Skip to main content

Full text of "Der Fall d'Arthez : Roman"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the Copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to Copyright or whose legal Copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that 's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken Steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non- commercial use of the file s We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's System: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in Copyright varies from country to country, and we can't off er guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
any where in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's Information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the füll text of this book on the web 

at http : //books . google . com/| 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 










Gkxl havi.ig spoken on divers oecasionfl, and many ways, In 
times past, lo the fathers by the prophets: last of all, in these 
days, hath spoken to us, by HIs Son. St. Paul to the Hebrewa^i, 1, %. 




* DigitizedbyVjOOQlC 

Entbrsd AT Statiombrs' Hall. London, England. 188S. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 










Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




London, Canada. Dec. 29tli, 1884. 
JRev. O. B. Northgrcms, 

Rbyebbnd and Deab Sir: 
. I am glad to know that you have prepared a work 
in reply to Ingersoirs "Mistakes of Moses," and that 
it is now ready f or publication. 

Judging by your known ability and ripe scholar- 
ßhip, I am satisfied that your work will be a thorough 
and triumphant ref utation of the misleading sophisms 
and specious but supei'ficial objections of the infidel 
school against the truth of the Christian Religion. 

This Religion is the most priceless treasare which 
this fallen, sin-stained world possesses. It is indeed 
the light of the world and the salt of the earth — the 
light of revealed truth for the intellect, the healing 
Salt of heavenly graces for the wourtds and corrnptions 
of the heart. It is oiir pillar of cloud by day, our 
pillar of fire by night protecting ns from the enemies 
of our salvation and guiding our footsteps through 
tbe desert of life towards the promised land. There 
is no dark problera of life which it häs not solved, ' 
there are no anxious questionings of the soul for whioh 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


it has not the most satisf actory answera. Into every 
Gethsemane of human grief and agony it has entered 
asan angel of consolation. Veronica like, it has wiped 
the blood and tears and sweat f rom the face of soffer- 
ing humanity. It has cared for the poor, it has fed 
the hungry, it has clothed the naked, it has visited 
and consoled thesick, it has sanotified and snblimated 
human sorrow, it has bronght hope and comfort into 
the darkness of the dungeon, it has f reed the slave, 
it has ennobled and dignified labor, in fine, it f ound the 
human race tattered and torn and bleeding by the 
way-side of the world and like the good Samaritan it 
has taken it up in its protecting arms, has poured wine 
and eil into its wounds and has restored it to health 
and strength« 

Those theref ore who attack the Christian Religion 
and strive to weaken its hold on the human intellect 
and beart are the worst enemies of man's highest 
interest»— are in fact ^^kostea humani generis.^^ 

Now what do the modern apostlesof infidelitypro* 
pose to Substitute for the saving truths and the graces 
and blessings of the Christian Religion? They have no 
Substitutes save doubt, negation, despair, no happiness 
here and no hopes of happiness hereafter. Gan such 
husks of swine f eed the hungry soul or satisfy the 
infinite longings and cravings of the human heart ? 
Can such things make life tolerable or worth living? 
Gan they reconcile the poor, the sick and the suffering 
to their hard lot ? Can thuy content the toiling masses 
with the terrible hardships of their -lives ; with the 
harsh social inequalities that Surround them? Says 
one of the preachers of unbelief — Schopenhauer — 
"To take away belief in a Divine Provi4ence is to incur 
one of the most serious and striking losses which are 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


involyed in a rejection of Christian and eoclesiastical 
teaching. Here is the System of things ~one huge 
machine — ^with its jagged iron wheels ever going 
round amid a roaring din, its heavy hammers and 
giant-pistons which ring out a deafening orash as they 
come down; and man without help or protection 
looks upon himself and discovers that he is placed in 
the centre of all the wild commotion: he has no 
secority, not f or a single moment that the wheels in 
some unf oreseen movement may not lay hold of him 
and tear him asnnder — ^that some fall of a hammer may 
not smash him to atoms in its descent. The Sensa- 
tion of being abandoned, and at the meroy of some- 
thing eise — something which no prayer can reach — 
is terrible indeed!" Such is the world which the 
gospel of infidelity and despair woald create around 
US — a World like to that of the abyss and its doomed 
inhabitants; but it is not God's world in which we live 
and labor and hope; it is not the world blesse4 ^nd 
sanctified by Christianity which presents to us the 
Etemal 6od as our Father and Protector, Jesus Christ 
as our Bedeemer and Savionr, which preaches us an 
Evangel of immortal hopes, which teaches us that this 
lif e is but the threshold of an immortal lif e, is but the 
passage to an etemal kingdom of happiness, where the 
poor shall be made rieh, where the weakshall become 
streng, where the aged and decrepit ^all renew their 
youth like the eagle, where the harsh inequalities and 
terrible hardshipsof eur temporal State must for ever 
cease, where the m&a of toil shall rest from his labors, 
where injfine, " God shall wipe away all tears from 
their eyes and death shall be no more, nor mouming, 
nl[>r crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more for the 
fonner things shall have passed away.'' (Apocalypse, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


zzi, 4.) In view of the momentons issnes involved in 
the questions raised by the infidel school, in view of 
the nearest and deare^ interests of individual man 
and of Society attacked and iinperilled by the agents 
of unbelief — a work like yours which exposes the 
sophisms of the af oresaid school, which conf utes its 
errors which thoroughly refutes and pulverizes its 
objections and which triumphantly defends the out- 
works and the f ortress of Christian truth and belief — 
such a work, I say, is eminently deserving of the 
favorable recognition and patronage of the public 
and is sure to receive hearty encouragement and 
warm welcome f rom all who love " the f aith once 
delivered to the saints." 

Wishing you every blessing, 

I am, Reverend and dear Sir, 

Very faithfully yours, 


Bishop of Londoru 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Letter of Approbation f rom Rt. Rev. Bishop Walsh 5 

Introduction 11 


1. Liberty and License. — Free- WüL — Col. IngersoU's 

Inconsistencies 18 

2. Religious and Political Liberty. — Col. Ingersoirs 

Sneers at tlie Clergy. — Lidifferentism in Religion . . 21 

3. Punishment of Idolatry. — Everlasting Punishment . . 30 

4. Slavery 37 

5. Existence of God 48 

6. Refutation of Objections against God's Existence 66 

7. Creation and Providence 61 

8. Necessity of Revelation. — Insnfflciency of ünaided 

Reason. — Spirituality and Immortality of tho Soul, 73 

9. Necessity of.ftevelation. — Results of Ünaided Rea- 

son.— Degrading Rites of Paganism. — Human Sac- 
rifices. — Extermination of the Canaanites. 78 

10. Necessity of Revelation. — Results of Infldelity 91 

11. Mysteries in Religion " 94 

12. Possibility of Revelation. — Immediate aod Mediate 

Revelation. — Historical Certitude 100 

13. Miracles 108 

14. Prophecy .... 115 

15. The Fact of Revelation. , 122 

16. Authenticity and Integrity of the Petotateuch. — 

Septuagint Translation. — Antiquity of Written 
Language 124 

17. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — Tes- 

timony of the Later Sacred Writers 135 

18. Authenticity and Integritjrof the Pentateuch. — Testi- 

mony of the Later Scriptures. — Pagan Testimony, 145 

19. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — Ob- 

jections of Messrs. I^ine and Ingersoll Refuted 150 

20. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch.— Proof 

from Jewish Festivals 161 

21. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — In- 

trinsic Evidence of its Language 165 

22. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — In- 

trinsic JJvidence of its Language. continued 175 

23. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — Testi- 

mony of History.— Events in Joseph's Life 181 

M. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — The 

Testimony of History, continued 189 

25. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — The 

Bondage in Egypt 195 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Chaptbb. Paob 

26. Authenticity and Integrityof the Pentateuoh.— The 

Ten Plagues of Egypt 201 

27. The Ten Plagues of Egypt.— Refutation of Objec- 

tions 211 

28. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — Tes- 

timony of History, concluded 221 

29. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. — The 

Testimony of Geography 228 

80. Truth of the Pentateuch.— Proofs of the Sincerity of 

Moses 234 

81. Truth of the Pentateuch.— Continued 240 

82. The Truth of Genesis. — Moses not Deceived, nora 

Deceiver. — His Sources of Information 246 

83. The Truth of Genesis.— Testimony of Pagan Tra- 

ditions 252 

84 The New Testament.— Its Authenticity and Truth.— 

Christianity a Divine Religion 260 , 

85. Obiections Refuted. — Creation. — The Firmament. — 

Heaven 268 

86. Obiections Refuted.— The Creation. . : 275 

87. Objections Refuted.— The Creation of Plauts and 

Animals. — ^The Sun Standing Still. — Chinese As- 
tronomy 286 

88. Objections Refuted. — Astronomy. — God not Respon- 

sible for the Sins and Errors of Men 294 

89. Colonel Ingersoll's Anthropomorphism. — Antiquity 

• of Man.— King Cephren's Date.— The Cave-Men, 299 

40. Evolution. — Fabulous Chronology. — Antiquity of 

Man.— ^Savagery and Civilization 808 

41. The Sabbath.— Account of Creation Consistent— 

Origin of Man.— Christian Morality 817 

42. The Garden of Eden.— Immortality of the SouL 829 

43. The Fall of Man o886 

44. The Deluge.— Its Possibility.— The Gathering of the 

Animals : 841 

45. Capacity of Noah's Ark. — Paggn Traditionsof the 

Deluge. — Colonel IngersolFs Blunders. — The Tes- 
timony of Geology 348 

46. The Origin of Language.— Babel.— Evidences of One 

Original Tongue 858 

47< Christian vs. Infidel Morality: Polygamy: Divorce: 

Free-Love 873 

48. Increase of the Israelites in E^pt.-^The Tribe of 

Dan.— TlieNumber of First- Born Males 880 

49. The Fligbt from Eg^pt.— The Manna.— Refutation 

of Miscellaneous Objections. — Religious Ceremo- 
nies 894 

60. Miscellaneous Objections Refuted.— Ritual Laws.— 

Flocks and Herds in the Desert 405 

51. Miscellaneous Objections Refuted.— Conclttsion 415 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Thb works of many noted skeptics have of late 
years attracted greatly tbe attention of the pablic in 
America, especially those of Thomas Paine and Col. 
Robert G. Ingersoll. Many answers to their argu- 
ments have also been pablisbed, some of which are 
very able, and others ratber f eeble. Especially has the 
latter writer been already severely handled by such 
able polemics as Jadge Black, and more lately by 
Rev. Father Lambert and others: still, as far as I 
am aware, there has not been made as yet any attempt 
at a complete answer to bis book " Some Mistakes of 
Moses," published in Washington, 1879, which, over 
bis own Signatare, he declares to be " the only correct 
edition " of this work. I have long been of opinion 
that the pablic are, at present, in need of a hand-book 
which will answer the most mischievoas of modern 
skeptics' objections against the Tbuth and Inspiba- 
TioN of Holy Scriptare, and will at the same time 
farnish a reliable Synopsis of the arguments whereby 
these ^ attributes of Scripture can be maintained. 
Believers in Christianity who become familiär with 
such a book will be " ready always to give an answer 
to every man that asketh a reason of the hope that is 
in them." Yes, and they will be able to carry the war 
into the enemy's country, by showing the inconsisten- 
cies of Infidelity, and the weakness and dishonesty 




of the arguments by which Infidels uphold their 

It could not be expected that, within the limits of 
a small book like this, all the proofs of the Truth of 
the Bible shoald be compressed. Nevertheless, I 
hope and believe that enough will be found to con- 
firtn the f aith of many readers, and to answer at least 
all that Colonel Ingersoll has advanced to impagn it, 
in the book to which I intend chiefly to devote my 
attention, his "Some Mistakes of Moses." At the 
same time, while answering Colonel Ingersoll, many 
of the difficulties put forth by Paine and Voltaire 
will be refuted. In fact the gallant Colonel has not 
been at all scrupulous about using the artillery of 
those who preceded him in the work of attacking 
Revelation; for most of his arguments have been 
taken bodily from old authors, and have been before 
now ably answered, some of them isixteen hundred 
years ago. 

There are some who are of opinion that such attacks 
on Religion ought to be treated as unworthy of 
notice. The writer of this work prefers to coincide 
with the opinions of those illustrious writers who, in 
the third and fourth centuries of the Christian Era, 
thought it usef ul to answer tho objection^s of Celsus, 
Porphyry, and Julian, the Apostate. When Infidel 
objections agkinst Religion are widely circulated, as 
they are to-day, many souls may be lost through par- 
taking of the poison, unless they have access to the 
antidote. Besides, it strengthens the faith of ßincere 
Christians to find that the objections so pertinaciously 
raised by enemies of Religion are capable of being 
aatisf actorily refuted. 

Digitized by VjÖOQIC 




Coli. Ingbbsoll so mizes up the subjects which he 
treats, that I find it almost impossible to follow him 
chapter by chapter without weakening thd chain of 
reasoning which I propose to adopt. As the Colonel 
is a resolute advocate of Liberty, I presume he will 
not complain if I take the liberty of answering him 
systematically, thougli I may have to bring together 
portions of bis work wfiich are soores of pages apart. 

The main object of Mr. Ingersoll's attack on Moses 
is professedly to proclaim liberty to Men, liberty to 
bis Qountry, to the Clergy^ to the Schools, even to the 
Politicians. This theme occupies the first f our chap- 
ters of bis work, and in a free country such as both he 
and I live in, it is certainly a plausible pretext to 
present bef ore an audience which must be predisposed 
to listen to anything said in f avor of that boon which 
they have so long and so satisfactorily enjoyed, par- 
tioularly when its praises are uttered in the choice 
language which the Colonel knows so well how to 

But may not the term liberty or freedom be used as a 
oloak f or licenae, or immunity f rom law ? It has often 
been so nsed; and thus when the talented and intrepid 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Madame Roland was led to the scaffold in the name 
of Liberty, it is well known how she apostrophized 
tbe Statue of the Goddess of Liberty» near which 
the scaffold was erected: 

"O Liberty! what crimes are oommitted in thy 

We raust theref ore caref uUy distinguish between 
that desirable liberty which is the birthright of man, 
and that license, that f reedom from lawf ul authority^ 
which opens the door to the commission of crime. 

