the matter.

As you make Design the great argument, and prove that
the existence of a God mainly rests upon this one support, I
will quote a few paragraphs from B. F. Underwood, used
by him in his deljate with the Rev. John Marples, at Nap-
anee, Ont., in 1875. They embody my views and are better
expressed than I could express them.

" Let us view this famous argument for a moment. God
is something or nothing. To say he is nothing, is to say
there is no God. If he is something, he is not merely a

496 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

property or quality, but an existence 'per se — an entity, a
substance, whether material or immaterial is unimportant.
If he is a substance, a material or spiritual being, there
must be order, harmony, and adaptation or fitness in his
divine nature to enable him to perceive, reflect, design and
execute his plans. If deity does not reason, does not cogi-
tate, but perceives truth without the labor of investigation
and contrivance, he must still possess an adaptation or
fitness thus to perceive, as well as to execute his designs.

"To say God is without order, harmony, and adaptation
or fitness, is to say he is a mere chaos — worse than that im-
aginary chaos that theologians tell us would result if divice
agency were withdrawn from the Universe. If a being
without order, harmony and adaptation, or a divine chaos,
can create an orderly Universe, then there is no consistency
in saying that unintelligent matter could not have pro-
duced the objects that we behold. If order, harmony and
adaptation do exist in the divine mind (or in the substance
which produces thouglit, power and purpose in the divine
mind) they must be eternal, for that which constitutes the
essential nature of a god must be the eternal basis of his
being. If the order, harmony and adaptation in God are
coexistent with him, are eternal, they must be independent
of design ; for that which never began to exist could not
have been produced, and does not therefore admit of
design. If order, harmony and adaptation are independent
of design in the divine mind, it is certain that order, har-
mony and adaptation exist and are no evidence of a pre-
existent, designing intelligence.

" If order, harmony and adaptation exist which were not
produced by design — and which are, therefore, no evidence
of design — it is unreasonable and illogical to infer designing
intelligence from the fact alone that order, harmony and
adaptation exist in Nature. Therefore, an intelligent deity
cannot be inferred from the order, harmony and adaptation
in Nature. If the order, harmony and adaptation in deity

*riIE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 49?

to produce his thoughts and to execute his plans are eter-
nal, why may not the formation of matter into worlds, and
the evolutions of the various forms of vegetable and animal
life on this globe be the result of the ceaseless action of self-
existent matter in accordance with an inherent eternal prin-
ciple of adaptation? Is it more reasonable to suppose the
Universe was created, or constructed, by a being in whom
exists the most wonderful order and harmony, and the
most admirable adaptation to construct a Universe (which
order, harmony and adaptation could have had no design-
ing cause), than to suppose that the Universe itself, in its
entirety, is eternal and the self-producing cause of all the
manifestations we behold ?

"Is a G-od uncaused — and who made everything from
nothing — more easy of belief than a Universe uncaused and
existing according to its own inherent nature? Is it won-
derful that matter should be self-existent ; that it should
possess the power to form suns, planets, and construct that
beautiful ladder of life that reaches from the lowest forms
of the vegetable kingdom up to man ? How much more
wonderful that a great being should exist, without any
cause, who had no beginning, and who is infinitely more
admirable than the Universe itself I

" Again, the plan of a work is as much evidence of intel-
ligence and design as the work which embodies the plan.
The plan of a steam-engine in the mind of Fitch, the plan
of the locomotive in the mind of Stephenson, was as much
evidence of design as the piece of machinery after its me
chanical construction. If God be an omniscient being — a
being who knows everything; to whose knowledge no addi-
tion can be made — his plans must be eternal, without
beginning, and therefore uncaused. If God's plans are not
eternal, if from time to time new plans originate in his
mind, there must be an addition to his knowledge, and if
his knowledge admits of addition, it must be finite. But if
his plans had no beginning ; if, like himself, they are eter-

^8 THE HOMPHREY-BSNNETT DISCUSSION.

nal, they must, like him, be independent of design. Now,
the plan of a thing, we have already seen, is as much
evidence of design as the object which embodies the plan.
Since the plans of deity are no proof of design that pro-
duced them (for they are supposed to be eternal), the plan
of this Universe, of course, was no evidence of a designing
intelligence that produced it. But, since the plan of the
Universe is as much evidence of design as the Universe
itself, and since the former is no evidence of design, it fol-
lows that design cannot be inferred from the existence of
the Universe.

"The absurdity of the a posteriori argument for a God
consists in the assumption that what we call order and
adaptation in Nature are evidence of design, when it is evi-
dent that whether there be a God or not, order and adap-
tation must have existed from eternity, and are not there-
fore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The reason-
ing of the theologian is like that of the Hindoo in account-
ing for the position of the earth. " Whatever exists must
have some support," said he; "the earth exists, and is
therefore supported." He imagined it resting on the back
of an elephant. The elephant needing some support, he
supposed it rested on the back of a huge tortoise. He for-
got that according to his own premise, that whatever exists
must have some support, required that the tortoise should
rest on something. The inconclusiveness of his reasoning
is apparent to a child. Whatever exists is supported. The
earth exists. Therefore, the earth is supported ; it rests on
an elephant ; the elephant rests on a tortoise •, the tortoise
exists, but nothing is said about its support.

*' The theologian says order, harmony, and adaptation are
evidence of a designing intelligence that produced them.
The earth and its productions show order, harmony, and
adaptation. Therefore, the earth and its productions have
been produced by an intelligent designer. Just as the
Hindoo stopped reasoning when he imagined the earth on

TttE mjMPHREY-BBNNETT DISCtJSSION. 499

an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, so the theolo-
gian stops reasoning when he says, God made the world.
But as surely as from the premise that whatever exists
must have some support follows the conclusion that the
tortoise rests on something, as it rests on the elephant,
does it follow from the propsition that order, harmony and
adaptation are proof of an intelligent designer, that the or-
der, harmony, and adaptation in the Deity to produce the ef-
fects ascribed to him are evidence of an intelligent designer
who made him, as the various parts of Nature, adapted to one
another, are evidence of an intelligent designer that produced
them. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that there has
been an infinite succession of creative and created God?,
which is inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause, the cre-
ator of the Universe. Then why attempt to explain the mys-
teries of the Universe by imagining a God who produced
everything but himself, and why argue from the order and
fitness in the world the existence of a designer. It re-
minds me of the ostrich, that, having buried its head
in the sand so as to render invisible its pursuers, fancies
there is no further need of exertion to escape from the
dangers and difficulties which surround it.

" ' Design represented as a search after final cause, until
we come to a first cause,. and then stop,' says F. W. New-
man, 'is an argument, I confess, which in itself brings me
no satisfaction.' ' The attempt,' says Buckle, 'which Paley
and others have made to solve this mystery by rising from
the laws to the cause, are evidently futile, because to the
eye of reason the solution is as incomprehensible as the
problem, and the arguments of the natural theologian, in
so far as they are arguments, must depend on reason.'

" Design implies the use of means for the attainment of
ends. Man designs, plans, contrives, and uses secondary
agencies to accomplish his purposes, because unable to at-
tain his ends directly. But how absurd to speak of con-
trivance and design in a being of infinite power and

500 THE HUMPHRBY-BEilNEtT tUSCtJSSION.

knowledge. Man, to build a steamship, has to fell trees,
and hew them into various shapes, get iron from the earth,
and smelt it in furnaces, and work it into bolts, braces,
nails, etc. ; hundreds of workmen, carpenters, joiners,
blacksmiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers, riggers,
etc., labor for months before the vessel can be launched.
If man possessed the power to speak into existence a
steamship, would he contrive, plan, and use means to con-
struct it ? On the contrary, would it not come instantly
into existence as a complete, perfect whole ?

**But the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means
to an end, would be inconsistent with unlimited power in
man. If he were able to effect his purposes, why should
he construct a vessel with which to visit far-off lands ?
Infinite power would enable him to cross the ocean by the
mere exercise of his will. It is evident at a glance that the
use of means is incompatible with infinite knowledge and
infinite power. This argument of my friend, in proving too
much, proves nothing, and demonstrates its own worth-
lessness, and therefore we cast it aside. Design implies
finiteness; man designs and has to calculate and use means
to accomplish his end. If he were all-powerful, would he
use that power to construct ships to cross the ocean, or
armies to win battles, when he could accomplish his erd
without, and by those me^is demonstrate that he is infinite
in power ? An infinite being would not have to employ
means to complete his works; he would not have to doubt
and cogitate before he accomplished his design; that would
be the method of man. It is absurd to suppose that a God
did all those things. He supposed God infinite in every-
thing, in his power, in his love and kindness. He has
power to do everything. And yet the world is so constructed
that at every stop we take, we crush to death creatures
as minutely and curiously formed as ourselves. They kill
one another in numerous struggles, ond life has been such
a series of bloody battles, resulting in destruction of life,

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 501

that the Waterloos and Solferinos of history are nothing in
comparison. Where is the design in the volcano that
belches forth its fiery billows and buries in ruins a Pom-
peii and a Herculaneum ? Where is the design in the
tornado that sends a fleet with its precious freight of hu-
manity beneith the remorseless waves ? Where is the
design in the suffering and torture that thousands feel this
very moment in the chambers of sickness, and in the hos-
pitals full of diseases ? Where is the evidence of a great
Being who has the power to make men happy, and yet
allows the world to go on in all its misery — such misery as
it makes one's heart ache to see, and which we, imperfect
creatures as we are, would gladly stop if we could ?