Liberty is of various kinds. The first of which I 
shall speak is that liberty of the human soul which is 
called Free-will. There are two ways in which we 
may conceive that we would not possess Free-will : 
Ist, if the acts of cur will were determined by some 
extrinsic force : 2ndly, if the acts of the will were 
caused by an inevitable intrinsic force, or necessity. 

It is conceded by all that the act of cur will is not 
controUed by an extrinsic force. The members of 
cur body may be acted upon by such a force so that 
the incHnation of cur will be not obeyed by them, 
but the inclinatioB of the will is intrinsic to it and no 
outside power can control it. 

Fatalists, however, maintain that our will is sub- 
ject to an intrinsic determination which it necessarily 
obeys. Materialists who maintain that man is merely 
a material Organization, and that the acts of the hu- 
man mind are the necessary results of our Organiza- 
tion, actually destroy Free-will though they proclaim 
it in Word 8. 

Free-will consists in the faculty of choosing. By 
this faculty we can choose between action and in- 
action, between one act and another, between good 
and evil. If we possessed not this faculty it would 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


be vain to enact laws: it would be impossible to 
obey them. It would be useless to exhort or com- 
mand us, for we would have no power to give our 
consent. We would be equally undeserving of praise 
or eensure, rewards or punishment. These conse- 
quences of Fatalism and Materialism are repudiated 
by all mankind: for every one feels in himself bis 
freedom öf will, and knows when be exercises it. 
We are f uUy conscious that certain acts wbich we 
have done are tbe result of our cboice, and if the re- 
sult has been beneficial we resolve to act again in the 
same way. II the result has not been according to 
our denire, we propose to act differently in f uture. 

Every human being possesses the in ward conscious- 
ness of Free- will. We know by our in ward cpnscious- 
ness that we exist, think, judge, feel, love, hate, will, 
rejoic^^ and grieve. By the same in ward conscious- 
ness we know that by some power existing in us, 
and Coming f rom us, we can and do reflect and medi- 
tate, acquire knowledge and even move our body. 
If this testimony of our interior sense be false 
or doubtf ul, there can be no certitude whatever. 
This principle within us possesses, therefore, a true 
activity and is th^ cause, not the mere occasion or 
Instrument of our acts. The existence of this prin- 
ciple is the foundation of moral order, and the prin- 
ciple itself we denominate the human soul. It is 
this principle which is free. Christianity bases on 
this freedom of our soul, her whole moral code. It 
is the foundation of merit and demerit. ' Without it, 
there could not be either free thought, a free press, 
free men or free women, which Col. IngersoU declares 
to be so desirable. Tet with stränge inconsistency 
the Colonel endeavors to excite horror and indigna- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tion against God f or having bequeathed this liberty 
to man! He arraigns 'Almighty God for having con- 
fen*ed upon His creatares that liberty conceming 
wbich he himself says " until the clergy are free they 
cannot be intelleotually honest." (P. 24.) 

God made man capable of knowing and serving Hirn 
on earth, or of repudiating and disobeying Hirn. By 
exercising this freedom, some have become like angels 
in virtue, others have plunged into demoniacal vices. 
Yet this freedom, this power of doing evil is a means 
by which the merits and rewards of the virtaous are 

'^He that conld have transgressed, and hath not 
transgressed, could do evil things and hath not done 
them. Therefore are his goods established in the 
Lord." Ecclus. xxxi, 10, 11. 

It is undoubtedly an impenetrable mystery, why a 
God who is infinitely good shoald tolerate the exist- 
ence of moral evil, sin, whereas we know that His 
infinite power could prevent it ; but we may well 
conceive that as the elimination of the liberty we 
possess from the human soul would deprive man of 
,an important means of merit, that it is better that, 
for the sake of those wbo will make good use of it, 
God should give us that liberty, even though He 
knows that many will abuse it, and that He in His 
justice will punish such abuse. 

Hence Col. IngersoU's interrogatories from page 140 
to 143 are as absurd as they are irreverent. I cull 
from them the foUowing: 

*^ Of course Gk>d knew when he made man, that he 
would af terwards regret it. He knew that the people 
would grow worse and worse, until destruction would 
be the only remedy. He knew that he would have 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to kill all except Noab and bis family Why did 

he fill the world with bis own children, knowing that 
he would have to destroy them ? . . . . It is hard to 
see why God did not civilize these people. He cer- 
tainly had the power .to use, and the wisdom to devise 
the proper means. What right has a God to fill the 
World with fiends? Can there be goodness in this? 
Why should he make experiments that he knows 
must fail? Is there any wisdom in this?" 

I may add thät Mr. IngersoU grossly m^srepresents 
the case when he asserts that God filled the world 
with dends. God made man sinless, and for a noble 
purpose, for an end more sublime than all bis other 
creatures, angels excepted, and be gave to man, even 
af ter the original fall, all the graces needed to enable 
bim to persevere in virtue. Man's own perversity 
was the cause of bis fall. 

Such is the Christian theory, which Col. IngersoU 
should have ref uted if be desired to overthrow Cbris- 
tianity; but instead of this be sets up a man of straw 
of bis own manufacture, and be amuses bimself by 
pulling it to pieces. 

The next conundrum which he puts forward so 
pompously (page 142), is therefore for bimself to 
ans wer: 

'' What right has a man to Charge an infiiiijbe being 
with wickedness and folly ?" 

Surely ^e wbo does this is guilty bimself of wick- 
edness and folly, blaspbemy and presumption. I 
leave to a discerning public to decide wbetber Mr. 
IngersoU has not left bimself open to the Charge. 
The Christian does not. 

We have seen, as a speoimen of the ColonePs in- 
consistencies, that be regards liberty as the basis of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


honesty, yet be arraigns our Creator f or having im- 
parted it to man. A third position whicb be takes 
is irreconcilable witb eitber of tbe otbers. He 
maintains tbat God did not create tbe world. Tbe 
universe is tbe result of tbe Operation of natural 

'^ Tbe Statement tbat in tbe beginning God created 
tbe beaven and tbe eartb, I cannot accept. It is 
contrary to my reason, and I cannot believe it. 

To conceive of matter witbout force, 

or of force witbout matter, or of a time wben neitber 
existed, or of a being wbo existed for an etemity 
witbout eitber, and wbo out of notbing created botb, 
is to me utterly impossible." (P. 60.) 

It is tberefore clear tbat tbe Colonel believes only 
in tbe existence of matter, wbicb is tbe only prin- 
ciple of force. Our souls, tberefore, if we bave souls, 
are merely organized matter, according to binu 

Tbis is stated in anotber form on page 86, wbere 
be puts tbe dootrine of Evolution among tbe demon- 
strated results of scientific investigation. On page 
88 be is somewbat more moderate, as tbe same doo- 
trine is merely put forward as tbe more probable 
opinion. On page 57, bowever, be endeavors to 
prove Creation absurd, and on page 85 be declares 
tbat life was evolved from monad up to man during 
millions of ages. 

Wbat are tbese 'monads ? Tbey are suQposed to 
be tbe ultimate atoms, tbe primary constituents of 
matter. Following up tbe Coloners tbeory, by tbeir 
agglomeration, man must bave been evolved. But 
bave tbese monads tbe faculty of cboice? Have 
tbey Free- will ? A mountain of granite has also been 
formed from monads, and th« ultimate constituents 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of a steam-engine are monads also- Does Colonel 
Ingersoll claim intellectual freedom for these ? The 
trath is, the materialist entirely destroys the freedom 
of the soul, for freedom cannot be a faculty of any 
aggregation of material monads. 

With his inconsistencies in bis treatise on liberty, 
the Colonel appears somewbät as Junius is described 
by Byron in his "Vision of Judgment." I make a 
slight alteration to sait the application : 

" The moment that you had pronouaced him one. 
Presto! his face is changed, and lie was another; 

And when that change was hardly well put on, 
It varied tili I don't think his own mother 

(If that he had a mother) would her son 
Have known, he shifted so from ODe to t' other; 

Till guessing from a pleasure grew a task 

At this great lecture-making " Iron Mask." 

I Ve an hypothesis— 'tis quite my own; 

I never let it out tili now for fear 
Of doing peopre härm. ... 

It is— my gentle public, lend thine earl 
"Tis that what Ingersoll we are wont to call 
Was really, tnUy, nobody at all. 

It is evident from the reasons we have given that 
the soul of man possesses Free-will. This doctrine is 
incalcated by Christianity. It is also tanght by 
Moses, as will be seen by reading the 30th chapter 
of Deuteronomy, and especially by the 19th värse: 
"I have set before you life and deatb, blessing and 
cursing; theref ore choose life that both you and your 
seed may live." In regard to human liberty, then, 
Moses is right, and so is Christianity. Col. Inger- 
soll and other materialists abb mistakbn. 

While treating of the oo-ezistence of moral evil 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


with God's infinite power and wisdom, I have said 
this is an impenetrable my8tery;4neyerthele88 I have 
given a reason why it may be better so. CoL Inger- 
soll rejects all mystery: 

''I do insist tbat a Statement tbat cannot possibly 
be comprebended by any human being, and that 
appeara utterly impossible, repugnant to every fact 
of experience, and contrary to everything that we 
really know, must be rejected by every honest man." 
(P. 67.) 

Tbis Statement is yery loose. I will prove here- 
af ter, when treating of mysteries m religioü, that we 
may reasonably expect mysteries when we contem- 
plate the traths which relate to Qod. For the present 
I need only show the fallacy of the ColonePs reason- 
ing as applied to the case under oonsideration. The 
existence of sin is a fact. The existence of God is 
not denied squarely by Colonel IngersoU. The co- 
existence of the two, theref ore, is admitted as pos- 
sible. It is • neither " repugnant to experience," nor 
to "everything we really know." It may appear to 
be impossible when the apparent incongruity is first 
presented to our mind, but, as I have already shown, 
the incongruity is but apparerUy not recU. 

Were you to inform a wealthy lady in a ball-room 
that the magnificent jewels that encircle her neck 
and wrists, and by their brilliancy astound the behold- 
ers, are merely oharooal or lamp-black, she would be 
indignant at the assertion, unless she were somewhat 
acquainted with chemistry. Indeed, unless she were 
very ^ell versed in that science, she would, even then, 
know only by the authority of others that you had 
spoken the truth. Here^then, what appears utterly 
impossible is the truth. Moreover, thongh soientists 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


have discovered that these substances, with proper- 
ties so opposite, are identicaly no one has yet beeu 
able to comprehend how the same atoms or monads 
which compose tbe latter substanoes can be so 
arranged as to prodace a diamond. 

Here we bave a fact wbich "cannot possibly be 
comprebended by any baman being," at least in 
Üiß present condition of science, and wbicb, in all 
probability never will be understood. Yet suob a 
fact " mnst be rejected by every bonest man," ac- 
oording to Colonel IngersoU. 

It is evident tbat tbere are even in Nature tmths 
above buman understanding. It is tberef ore bad rea- 
soning to assert tbat ä doctrine must be rejected 
because it is incomprebensible. Indeed, we need only 
oppose to tbis position of Mr. IngersoU bis oWn con- 

"I do not pretend to teil bow all tbese tbings really 
are.'» (P. 57.) * 

He is speaking bere of tbe existence of tbe uni- 
verse. The existence of the universe is, however, a 
fact. He therefore acknowledges that naysteries are 
to be believed, in the same breath with which he 
repudiates them alL 





Wb have next to consider the nature of the Intel- 
lectnal liberty which Mr. IngersoU Claims. He de- 
clares he wishes "to free the orthodox clergy." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


(P. 16.) From what ? Fro?a the Obligation of teach- 
ing what they believe God has taught. 

" They are not employed to give their thoughts, 
but simply to repeat the ideas of others." (P. 17.) 

For the purpose of throwin^ ridicule upon the be- 
lief that we are bound to adhere to revealed doctrines 
he misrepreaents them thus: 

" The wicked get all their good things in this life, 
and the good all their evil, . . . . no matter how ab- 
surd these things may appeär to the carnal mind they 
mast be preached and they must be believed. If 
they were reasonable there wonld be no virtue in be- 
lieving," etc. (P. 18.) 

The clergy must " attack all modern thought, point 
out the dangers of science," ..... must " show that 
virtue*rests on ignorance and faith, while vice impu- 
dently feeds and fattens upon fact and demonstra- 
tion." (P. 22.) 

^The scheme of salvation is absurd. .... If the 
people were a little more ignorant, astrology would 
flourish — if a little more enlightened, religion would 
perish." (P. 26.) 

The clergy must show " the wickedness of philoso- 
phy, .... the imntorality of science." (P. 19.) 

As to the assertion, "they are expected to point 
out the dangers of freedom, the safety of implicit 
obedience " (p. 19), much depends upon what is meant 
by freedom, and to whom implicit obedience is to be 
paid. If by freedom we are to understand immu^ity 
from all law, certainly freedom is dangerous; yet this 
is. precisely the freedom which the Colonel demands 
tfaroughout his book. If by implicit obedience is 
meant obedience to the Supreme Buler of the Uni- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


verse, such obedience is certainly safe, and is a daty 
resting on mankind. 

The misrepresentations of Christian doctrines are 
not confirmed by any proofs. They reat on Mr. In- 
gersolPs mere assertion. They therefore require no 
refutation. I deny that Christianity teaches what is 
contrary to reason. I deny that Christianity teaches 
that virtne rests on ignorance or that science is im- 
moral. On the contrary, we are called npon by the 
great Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. xii, 1^) to present 
to God cur " reasonable service." The Service of God 
is reasonable, because he is the Creator, the Master, 
the Father of all. "The son honoreth the father and 
the servant his master; if then Ibe a father, where is 
my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? 
saith the Lord of Hosts." (Mal. i, 6.) 

I find then that Col. IngersoU in his book, and in- 
deed in many of his lectnres, maintains: 

1. That whether God exists or not, it is of no im- 
portance to us to pay him homage: and that even in 
the hypothesis that God has revealed our daties in the 
Bible or otherwise, we are not bound to accept his 

2. That neither God nor man has a right to pnnish 
those who believe or teach error. (Pp. 32 to 34, 268.) 

3. That «lavery is essentially wioked, as tolerated 
in Scripture. (P. 245.) 

4. That Christianity has been the great persecntor 
against those who freely expressed their opinions. 
The persecating spirit of Infidelity will be seen f rom 
the lOth chapter of this work. 

To the oonsideration of the rest of these teaohings I 
will devote the remainder of this chapter. 
Mr. IngersoU says: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


"A belief in one Gk>d is claimed to be a dogma of 
almost infinite importance, . . . . f or my part I think 
it infinitely more important to believe in man« The- 
ology ifl a saperstition, Homanity a religion.'' (P. 

^'Certainly all cannot be right; and as it woold 
require a lif e-time to investigate the Claims of these 
varions Systems, it is bardly fair to damn a man f or^ 
eyer simply becanse he happens to believe the wrong 
one.*» (P. 39.) 

'^ All worship is necessarily based npon the belief 
that some being exists who can, if he will, change the 
natural order of events." (P. 49.) 

All kinds of worship ^^are the offspring of error." 

Running through the above eztraots we find the 
following errors: 

First, that Gk>d cannot change the natoral order of 
events: that is to say, thät miracles are impossible. 

Secondly, that want of f aith in Ood onght not to 
entail everlasting pnnishment. 

Thirdly, that worship is not dne to Crod. 

FourtÜy, that Religion is a matter of little or no 

Other errors there are in these passages; bnt ihey 
need not be pointed out here as they will b^ dealt 
l^th in their proper place. Even I will here only 
deal with the last two errors which I have pointed 
out. The other two will be treated respectively in 
chapters 13 and 3. 

And here I will stay a moment to hnrl back a sneer 
which the brave soldier thinks proper to fling at 
Christianity in this connection. He says: 

'^Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


.... In the olden time these t}ieological pidopfle« 
who quartered themselves upon the honest and indas' 
trious, were called soothsayers, seers, charmers, proph- 
ets, enchänters, sorcerers, wizards, astrologers and 
impostors, but now they are known as clergymen.'' 

Whether Christianity or IngersoUism be the selfish 
religion, we may judge from the second extract 
given above. He here puts forward as a plea f or in- 
difference to religion, the Suggestion that tbere really 
will be no punishment for neglect: "It is hardly 
fair to daran a man f orever simply because he happens 
to believe the wrong" religion. There is here no 
thoaght of seif, f orsooth ! It reminds me of a couple 
of horse thieves in the West who were sent by their 
gang to a certain farmer's enclosure to ply their yq- 
cation. On their return, when questioned why they 
had no horses, they answered ^that conscientious 
scruples had prevented them for carrying out their 
design. When their comrades indignantly demanded 
what conscience had to do with them, the unsuccess- 
f ul hunters said : " Oh ! we received information that 
a detachment pf the vigilance committee were expect- 
ing such a raid and were ready to hang us on the 
nearest tree, so we thought it more honorable to leave 
the horses to their owner, under the circumstances." 
This is Colonel Ingersoll's idea of unselfishness* 

The sneer at the Christian clergy needs no reply. 
The writer of this is a Priest of the Catholic Church, 
and believes that STie alone presents truly the doc. 
trines of Christianity. He cannot therefore claim to 
speak for the clergy of other denominations. How- 
ever, I doubt if among those who professedly propa- 
gate Christianity, there is any class who have sunk 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


SO low as the Infidel High-Priests, the New-Tork 
propagandists of Infidelity, whose bare-f aced propa- 
gandism also of immorality, obliged the United 
States government to step in to arrest their proceed- 
ings. Neitber is it seemly on the part of Colonel In- 
gersoll to aecuse the " theologieal people" of merce- 
nary motives, as if this humanitarian gentleman, for 
so it seems he would wish to be styled, *' quartered" 
not himself upon many honest and industrious people 
when he delivered bis lectures, wbetber at the rate of 
$25,000 per annum, or 50 cents a head for admission. 
But is the charaeter of the clergy, as Colonel In- 
gersoU bas painted it, correct ? He deseribes them 
as charmers, impostors, etc., who have taken tq their 
Office for sake of lucre. I do not deny that there 
have been sad cases of depravity among the priest- 
hood, that from time to time there have been great 
scandals, the consequences of which have been de- 
plorable. But does this show universal corruption ? 
Are we to judge all by the wickedness of compara- 
tively few, especially as we know that the abuses 
were always condemned by the Supreme authority of 
the Church ? Is there nothing to admire in the noble 
fortitude and zeal of hundreds of thousands of holy 
priests who were martyred for the truth during the 
first three centuries of the Christian era ? Is there to 
be only censure for the clergy of the llth Century to 
whom, chiefly, was due the peaceful revolution knowu 
as the " Truce of God," by means of which the bar- 
barous charaeter of war was permanently changed 
so as to be waged thereafter, more in accordance 
with the laws of humanity and religion ? Was it for 
the sake of lucre that in the 13th Century the f riars 
taught patience to the oppressed serf s of Europe by 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


their own example of voluntary poverty ? Is it f or 
earthly gain that at this day so many of the clergy, 
animated by missionary zeal, devote themselves to 
carry the knowledge of the gospel to China, Japan, 
India, Algeria, Patagonia, and the Indiana of North 
America ? Were the hospitals and orphan asylums 
and schools, instituted and supported mainly by the 
unremitting efforts of the clergy in Colonel IngersolPs 
own city of Peoria, as well as in other eitles of this 
continent, the work of mere sorcerers, enchanters and 
impostors seeking only f or self-aggrandizement ? On 
the title-page of his book, Mr. IngersoU claims to 
he a benefactor of the world on the plea that he is 
destroying weeds, thistles, etc. He acknowledges 
that he is sowing no grain. Well, I think the people 
of America of good sehse would pref er such thistles 
as many of the clergy have sown and would let their 
professing benefactor go to Heligoland or anjrwhere 
he likes, providing they will never hear from him 

It is a fact well-known, and I believe it is true of 
the Protestant as well as of the Catholic clergy, that 
they are not, as a body, working f or lucre's sake. 
If this were so, they made a great mistake in becom- 
ing clergy men, for usually the clergy receive very 
ßmall pay for the amount of work they do, in com- 
parison with professional men or even tradesmen. 
Yet as a class they are superior both in learning and 
morals, probably to any other class in the Commun- 
ity. Wicked or scandalous conduct on the part of 
clergymen, attracts great notice, and is talked of by 
everyone, precisely because such conduct is rare, 
while similar conduct by people in other professions 
is passed over without notice or comment. Mr. In- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


gersolPs insinuations are as slanderous as they are 

Let US now consider Colonel IngersolPs position 
that Religion is of no importance: tbat we can 
afford to be indifferent whether religion be true or 

In tbe first place it is a question of tmtb, etemal 
truth. Col. Ingersoll himself says: 

" Let US dedicate tbem (our scbools) to tbe science 
of eternal trutb. Let us teil every teacber to ascer- 
tain all tbe facts be can — to give us ligbt, to foUow 
Nature, no matter where sbe leads," etc. (P. 28.) 

Tbe discovery of Trutb, tben, is a matter of vast 
importance. In tbis tbe Cbristian perfectly agrees 
witb Mr. Ingersoll, wbo very eloquently expatiates 
on tbe grandeur of tbis subject. I do not deny, I 
acknowledge tbat tbe Colonel is really a fluent 
Speaker and writer, and in some respects a very able 
man. He is not, bowever, a reasoner, at least in bis 
tbeological writings. He may be more skilful as a 

Tbe Colonel, tben, f requently sounds tbe praises of 
science as tbe means wbereby buman bappincss is to 
be attained, because science teacbes trutb. But in- 
difference to Religion is indifference to trut)i. It 
tberefore betokens weakness of intellect, mental im- 
becility. Wby does tbe Colonel recommend it ? But 
more: Indifference to Religion exposes man to God's 
anger. It is an insult offered to God, and surely 6od 
will punisb it, as surely as He is just. God must be 
tbe essence of Trutb, Infinite Trutb. If we ref use 
bis Revelation, or if we are indifferent to it, we vir- 
tually accuse God of falsebood. God, from His very 
nature, cannot be equally pleased witb tbose who 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


accept and those who reject His teaching. Now, re- 
ligion teaches that He rewards those who believe 
and put into practice His teaching, while He punishes 
those who disregard it. The stake is great Truth, 
Duty and Interest, the great motives which govem 
human actions, combine in adjuring us not to be in- 
dijfferent in so important a matter as our eternal wel- 
fare. Indifference in Religion is, therefore, both a 
crime and a folly. The intellectual freedom, then, 
which Colonel Ingersoll Claims, and which he explains 
to mean Indifference to Religion and Revelation, is 
both unsafe, unphilosophical and criminal. Intel- 
lectual freedom in matters which do not concem 
morality, that is to say our moral relations to God, 
our neighbors and ourselves, is quite legitimate: but 
let not intellectual freedom become license, immunity 
from the laws of God and man, for then neither God 
nor man can tolerate it. 

There is, atleast, good reason to suppose that God 
has made a Revelation to man, wherein He discloses 
the manner in which He wishes to be honored. A 
vast portion of mankind asserts that this is the case. 
Then it is evidently our duty and interest to discover 
this, instead of inventing a new religion, such as Mr. 
Ingersöll's religion of "Humanity." The Revelation 
of God, when known, will no doubt teil us more 
about the right religion of Humanity, than all the 
cleverest human Religion-Makers can teil. 

But the Colonel objects: it is too much trouble to 
investigate the Claims of this Revelation. I answer 
first, be the trouble what it may, there is no more im- 
portant matter to occupy our attention. We labor 
all our lives to secure worldly comfort. Why not 
devote some part of our time to the seouring of ever- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


lasting happiness ? Secondly. The tronble is not so 
great, perhaps, as the Colonel represents it to be^ 
When the inquiry is made with the proper disposi- 
tion of Submission to the divine law, there is no doubt 
God Himself will f acilitate the matter. ^* Seek ye 
the Lord, while He may be found; call upon Hiixi 
while He is neab." (Is. Iv., 6.) If it be possible that 
you f ail after taking the proper trouble, be sure God 
will not hold you guilty for your failure. 



The next position which we have to consider is 
whether God or man has a right to punish believers 
in or teachers of error. Col. IngersoU reproaches God 

" This God was not willing that the Jews should 
think and investigate for themselves. For heresy the 
penalty was death .... Intelleetual liberty was un- 
known .... He demanded worship on pain of sword 
and fire; acting as spy, Inquisitor, judge and execu- 
tioner." (P. 257.) 

This is repeated under so many f orms that it be- 
comes nanseous and it would be shocking to repeat 
it as the changes are rung on it. I have already 
shown that the intelleetual liberty here claimed is the 
right to disobey and dishonor God, and that Grod 
cannot tolerate it. The right of God to punish even 
internal acts of our soul which are sinf ul, being con- 
trary to His law, cannot be denied, as He is the Su- 
preme Master of the Universe. He has given to us 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


indeed Free-will, but under the injunction tbat we 
shall use it in subjection to His laws. If we disobey 
we must be liable to punisbment. The reasonable- 
neso of this bas been already proved. Indeed Mr. 
Ingersoll himself bas acknowledged tbat laws are 
necessary, and tbat men bave tbe rigbt to impose 

"Laws spring from tbe instinct of self-preserva- 
tion . . . . It is impossible f or buman beings to exist 
togetber witbout certain rules of conduct, certain 
ideas of tbe proper or improper, of tbe rigbt and 
wrong, growing out of tbe relation. Certain rules 
mast be made and must be enforeed. Tbis implies 
law trial and punisbment." (P. 235.) 

Surely it is a Subversion of order to give man a 
rigbt of Controlling bis fellow man by law and fear 
of punisbment, yet to refuse it to God. On the 
Colonel's own principle tbat we must reject what is 
incomprehensible, and evidently absurd, every honest 
man sbould reject bis conclusions. Indeed man can- 
not bave such a rigbt, unless it comes to bim from 
God, f or on tbe hypotbesis tbat there is a God, tbe 
wbole govemment of tbe Universe must be under His 
control and we bave a perfect rigbt in answering Mr. 
Ingersoll to assume God's existence, for be pretends 
tbat bis arguments on this subject are valid on this 
assumption. He professes with tbis assumption to 
prove Christianity absurd. 

But tbe Colonel lays special stress upon tbe faot 
tbat God punisbes everlastingly. If it is reconcilable 
with God's goodness, tbat He punish at all, there is 
no inconsistency with His goodness tbat punisbment 
be everlasting. The matter depends altogetber on 
the enormity of tbe sin. Now since sin consists in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


disobeying and turning away f rom 6od who is tbe In- 
finite Good, its enormity being proportioned to its ob- 
ject, deserves everlasting panisbment; and such pun- 
isbment must be inflicted, unless it be either freely 
pardoned or sufficiently atoned for. Now God can- 
not be obliged to pardon freely, from tbe very fact 
tbat such pardon is a free act; nor can man suffi- 
ciently atone for bis sin in tbe next life, since be is no 
longer in the State of probation, and be is tberefore 
incapable of atoning. Tbere is, tberefore, in tbe 
doctrine of everlasting punisbment, notbing against 

We may now pass to tbe question wbetber man 
may punisb bis f ellow man for believing and teacbing 
error. Certainly from bimself as man, no one can 
derive any right wbatsoever over bis f ellow man: for 
as men merely, tbey are equal in tbe possession of a 
common bumanity, and as individuals tbey are inde- 
pendent of eacb otber, as long as tbere is no encroacb- 
ment made on eacb otber's rigbts. But if it can be 
sbown tbat God bas at any time delegated to men 
authority to punisb, it cannot be doubted tbat sacb 
men must possess tbis autbority. Tbus it is tbat 
legislators claim tbe rigbt to punisb not only such 
acts as murder and theft, but also tbe dissemination 
of political opinions supposed to sap tbe basis of tbe 
Constitution of a country. An effort to weaken tbe 
allegiance of subjects to tbe govemment of the 
country would, especially in critical periods, as in 
time of war, even be punisbed with death. High 
treason is amenable to a similar penalty. 