"And where is the design in the thousands of facts which
science lias brought to light, showing that there are organs
and parts that serve no purpose at all, but on the contrary,
are injurious to their possessors ? Why do some animals,
like the dugong, have tusks that never cut through the
gums ? Why has the guinea-pig teeth that are shed before
it is bern ? Science tells us these rudimentary structures
are the remnants of a former state, in which these partis
were of service ; but theology which requires us to believe
that a God made all these animals as we now see them,
cannot possibly reconcile these facts with infinite wisdom
and goodness.

"Adaptation in organisms instead of having been pro-
duced by a Deity, we hold is largely the result of natural
selection. Adaptation must exist as the adjustment of
objects to their environments. If a flock of sheep be ex-
posed to the weatlier of a severe climate, those of them
having the thinnest wool affording the least protection from
the cold, will perish. Those with the thickest w^ool and
hardiest nature will survive every year, and by the law of
heredity, transmit their favorable variations. By this pro-
cess those best adapted to the climate live, and the others
perish. Thus in the struggle for life we have the "sur-

502 THE HUMPHRSY-BBKXETr DISCUSSION.

vival of the fittest," without any design whatever. But
the theologian comes along and looking at the she?-p, says :
" See how God has adapted these sheep to the climate."
He forgets the thousands that have shivered and perished
in winter's cold as the condition of this adaptation. So
animals change the color of their coverings in accordance
with their environments. The bears among the icebergs of
the North are white, because in the struggle for life every
light variation has been favorable to the animal — has facili-
tated its escape from the hunter and its preying upon the
living things on which it subsists. Those with darker cov-
erings have gradually become extinct, leaving in undis-
puted possesion of the snow banks and icebergs this species,
which in color resemble the general aspect of its surround-
ings. Look at the rabbits. Some change their color every
year ; some are brown in the summer and white like the
snow in winter. Those with this tendency to change their
color during the year, having the most favorable variation,
have persisted, and this tendency, by heredity, has been
accumulated, until it has become a part of the nature of the
animal. These are but illustrations of a principle discov-
ered by Darwin and Wallace, and which explains largely
how, not only color and thickness of coverings, but
speed, strength and suppleness of body, keenness of sight
and hearing, and all other parts and powers of organism
have been developed in adaptation to their environment,
without any special design whatever.

"My friend says, we have no evidence of the eternal
existence of the Universe, because we have no personal
observation of it. But has he any personal observation to
prove the existence of an eternal God ? Yet he believes in
it. We believe the Universe always has existed in the
past, because we see no trace of a beginning ; we believe
it always will exist in the future, because we see no pros-
pect or possibility of an end. Worlds have their formation
and dissolution, but the substance is neither augmented

THE nUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 503

nor diminished. Matter is inilestructible and eternal. We
are not tlierefore in need of a creator."

Thus I have quoted Mr. [Jnderwood at considerable
length, but he so effectually uses up the great "design
argument " which you and your brethren insist upon is the
one great proof of the existence of a God, that it seemed
best to give it pretty full.

Let us recur again to the Bible. I gave you in my last
what seemed to me fifty good reasons why that compilation
should not be regarded as divine, and you have not refuted
one of them. They stand impregnable and must so continue
to stand. Your greatest effort seems to be to show that the
Bible has no greater imperfections than other books; that
it contains no more contradictions than the books written by
men. You are constantly comparing your book with the
writings of Gibbon, Shakspere, Paine, Herodotus, Homer,
etc., with a view of showing that it contains no more imper-
fections than they. But that will not do. I am surprised that
you should use such arguments. If the Bible is not supe-
rior to all the works that men have written, we have no
grounds for accepting it as divine, and it is entirely reason-
able for us to decide that it was also written by men. If it
is truly the work of the brain and hand of Deity, it must
necessarily be greatly superior to the efforts of man; but if
this is not the case your claims for its divinity fall to the
ground. Its contradictions cannot be reconciled by saying
that other books contain similar discrepancies. Its vul-
garity cannot be atoned for by saying that other books con-
tain vulgarity. It does not make it adapted to the needs
of people in this age of the world to show that other books
were also written long ago. All this falls very far short of
proving that it is the work of a perfect Divine Being. If
it has all the imperfections of other books, it can be from
Lto higher source. One of two things must be true — God
either wrote the book or he did not. If he is a perfect be-
ing he cannot be the au'hor of an imperfect work ; and if

504 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

hundreds of thousands assert that he is the author of such
a work, it does not make it tr%e. That the Bible is teem-
ing with imperfections I think I have abuudantly shown.
The only rational conclusion that can be arrived at is that
it is not a perfect work and that the writer was not a per-
fect being; that it shows no superior ability, no greater
degree of perfection than is found in hundreds of other
works; that if it does not surpass all that man has written,
and that it was also written by men.

You make an effort to show that the Bible is not an advo-
cate of kingcraft, tyranny, and slavery, but I think you
are unsuccessful. I am only astonished at your assurance
in making denial of anyihing so patent. That the Jewish
kings were anointed and abundantly recognized by the
prophets and priests is as noticeable as any feature of the
book. Ingersoll says: " The Bible teaches that God is the
source of all authority, and that all kings have obtained
their power from him. Every tyrant has claimed to be the
agent of the most high. The Inquisition was founded not in
the name of man, but in the name of God. All the govern-
ments of Europe recognize the greatness of God and the
littleness of the people. In all ages hypocrites, called
priests, have put crowns upon the heads of thieves, called
kings." It was certainly so in Bible times; the greatest
tyrants and murderers were called to the throne of God's
chosen people and their rule was sanctioned by the priest*.
The Bible kings were certainly recognized and approved
in several instances. Tyranny was the rule among those
kings. They obtained their authority from God, and the
poor people whom they reigned over were made to feel the
iron hand of Jehovah. Nearly all kings have been tyrants
and the Jews were no exception in this regard. If Moses,
David, and their successors were not tyrants it is difficult
to find any in history. That slavery is a Bible institution
I have only to refer you to Deut. xxv, 44, 46; Ex. xxi, 20,
21\ Eph. vi, 5; Col.iii, 23-24; Tit. ii, 9; 1 Peter, ii, 18, and

THE HUMPHBEY-BENNBTT DISCtjaSION. 505

numerous other passages. Bible rule was assuredly one of
kings, tyranny and slavery.

It is tlie same with the degradation of woman. The
Bible is full of it. The subjection of woman was common
in all the Eastern nations in olden times, and the Jews
were in no degree behind them in this particular. The
preference for the male sex is shown in many parts of the
Bible. In the Mosaic law, after the birth of a male child
the moth^jr was "unclean" seven days, but if it was a
female cbild the term of uncleanness was extended to four-
teen days. We well know that it makes a woman no more
unclean to bear a female cbild than a male, and it was only
a piece of barbaric cruelty to make this unjust distinction
between the sexes. Even after the birth of the reputed Son
of God, and no male had officiated, according to divine law
the mother was unclean. Woman had no equality with man
under the Bible regime, and the volume has only to be pe-
rused for the fact to be made strikingly apparent. It is not
confined to the Old Testament alone. While in the older part
the statute stands: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and
he shall rule over thee," the newer says, "The head of wo-
man is man," "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands,"
"Let wives be subject to their husbands in everything,"
"Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is
not permitted unto them to speak," and much else in the
same vein. The provisions in the Bible in many respects
were especially severe and unjust toward females. On this
subject Prof. Denton says: "If a man went to war, and
found among the captives a beautiful woman, he was per-
mitted to make her his wife; and if afterwards he had no
delight in her, he was to let her go where she would. No
belli for the woman, if she found no delight in him." No
matter how much grounds of dissatisfaction the woman
i^iight have against her husband, there was no redress for
her. In the matter of ordinary divorce the inequalities
were on the woman's side. The man was permitted to gel

506 THE HUMPHBEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

a divorce, but the woman was not (Deut. xxiv, 1). Of
course there are a few instances in the Bible where woman
was mentioned with respect, and where she was treated
with the distinction due her, but these were only exceptions
to the general rule. In nearly all cases she was made to
occupy a subservient position, and was treated more like a
subordinate, a slave,,thaa as one having all the rights and
prerogatives belonging to man. The whole tenor and s[.irit
of the Bible, touching the status of woman, is that her mis-
sion is to minister to the baser passions of man — his inferior,
not his equal.

Your manner of befouling the memory of the deceased
French statesman, Thiers, seems wholly uncalled for. I
know nothing of the facts of the case, but I would not
base a vile slander on the testimony of one paper so notori-
ously untrustworthy as the New York Herald. I know
this, he was a man greatly respected by his countrymen,
and he rendered vast services to his native land. What he
did when young I have at present no means of knowing.
I cannot, however, envy you the disposition you evince in
parading the faults of the dead hero.

You deny that the Bible approved of polygamy. You
might as well claim that it forbids the sacrifice of bullocks,
^ rams and he-goats. The patriarchs, Abraham, Jacob,
Gideon, David, and Solomon, were certainly polygami^sts
Ttiey are held up as special favorites of heaven, and I ask
you to point out the passages where the Bible censures
them for their polygamy.

You cannot disputts that the Bible recognizes humais
sacrifice. Not insisting that Jephtba sacrificed his daughter
according to his v(>w, it cannot be denied that the sons anu
grandsons of Saul were sacrificed to arrest a famine, and
their heads hung up in the sun. You may know better than
other people what the meaning of Lev. xxvii, ^8, 39 is, bu<,
it certainly reads: " Notwithstanding no devoted thing th,a
a man shaii devote unto the Lord, of all that he hath, 'jotlj

THS mrMPETlET-BENNETT DIBCUS8I0N. 507

of man and beast and of the field of his possession, shall be
sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the
Lord, None devoted, which shall be devoted of men^ shall
be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death," It strikes
me this language is clear and direct, and need not be mis-
understood. If it does not mean that every man and beast
that were devoted should be put to death, it does not mean
anything.

Your attempted explanation about there being light suf-
ficient to perfect vegetation and to mature fruits and seeds,
before the sun was brought into existence, is as weak as
your case is generally. It may be satisfactory to yourself,
but will hardly prove so to scientific persons. If there was
so much light, why was the sun created ? What became
of that light after the sun was brought into existence ? If
you should claim that the herbs and trees brought forth
seeds and fruit before the earth was formed, your position
would be equally tenable. Well may you say the Bible
was not intended for a text-book of Natural Philosophy,
and I will add, of common sense, either.

I shall not contend with you about the honor you claim

for the Bible for introducing Monotheism, though it is not

easy to see how the doctrine advanced the Jews beyond the

surrounding nations. The Egyptians and other nations, as

I have already shown, were far beyond them in all the arts

and sciences and in the march of civilization. If it is a

virtue to believe in one god, why should not a belief in

several gods be a greater virtue ? and would wot the size of

the virtue increase with the number of gods believed in ?

Logically, it must. As I said in a previous letter, ihere is

as much proof of a hundred gods as there is of one. I

called your attention to the fact that a plurality of gods

was recognized in the first chapter of Genesis. There

are also other passages which bear the construction of

superior and inferior gods, as most of the pagan nations

have believed. If it is wrong to believe in more than out

508 THE HUMPHRET-BEKNETT DISCDS310X.

God, it is very questionable whether the Christians did
right ia dividing him into three parts, or persons. They
never got that idea from the Jews, but borrowed it from
pagan nations, many of whom had trinities. In this regard
the Mohammedans have preserved the monotheistic idea of
the Bible far more closely than the Christians; and if there
is any virtue in Monotheism they ought to be the most vir-
tuous.

I think I was quite correct in saying that the books of the
canon were written at a much later date than is usually
claimed. I repeat it, there is no proof that, with the excep-
tion of the Gentile book of Job, either book of the Bible was
in existence more than seven hundred years before the Chris-
tian era, and several of them were not written till a later
date. The Jewish sacred writings were gotten up after
their return from the Babylonish captivity. If there were
any such writings before that the Jews themselves did not
know of them. This is attested by Hittel and other writers.
The Christian father Irenseus says that " they (the books of
the Old Testament) vi eve fabricated seventy years after the
Babylonish captivity by Esdras;" and Dr. Adam Clarke
guardedly says: "All antiquity is nearly unanimous in giv-
ing Ezra the honor of collecting the different writings of
Moses and the prophets and reducing them into the form in
which they are now found in the Holy Bible."

For a somewhat graphic account of the nature of that
divine inspiration with which the writings were composed,
the reader is referred to 2 Esdras xiv, "And the next day
behold a voice called me, sayiug, Esdras, open thy mouth,
and drinli that I give thee to drink. Then opened I my
mouth, and behold! he reached me a full cup, which was
full, as it were, with water, but the color cf it was like fire.
And I tooK it and drank; but when I had drunk of it, my
heart utttered underslandiug, and wisdom grew in my
breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory. And my
mouth was opened, and shot ]io more. The highest gave

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 509

understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the won-
derful visions of the night that were told, which they knew
not ; and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day,
and at night they ate bread. As for me, I spake in the day,
and I held not my tongue by night. In forty days they
wrote two hundred and four books^. And it came to pass,
when the forty days were fulfilled, that the highest spake,
saying, The first that thou hast written, publish openly,
that the worthy and the unworthy may read it. But keep
the seventy last that thou mayest deliver them only to such
as be wise among the people."

After quoting the above, Preston, in his "The Holy
Bible a Historical Humbug," p. 3, remarks: **The above
sufficiently shows the manner of writing an inspired book.
All that is necessary to show the matter which makes up the
books of the Bible is to read them. We thus find it histor-
ically established that the Old Testament, as it is now-
offered to us, was a comparatively modern production,
having been written by a cunning old priest named Ezra,
only some five hundred years before the time of Christ,
and that owing to the carelessness and profanity of the
Jews themselves, who not only lost whole books of the
Bible, but burnt others, the Christian world to-day is in
possession of but a small portion of the " Word of God."

The same writer continues his observations respecting
the canon of the New Testament :

"It has never been claimed that any portion of it was
written during the life of the reputed founder of Chris-
tianity. Christ himself never wrote a line of the books
of which it is composed. He was put to death without
having ever written one word of the books of the Bible.
The Christian Church was established all over the known
world before a single verse of the New Testament, which
contains all the doctrines of Christianity, had been written.

" The first allusion that is made to the Gospels was by
the Christian Father Irenaeus in the year 183, nearly a cen-

510 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSlOiJ.

tury and a half after the time of Christ. Even then, the fout
Go3pels were presented to the world upon no other author-
ity than that of the Christian Father himself. At the time
Irenaeus first introduced the four Gospels, there were many
others in circulation, some of which, we are told, had ex-
dsted nearly a century before, and hud actually been read
and quoted by the early Christians as the word of God.
Among the most important of these may be named the Gos-
pels of St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Matthias, St. Bartholo-
mew, S^ Philip, Judas Iscariot, Thaddeus and Barnabas;
the Acts of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Andrew, St. John, St.
Philip, and St. Thomas; and the Revelations of St. Paul,
St. Thomas, St. Stephen, and the Great Apostle. There
were upwards of fifty of these Gospels, Acts, and Revela-
tions, which were, at one time, considered the * divine
word.' During the firct three hundred years from the
era of Christ there was no collection of the writings of the
New Testament. All the above-named writings were circu-
lated and accepted by the primitive Christians as of equal
authority.

"At length there arose conflicting opinions and serious
contentions as to their credibility. It was finally judged
necessary to settle the dispute by an authoritative selection
of the true from the false books. The division of opinion
regarding them and the nature of Cnrist resulted in such
disorder that the pagans ridiculed Christianity upon the
stage. For the purpose of preserving order in the empire,
Constantine convoked an oecumenical council of the whole
habitable earth at the town of Nicaea in Bithynia. There
assembled 2,048 bishops, all of diflferent sentiments and
opioions. The records of the disputes of these fierce and
bigoted bishops amounted to forty volumes. The conflict
in the council arrived at such a pitch that the Emperor, as
moderator, for the purpose of preserving some degree of
uniiy and propriety, was obliged to expel 1,730 of the exas-
perated and contentious bishops. The remaining 318 bish-

The HUMrRREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 511

Ops then proceeded to determine which ones of the various
writings were the inspired word of God * This was done,'
says one of the Christian Fathers, ' by placing all the books
under a communion table, and, upon the prayers of the
council, the inspired books jumped upon the communion
table, while the false ones remained under.* But it is
related that many mocked at this method, and the religious
row continued as fierce as ever. Finally, most of the man-
uscripts submitted, after being sufficiently fought over,
were rejected, whereupon Constantine aflBxed the seal of
the empire to the remaining few, declaring such to be the
•word of God.'

"And as such they passed until the year 363, when an-
other council, that of Laodicea, was held, to make a more
perfect selection of the holy books. Upon this occasion,
the manner of choosing them was by vote. The books of
the New Testament were then adopted, nearly as we now
have them, except Revelations, whirh was excluded. We
are informed by St. Chrysostom, who died in 407, that the
Acts of the Apostles was scarcely known in his day. Other
councils were called to settle the sacred canon. There was
one in 406 which rejected some books received by the coun-
cil of 363 ; but a later council in 680 restored them. And
thus contentious priests continued tossing the 'word of
God,' like a battledore, from faction to faction, changing it
as the spirit of sect might dictate. As illustrating the
spirit which animated the ordained arbiters of the * sacred
writinjfs,' we give the words of the Christian writer, Tin-
dal. In his work entitled * Rights of the Christian Church,'
page 195, he says : ' That he fled all assemblies of bishops
because he never saw a good and happy end of any coun-
cil, but that they did rather increase than lessen the evil ;
that the love of contention and ambition always overcomes
their reason.' Speaking of the memorable Council of
Nice, at which the Emperor himself presided, Tindal fur-
ther says ; 'And if these accusations and libels which the

ftl^ THF- KUMPHKEY-BENNETT t)ISCtIS8IOlJ. '

bishops gave in of one another to the Emperor were now
extant, in all probability, we should have such rolls of scan-
dal that few would have much reason to boast of the first
oecumenical council, where with such heat, passion, and
fury, the bishops fell foul on one another, insomuch as
had not the Emperor by a trick burnt their church memo-
rials, probably they would have broke up in confusion.
After that council was over, the bishops made so great a
bustle and disturbance, and were so unruly, that the good
Emperor was forced to tell them that if they would not be
more quiet and peaceable in the future, he would no longer
continue his expedition against the Infidels, but must return
to keep them in order. Indeed,' continues Tindal, 'the
confusion and disorder were so great amongst them, espe-
cially in their Synods, that it sometimes came to blows; as, for
instance, Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, cuflfed and
kicked Flavianus, Patriarch of Constantinople, (at the
second Synod of Ephesus,) with that fury that within three
days after he died.'