To cpme now to tbe particular cases spoken of by 
Mr. Ingersoll, Christian States, or States oalled Chris- 
tian have frequently made laws to punisb those who 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


have persistently promulgated by overt acts, doc- 
trines opposed to those generally received: especiälly 
when those overt acta have been subversive of public 
morals and detrimental to the public welfare. With 
these laws we have no concem here as they have no 
connection with our subject. We have to deal with 
tbe laws 6od established among the Jews. 

Under the old law it was enacted that Idolaters 
among the Israelites should be slain, and also those 
who enticed others to Idolatry. (Deut, xiii.) Here- 
upon Col. Ingersoll draws a harrowing picture: 

" If my wif e, the mother of my children had said 
to me, ' I am tired of Jehovah, he is always asking 
for blood; he is never weary of killing; he is always 
telling of his might and strength; always telling 
wbat he has done for the Jews; always asking for 
sacrifibes; for doves and lambs — blood, nothing but 
blood. Let us worship the sun. Jehovah is too 
revengeful, too malignant, too exacting. Let us 
worship the sun. The sun has clothed the world in 
beauty ; it has covered the earth with flowers; by 
its divine light I first saw your face and my beautif ul 
babe.' K I had obeyed the command of God, I 

would have killed her For ^y part I 

would never kill my wif e, even if commanded to do 
so by the real God of this universe." (P. 258.) 

It is true, the death sentence is a severe one; still 
the World has not yet f ound it advisable to abolish it 
from the penal code. Thereare a few, comparatively 
very few, advocates for the total abolition of capital 
punishment. The great bulk of mankind still be- 
lieve that it is advisable to retain such punisbments 
on the Statute books, in order to contröl evil-doers 
the more effeotually. . I do not propose to discuss 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


which of these opinions is to be pref erred. It is suf- 
ficient that the common sense of mankind agrees 
that tbere are cases when capital punishment may be 
inflicted; nay, tbat tbere are oceasions wben it is ex- 
pedient to inflict it. Now we must remember tbat 
tbe Mosaic legislation was intended f or men wbo bad 
Free-will and passions; men prone to all tbe tempta- 
tions, and baving all tbe tendency to evil, to wbich 
men are subjected to-day. ' Even considering tbe 
State of slavery from wbicb tbey bad just emerged, 
tbe gross immorality, idolatry, and barbarism into 
wbicb tbeir Egyptian masters were sanken, and 
wbicb to a great extent must bave corrupt^d many 
of tbe Israel ites on account of tbe intercommunica- 
tion of tbe two nations, stern laws were möre needed 
for tbe restraint of tbe people tban tbey would be 
to-day among a people wbo bavebeen progressing in 
refinement and civilization for centuries under tbe 
elevating influence of tbe Christian religion. Tes, I 
say tbe Christian religion, for to Cbristianity we owe 
tbe emergence of our ancestors from barbarism. 

It may be said, "tbismigbt jnstify tbe infliction 
of tbe deatb penalty upon murderers and tbieves, but 
not .upon idolaters, wbose only fault was against 
religion." Tbe nature of the Jewisb law must be 
borne in mind. The form of government of tbe Jews 
was a theocracy. God was their king. Moses was 
tbeir govemor and judge. Tbeir form of govern- 
ment differed from tbat of all other nations, for 
" what nation is tbere upon eartb as tby people Israel, 
wbom God went to redeem for a people to bimself, 
and to make bim a name, and to do for them great 
and terrible tbings?" (2 Kings, vii., 23. Prot. Bible, 2 
Samuel.) God expressly declares tbat be bimself 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


occupied the kingly office, and when in the old 
age of Samuel, the people desired a king, God said 
" they liave not rejected thee, but me, that I should 
not reign over them." (1 Kings viii., 7. Prot. Bible, 
1 Sam.) 

From all this, it f oUows that those who were guilty 
of Idolatry, were not only false to God, but also 
to their actual king and country. They were 
guilty of High-Treason as well as Idolatry. The 
necessity of having a stern law against this crime is 
evident from the frequency with which the people 
actually feil into Idolatry both bef ore and after the 
law was promulgated. After all, the law was not 
always carried out strietly. Idolatry was frequently 
punished with death: sometimes the nation was 
allowed by God to be subdued by their enemies on 
aecount of it, but always, on their repentance, God 
showed mercy to them, and manifested his mercy by 
restoring them to even temporal prosperity. He exer- 
cised the pardoning prerogative of the Sovereign. 
Thus even when they had served " Baalim and Asta- 
roth and the gods of Syria and of Sidon and of Moab 
and of the children of Ammon and of the Philistines," 
when they " cast away the Strange gods .... He was 
touched with their miseries " and raised up Jephtha 
for their deliverance. (Judges x.) Thus was His stern 
justice tempered with the most tender mercy. And 
after all, during the whole period which lapsed be- 
tween the Promulgation of the law and the appoint- 
ment of King Saul, three hundred and thirty-nine 
years, we do not read that ever Colonel IngersolPs 
harrowing -picture had its original a fact We do not 
find proof , that any Israelite was required to make his 
**dimpled habe," (Col. IngersoU has a peculiai* affec- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tion for babes that are dimpled,) motherless, by bis 
own band. In fact it does not seem tbat tbis was 
really required by tbe law, ezcept under very extraor 
dinary circumstances. The nearest relative, even tbe 
busband or tbe f atber was required to inform tbe pro- 
per autborities upon, not tbe tempter, but tbe enticer, 
tbat is the persisting tempter to Idolatry, and if ne- 
cessary to cast the first stone af ter he or she bad been 
legally condemned to exeoution. Tbe public good 
was placed before private affection. It was one of 
the cases which will occur f rom time to time, tbat he 
who is bound to see tbe law enforced, may have to 
enforce it, even when tbe duty is disagreeable. 

We read in Roman History tbat after tbe expul- 
sion of Tarquin tbe Proud, Junius Brutus tbe Cönsul 
was required to try a number of young men, wbo had 
formed a eonspiracy for tbe tyrant's restoration, 
amongst wbom were bis own two sons, Few Situa- 
tion s could be more affecting and difficult tban tbat 
of fatber and judge. Justice impelled bim to con- 
demn, nature, to spare tbe cbildren be loved. 

Being brougbt to trial before bim, tbey were con- 
demned to be bebeaded in bis presence, wbile be looked 
onwitbunalteredcountenance. It bas been beautif uUy 
Said: ^'be ceased to be a fatber tbat be migbt execute 
tbe duties of tbe consul, and cbose to live bereft of 
bis cbildren ratber tban to neglect tbe public punisfa- 
ment of crime." 

As Col. Ingersoll bas inf ormed us tbat under similar 
circumstances be would not bave fulfilled tbe public 
duty, perbapst be people of Illinois acted wisely in 
-not accepting bis proffered Services in tbe Supreme 
Magistracy of their State. 

Among tbe Jews, tbe extreme case of whicb we are 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


speaking, could not have occurred very frequently; 
but when it did oconr, I presame it bad to be met 
with coorage. 



We now come to the question of Slavery as per- 
mitted under the Old Law. 

The following passages will show the law of 
slavery as it existed under the Mosaic dispensation. 

" If thy brother, constrained by poverty seil him- 
self to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the Ser- 
vice of bond-servants; bat he shall be as a hireling 
and a sojoumer: he shaU work with thee until the 
year of the jubilee. And afterwards he shall go oat 
with his children, and shall return to bis kindred and 
to the possession of his fathers. For they are my 
servants, and I brought them out of the land of 
Egypt; let them not be sold as bondmen." 

"Let your bondmen and your bondwomen be of 
the nations that are round about you. And of the 
strangers that sojouirn among you, or that were bom 
of them in your land, these you shall have for ser- 
vants: and by right of inheritanee shall leave them 
to your posterity, and shall possess.them forever. 
But oppress not your brethren the children of Israel 
by might." 

"If the band of a stranger or a sojoumer grow 
strong among you, and thy brother being impover- 
ished seil himself to him or lo any of his race, af ter 
the sale he may be redeemed." Any of his brethren 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


sball redeem him But if he himself be able 

also he shall redeem himself." (Lev. xxv, 39, 49.) 

It is then provided that such servitude shall end 
with the year of jubilee; but if the redemption take 
place bef ore that year, the master shall be re-imbursed 
according to the period of redemption. 

A f urther passage regards the bondage of Jews: 

" If thou buy a Hebrew servant six years shall he 
serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for 
nothing. With what raiment he came in, with the 
like," let him go out. (Ex. xxi, 2, 3.) 

The conditions under which a married man may be 
manumitted are then detailed. If his wife entered 
the Service with him she is manumitted with him. 
If the wife was already in perpetual bondage, she and 
the children remain with the master. If the servant 
desire to remain in bondage with his f amily, his bond- 
age shall be made perpetual and his ear shall be 
bored with an awl as a mark thereof. 

Fathers cannot seil their daughters into bondage, 
but can dispose of their service, and their treatment 
with proper respect is provided for. 

Several crimes are then enumerated which shall be 
punished with death. Among them: 

" He that shall steal a man, and seil him, being 
convicted of the guilt, shall be put to death.'- 

" He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman 
with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be 
guilty of the crime. But if the party remain alive a 
day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, 
because it is his money." (Exod. xxl) 

From the above extracts it will be seen how differ- 
eut was slavery among the Jews from that which 
prevailed in all nations, not enlightened by Revelation 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


from Grod. The Christian view of slavery is the de- 
veiopment of the Jewish view, with due regard to 
the different circnmstances of the human raee at the 
time of Moses, and during the Christian era. Under 
Christianity, St. Paul teils u 

"Be not held again under the yoke of bondage.** 
(6al. V, 1.) 

The yoke of bondage here referred to is the yoke 
of Paganism or Infidelity. Even Judaism is a yoke 
of bondage in comparison with Christianity. The 
Infidel theory of Free thought is really a slavery. to 
our passions. 

" You have not received the spirit of bondage again 
in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption 
of sons." (Rom. viii, 15.) 

God's love manifested in the mysteries of Christ's 
life on earth gives a true freedom which makes us 
indeed servants and children of 6od, but delivers us 
from the slavery of sin and enables us to resist the 
temptations which from within and without ourselves, 
entice us to sin. 

" There is neither Jew nor Greek: tliere is neither 

bond nor free, f or you are all one in Christ 

Jesus." (Gal. iii, 28.) 

*' But Christ is all in all." (Coli, iii, 11.) 

All distinctions of nationality and condition in life 
are merged in the character of God's children. Chris- 
tians must regard each other as equal, as members of 
Christ's mystical body. They must love one another. 

" There shall be lying teachers among you, 

for speaking swelling wörds of vanity, they allure 
(you) in desires of the flesh, of riotousness, promising 
(you) liberty, when they themselves are slaves of 
corruption: for by whom a man is overoome of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

40 lasTAKSs or hodbbn infidbls. 

same also he is the slave The dog is retnrned 

to his own vomit; and the sow that was washed to 
her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter li, 1, 18 to 22.) 

That is to say, under pretenee of liberty, Free- 
thinkers will entice you to libertinism. They are 
slaves of corruption, for they acknowledge no control 
but that of their own desires, hence bereft of God's 
graee they devote themselves to corruption and are 
its slaveSy as the sow wallowing in the mire, etc. 

** Wast thou calledy being a bondman? care not 
for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it ratber. 
For he that is called in the Lord being a bondman is 
the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called 
being free, is the bondman of Christ." (1 Cor. vii, 
21, 22.) 

That is: be not troubled if you are in a State of 
servitude. Even the slave who becomes a Christian 
is made the Lord's freeman: freed from moral slavery. 
The freeman on becoming a Christian is Christ's 
bondman, bound to obey his law. 

Servants, bondmen if you will, are therefore ex 
horted (£ph. vi.) to obey their masters with fear and 
trembling, that is with due respect .... with a good 
will doing Service." 

This exhortation is given that they may profit by 
the Position they are in to acquire the grace of God 
by their patience. In all this there is no justification 
for the inhuman treatment of slaves, such as takes 
place in most slave-holding countries; but we may 
infer that there are circumstances in which slave- 
holding is justifiable, while slave-trading or the ab- 
duction of f reemen into slavery is as unjust as any 
other species of robbery. Slave-holding may possi- 
bly be lawful, for example, when a man, condemned 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to death accepts slavery as a lesser eril, or when a 
man sells bis liberty for some benefit wbich he could 
not otberwise obtain. Hence tbe Apostle, wbile not 
jastifying tbe slavery wbicb existed so generally at 
tbat time does not make a general Kondemnation 
against it. He Contents bimself with commanding 
masters to deal kindly with tbeir slaves. 

'^Masters . . . forbear threatenings. Knowing 
that the Lord botb of tbem (slaves and servants) and 
of yon is in beaven; and there is no respect of persons 
with Hirn." (Eph, vi., 9.) 

" Masters, do to your servants that wbicb is just 
and equal: knowing tbat yon also have a master in 
beaven." (Coli, iv., 1.) 

Hence also when the slave Onesimas, having robbed 
bis master Pbilemon, was converted to Christianity, 
tbe same Apostle sent bim back. 

"Not now as a servant, bat . . . . a most dear 
brother." (Pbilemon, verse 16.) 

" Trusting in thy obedi^nce, I have written to thee; 
knowing that tboa wilt also do more than I say." 

In the face of all this Cpl. IngersoU says: 

" The New Testament is more decidedly io f avor 
of human slavery than the old." (P. 249.) 

If this be so then tbe Old Testament slavery most 
be a very moderate one. We have seen tbat the 
New Testament rather regnlates tbe manner in wbicb 
slaves sbonld be treated, than justifies tbe tenure by 
wbicb slaves were held, or the laws by wbicb they 
were govemed. It is true, tbe Abolition party in 
tbe United States would go much further, and to 
tbeir prejndices Col. IngersoU appeals against Chris- 
tianity. In one respect tbe above eztracts of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


New Testament are not necessarily opposed to the 
views of mo^erate Abolitionists, for it nowhere 
speaks of slavery as an expedient Institution. At all 
eventSy modified by the rules laid down by the Apos- 
tles, slavery becomes humane, and is little more than 
a lengthened term of service. 