"And it is upori the decisions of such fierce and fighting
fanatics that the Christian world depends for its creeds and
sacred scriptures ! The authenticity of divine revelation
rests upon the ballots of bigots who of ten fell foul of one
another, and kicked each other to death f So that it is diflS-
cult to determine whether it was really the majority vote
or the predominant kicking power that finally settled the
vexed question which books were God's and which were
not. The book of Luke was given to God by one single
vote majority, and that may have depended more upon the
muscular activity of the voter than upon his ability to dis-
criminate between books of God and books of men.

" It is a notorious fact, and one which may well perplex
the priesthood, that the books which one body of bishops
would piously pronounce genuine inspiration, another
council, equally as well commissioned to settle the sacred
cauon, would condemn and reject as profane forgeries.

THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 613

And it is also pertinent to iDquire, in this connection, why
the one thousand seven hundred and thirty bishops whom
Constantine thrust out of the Council of Nice were not as
well qualified to say what writings were the word of God
as the three hundred and eighteen who remained ? And
also, why, or how, or by wliose imperative command, is
the Christian world justified in believing that the books
which were saved and voted into the the Scriptural canon
are any more sacred than those voted ou^ or which were
lost or destroyed ? Let Christians learn these facts, and
consider them well. Let them realize the absurdity of be-
lieving books to be of divine origin which so long lay in
obscurity, and were only saved from oblivion through the
presumption of unscrupulous priests, and finally decided
to be genuine by the ballots of bigoted and bullying
bishops."

Let me give you these Christian authorities : The learned
Dr. Lardner says : "That even so late as the middle of the
sixth century, the canon of the New Testament had not
been settled by an}^ authority that was decisively and uni-
versally acknowledged ; but Christian people were at lib-
erty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of
writings proposed to them as apostolical, and to determine
according to evidence" (vol. iii, pp. 54-61).

In the second edition of his introduction to the Scrip-
tures, the Rev. T. H. Home says: "The account left us
by ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, published, are so
vague, confu ed and discordanf, that they lead to no certain
or solid determination. The eldest of the ancient fathers
collected the report of their own times, and set them down
as certain truths, and those who followed adopted their
accounts with implicit reverence. Thus tradition, true or
false, passed on from one w iter to another without examin-
ation, until, at last, it became too late to examine them to
any purpose."

Your supposition that the New Testament canon was

Hii tHE HtTMPHRET-BENNETT DTSCUSSIOK.

collected at an early date, from the fact that it does not
directly teach popery, Mariolatry, etc., is of no more force

than the Protestant Sabbath (first instituted by Constantine
in 321), and the personality of the Holy Ghost— which can
easily be shown to have been a borrowed pagan myth — first
introduced as an orthodox dogma at the Council of Con-
stantino ia 381. The fact that all the cardinal doctiines of
the Church were not authoritatively settled till a late date,
proves conclusively that there existed no canon by which
they could be settled. The first councils in the fourth cen-
tury were called for the very purpose of ferreting out or
forging suflSicient Scripture evidence to collect into a canon.
I wish, too, to call particular attention to the fact that
popery did not really begin to have an existence till 606,
when the title of "Universal Bishop" — Pope — was first
given to Boniface III. You will understand, too, that the
Papist can point to as positive New Testament proof for
transubstantiation and Mariolatry as the Protestant can for
any of his particular doctrines.

You say, "the wonderful events recorded in the Bible do
not necessarily make it suspicious." Do you mean that in
such stories as the earth producing all the varities of veg-
etation before there was either sun or rain; that man was
made of clay, and woman of a rib taken from him by a
surgical operation; of a snake being able to circumvent
God in nis long-matured plan, until he made it necessary
for him to drown out- the world by raising the water over
the entire earth to the height of five miles; of two and
seven of every variety of animals being closely compacted
for thirteen months in a water-tight and air-tight vessel; of
frogs, locusts, lice, etc., being produced in immense quan-
tities by miracle; of all the water of a country hundreds of
miles in length, including a large river, being turned into
blood; of the waters of seas and rivers parting and piling
up on either side like a wall; of a man's stopping the sun
and moon in their cjurses; of a man's preventing rain and

THE HUMPHKEY-BENNETT DISCTTSSTOX 515

dew falling upon the earth for more than three years; of Jo-
nah's being swallowed by a fish and retained in its stomach
under water for three days, and then being thrown up alive
and kicking upon dry ground ; of three men being cast into a
fiery furnace that was made seven times hotter than usual,
without receiving the slightest injury; of a woman becom-
ing a mother without the natural process; of men being
raised from the dead; of the graves being opened and the
dead being resuscitated and walking forth into the city
among their former companions -do you mean that all these
stories, and many more equally as incredible, are not
enough to excite suspicion ? If so, I must disagree with
you. If such extravagant yarns were to be narrated now-
a-days, the strongest suspicions would not only be excited,
but everybody would declare them absurdly false. They
would, however, be just as likely to take place to-day as
two or five thousand years ago.

You say my condemnation of the Bible is an insult to the
intelligence of all Christendom. Nothing of the kind was
intended. I think I have made no misstatement about that
volume, and while I have no desire to insult any one, I
have wondered indeed how people of intelligence like
yourself can so easily swallow it without examination, and
accept it all as truth without a shade of error. It is easy
for you to say my reply "bristles with distortions, garblings,
half-truths and untruths," but I think it would have been
very much better to point them out than to make such
wholesale unfounded charges. It is easy to use epithets
and sweeping assertions, but there is little argument in
them.

You complain that Paine's Age of Reason is issued again
and again, and that Watson's Reply is out of print. Whose
fault is that ? The Christians' if anybody's. It advocates
their side of the question, and they ought to see that the
public is duly supplied with it. It certainly is not part of
the duty of Infidels. The very statement you make, how-

516 TITE HTTMPHIIET-BENNETT DISCTTSSTON'.

ever, shows the difference that exists in the demand for the
two works. The Age of Reason is issued edition after
edition because there is a demand for it ; Watson's Reply-
is out of print and not re-i?sued because there is little or
no call for it. Books that are demanded will always be
printed.

It is hard for you to give up Jefferson. You fain would
stJU claim him for a Christian, but I cannot help thinking
he knew more about his views than his great-granddaughter
knew. I recommend you to turn to my third reply and
i^ad the quotations I gave from his own writings. After
doing so, it will not be an easy task for you to consider him
a genuine Christian.

Your inclination or your prejudice leads you to give an-
other unfriendly hit at the Liberal Clubs. Let me again
assure you that the members are not all anti-Christian.
Some incline one way and some the other. Those who arc
decided in the convictions that Christianity is re-vamped
paganism and that its rule has not tended to benefit the
world, claim the right in moderate language to give expres-
sion to their convictions. Those who entertain opposite
views are equally free to give utterance to them and to dis-
prove if possible the errors of their opponents. The Lib-
eral Clubs are certainly not the pernicious organizations
you seem disposed to represent them. Perhaps the worst
thing you can say about them is that they maintain a free
platform where a man is privileged to say just what he
thinks to be true.

Mr. Nelson and yourself are equally mistaken in suppos-
ing that Infidels are ignorant of the Bible. Although they
do not believe in the divinity of the volume, they are far
more familiar with its contents than is the average Chris-
tian. They read it for the purpose of learning its nature
and import, while the Christian follows the advice of his
pastor, and and accepts it and swallows it as the word of
GoJ, without hesiiation or question. They do this just

THE HTTMPHHEY-BEKNETT DlSCtJSSIOiT.

mi

jis readily without reading it as with. If a Christian family
have a fine copy of the "Holy Bible" lying upon the
centre-table in the parlor, it soothes their conscience; they
feel that they are paying great respect to God's word ; they
feel that they are not only fully insured against the ills and
mishaps of this life, but also against the fiery torments of
the life to come, whether they take the time and trouble to
read it or not. Many of them prefer to pay their preacher
to read for them, to pray for them, and to think for them
to troubling themselves by doing so, Not so with the Infi-
del. He prefers to do his own reading, his own praying,
and his own thinking.

It is a poor commentary on the intelligence of a portion
of our community for you to say they are more edified by
the senseless songs of Sankey and the stupid sermons of
Moody than by works on Science, Philosophy and Infidelity.
It is a pitiful thing to realize that men who ought to be
intellectual and elevated beings aspire to nothing higher or
more instructive than common-place platitudes and stale
Sunday-school songs about the miraculous properties of the
blood of a man who died nineteen hundred years ago. It
is, however, a peculiarity of the Christian religion to feel
satisfied with its emotional hallucinations of semi-fetish-
ism, rather than to reach forward for that which leads on to
ennobling and elevating positions. It is one of the great
objections to Christianity that it admits of no progress in its
dogmas or even in its philosophy. It claims to be a revela-
tion from heaven which embraces all of truth and all of
perfection possible, and there can be no advance made
upon it. In all departments of knowledge, science, art,
instruction, etc., there have been great improvements
made— in agriculture, plows, carts, implements, machin-
ery, architecture, highways, bridges, ships, steamboats,
railroads, telegraphs, etc. In all these, improvements have
been made from time to time, and much more in the same
direction is destined to come as men advance in mental cul-

618 THE rnnrPHBEY-BENNETT DTSCTTSSION.

ture and intelligence; but with Christianity it is the same
old thing — a perfectly stereotyped affair — the same old
story about the eflScacy of blood and faith in old dogmas
and superstitions handed down from the dim past, admit-
ting of no change, no improvement. If there was nothing
else to condemn the sytem this is quite sufficient.

You allude to the comparative strength and weakness of
Christianity and Infidelity, and make an effort to prove
that the first is growing stronger while the latter is already
on the wane. You state that certain fashionable Christian
churches of this city are well attended, while the congre-
gations of Frothingham, Alger and Adler are not immense,
etc. I concede that some of the fashionable, hon ton
churches and the Catholic churches are fully attended, but
I fear your prejudices prevent you doing justice to the con-
gregations of Frothingham, Alger and Adler. When I
have listened to these gentlemen I have found their audi-
ences large and the seats well occupied, and I am informed
that the attendance at their meetings is uniformly good. I
concede, too, that Christianity has been a power on the
earth, and is to-day. Although it has never reached more
than half the number of those who believe in Buddha, and
only about equaled the number of adherents to Brahmanism
and perhaps exceeded by a trifle the followers of the
Arabian prophet, it has nevertheless been one of the great
religions of the world and holds that position to-day. It
has spread itself by conquest. It has grasped the sword,
and in the name of its Savior and its creed it has deluged
this fair earth in blood. In this sanguinary devastation it
has exceeded, by far, all the religions known to man. It has
shed enough of the blood of men, women and children to
float all the navies and merchant-ships on the globe, while
the great systems of Brahmanism and Buddhism have been
peaceful and beneficent, and their numbers have not been
increased by conquest and slaughter. Christianity and
Mohammedanism have drawn the sword freely and caused

IPSE HtJMPHTlET-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 519

human blood to flow in rivers. Those two religions of
monotheism have slaughtered fully 200,000,000 human
beings. For centuries they have pursued the same bloody
religious warfare which is to-day deluging Southern Europe
with blood.

The qualities which have been most conducive to the
growth and strength of Ohristianify are ignorance and
superstition. Tnese mide the Church strong, and they
have kept its power intact. So long as it could make the
masses believe that there was a tyrant who ruled on a
throne a little above the clouds ; that he commissioned a
vast brigade of priests to attend to his business and to help
hold the people in subjection ; that there is a fearful hell
of brimstone, fire and flames ready to engulf all who will
not bow and acknowledge the faith of the cross, and all
who dare to think for tliemselves, so long has the rule of
that system of religion been strong in the world. But
assuredly it is weakening. During the last two or three
centuries, and more particularly during the last half-cen-
tury, light has been breaking in. Learning and science,
and the consequent advance of civilization, have been
weakening its foundations. Science has shown those who
are willing to read the truths it imparts that the ground
upon which Christianity stands is untenable, and that its
foundation dogmas are untrue; that the great truths of the
Universe are in opposition to the narrow-creeded exactions
which the Church enjoins upon its devotees. There is
an antagonism between Christian credulity and the teach-
ings of science. As the knowledge of the truths of Nature
is improved by the masses, the grip of the Church is loos-
ened and the power of priestcraft is weakened. A strong
faith in the myths and fables of the past is incompatible
with the revelations of science and truth, and in the con-
flict which has begun, and is sure to continue and increase,
these are certain to triumph, and the old myths must retire
to the rear and sink down, ultimately, into the waters of

520 TFE HUMI»HKEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION.

oblivion. The destiny of the human mind is to be free and
untrammeled. Ou tlie pinions of truth it is destined to rise
above the mists and fogs which settle over the Church, and
though the .-nachinery and organization of the same is still
perfect, and the power of priestcraft is hard to be broken; it
is only a matter of time. The struggle will not slacken; the
contest will not cease until truth. and reason shall triumph
over errors and myths. The fetters and shackles that bind
men shall be removed and men shall he free.

In connection with the subject of the decline in the
vitality and power of Christianity in this country allow me
to quote a few remarks made by your brother clergyman,
Rev. Dewitt Talmage, of the Brooklyn Tabernacle: "Oh,
we have magnificent church machinery in this country; we
have sixty thousand American ministers ; we have costly
music ; we have great Sunday-schools, and yet I give you
the appalling statistics, that in the last twenty-five years,
laying aside last year, the statistics of which I have not
seen, within the last twenty-five years the churches of God
have averaged less than two conversions a year each. There
has been an average of four or five deaths in the churches.
How soon, at that rate, will this world be brought to God ?
We gain two ; we lose four. Eternal God, what will this
come to ?" You see your brother takes a discouraging
view of the coming fate of the Church. The prospect is
anything but cheering to him. Talmage, of course, would
not utter such gloomy words did he not know them to be
true.

The growth of skepticism and the increase of doubt in
the dogmas of theology are apparent on every side. They
are working into the churches, and the clergy themselves
are badly afi'ected with the prevailing doubt. In confiden-
tial conversation with private friends many of them admit
that they have their misgivings about the the truth of what
they were brought up to believe. The trade of the priest
is all they know, and to insure a good livelihood they cou-

THE HUMPHREY BENNETT DISCUSSION. 621

t'mue to preach; but their confidence in ecclesiasticism is
greatly shaken. Some esimate that half the members
of the churrlies are doubting unbelievers in the creeds that
the Church enjoins.

The spirit of doubt and skepticism is apparent in many
of the newly-issued books that are appearing, as well as in
the journals and magazines of the day. Frequently we see
the most radical articles appearing where we would hardly
look for them. More and more are becoming bold enough
to speak out and tell their thoughts. The priesthood will
still use their best exertions to hold the masses subservient
to their will and purpose* and they will doubtless continue
to do this so long as the avocation is remunerative. But one
after one and ten after ten they are emerging from the mists
of faith and are coming out into the sunshine of truth. As
a sample of the newspaper and magazine articles that are
appearing from time to time, I will first give a quotation
from an editorial in a recent Telegram upon "Religious
Superstition." It says: " An essay entitled ' Modern Skep-
ticism and How to Meet It,' is presently to be read by the
Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott before the General Association of
the Congregational Church of this State. It cannot be
doubted that Dr. Abbott will address himself with enthusi-
asm to the task, and that his defense of Christianity will be
tinctured by strong personal devotion to the cause. But
for a successful assault to be carried against the strong
intrenchments on the side of Infidelity set up during the
last few years by many members of the scientific world,
a leader is required of vaster powers than those possessed
by the defender in question. It must be remembered, too,
that it is idle to defend the dogmas of Christianity merely
because they have now survived many hundreds of years.
Scientific leaders are notorious for their love of truth.
They follow where she leads them, no matter where the
bourne may be. This is not true of Christian leaders.
They follow according to the bent of their prejudices, their

533 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DT8CU88ION.

self-interest, their bigotry. They desire to see only those
things proved which they believe or wish to believe true.
Dr. Abbott will find the task which he has set for himself
one beyond his powers."

As embracing deep thought upon one of the subjects we
have been discussing, I will insert the following which
recently appeared in the Nineteenth Century:

" In former times, when Atheism was vague and stam-
mering, incomplete and unorganized, it was condemned
and suppressed with horror, anger and indignation. Its
apostles were execrated as monsters doomed to eternal tor-
ments. The world cast them out, and ihe Church burned
them. But now that Atheism is complete and organized,
without concealment and without shame, its name is not
even a term of mild reproach. On the contrary, its most
notorious professors are honored and looked up to by the
world in general, and listened to with a respectful patience
by even their professed opponents. Deans avow friend-
ship for men compared with whom Voltaire is orthodox,
and Cardinals with such men gravely discuss beliefs which
Voltaire would have thought it horrible to have questioned.
The reason of this is obvious. Atheism has come forward
under changed conditions. It is based upon new founda-
tions; it is animated with a new temper. For the first time
it rests itself not on the private speculations of a rebellious
intellect, not on the ravings of a vile Parisian populace
drunk with the wine of politics and suffering from politi-
cal delirium tremens, but on the deep and broad founda-
tions of research, experiment, and proof. It has lost all
that insolence of private passion and of private judgment
which used to make it as offensive to men's practical in-
stincts as it was to their theoretical convictions. Our
modern Atheists in profession, and to a great measure in
fact, are entirely free of the old personal bravado ; they
claim to teach with authority, because they have been con-
tent to learn with humility. For they, too, have their