It is now to be remarked that Col. Ingersoll, in vili- 
f ying the form of slavery laid down in the Old Tes- 
tament, makes no effort to prove slavery evil, under 
all circumstarices. We are to take this for granted 
on his Word. He says: 

" Do you believe that the loving Father of us all, 
tomed the dimpled arms of babes into manaqles of 
iron r etc. (P. 247.) 

" For my part I never will, I never can worship a 
God who upholds the Institution of slavery." (P. 249) 

And he falsifies the law by endeavoring to make 
it appear that the stealing of men, babes, and women 
was permltted; also thelr whipping .without cause. 

"Were the stealers and whippers of babes and 
women the justified chlldren of God ? " (P. 248.) 

We have seen above that the man-stealer was con- 
demned to death (Ex. xxi, 16,) and that he who 
whipped a slave to death was held guilty of murder. 
(See also Deut, xxiv, 7.) If, however, he survlved a 
day or two, the presumptlon was that the death was 
accidental rather than Intentional, and as manslaugh- 
ter Is not now punished as murder^ neither was the 
master held guilty of murder in this case. The slave 
was called his master's money, becanse he was really 
money*s worth to him. (Ex. xxi, 21.) 

From Deuteronomy xxiii, 15, it will be seen that a 
slave fleeing from his master on account of 111 usage 
was not to be delivered back to him, and he to whom 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the slave fled was commanded not to oppress him. 
This does not look like the brutal slave System whioh 
obtained in other countries, and which evf n flourished 
in modern times. Against the brutal slavery which 
reduces man to the level of the beast, I believe every 
true Christian would protest. Por such slavery as 
this there is no Warrant in Holy Seripture. 

On reading carefnlly the passages from Exodus 
and Leviticus, above quoted, it will be seen that the 
bondage of the Hebrew was expressly declared to be 
only that of the hireling, or one employed f or wages, 
except when he sold his labor to his master, in which 
case his bondage, similar in kind, was extended tili 
the year of jubilee. Then, if by his own act the 
servant desired to bind himself for life, he could do 
so. The Piercing of the ear was no very barbarous 
act. Our ladies who, every day, undergo the same 
Operation for the sake of adoming themselves with 
ear-rings, do not consider that they undergo exceed- 
ingly ill usage. 

The fact is simply this: the Hebrew slaves were 
mostly either insolvent debtors who sold their labor 
so as to pay their debts, or thieves who had no other 
means of making restitution. 

But it is Said that the strangers, the heathens in 
Jewish bondage, were cruelly treated. Mr. Ingersoll 

*The heathen are not spoken of as human beings. 
Tl^pir rights are never mentioned. They were the 
rightful food of the sword, and their bodies were 
made for stripes and chains." (P. 248.) 

In Chapter 9, I will have occasion to speak of 
the Jewish warfare against the heathen. At present 
we have to deal with the question of slavery. Colonel 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Ingersoll misstates tbe case when be says tbat the 
beathen bad no rigbts; for it is clear from tbe words 
of tbe law above quoted tbat beatben slaves were 
treated just as Hebrews in bondage, witb tbe Single 
exception tbat tbeir bondage migbt be perpetual, 
unless tbey became -Hebrews by adoption. 

God, tbe Supreme Master of all, tbe possessor of 
all goods, tbe Controller of all our destinies, gave to 
tbe Hebrews tbis extended power of dominiön over 
tbe stranger nations, as a penalty wbieb be bad tbe 
undoubted rigbt to infliet on account of tbeir crimes. 

Let US now compare tbe slavery wbieb existed 
among beatben nations witb tbat permitted among 
tbe Jews. Cotemporaneously witb tbe Promulgation 
of tbe Mosaic law tbere was slavery in Egypt, and 
tbe monuments wbieb are extant to tbis day attest 
tbe cruelty witb wbieb slaves were treated. Tbe 
treatment of tbe Israelites, wbo were in fact guests 
and immigrants by invitation, unjustly enslaved, is a 
specimen of beatben slavery. Pbaraob "set over 
tbem masters of tbe works to afflict tbem witb 

"And tbe Egyptians bated tbe ebildren of Israel 
and afflicted tbem and mocked tbem." 

"And tbey made tbeir lif e bitter witb bard works," 
(Exod. i.) 

At last tbe order was given by Pbaraob tbat all 
tbe male ebildren of tbe Israelites sbould be east into 
tbe river, tbat tbey migbt not increase too fast. ^ 

Truly tbe slavery usual among beatben nations 
was an intolerable tyranny. As it existed among tbe 
Greeks, Bomans, and otber nations, it was no better 
tban we bave described. Tbe slave-trade was a regu- 
lär business, autborized by tbe laws. Tbere was no 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


restriction on the master's power to put his slaves to 
deathy and they were regularly butchered without 
mercy, or put into the arena to fight with each other 
or with wild beasts for the amusement^of the public. 
Other cruelties need not be enumerated, as they are 
well known to all. The Hebrew law restrained the 
master, the Pagan laws placed him under no restraint 

Christianity could not abolish slavery all at once, 
but even before its establrshment as the religion of 
the State, its influence was feit as a civilizer, and the 
oondition of the slaves was ameliorated. The doc- 
trine of St. Paul could not but bear fruit. Under 
the influence of that doatrine the Christian could not 
regard his bondsman as a slave, but as ^^a dear 
brotiier.** (Philemon, 16.) 

When the church became free, her efforts were at 
once directed towards rendering the condition of the 
slaves tolerable, and f reeing them by degrees. Slave- 
holders who put their slaves to death without a War- 
rant f rom the judge were excommunicated. 

Thus as early as A. D. 305, the Council of Elvira 
decreed many years of penance against a mistress 
who should beat her bondmaid so that she should 
die within three days. If it were proved that the 
death were intentional, the penance lasted seven 
years, if accidental, the period was shorter. 

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in 385, declared it 
to be a " most noble act of generosity to redeem cap- 
tives, to rescue men from death, women from danger 
to their virtue, to restore children to their parents, par- 
ents to their children and Citizens to their country." 
He therefore ordered the sacred vessels of his church 
to be broken and sold for the purpose of delivering 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


slaves. In 685 the Council of Matisco decreed that 
the property of the cburch should be applied either 
to the relief of the poor or the redemption of slaves, 
and in 625 a similar law was made by the Council of 
Rheims, and in 844 by the Council of Verona. The 
Council of Lyons in 566 declared excommunicated 
those who would reduce freemen to slavery. 

There are many other decrees of Councils both of 
these and later dates, all aimmg at the gradual ex- 
tinction of slavery. I need only add here the reasons 
given by the illustrious Pope Gregory I., when he 
freed some slaves held by the church authorities to 
show that it was the desire of the Catholic Church 
always, not only to ameliorate the condition of 
slaves, but also to free them as soon as it could be 
done without subverting the existing relations of 
Society. Pope Gregory I. says: 

" Our Redeemer, the Creator of all things assumed 
human flesh, that by the grace of His Divinity, the 
bonds which held us in slavery might be broken, and 
that we might be restored to our first liberty: It is 
therefore right that men, created and brought forth 
by nature free from the beginning, but reduced to 
slavery by the laws of nations, should be restored to 
that liberty to which they were by nature born." 

It is thus Seen that to the gradual triumph of Chris- 
tian principles is due the progress made in recogniz- 
ing the human rights of slaves, and in liberating 
them. The bragging infidels of to-day would know 
nothing of these natural rights of man if they had 
not been previously instructed in them by Christian- 
ity, for until Christianity laid down these principles, 
nothing was known of them. Even the great philos- 
ophers did not discover them by the use of their 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


powerful intellects. Homer teils us in the Odyssey, 
B. 11 y that slaves possess from Jupiter only half the 
mind. Plato approves of this doctrine (Dialog. 8 on 
laws), and Aristotle ezpressly nndertakes to prove 
by a lengthy argument that " some men are bom f or 
liberty, as others are f or slavery ; a slavery which is 
not only useful to the slaves themselves, but more- 
over just." (Polit., eh. 3.) 

As a consequence of all this, we may here remark 
that the slavery permitted under the old law, miti- 
gated as it was in comparison with the slavery com- 
mon in heathen countries, was not intended to be the 
the normal condition of foreigners. The Mosaie law 
was the preparation of man for Christ's advent. If, 
theref ore, slavery was permitted at all, it was becanse 
the e^istlDg State of society reqnired that to some 
extent the surrounding iiations shoald be held under 
the influenae of fear, as they themselves by fear en* 
deavored to extend their sway into the countries 
which snrrounded them. 

Before leaving the important subject pf Liberty, it 
it may be well to give a summary of the propositions 
which I have proved, and which I am satisfied, oan- 
not be ref uted, I have proved : 

1. That man possesses Free-will, which is the foun- 
dation of all liberty. 

2. That God acted wisely in endowing us with 

3. That Col. IngersoU's materialism destroys Free- 
will and therefore all liberty, though he inconsistently 
Claims at the same time liberty of though t. 

4. That his attack upon God, for having made us 
free to choose between good and evil, is in reality an 
attack upon all freedom. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


5. That the ezistence of Free-will justifies the pun- 
ishment of the wicked. 

6. That Col. IngersoU is wrong in making God the 
cause of evil. 

7. That intellectual liberty is, indeed, given to man, 
bnt that it mast be controlled by the laws and teach- 
ing of God. 

8. That it is no valid objection to a doctrine that 
man cannot anderstand it. 

9. That Col. IngersoU has in many things misrepre- 
sented the teachings of Christianity. 

10. That Indifferentism to Religion is both criminal 
and foolish. 

11. That the Mosaic laws against nnbelief and 
Idolatry were just, espeeially as Jndaism was a The- 

12. That Col. IngersoU maligns the Clergy. 

13. That Christianity is not the persecuting System 
which Col. IngersoU represents it to be. 

14. That Christianity, by its influence, ameliorated 
the condition of slaves and gradually emancipated 

15. That the mitigated slavery permitted nnder the 
Mosaic law was strictly just, though it was not in- 
tended to be the normal condition of men, arising as 
it did f rom the peculiar circumstanoes of the period. 



Nothing is so absurd as not to have been main- 
tained, nothing so evident as not to have been denied 
by some who call themselves philosophers. Hume 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


denied the existence of spirits, Berkeley denied that 
of bodie8, while Pyrrho prof essed Jto doubt every thing, 
even bis own existence. Tbe very f act of doubting 
our own existence proves tbat we exist; for he who 
exists not cannot doubt. Oar own existence is there- 
f ore a truth so firmly rooted in onr conscionsness that 
in reality we cannot doubt it. 

Moreover we are conscious of the existence of 
affections which are produced in us by beings not 
ourselves, beings over which we exercise no control. 
Hence we are certain, not only of our own existence, 
but also of the existence of other beings, some of 
which are like ourselves, others unlike us. 

Now it is not my intention to enter upon a lengthy 
proof of the existence of one 6od. This has been 
done by many very able writers, and the arguments 
by which this truth is established can be readily 
ascertained by Consulting their works. Besides, there 
are very few who deny it, and those who do, un- 
doubtedly deny it because they wish to live free f rom 
responsibility to a higher Power. They deny it, be- 
cause they wish there were no Qod to whom they 
would have to render an account. Hence the Prophet 
David says: 

"The fool hath said in bis heart, there is no God." 
(Ps. xiii, 1 ; Prot. Bible, Ps. xiv.) 

He hath said 90 in bis heart, bis affections, bis will, 
not in bis understanding. 

Thomas Paine fuUy admits in bis " Age of Reason" 
that he believes in Qod, and that reason conclusively 
leads to this belief. Col. IngersoU does not positively 
deny the existence of Qod, nor positively affirm it, 
though in some of bis works he endeavors to weaken 
the force of the reaso^ing by which this truth is 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


established. In the book now before me, he pi*<>- 
fesses onlj to attack the 6od of the Bible. 

On page 136 he adds: 

" When I speak of God, I mean the being desoribed . 
by Moses : the Jehovah of the Jews. There may be 
f or aught I know, somewhere in the unknown shore- 
less vast, some being whose dreams are constellations, 
and within whose thought the infinite exists. About 
this being, if such a one exists, I have nothing to 
say." (P. 136.) 

I propose, therefore, in this work merely to indi- 
cate some of the plainest proofs that there is a God, a 
personal being, a pure spirit, infinite in perfection. 

I have already pointed out that we are eonscious 
of our own being, and of other beings, like and un- 
like ourselves. From this trnth we Institute the f ol- 
lowing : 


1« Some being exists. This being must be either 
created or unereated. If it be unereated, there exists 
an unereated being. 

If it be created, there must also exist an unereated 
being ; f or a created being could not have created 
itself, it must therefore have been created by another 
being, which also must have been created by some 
other unless it were itself unereated. Thus we must 
eith6r reach an unereated being, or we must say there 
is an infinite created series without a Creator, whioh 
is an absurdity. 

It f ollows then that there is an unereated being ex- 
isting, not from any exterior cause, but by necessity 
of its nature: that is there exists ^' a necessary b^ing. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


dependent on none, tbongb all things existing depend 
upon it." Thifii being is God. 

We may tberef ore, f or tbe purposes of tbis cbapter, 
define God to be "The Supreme and Seif -Existing 
Being upon wbom tbe universe depends." 

Atbeists endeavor to weaken tbe force of tbis rea- 
soning by asserting tbat in tbe etemity of tbe past 
tbere mast bave been an infinite series of causes. 
Colonel Ingersoll practically makes tbe same asser- 

"Itappears reasonable to me, tbat force bas ex- 
isted from eternity. Force cannot, as it appears to 
me, exist apart from matter. Force in its nature is 
forever active, and witbout matter it could not act, 
and so I tbink matter must bave existed forever. To 
conceive of matter witbout force, or of force witbout 
matter, or of a time wben neitber existed, or of a be- 
ing wbo existed from eternity witbout eitber and wbo, 
out of notbing oreated botb, is to me, utterly impos- 
sible." (P. 60.) 

**It bas been demonstrated tbat force is etemal.** 
(P. n.) ' 

"If anytbing can be found witbout a pedigree of 
natural antecedents, it will be tben time enougb to 
talk about tbe fiat of creation. Tbere must bave 
been a time wben plants and animals did not exist up- 
on tbis globe. Tbe question, and only question is 
whetber tbey were naturally produced." ( P. 88.) 