THE HITMPHRET-BENNliTT DISCUSSION. 523

church, their infallible teacher, to whom they profess an
implicit and devout obedience. And this teacher is un-
doubtedly an august one. It is none other than Nature
herself, as our powerful science compels her answers from
her — Nature, in the widest sense of the word, including the
history of the Universe and the history of the human race,
and the laws in obedience to v^hich this history has devel-
oped itself. Here, we are told, is our one source of knowl-
edge ; here we learn the truth, and the whole truth.
Nature bears witness about every conceivable subject ;
there is no rational question which, if we do but ask it
properly, she will not answer. She will require no faith
from us; she will ask us to take nothing on trust. Every-
thing that she teaches us she will prove and verify; and
there is no variableness in her, nor any shadow of turning.
"Come, then" — this is the appeal that our modern Athe-
ists make to us — "and let us learn of Nature ; let us listen
to the voice of truth !" And what docs truth tell us ?
Among many things truth tells us two, which are of prime
importance, and which are universally intelligible to the
human race — there is no God, and there is no future life.
The notion of the first is unnecessary, and that of thfe
second is ridiculous. In the name of truth, then, let us
cast these lies away from us, however painfully for the
moment we may feel their loss, however closely they may
be bound up for us with memories of the past. But we are
not left with this exhortation only. Something more is
added to sustain and stimulate us. These lies, we are told,
if we will but look them boldly in the face, instead of
blinking at them out of deference to their supposed divin-
ity, we shall see to be not lies only, but profoundly immoral
lies. Is is, therefore, in the name not of selfish indulgence,
not of license and free-living, but of sacred truth and all
the severest principles, that we are invited to accept the
creed of Atheism and to cast out religion. Thus the
Atheism of to-day, though theoretically destructive, is

524 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DiSCUSStON.

practically conservative. It no longer assails society as it
is, or any of those rules that sustain it, or the chastened
affections that are supposed to make it worth sustaining.
It is associated no longer with any dissolute wit, with any
cruel and brilliant cynicism, or with the fascinations of
lawless love. On the contrary, it is on the whole somewhat
dull ; and to say the least of it, it is eminently respectable.
It is the Atheism of the vigil, not of the orgy; and its char-
acter when developed is solemn, almost puritanical. Study
the language, the conduct, even the faces of its exponents,
and signs will be apparent everywhere of gravity and
severe earnestness. These are men, we see in a glance,
who hold life a serious thing — a thing not to be trifled away
in idleness, however harmless, or in licentious self-indul-
gence, irowever refined or graceful. What is really of
value ill life, what men should really strive for, are things
to be reached only by self-denial and labor and a vigilant
rigor in the guidance and control of our passions. Those
who pay no heed to the better part, but who saunter, who
lourge, who smile, who sneer through life, are condemned
by the Atheists even more grimly than by the believers."
. From one position of the above writer I shall perhaps
claim to dissent. I do not limit the power of Nature
to carry human existence beyond this life. I have felt
compelled to acknowledge that it may be in the economy
of the Universe to continue individual life into another
state of existence; that tliis is the rudimentary, and the
other the ultimate. I claim to have no special knowledge
upon the subject nor of the nature and locality of that other
world, but I have witnessed phenomena that I was satisfied
were not fraudulent, and which led me to this conclusion.
With this exception, the writer is sound; and it is possible,
too, that this may not be an exception after all. Science
may ultimately explain all not now well understood.

In connection with the subject of the spread of skepti-
cism I will only remark that it is striking terror into tbe

THB HlfMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 525

very heart of the Church. The great question thnt is now
propouncltd with so much anxiety and mental agony is,
How shall the spread of Infidelity be stayed ? This mo-
mentous question troubled the Pan-Presbyterian Council
recently assembled in Edinburg more than all others, and
it will take all the skill and cunning of the theologians to
solve it.

I will take very little space to review the ground we have
gone over, or to sum up my portion of the discussion. Al-
low me to say I think you have utterly failed to establish your
side of the questions discussed; and I have been struck
with the weakness of your arguments and with the little
dodges, petty quibbles, and theological twaddle you have
found it necessary to resort to. Before the discussion took
place, I thought more could be said in advocacy of your
views than you have said, although I am convinced that few
of your brethren of the sacerdotal order possess more ability
than yourself. With all due modesty, I claim that I have
shown, under our first proposition, that those who did the
most to aid the cause of American independence and to
establish a free system of government were unbelievers in
orthodox Christianity and the divinity of the Bible. Under
the second proposition, I think I established the fact that
unbelievers have done more to aid the advance and spread
of learning and science than believers have. On this last
proposition, relative to the truth and divinity of the Bible,
I claim that I have shown that the Bible possesses no qual-
ities to prove it a superhuman production, and that it is
entitled to no more respect than numerous other books that
men have written and printed. I think that I have made
it clear to unprejudiced minds that Infidelity, or Radicalism,
has more proofs of truth than Ihe Bible has of divinity. I
stated clearly, and was prepared to prove it, that Christian-
ity is not an original system of religion; that all its
dogmas were borrowed from the older systems. I have
repeated this some three times, hoping you would attempt

526 THE HUMPHREY-BENNETT DISCUSSION,

to refute it, that I miglit adduce the proofs. Tou have
not disputed it, but tacitly admitted its truth, and I wish
this point to be noticed and remembered. By your silence
upon this charge you have confessed that Christianity is
not original, but that it was borrowed almost entirely
from paganism, and is no better than the obsolete systems
of religion in vogue twenty-five centuries or more ago.

It is true I have covered more space than you have, but
I have introduced no topic not mentioned by yourself, and
have endeavored to confine myself exclusively to the sub-
jects treated of by you. You throw out insinuations
about the cuttle-fish style of conducting an argument.
Your allusion is about as clear as the water may be sup-
posed to be about your cuttle-fish when making an attack,
but I cannot think it fairly applies to me. I am aware that I
am somewhat verbose and that I often repeat myself,
but I do not think my language is ambiguous or difficult to
be understood. I do not try to conceal myself nor the views
I entertain. Like some others of your insinuations, it
seems wholly uncalled for. You have not been curtailed
in anything you wished to say. I have printed every word
you handed in, and I would not have denied you the same
space I have occupied. Your style is brief and concise,
while mine is more diffuse. I make longer quotations
than you do, believing it more fair to the author quoted,
and better for the reader, than to select a line or two
here and there which conuot give a full exposition of the
author's views.

I cheerfully concede to you greater ability than I pos-
sess. Your advantages have been superior to mine, and
your reading far more extensive, but I am full}' convinced
that I have the truth on my side, and with my inferior
abilities I think I have made this comparatively clear. I
will leave it with our readers to decide which has given the
best arguments, and on which side victory has perched.

Perhaps we have both shown some prejudice and par-

THE StTMPmiEY-BENNETT DISCUSSION. 627

liality. Being fully impressed that Christianity is a system
of shams and old fabler borrowed, as I have charged, froai
older pagan systems, I have lost nearly all the respect I
once had for it, but I have intended to be fair and truth-
ful in all cases. You have evinced not a little unfriendli-
ness tov?'ards Infidels, Atheists and Libeml Clubs. I can
not think strange of this, for they are working in opposi-
tion to your line of tliought and your avocation, and it is
only the spirit so violently exhibited by your predecessors.
I thank you for the courtesy you have shown me. I have
found our personal intercourse pleasant and agreeable;
and I trust a friendship has grown up between us during
this discussion that will continue for years. I respect you
for your excellent qualities. I have published your views
"with the same willingness that I have my own, and I doubt
not you accord to me a due spirit of candor and liberality
in laying your language and views before my numerous
readers with the same freedom that I have my own. It is
mere than any Christian paper in the country would do by
me. I very much doubt if any orthodox periodical in the
United States would publish a single Infidel letter of my
writing, while I have given in full thirteen of yours, affording
you access to a class of readers that you could not other-
wise reach. Please give Infidelity due credit for this in-
stance of fairness and liberality. Should you at any future
time wish to engage in another discussion upon theological
subject?, my columns shall be open to you, and if you can
find no other opponent I will offer you my own humble
services again. I would be very glad could the light of
truth so shine into your mind that you could be able to
see that there are greater truths in Nature and Science than
is contained in the old thcoh gical ideas that have so long
ruled Christendom, and (hat you might feel it incumbent
on you to tear off the shackles of ecclesiasticism and intol-
erance and to come to the belief that there is a greater good
in Nature and a greater truth in the realm of Science and

528 THE HUMPHBEY-BBNNETT DISCUSSION.

reason than in the belief that a personal God devised the
world, created man weak and fallible, placed a tempter be-
fore him, knowing that he would be led astray, and then
thrusts him and his countless posterity into everlasting
flames for doing what he could not help doing under the
conditions that surrounded him. I shall still indulge the
hope that you may yet be able to take an advanced step
and leave the domain of theological myths and legends.
You are a young man, I trust with a long life before you ;
you have a clear intellect, and there is much ground for
hope.

It is a great thing to change the religion of a people. To
throw off the effects of early education, and to become
divested of the influence of the old traditions and legends
is a herculean task, but it has got to be accomplished. The
old systems that the world has thus far accepted have not
benefited their devotees ; the gods that have been held up
for worship, and on whose account and on account o: whose
priests, uncounted millions of wealth have been wrung from
the hard-toiling masses— have done nothing for the world,
and humanity demands that they shall be dethroned and
cease to be objects of reverence. All the old systems of
religion have proved to be failures and only served as
obstructions to mankind on the great highway of life's
journey. The human race has subdued this planet so far
as it has been subdued ; it hss made it a garden in so far as
it is a garden ; but there are yet many desolate wilds to be
improved by the industrious hand of man. A great deal has
yet to be done in learning the true science of life, in knowing
how to obtain the greatest amount of happiness from our
existence, and how to make happy those around us; how to
live, how to produce a healthy, well-balanced, happy race
upon the earth; how to secure pleasant lives, and how to
make iheni useful, is of far more consequence to us to-day
than can be the blood of a man who died nineteen hundred
years ago. It is time we dropped the old religions of the

liHE HUMPSREY-BKNltKTT DISCUSSIOK. 629

gods, and adopted the better religion of man. Love of
mankind is the highest elevation to which we can attain^
and therein lies our whole duty. We can do good or evil
to ourselves and to our fellow-beings, but we can do neither
to the gods. Even if there are such beings, they are so
far removed from us, and we know so little of them, and
they care so little for us, that our neglect will not offend
iLor our oblations cajole them. The objects of our concern
are around us and with us, and they claim our undivided
attention.

You speak of the havoc of sin. The sins have been
entirely toward the human race, and here is where the ref-
ormation should be begun and continued. Let us our-
selves endeavor to live tru«, pure, noble lives, and help
others to do the same. Let us understand that each indi-
vidual must secure his own happiness and his own justifi-
cation. Let us not depend for our peace and happiness
upon the good deeds of any man nor lurk behind the cov-
ering of another's virtues. Let us be pure, be unselfish and
be upright. Let us scorn to act from low motives. Let us
cease to balance our heavenly gains by our earthly losses,
and to chuckle over a credit-mark on the recording angel's
book when we have performed good actions here. Let us
substitute the service of man, who is ever around us, in
place of the service of unknown gods whom we can never
know anything about. Let us increase real knowledge and
lessen superstition and faith. Let us use our entire exer-
tions to hasten this reformation, and strive to make of this
earth as perfect a paradise as is possible with the conditions
which attend us.

"Creeds, empires, systems, rot with age.

But the great people's ever youthfull
And it shall write the future page

To our humanity more truthful.
The gnarliest heart hath tender chorda

To waken at the name of "Brother,"

6Sd THE mTMPHRET-BENNETT DISCtTSSTOK". ■

And time comes when scorpion words
We shall shall not speak to sting each other.
'Tis coming 1 yes, 'tis coming I

" Out of the light, ye priests, nor fling
Your dark, cold shadows on us longer I
Aside, thou world-wide curse, called king.
The people's step is quicker, stronger I
There's a divinity within

That makes men great whene'er they will it;
God works with all whe dare to win.
And the time cometh to reveal it.
'Tls coming I yes, 'tis coming.

"Fraternity I love's other name I

Dear heaven-connecting link of belngi
Then shall we grasp thy golden dream.

As souls full-statured grow far-seeingl
Thou Shalt unfold our better part.

And i-a our life-cup yield more honeyl
Light up with joy the poor man's heart.
And love's own world with smiles more sunny.
*Tis coming I yes, 'tis coming I

"Ay, it must come! the tyrant's throne

Is crumbling, with our hot tears rusted;
The sword earth's mighty have leant on

Is cankered, with our best blood crusted 1
Rooml for the men of mind make way I

Ye priests and tyrants 1— pause no longer I
Ye cannot stay the opening dayl
The world rolls on, the light grows stronger—
The people's advent's coming 1"

In the bonds of humanity and fraternity, I am sincerely
/our friend, D. M. Bennett

IKDEX.*

Adams (John) not an Infi- Christianity and Science,

del, H. 30 B. 139, H. 161, 18^, 187

Architectural Skill of the Christian Publishers, H. 128

Israelites, B. 116 Copernicus, remarks on, 145

Alexandrian Library, H. Cooper (Peter), reference

162, B. 171 to, B. 150, H. 157, B.

Arguments (ten) in Favor 167, H. 194, B. 210, 825

of the Bible, H. 406 Cornell University, B, 150,

Arguments (fifty) Opposed H. 157, B. 169, H. 195

to the Bible, B. 431 B. 211

Atheism, from the Nine- Calvin, B. 168, 216, H. 271.

teenth Century, B. 522 B. 823
Believers in the "Majority B. 6 Crimes of the Patriarchs, 231
Bennett Shown to be a B. 231
Christian, B. 88 Crimesof Prominent Chris-
Bible and Science, H. 102, tians, B. 232

B. 108, H. 123, B. 132, 181 Clergymen's Sensualities.

Book of Job, B. 133 B. 237, 282

Barnes(Albert Dr.) Quota- Christian Dogmas, Rites

tion from, B. 335 and Symbols, borrowed

Bruno, B. 146 from Paganism, B. 262

Brownlow on Clergymen, Contradictions of the Bi-

B. 296 ble, B. 308, H. 295, B. 422

Bible Canon, H. 339, B. 508 Contradictions of Paine

Bible Objections Consid- H. 396, B. 425

ered, H. 341 Canon of the Bible, B. 508

Bible Contradictions, B. Council of Nice, B. ^IQ

368, 422 Drnper, quotations from,

Bible, Arguments for, H. 406 B. 147, 191

Bible, Degradation of Wo- Death of Hume, B. 315

man, B. 505 D'Holbach, B. 319

Bible Tyranny and Des- Divinity of the Bible, rea-

potism, B. - 504 sons therefor, H. 339, B. 365

Christianity and Universi- Design Argument, H. 404,

ties.H. 123 B. 495

• H. indicates Humphrey, B. Bennett.
631

552

INDEX.

Deposits of Marine Del)ris

oa Mountain Tops, B. 425
Doctrines about Hell, B. 449
Decline of Cliriilianity, 518
Existence of God, H. 401,

B. 458, 495

Existence of the Uaiverse,493
Foreign aids to Americans, 4
Franklin a Christian, II. 14
Franklin not a Christian,

B. 21, 48

Franklin, quotations from,23
Framers of U. S, Consti-
tution, B. 88, 166
Freethinkers not sensunl-

ists, B. 137

Faith and Crcdulit)% B. 170
Frt ncli Revolution, B. 179,

H. 197, B. 212, B. 309

Guizot, quotations from, 142
Girard College, H. 164

Gerderman on ilie Catho-
lic Priesthood, B. 297
Guild on Clergymen, B. 301
Hamilton, (Alexander), a

Christian, H. 13

Hypatia, Murdered, B

141. H. 163, B. 178

Hallam, quotations from, 142
Huxley, qaoiations from,

B 146, 179

Hebrew Civilization, B.

134, 138, H. 160, B. 172
Holy Inquisition, B. 185

Hobbes, B. 316

Hutton, B. 462

Human Sacrifice in the

Bible, B. 506

Ingersoil, shown to be a

Christian, B. 38

Iniiersoll, quotations from
B. 74, 141, 143, 155, 323,
389, 446

Inventors and discoverers,

H. 127, B. 151

Insincerity of Infidels, H.

203, B. 318

Immorality Consistent
with Infidelity, H. 203,

B. 221, 225. H. 373

Infidels illiberal, H. 205,

B. 219, 225

Infidels hypocritical, H.

206, B. 226
Infidvls superstitious, H.

207, B. 226
Infidels blindly credulous,207
I::fidels unprogressive,

H. 208, B. 228

Infidels charged with im-

morality, H. 201. H. 364
Infi lei recantations, B. 314
Infidelity disintegrating, 326
Inleldgence, B, 457

In-rease of Infidelity, B. 518
Jefferson on Washington, 26
Jefferson not a Deist, 32, 76
Jefferson, quotations from, 41
J 'fferson an unbeliever.

B. 41-46, 84

Jews living in tents and

not civilized, 134, 138, 196
Jesus not a scholar, B. 140
Jews cannibals, 314, 336

Jehovah delineated, B. 314

B. 384, 422

Lossing on the Signers

of the Declaration of

Independence, H. 5

Love of Liberty, not

Christianity, B. 8

Lincoln not an Infidel

H. 81, 101

Lincoln an Infidel,

B, 93, 107, 131

Lecky, quot. from, B. 144
Luther, B. 216

Museums and Libraries,

H. 126, B, 149

Myths going out of fash-
ion, H. 158, B. 174, H. 197
Multiplicity of Sects, fl. 277
Mill, by Conway, B. 308

Mirabeau's death, B. 318
Mind, B. 456

Monotheism, B. 507

Newton, Sir Isaac, B. 329
Owen, Robert Dale, 11,

INDEX.

25. 86, 131, 176

Obscenity of the Bible, B.

178, H. 198, B. 367

Our laws not Christian in

origin, B. 189

Objections to the Bible, 341
Paine a Christian, B. 37

Piiine criticised, H. 50-58
Paine defended B. 59-74, 87
Printing, art of, 129, 152

Palenine, 134, 138, 160, 172,
196, 211

Priestcraft, nature of, B 261
Quotation from Judsre Story,
H. ' 78

Quotation from Pollock, 152
'' " Paley, B. 173

" " Mark Twain, 186
" " Theo. Clapp, 216
" " Beecher, B. 387
" " Orthodox wri-
ters concerning Hell, 449
Quot. from Tyndall, B. 490
Q larrels at Christian

Councils 511

Quot. from The Telegram, 521

" 19th Century 522

Rush (Benj.) a Christian, 13

Rawson (Pruf. A. L.) 172, 211

Reign of Terror, B. 179. 212;

H. 197

Robespierre, H. 269, 337; B.