All tbis supposes tbe existence of a number of pro- 
genitors actually infinite, made up of units. Now 
before tbe addition of tbe last unit, it niust bave been 
infinite or finite. If it were infinite it could not be 
increased : but it is in f act increased by tbe addition 
of tbe last unit: it is tberef ore finite. Tbe addition 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of unity to a finite number cannot make it infinite: 
therefore the existenoe of a number actually infinite 
is absurd. 

2. Colone! IngersoUlikewisesupposes the universeto 
be eternal, at least in its monads. The eternity of these 
monads is an absurdity. The monads must be beings 
not existing by necessity of their nature, otherwise 
each of them would be infinite, as necessary existence 
cannot be limited, and the necessity which causes 
them to exist would make each monad in itself a God, 
infinite in force and in all perfeotion, Now if the 
monads are a reality, they are finite beings, changea«- 
ble, being acted upop by extrinsic forces which gov- 
em them. Therefore they must b.e -contingent, and 
therefore entirely dependent on the really eternal 
necessary being, God. 

3. If the universe, or the monads which compose 
the universe, were eternal, acted upon by blind 
forces, intrinsic to them, it is a mathematical conse- 
quence, that the State of things at present existing, 
would have been reached millions of years ago, or 
equally millions of millions of years ago, and it 
would at the same time be existing, yet not existing 
to-day. Thus the theory of the eternity of matter 
cannot be reconciled with its present condition. 
Matter must therefore have been created with time, 
and it cannot be eternal. 

4. If one of the series, being contingent, requires 
its cause, it is absurd to say that an infinite series 
suffices as its own cause. Contingency or dependency 
pertains to the essence of its being, and the infinite 
coUection of contingent beings must equally depend 
upon a first or necessary being as its cause. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



The existence of a sapreme intelligent being mling 
all things, is proved by the admirable order existing 
in the nniverse. 

Proof. The being who adopts snre and fitting 
means to attain ends which are evidently designed, is 

Bat the Sapreme Caase f rom whom the aniverse 
proceeds has adopted sach means : 

Therefore the Sapreme Caase f rom whom the ani- 
verse proceedd) is Intelligent. 

The evidences of the adoption of fitting means to 
attain the ends designed by the Sapreme Caase of the 
aniverse, are to be seen everywhere in natare, in the 
anatomy of man, in the constraction of every organ 
of sense, the eye, the ear, etc., in the whole Organiza- 
tion of the human body. It woald occupy too q^uch 
Space to enumerate in detail here the facts which 
evidence deaign. They are acknowledged by all, 
and may be f oand in works which explain the con- 
straction of the haman body, and even the bodies of 
animals, even the most insignificant of which in every 
part of their frame, give testimony to the wonderf ul 
Intelligence which mast have been at work in their 
creation. The same is to be said of plants and trees, 
the grass which clothes the earth, the grain which 
grows in the fields. 

If a beaatifal palace, a dwelling-hoase, a watch, a 
steam-engine, a well-written book, evidence genias 
and intellect in those who have prodaced them, how 
mach more do the works of God bear witness to His 
Sapreme Intelligence I The most noble works of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


art are miserable abortions in comparison with the 
wonderf ul works of God. 

When f urther we bear in mind that this earth wilh 
all that it contains, is but a speck in the nniverse, and 
that throughout the universe these wonders are re- 
peated) we may exclaim: 

"The heavens show forth the glory of God, an* 
the firmament declareth the work of His hands." 
(Ps. xviii., 1, Prot. Bible Ps. xix.) 

This physical proof of the existence of God cannot, 
perhaps, be more appropriately closed than by quot- 
ing the words of Thomas Paine, the Voltaire of 

" Everything we behold carries in itself the inter- 
nal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man 
is an evidence to himself that he did not make him- 
self, neither could his father make himself, nor his 
graiMfäther, nor any of his race, neither could any 
tree, plant or animal make itself; and it is the convic- 
tion arising from this evidence that carries us on, as 
it were, by necessity, to the belief of a first cause, 
eternally existing, of a nature totally different from 
any material existence we know of, and by the power 
of which all things exist; and this first cause, Man 
calls God.'' 

"Canst thou by searching find out God ? Yes; be- 
cause in the first place I know I did not make myself, 
and yet I have existence, and by searching into the 
nature of other things I find that no other thing could 
make itself; and yet millions of other things exist: 
therefore it is that I know by positive conclusion re- 
sulting from this search, that there is a power supe- 
rior to all things, and that power is God.^' Age of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



The universal consent of mankind in recognizing 
the existence of a God is an irref ragable proof of His 

It is true that some travellers have at times stated 
that certain small barbarous tribes have acknowl- 
edged no God, but in these cases they have usually 
spoken doubtf uUy : " It is said, the report is," etc. 
Their testimony in most of these cases has been con- 
tradicted by other travellers who were more intimate 
with the habits of the tribes in question. The opin- 
ion has also sometimes arisen f rom the fact that these 
tribes had no public worship, but on inquiry it has 
been discovered that there were private forms of wor- 
ship, fetishes, etc. 

It cannot be denied, then, if we except two or three 
tribeSy of whom doubt exists, that the entire human 
race has always recognized the existence of a Deity. 
The fact is attested by historians and travellers of 
every country, and of all ages. The ancient philoso- 
phers, Plato, Socrates, Cicero and others have re- 
futed atheism on these grounds, and atheists them- 
selves acknowledge that it is a fact. Hence, all na- 
tions have words in their language to denote a 
Supreme Being. 

The whole human race cannot be supposed to err 
in a matter of morals, unless there be an adequate 
cause for such error, and as the belief is universal the 
cause of error, if error there be, should be universal 
also. The existence of the belief is explicable if we sup- 
pose that God had revealed Himself to primeval man, 
and that the belief had been handed down by tradition 
through suoceeding generations, but any assigned 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


causes which might explain the introdnction of such 
belief by the gradual influence of human passicms, 
inclinations, desires or love of gain are totally inade. 
quate, because such causes are necessarily local and 
personal to individuals. In fact, the passions and in- 
clinations of men would lead them to reject the no- 
tion of a Supreme Authority to whom they should be 
subject, and at whose bebest they would be obliged 
to sacrifice their natural inclinations. The belief in 
a Supreme Being must therefore be deeply rooted 
both in the reason and conscience of the whole 
human race, and must have originated in the certain 
knowledge of primeval man that a Deity exists. 



1. To evade the force of the proofs of God's exist- 
ence, atheists have invented many theories. Panthe- 
ism is one of them. This System is subtle, but under 
pretense of aeknowledging God, it in reality rejects 
Him. Pantheism makes God consist of all existing 
beings: that is to say, all existing beingsare one sub- 
tance, which is infinite, and is God. If this theory 
be true, the mechanic who has produced a piece of 
machinery is identical with bis work. Try to per- 
suade him of this. Use the Pantheists' argument, 
and you will say to the mechanic, "the cause must 
contain the essence and attributes of the effect, other. 
wise it could not produce it." The most Ignorant 
might answer, "I have not in me all the material 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

mistIkbs of modern tn^fidbls. 61 

attribntes of my work, but I have the power of pro- 
ducing that and other works like it.'* Thus the 
whole theory of Spinosa and the Pantheists falls to 
the ground. The attributes of the work are not ma- 
*terially in the workman, but they are in him either 
eminently orvirtually: that is either in a greater de- 
gree er in the power of production. Thus also God 
must possess all the perfections of His creatures. 

According to the Pantheists, all beings are but one 
snbstance: thus wemay say John is Peter: I am New- 
ton, and Newton is I^ibnitz. Thus all the disputes 
of these great men, are the disputes of the universal 
infinite substance with himself. 

This System would be merely ridiculous, were it 
not that it takes away God's personality, and makes 
God the author of all irapiety, takes from us all re- 
sponsibility for our actions, inasmuch as our acts all 
become the necessary manifestatious of God's attri- 

We have proved that God is a real being, uncreated, 
necessary and seif -existent. The necessity of exist- 
ence implies absence of limit. God is therefore in- 
finite in allperfection. He is One, Eternal, XJnchahge- 
able, Free, Independent, Omnipotent, Spiritual, Im- 
mense, All-Wise, Holy, True, Good, All-Happy, Just 
and Provident over His works. With these qualities 
He must be a Personal Being. This is implied espe- 
cially in His attributes of Freedom, Independence, 
Spirituality, Wisdom, etc. We have proved His In- 
telligence: Intelligence implies Personality. 

2. It is objected by modern infidels, against the 
physical proof of God's existence, that God also should 
have a cause or designer, if , the argument be valid. 
Col. Ingersoll also, maintains the same, though 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


not in the work at present undet consideration. This 
argnment is thns stated: 

Whatever affords evidences of design must have 
a designer, 

But God affords evidences of design, 

Therefore God must have a designer. 

Now in answer to this, I must point out the differ- 
ence between a contingent and a self-existent being. 
It is quite true that a contingent being must have a 
designer, but a self-existent being, a being whicb ex- 
ists by the intrinsic necessity of its nature cannot 
have a designer. The existence of a contingent being, 
such as are all beings which affect our senses, neces- 
sarily implies that there must be a cause, and ultim- 
ately a Great First Cause, but this First Cause is the 
necessary being, which is Infinitely Perfect, Eternal, 
Self-Existing, and therefore not depending on any ex- 
trinsic cause or designer. God does not afford evi- 
dence of being designed: but all Creatures do. 

3. We have seen that Col. In gersoll professes to 
have nothing to say about God: (P. 136:) that is to 
say he does not mean either to assert or deny His ex- 
istence. However he maintains that such a God re- 
quires no worship. 

" He has written no books, inspired no barbarians, 
required no worship, and has prepared no hell in which 
to burn the honest seeker after truth." (P. 136.) 

He further maintains that all worship is the result 
of an erroneous belief, and he gives such an account 
of the origin of the belief in God as to make it evi- 
dent that he desires to destroy this belief. Thus he 

^' And as all phenomena are, by savage and barbaric 
man accounted for as the action of intelligent beings 

DigWdby Google 


for the accomplishment of certain objects, and as 
these beings were supposed to have the power to' 
assist or injure man, certain things were supposed 
necessary for man to do in order to gain the assist- 
ance, and avoid the anger of these gods." (P. 48.) 

" All worship is necessarily based upon the belief 
that some being exists who can, if he will, change 
the natural order of events. The savage prays to a 
stone that he calls a God, while the Christian prays 
to a god that he calls a spirit, and the prayers of both 
are equally usef ul. The savage and the Christian put 
behind the Universe an intelligent cause, and this 
cause whether represented by one God or many, has 
been, in all ages, the object of all worship. To carry 
a fetish, to litter a prayer, to count beads, to abstaiu 
from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an enemy, 
are simply different ways by which the accomplish- 
ment of the same object is söught, and all are the off- 
spring of the same error." (P. 49.) 

"The error" is that "there is a being who can, if 
he will, change the natural order of events." This 
is a denial of God's Omnipotence, and therefore öf 
God Himself, for His Infinite power is inseparable 
from His existence. The worship of God is said to 
spring from this belief. 

It is evident from this, that Colonel IngersoU blas- 
phemes that which he knows not. Ignorance in ordi- 
nary matters may be deplorable, but it is not criminal 
when our duties are not concemed. When, however, 
ignorance exists in regard to a duty, it becomes cuL 
pable, unless it is excused by the f act that it cannot be 
dispelled : but when a man acknowledges his igno- 
rance of duty, and yet speaks injuriously of that 
which he knows not, his culpability is increased, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


when his Maker is the subject of bis gross and in- 
decent jokes, his Maker to whom he most owe his 
being and all that he possesses, all that he enjoys, his 
ingratitude becomes blasphemy. It is difficolt to 
believe that in such a case as that of Mr. Ingersoll, 
the ignorance can be invincible and excosable. I 
hope indeed that a mercif ol God will lead him to 
better coorses, but I cannot help thinking that his 
present ignorance of Grod is inexcosable. 

The Colonel, while maintaining that the worship of 
God is derived from error, suggests that the belief in 
His existence is an error too, arising from the human 
inclination to attribute effects to a cause. This con- 
tinent is flooded with Infidel literature, which en- 
deavors to account f or the universal prevaience of the 
supposed error by the inflnence of an interested 
priesthood and by ignorance of the laws of nature. 

In answer to all this I can say without fear or hesi- 
tation, none of these causes, nor all of them together 
can account for the fact which themselves acknowl- 
edge as such. Priestly influence might succeed in 
some places. It could not succeed. in all: and usuaUy 
it would be the effect, not the cause of the belief. At 
all events, even where it might exist, it would last 
only for a timel It cannot explain a universal fact. 
Ignorance was not universal, and even if it were it 
would be diminished as men became more skilf ul and 
leamed. The advantages which some might derive 
from the propagation of the belief, would be counter- 
balanced by the advantages which others would 
derive from its rejection, so that it is absolutely im- 
possible that such should be the origin of universal 
belief in Gk)d. The belief is founded deep in the 
reason and nature of man. This is the only Solution 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


whioh can be given f or its üniversality. This proves 
that it must have its origin in our creation^ and that 
it comes f rom the Creator Himself. This is the view 
whioh the great philosophers of ancient times took of 
this subject. Plutarch says: 

'*If you traverse the earth, you may find cities 
without walls, literature, kings, palaces, riches and 
money: cities without Colleges and theatres, but a 
city without temples and gods^ without prayers, 
oaths, Oracles, and sacrifices to obtain the f avor of the 
gods, and which does not endeavor to avert evil by 
religious fonns, no one ever saw." Hence this great 
thinker was of one mind with Plato and Aristotle 
that the belief in God originated in a primeval reve- 
lation made by God to man. Kant, while denying 
the condusiveness of all other proof s of God's exist- 
ence, acknowledged that on this ground alone, the 
.üniversality of the belief , it ought to be recognized 
as demonstrated. 

Golonel Ingersoll's remarks on the non-necessity of 
worship will be treated in Ghapter 49. 