309, 355

Religionists not liable to

insanity, H. 276

Religion not inconsistent 279
Slavery sustained by the

Bible, H. 79; B. 89

Slavery and Caristianity, 90

Science and the Bible, 102;

B. 108, 132, 181

Solomon not a great man, B.
118, 137, 177; H. 123

Smithsonian Institute, 156
B. 167

Science Hall, B. 231

Suelley, B. - 309

The Dtvil shown to be a
Christian, B. 39

The Israelites as musi-
cians, H. 104; B. 116

The Apostles not educated
men, B. 140

The Early Christian Fath-
ers not scientific, 140

Tbe Midianites, B. 382

Ten arguments infavorof
the Bible, H. 406 ; B. 426

Tyranny and despotism of
Bible, 504

Talmage on the decline of
Christianity, 520

Unbelievers in revolution-
ary times, B. 7

Underwood (B. F.) shown
to be a Christian, B. 38

Universe, thoughts of, B. 493

Vanini, B. 146

Voltaire, H. 338, B. 357

Wesley unfriendly to
American liberty, B. 9,
82. 106

Wesley not unfriendly to
American liberty, H. 74

Washington an Unbeliev-
er, B. 11, 25, 86

Washington a believer, H. 17

What makes a man a

Christian, B. 19

Woman's degradation in
the Bible, B. 505

PUBLTOATIO^^S BY D. M. BENOT2TT.

THE HEA.THENS OF THE HEATH. A THEOLOGICAL BO-
mance. by Wm. McDonnell, author of 'Exeter Hall," 500 pp.
pai er $1.00, eloth $1.50.

BURGESS -UNDERWCOD DEBATE; HELD AT AYLMER
Ont., in 1875, between Prof. O. A. Burgess and B. F. Underwood
Paper EO cts., cloth 8C cts.

THE UNDER WOOD-MARPLES DEBATE, HELD AT NAPA-
n>e. Oat., in 1875, between B. F. Underwood and Rev. John
Marples. Paper 35 cts.. eloth 60 etp.

THE PRO AND CON OP SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. IN
four parts ; by ex-Rev. E, E. Guild, of the Universalist Church.
Parer 30 ct?;., cloth 50 cts.

THE GODS AND OTHER LECTURES. BY COL. ROBT, G.
In^ersoll. Cheap edition; paper 30 cts,, cloth fcO cts. Large
12010 edition $1.25.

THIRTY DISCUSSIONS. BIBLE STORIES. LECTURES. AND
essays, byD. M. Bennett. Nearly 700 pp.. paper 75 cts.. cloth $1.00
TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS. IN FOUR VOLUMES. CONTAIN-
ing over 500 pages each. Bvvarious authors and treating upon
various subjects, containing strong arguments and palpable
hJis at old theology; in paper 60 cts. per vol., or $2.00 for the
four volumes, cloth $1.00 per vol., or $3.00 for the four.

TRUTH SEEKER COLLECTION OF FORMS. HYMNS, AND
Recitations. 600 pages. 75 cents.

CAREER OF RELIGIOUS IDEAS. BY HUDSON TUTTLE.
140 pp. Paper, 50 cents ; cloth. 75 cents.

INTERROGATORIES TO JEHOVAH. BY D.M.BENNETT.
Forthcoming. 250 pp. Paper. 50 cents; cloth. 75 cents.

PAINE'S AGE OF REASON, paper ;5 ct:^.. cloth 50 cents.
PAINE S AGE OF REaSON AND EXAMINATION OF PROPHE-
CIES; paper 50 e s, cloth 75 cts. PAINE'S THEOLOGICAL
WORKS, with Life and Steel Portrait of the author. Cloth, $150.
PAINE'S POLITICAL WORKS, with Liie and Steel portrait of
Paine. $150 PAINES CRISIS Paoer. 50 cents ; cloih. 80 cents.
PAINES RIGHTS OF MAN. Paper, 5j cents; cloth, 80 cents.
PAINE'S COMMON SENSE, 13 cents. LIFE OF PAINE. By Cal-
vin Blanchard. Steel Portrait. Paper 40 cents ; cio*h 75.

JOHN'S WAY, A RADICAL DOMESTIC ROMANCE, BY MRS.
Elmina D. Slenker. price 15 cts.

THE ADVENTURES OF ELDER TRIPTOLEMUS TUB, CON-
taining important disclosures concerning Hell, its magnitude,
morals, employment, climate, etc.. by Rev. George Rogers. Uni
vorsalist; very interesting; price 15 cent.

THE OUTCAST, BY WINWOOD READE. AUTHOR OF " MAR-
tytdom of Man." Price 3o cents.
T vVELVE TR ACTS, BY B. F. UNDER WOOD ; 125 pp., 20 cts.
EIGHT SCIENTIFIC TRACTS ; 125 pp., price 20.
SIX LECTURES ON ASTRONOMY, BY PROF. R. A. PROOTOR.
Price 20 cents.
All sent by mail at the above prices.

THE TRUTH SEEKEE LIBEAEY.

THE WORLD'S 8A.QES. THINKERS AND REFORMERS.

Containing f^lcetches of some three hundred of the most distin-
guished Philosophers and Teachers that have Hved In the
world, begiin'ng witLi Menu and coming down to the present
time. By D.M.Bennett. Second C'«}ition, revised and enlarged.
Over 1100 page^-. Crown-oetavo. *1\<}th, $3.00; Leather, $4.00;
Morocco with gilt edges. $4.50.

THE CHAMPIONS OP THE CHURCH. BEING BIOGRAPHI-

cal sketches of Eminent Christians from the earliest tx) the
late~t times. Soon to appear. It will contain full accounts of
Christian wars, persecutions, tyranny, and wrongs, for more
than fifteen hundred years, making in the aggregate a full
Church history. By D. M. Bennett. Over 1000 pages. Crown-
octavo. Cloth, $3.00 ; Leather, $4,00 ; Morocco, gilt edges, $4,50,

ANCIENT GODS AND ANCIENT FAITHS. CONTAINING

full details of the character and p'^culiarities of all tae princi-
pal Gods that men have worshiped in past ages, with a df'scrip-
tion of all the principal ancient religions of the world. By D.
M. Bennett. Will appear in 1878, and contain over 1000 pages.
Crown-octavo. Cloth, $3.00; Leather, $4.00; Morocco with gilt
edges, $4,R0.

MODERN GODS AND MODERN FAITHS. A continuation of
the foregoing, contaiainga full history of Christianity, Moham-
medanism, including the numerous sects into which they have
divided, as well as other modern creeds and systems of relig-
ion. By D. M. Bennett. Will appear in 1878. Over 1,000 pages.
Cloth, $3.00; Leather. $4.00; Morocco, gilt edges, $4.50.

ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. By Viscount Am-
b3rley, son of Lord John Russell, twice Premier of England.
An elaborate examination into the faiths of the world, the
sacred writings, the sucraments and religious ceremonies, the
principal Savi 'rs, Messiahs. Redeemers and Great Teachers
that have appeared in the past. Complete in one volume,
crown octavo, from the London edition. Cloth, $3.00; Leather,
$4.00 ; Morocco and gilt edges, $4.50.

THE GREAT WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, Complete, con-
t.iining his theological writings and his chief political works.
It contains Common Sense, The Ci isis, The Rights of Man, The
Age of Reason, The Examination of Prophecies, R'tply to
Bi-ihop Llandaff. Letter to Mr. Erskine, Letter to Camilie Jor-
dan, an Essay on Dreams, of the Religion of Deism, etc. with a
Life of Paine by Calvin Blanchard, and a steel-plate engraving
of Paine. In one volume, crown-octavo. Cloth, $3.00; Leather,
$4.00; Morocco and gilt edges, $4.50.

All sent by mail or.express at the prices named. Address
D. M. BENNETT, Pnblislier,

141 Eighth Street. N. Y.

D. x\i. BENNETT,
PUBLISHER, BOOKSELLER, AND IMPORTER,

MAKES A SPECIALTY OP

Liberal, Oriental, Radical, Anti-The'

ological, Scientific, Reformatory, Progressive,

and Spiritualistic Works, and Sells

BOOKS OF EVERT DESCRIPTION,

INCLUDING

WOBKS OF mSTOBY, BIOORAPHY, POETRY, BO-
MANGE, THE ARTS AND SCIENCES, ETC.

He furnislies any book published in Europe or America
at publishers' prices. SENT FREE OF TOSTAQE.
Libraries and Societies furnished at very liberal rates.

DEALER IN PHOTOGHAPHS OP DISTINGUISHED PERSONS.

THE TRUTH SEEKER,

A "Weekly Journal of Radicalism and Refoem,

devoted to

Science, Morals, Freethought, and Human Happiness,

D. M. BENNETT, Editor and Prop'r.

The most free and outspoken paper in the world. Price,
$2.00 per year; $1.00 for six months; 50 cents for three
months. Sample copies free upon application.

141 Eighth Street, New York.