We already proved in Chapter 5, that the universe 
was created by God. Of course, atheists endeavor 
to aocoont f or its existence without Divine Interven- 

EpicuruSy Democritus and others held that atoms 
of matter floating in infinite space Coming in contact 
with each other by chance or law f ormed by degrees 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the World and all its surroandings^ including sun, 
moon, planets and stars. Democritus wrote abont 
the year 440 or 430 B. 0. He did not attribute to 
Chance, bat to law, the formatlon of the universe 
and he made the gods themselves subject to this law. 
The gods were also aggregates of atoms, only mightier 
than men. Plato refuted this atomic System, and 
held that all things must depend on one 6od, the 
Fountain of all force, the Creator of the order which 
exists in the universe. The material, howeyer, he 
erroneously believed to be eternal. Epicurus main- 
tained substantially the theory of Democritus, but he 
added that the Gods, as happy and imperishable 
beings, could take no interest in the affairs of men. 
Hence he believed that men should act on earth with- 
out any reference to 6od or the gods. 

Thomas Paine and Colonel IngersoU both seem to 
have adopted the views of Epicurus: Mr. Paine 
adopted it in part only; but Colonel IngersoU seems 
to have swallowed it holua-bolvs. 

We have already quoted (jDhapter 6,) several pas- 
sages in which he maintains that force and matter are 
eternal, and that all beings have their eternal*pedi- 
gree of natural antecedents. He thus accounts for 
the existence of man. 

^'Modern science teils that man has been evolved 
through oountless epochs, from the lower forms." 
(P. 95.) 

^'The Moner is said to be the simplest form of animal 
life that has yet been f ound. It has been described 
as an organism without organs. It is a kind of struc- 
tureless structure, etc. By taking this Moner as the 
commencement of animal life, or rather as the first 
animal, it is easy to follow the development of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


organic structure throngh all the forma of lifo to man 
himself." (P. 96.) 

Let US see how this atomic System will stand tbe 
test of reason. 

It 18 related of the renowned philosopher, Pather 
Kircher, that he was intimate with a certain philoso- 
pher who believed in this atomic theory of the pro- 
duction of the world by law and not by divine power, 
and their discussions on the subject were f requent bat 

On one occasion Father Kircher had made the pur- 
chase of a magnificent globe of the heavens, and was 
examining it when bis friend entered bis study. The 
first object which met the visitor's eye was the globe, 
and he greatly admired it. He asked Father Kircher 
who was the manufacturer, for he was desirous of 
haviog made a similar globe for bis own use. Father 
Kircher answered : 

^^ It was not mannf actured. It was made by the 
concurrence of atoms." 

"But," replied bis friend, " atoms never concur to 
make a beantif ul piece of mechanism like this. Cease 
joking and teil me seriously who was the maker, as I 
would wish to have one made like it." 

"Seriously," said Father Barcher, "it had no maker. 
It is so beautif ul because the atoms aggregated accord- 
ing to the law of nature." 

His friend could not but see that Father Kircher 
was aiming at his favorite theory; still he said: 

" I know that you are making yourself merry at 
the expense of the atomic theory; but after all we 
have no experience of atoms Coming together to form 
a beautif ul piece of workmanship like this, perfectly 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


turned, the stars and constellations so well delineated 
and the brass work so complete.'* 

"Well," replied Fatber Kircber, "if you cannot 
conceive of a piece pf work like tbis made witbout 
a skilful mecbanic, bow can you so pertinaciously 
maintain tbat tbe nniverse, of whicb tbis is but a poor 
and inadequate representation was made by tbe action 
of blind forces and laws? Are tbere not more 
wonders in tbe Single blade of grass tban in tbis 

Tbe transformation of tbe butterfly from tbe egg 
to tbe Caterpillar form, and from tbe Caterpillar to 
tbe butterfly, its varied organio structnre ineacbcase, 
and its ability to propagate its own species, tbe 
adaptation of tbe leaves on wbicb it f eeds to tbe time 
wben tbe Caterpillar appears are wonders inimitable 
by buman art. Must not all tbis be tbe work of an 
intelligent canse ? 

Wbatever may bave been tbe effect of tbis appeal 
on Fatber Kircber's friend, surely it sbould bave pro- 
dnced conviction. A celebrated divine aptly asked : 

" Wbat is more f oolisb tban tbe assertion tbat the 
World was made by cbance or blind force, wbereas all 
tbe skill of art could not produce an oyster ? " 

In fine, tbe disposition of tbe varions parts of tbe 
universe, and of tbe atomic elements wbicb compose 
it, is such tbat all take their own office, and such a 
connexion is f ound between tbem tbat tbey seek a 
common end, to wbicb tbey are brought witbout dis- 

Tbis migbt be illustrated by innumerable exam- 
ples. Tbe law of gravitation keeps in their places 
the sun and stars, causes tbe earth and planets, both 
primary and secondary, to revolve in their wonderfnl 

Digitized by.VjOOQlC 


orbits without oonfusion, and so admirably is this 
law balanced,'tbat anotber law would result, in a 
comparativeljr sbort-time, in tbe complete Subversion 
of tbe whole System. Tbis fact alone implies tbe 
Operation of an Intelligent Cause, not only for tbe 
production of tbe material, but also for tbe existence 
of tbe law itself . 

We do not, and need not, deny tbe existence of 
ultimate indivisible atoms of matter. Many observed 
facts appear to demonstrate tbeir existence. But 
eacb elementary substance is proved to bave its own 
peculiar atoms witb special qualities, and tbese quali- 
ties are sucb tbat from one sucb substance anotber 
cajmot be formed, as far as we are aware; wbile tbe 
atoms of tbese differeüt substances combine to form 
tbe vast variety of Compounds wbicb are found in 
existence, and wbicb are also evidently calculated to 
meet tbe end wbicb an Intelligent Designer bad in 
view. Tbe atoms tbemselves must be tbe work of 
tbe same Intelligent First Cause. 

In tbe details of Creation tbe same common end is 
found. We cannot point to any object wbicb bas contributing to tbe safety or comfort 
of tbe eartb's occupants. Instances of tbis may be 
found in works on Cbemistry, Natural Pbilosopby, 
etc. All tbis denotes tbat tbe First Cause bas 
arranged all tbings intelligently and witb an end 
in view. 

Tbe same is to be said of plants and animals. 
Tbeir Organization is complete for tbe purpose of 
tbeir growtb from a seed or embryo, Tbe materials 
necessary for tbeir life are witbin tbeir reacb. Tbey 
possess tbe means of gatbering wbat is necessary for 
tbeir subsistence, and, moreover, tbey produce tbe 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


very germs which, af ter they are dead, people the 
earth with the same kinds of beings as before. We 
judge tbat a watch or a locomotive must bave had a 
maker. It could not bave been f ormed by the con- 
currence of atoms by chance or law. What would 
we tbink of a watch or a locomotive which, by aa 
arrangement of saws and files and hammers and 
lathes, automatically produced germs which, plaeed 
in the ground, or in the bark of a tree, produced new 
watches or locomotives without number? Surely we 
would not attribute such a machine to chance agglom- 
eration of atoms, or to any law of blind material 
forces. Yet this is exactly what occurs in the repro- 
duction of plants and animals. 

Chance is said to occur when some obstäcle pre- 
vents a cause from obtaining its natural effect, or 
which turns an object from its natural course. The 
Order of nature is regulär, and cannot arise from any 
but an Intelligent Cause. The theories of such ma- 
terialists as Democritus, Epicurus, Spinosa and 
Colonel IngersoU are therefore absurd. Not only 
was the Universe f ashioned by 6od, but the matter 
of which it is f ormed was created. This will be f ur- 
ther elucidated in Chapter 35, when we treat of the 
Mosaic account of Creation. 

Paine, speaking of certain parts of the Bible in 
which God is represented as taking part in human 
affairs, says: 

"When we contemplate the immensity of that 
being who directs and govems the incomprehensible 
WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sigbt 
can discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at 
calling such stories the word of Gh>d." (Age of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Golonel IngeräoU likewise maintains that it is 
beneath God's dignity, if there is a God, to interfere 
in the affairs of men. We have seen already that he 
maintains that God is not to be woi*shipped. So also 
whenever miracles are related in the Bible, he ref utes 
only by ridiculing them. 

Thus he attacks the miracle by which the san stood 
still in the heavens at the command of Joshua, z, 13, 
and he ridicules the miracles of Moses: 

**It is impossible to conceive of a more absurd 
Story than this about the stopping of the sun and 
moon." (P. 75.) 

"It seems hardly reasonable that God, if thero is 
one, would either stop the globe, change the Constitu- 
tion of the atmosphere or the nature of light, simply 
to afford Joshua an opportunity to kill people on 
that day, when he could just as easily have waited 
until the next morning. It certainly cannot be very 
.gratifying to God for us to believe such childish 
things/' (P. 76.) 

A like difficulty is made of the Statement (4 Kings 
XX. Prot. Bible, 2 Kings,) that the shadow went 
back ten degrees " in the dial of Ahaz." (P. 79.) 

This he calls " a useless display of power." Simi- 
larly he objects to the history of the creation of Eve, 
the temptation and fall of our first Parents, the flood, 
the conf usion of tongues, the ten plagues of Egypt, 
the passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous 
events by which God's power and goodness were 
manif ested to the Jews while they wandered in the 
deserts of Sinai. 

In chapter 13 we will prove the reasonableness 
of Miracles. At present we have only to deal with 
the objection that such miracles as Messrs. Paine and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Ingersoll are pleased to consider unworthy of Gbd 
are therefore unworthy of credence. The Jews were 
specially living under God's protection. Under His 
direct leadership they were brought out of Egypt 
with a strong hand. They were punished f or their 
disobedienceSy but still 6od did not abandon them« 
They were punished by being condemned to wander 
in the desert f or forty years. What wonder is it that 
during that time they should receive many marks of 
God's special Providence and care for them? Many 
things of small Import to a man who can gather 400 
or 600 dollars a night by lecturing against Moses, 
were of the utmost importance to a nation, just 
escaped from slavery, and wandering in an inhospit- 
able land. It was just the occasion for 6od to mani- 
fest his power, and he showed his tender care by such 
miracles as bringing water from the rock of Horeb 
when they were thirsty, sending manna and quails to 
be their f ood, and taking care that even their clothing 
should not wear out. Be it remembered that the 
Chief argument brought against these facts is that 
they were unworthy of God, and that He might have 
provided for them otherwise. Surely He might; but 
because Col, Ingersoll could travel from his home to 
Washington by the Baltimore and Ohio Bailroad, is 
that a reason why he could not pass through Penn- 
sylvania? Col. Ingersoll maintains that the five 
books of Moses were not written tili " hundreds of 
years after Moses was dust and ashes." Well, be it 
so for the present. Will the Colonel explain how the 
impostor who then palmed them on the public as the 
work of Moses could presume to insert in them the 
foUowing law? 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


" Six years thou shalt sow thy ground, and slialt 
gather the com thereof. But the seventh year thou 
shalt let it alone and suffer it to rest, that the poor of 
thy people may eat, and whatsoever shall be left, let 
the beasts of the field eat it: so shalt thou do with 
thy vineyard and thy olive yard." Ex. xxiii, 11, and 
Lev. XXV, 4. 

In the last mentioned chapter the fiftieth year is 
also appointed a year of rest and jubilee, and it is 
added : . 

" But if you say, what shall we eat the seventh year, 
if we sow not nor gather our fruits ? I will give you 
my blessing the sixth year and it shall tield the 
FEUiTS op THEEK TEARS. And the cighth year you 
shall sow and shall eat of the old fruits until the 
ninth year." (20 to 22.) 

Such a law was never thought of in any other na- 
tion : but by the Jews the law was accepted and 
acted upon. Here then was the promise of a Stand- 
ing miracle every seven years, and surely if the 
promise had not been fulfilled the evidence of the 
f orgery would have been patent to all. The obser- 
vance of the Sabbatical year is f requently attested by 
Josephus ; Ant. xi, 8; xiv, 10. Tacitus also mentions 
this fact (Hist. v, 1,) which he attributes to idleness, 
being Ignorant of the true cause. 

Who will, in the face of such a law, presume to 
say that the Jewish nation was not under the special 
patronage of the Most High, the Ruler of the Uni- 
verse? Who will presume to call in doubt the fact 
that they lived amidst miracles ? 

Let US now examjne philosophically this theory 
that 6od cannot interfere with man, especially when 
the matter on which He is supposed to intervene. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


appears to such men as Messrs. Paine and IngersoU 
to be beneatb His notioe. 

We have proved already God's Immeosity and 
Onmipotenoe, and Mr. Paine acknowledges it. Must 
we not tben admit tbat Qod knows as maeb abont 
our aots in detail as He does about tbe more important 
fact of our existence or of tbe existence and motions 
of tbe solar System ? 

He declares tbat God govema and direets tbe in- 
oomprebensible wbole. How can tbis be if He rule 
not also its most minnte parts ? At wbat stage of 
inenbation do buman acts begin to be wortby of God's 
notice ? 

The tmtb is, Gk)d knows aU tbings, tbe small 
eqnally witb tbe great. He can do all tbings, and He 
is equally great, wbetber " stretebing out tbe beavens 
like a pavilion, or bringing fortb tbe blade of grass 
for cattle." He is equally wonderf ul wbetber meas- 
uring out its clotbing to tbe sparrow, or ordering 
tbe sun and moon to cause tbe seasons and tides, and 
tbe succession of day and nigbt. Tbe pbilosopby of 
Messrs. Paine and IngersoU was exploded wben Plato 
1900 years ago refuted Democritus and Epicurus, 
even before tbe birtb of tbe last named. It would 
seem tbat tbe pbilosopbers of tbe skeptical scbool 
tbink tbat God bas no time to spare to think of mat- 
ters wbicb affect His creation. Wbat must be tbeir 
idea of Infinite knowledge ? 

Tbe bistorical portions of tbe Bible, sucb as tbe 
bistory of Samson, ridiculed by Mr. Paine, tbe bis- 
tories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and other portions 
of Holy Scripture ridiculed by Col. IngersoU, far 
from being useless or absurd, are füll of illustrations 
of tbe life of Christ on earth, of mystio allegoiies 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



which pious readers have disoovered in them, and of 
evidences of God's Providence in detail, v They are 
theref ore calculated to make men both wiser and bet- 
tcr; and indeed the lesson they inculcate would be 
8ufficiently valuable if we learned from tbem nothing 
more than that God's Providence watches over man- 
kind in all our actioiis. 

That the Providence of God watches over His 
Creation is clear from the following considerations. 

A created being cannot preserve itself , on the with- 
drawal of its efficient cause, unless it can preserve by 
its own nature the perf ection which has been com- 
municated to it. Bat the creature cannot presei*ve it- 
self by its own natare, f or then there would be in the 
creature the quality of self-existence which belongs 
only to the Creator or First Cause. The continued 
action of the Creator is theref ore necessary f or the 
continued existence of the creature: just as the moon, 
shining by the light of the sun, ceases to shine when 
the rays of the sun are intercepted by the Interven- 
tion of the earth during a total eclipse of the nxoon. 
It follows that if God were to withdraw His con- 
serving action from any creature, its existence would 
be at an end. It follows also that annihilation of 
being is possible only to God, the fountain of exist- 
ence; for as He alone can create, and He alone can 
preserve by the continued act of creation, which con- 
servation implies. He alone can annihilate by ceasing 
to conserve. Thus we inf er that Qod^s Providence 
over creation is oonstant. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






6od being such as we have described him in chap- 
ters 5 and 6, it ought to be unnecessary to enquire, 
do we need more liglit concerning Him, than Reason 
affords? Or is Revelation usef ul or neoessary that 
we may know liow we are to worship Him, or as, Col. 
Ingersoll asserts, is there no need to worship Him at 

Even with all the help afforded by Revelation, a 
reasonable man would naturally say, "ön such a sub- 
ject we cannot have too much light." So thought 
Cicero, Plato, Socrates, etc., but so Col. Ingersoll does 
not think. He is wiser than these great reasoners. His 
thoughts are final decrees, his conceptions are infalli- 
ble and uncontrovertible. Thus: 

**For me it is impossible to believe the story of the 
deluge." (P. 164.) 

This is conclusive! 

"Ignorance (of Christians) believes, Intelligence 
(of the Colonel) examines." (P. 161.) 

" My own opinion is that General Joshua knew no 
more about the motions of the earth than he did 
about mercy and justice." (P. 74.) 

" I cannot believe these things. (P. 238.) 

" A book that is abhorrent to my head and heart 
cannot be accepted as a Revelation f rom God." (P. 

Let US now see what be says of the necessity of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^'It is not easy to aocount for an infinite 6od mak- 
ing people so low in tbe scale of intellect as to re- 
quire a revelation. (P. 41.) 

On this point Thos. Paine Ägrees with Mr. Inger- 
soU; but Paine gives a semblance of argument for bis 
Position wbicb tbe latter does not. He says: 

" It is only by tbe use of reason tbat man can dis- 
oover Qod. Take away tbat reason, and be would be 
incapable of understanding anything. How then is it 
that tbese people (Cbristians) rejeet reason? " Age 
of Reason. (P. 26.) N. Y. edition. 

^' It is only in tbe Creation tbat all onr ideas and 
conceptions of a word pf Gk)d can nnite .... And 
this word of God reveals to man all tbat is necessary 
for man to know of Gk)d." ibid. 

In f act, Deists all agree tbat we are to believe only 
in "Natural Religion," 

It is proper to remark bere tbat botb Mr. Paine and 
Col. IngersoU (P. 63,) misrepresent Cbristians in stat- 
ing tbat we " rejeet reason." Revelation presupposes 
Reason. Beasts bave no Revelation, because tbey 
have no reason; but reason bas its proper use. Rea- 
son judges trutb wbicb lies witbin its scope, but be- 
yond tbe field of trutb wbicb reason can reach, tbere 
lies a vast expanse wbicb unaided reason can never 
know. Here tben is a field in wbicb, even according 
to Mr. Paine's admission, Revelation bas ample scope; 
for be virtually admits, tbat a proper spbere of Rev- 
elation is tbat body of Trutb wbicb we did not know 
bef ore, for be says : 

" Tbe person to wbom a Revelation is made did 
not know it before." Age of Reason. 

Mr. Paine acknowledges tbe Immortality of tbe 
Boul, or at least declares bis conviction of its proba- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


bility and says that it is bis hope. Col. Ingersoll, 
Tyndall and D. M. Bennet do not pronounce for or 
against it. 

The truth or falsity of this doctrine is to us, after 
God's existence, the most important doctrine of Re- 
ligion, öince on it depends what we must do for God, 
oiir neighbor and ourselves : also whether or not we 
are to expect a happy or miserable everlasting f uture. 
Yet Mr. Paine, with tbe aid of Reason, cannot assert 
that the doctrine is certain. 

Does it not follow, then, that light is needed on 
this subject more than reason affords? 

The prayer of the Russian poet to God for light is 
the dictate of Reason. 

"Thouart: directing, guiding all, thou art: 

Direet my undei Standing, then, to tbee. 
Control my spirit. Guide my wandering heart 

Though but an atom midst immensity, 
Still I am sometbing fasbioned by tby band. 

I hold a middle rank twixt heaven and earth; 
On the last verge of mortal being stand, 

Close to tbe realms where angels have their birth. 
Just on tbe boundaries of the spirit land." 

Reason whispers to us that there is within us a 
principle differing from our body and from all things 
material, for this principle judges, thinks, reasons, 
wills — incites to great and noble deeds. Bodies can- 
not do these things. That principle, then, differs* 
from the body, and does not necessarily perish with 
the body. 

But does reason alone assure us of Immortality ? 
The doubts of Mr. Paine and other Deists answer 
" No.'' Many of the greatest thinkers of ancient and 
modern times have acknowledged that without a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Revelation from God, they must always be in doubt 
uiDon this subject. 

Cicero says: 

"No one would ever offer himself to die for bis 

country, without great hope of immortality 

I cannot explain bow it is tbat tbere is in our minds 
a certain presentiment of future ages." ( Qucest. Tus- 

"It is for a God to say wbicb of tbese opinions ia 
trae. For as, we are not in a condition to determine 
even wbicb is most probable." 

Socrates says: 

" Tbe clear knowledge of tbese tbings is impossi- 
ble in tbis life, or at least extremely difficult. Tbe 
wise man ougbt tberef ore to bqld wbat seems to bim 
most probable, until be bave a more sure ligbt, or un- 
til tbe Word of God Himself will serve as a guido." 

Plato, Aristotle and Plutarcb are of tbe same opin- 
ion and say tbat Immortality, Creation and tbe Provi- 
dence of God are ancient traditions of tbe buman 
race wbicb deserve tbe greatest deference. 

Tbus tbese great Pbilosopbers from Reason alone 
came to tbe conclusion tbat we need Revelation. 

Many are of opinion tbat by Reason tbis triitb is 
demonstrable, but even if tbis be tbe case, Reason 
would never bave discovered tbe demonstration were 
it not guided by Revelation, and Mr. Paine would 
never bave guessed its trutb, 

Tbe Binomial Tbeorem of Newton, and Taylor's 
Tbeorem bave been demonstrated in otber ways tbai) 
tbeir first discoverers employed, and tbere is many a 
man wbo can now demonstrate tbem, wbo would 
never bave discovered tbem. 

Modern, deists boast very loudly about ** Natural 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Religion " and Ool. Ingersoll abont tbe *' Religion of 
Humanity," but tbey would know notbing of eitber 
tbe Religion of Natnre or of tbat of Hamanity if 
Christianity bad not been beforeband to teacb its 
principlcs to tbem. Its good f eatares are borrowed 
from Cbristianity. Natural Religion or tbe so-called 
Religion of Hamanity is like ^sop's jackdaw, 
dressed in peacock's featbers. Strip it of its featbers, 
it will be a jackdaw stilL Yet Mr. Paine says, witb 
bis nsual coarseness : 

**Of all tbe Systems of Religion tbat ever were in- 
vented, tbere isnone more derogatory to tbe Almigbty, 
more nnedifying to man, more repugnant to reason 
and more contradictory in itself tban tbis tbing oalled 
Cbristianity." (Age of Reason, part 2.) 

Mr. Ingersoll also reviles Cbristianity. In order to 
do so be misrepresents tbe olergy as sordid. We 
bare already sbown tbis. Tbe doctrines of Cbristian- 
ity be represents as debasing, and be pretends that sbe 
inoulcates ignorance, opposes tbe diffusion of knowl- 
edge, and encoorages bypocrisy. Tbese statements> 
mere f alse assertions witbont attempt at proof , are of 
no weigbt. I will, bowever, conf ront tbem witb tbe 
admissions of well-known infidels. Voltaire says: 

"It remains for us to consider tbe bappy effects 
of tbis ligbt of tbe Gospel, not only in increasing but 
in producing tbe bappiness of mankind, and in being 
tbe consolation of tbe buman race. Tb ose wbo bave 
combatted religion must at least acknowledge tbat it 
announces trutbs wbicb will secure bappiness to man- 
kind. Her practice is establisbed on kindness and 
benefioence. One God adored from beart and moutb, 
and all duties fulfilled, make of tbe world a temple 
and of all men brotbers." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Frederick of Pmssia says: 

'^If the Gospel contained only this precept: Do 
not to others what you woald not wish them to do to 
you, we would be forced to aoknowledge that these 
few words comprise all morality." 

Cbristianity, not Deism, nor Atheisniy has been able 
to Substitute a reverenee for morality for the barbar- 
ous manners of Paganism. Cbristianity alone bas 
saved multitudes of children abaudoned by unnatural 
parents, has built bouses of refuge to succor travellers 
on the mountains of perpettial snow, has rescued cap- 
tives by herolc acta of self-dcniäl, bas organized 
bands of angels of mercy to relieve sufferers in the 
pest-houses, and has illnminated man by instrueting 
bim in a morality which reason alone never could 
have discovered. 

She alone has given courage to her disciples tb lay 
down their lives by millions in testimony to the 
truth. 8he teaches f^Hy and without uncei*tain 
Bound our duties to God. She alone can give us tangi- 
ble proof of God's intense löve for mankind, mani- 
fested in our Redemption: she alone can give to the 
dying the consolation of a certain hope, pointing to 
our cruoified Saviour as its pledge. 

An oath is the f oundation of jurisprudenee. Cbris- 
tianity alone makes it sacred and inviolable. Mar- 
riage, elevated to bc a sacred rite, raises woman to 
her proper sphere, while under Deism and Polythe- 
ism she is as degraded as in Utah and Turkey. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Let US now consider the necessity of Bevelation 
from another standpoint. Let ns look at the moral 
resalts of unaided Beason. 

Man existed on earth, at all events, f or f our thou- 
sand years before Christ. Rationalists say that he 
must have existed hundreds of thousands of years. 
We may f or our present purpose allow them all the 
time they ask. During this period what progress 
did reasou make in inculcating religion and morality? 
Even Deists acknowledge that if we except the pre- 
cept, '* ßemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath 
day," the ten commandments comprise a summary of 
the natural moral law. Let us see what knowledge 
of these important precepts had those countries which 
did not know the true God. 

Col. Ingersoll wishes us to believe that the Pagans 
were better instructed in these matters than were 
Christians or Jews. He says: 

" We read the Pagan sacred books with profit and 
delight. With myth and fable we are ever charmed, 
and find a pleasure in the endless repetition of the 
beautiful, poetic and absuVd. We find in all these 
records of the past, philosophies and dreams, and 
eflforts stained with tears, of great and tender souls, 
who tried to pierce the mystery of lifo and death, to 
answer the eternal questions of the Whence and 
Whither." (Preface, p. ix.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


" Thousands of years bef ore Moses was born, the 

Egyptians had a cod« of laws The Egyp- 

tian Code was far better than the Mosaic." (P. 235.) 

" Long bef ore the Jewish sa vages assembled at the 
foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enf orced, not 
only in Egypt and India, but by every tribe that ever 
existed." (P. 235.) 

" The Bible is a book that * necessarily excites the 
laughter of God's children.' " (P. 34.) 

"The real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of 
the people is the Bible." It "fills the world with 
bigotry, hypocrisy and fear." (P. 43.) 

There is mach more of the same kind. 

Elsewhere he elevates the sacred books of the Hin- 
doos above the Bible, and he states that these books 
are 4,000 years anterior in date to the Pentateuch. 

In chapter 40 we will treat more in d etail of the 
teachings and antiquity of the Hindoo sacred books, 
We shall now see what Reason and their Sacred 
books, together with their schools of Philosophy did 
for the heathen nations up to the time of Christ. 

There were philosophical schools in India, Egypt, 
Chaldsea, Phoenicia, Greece and Rome. In all of 
these countries innumerable gods were worshipped. 
In them all, might held the place of right. Slavery 
was, as we have seen already in chapter 4, most 
barbarous. Their religious feasts were orgies of 
cruelty, impiety, jealousy, intemperance. And though 
Col. IngersoU maintains (p. 126) that in process of 
time, man progressed in religion, as in everything 
eise, it is clear to any one who is at all acqnainted 
with the real history of the matter, that their beliefs 
degenerated as time moved on. Thus P^re Coeur- 
doaZy a French Jesuit, of whom Max Müller says 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^to tbis modest missionary, " belongs tbe credit ^'of 
having anticipated some of the most important re- 
sults of Comparative Philology by at least fifty 
years," says of the Veda: 

"Since the Veda is in our hands, we have extracted 
from it texts which serve to convince them of those 
fundamental truths that must destroy idolatry; for 
the Unity of God, the qualities of the true God, and 
a State of blessedness and condemnation, are all in 
the Veda. Biit the truths which are found in this 
book are onli/ scattered there like grains of gold in a 
heap of sand.'* (Max Müller, " Science of Language/' 
vol. 1, p. 177.) 

Thus at first the Hindoos admitted one Supreme 
Being. Nevertheless, in the Vedio hymns, the gods 
are innumerable; still they are immortal; but as 
time elapsed this immortality was obtained for many 
of them by exterior agency, as by the good acts and 
sacrifices of their worshippers, while at a still later 
period their religion has become such that even Ration- 
alistic writers say their creed, if not elevated to its 
original Standard at least, must " inevitably end in 
the total degeneration of the Hindoo race." They 
worship human beings, beasts, birds, rivers, fish, 
stones, and even the piece of wood used for remov- 
ing the hiisk from rice. In honor of Siva, the 
adorfers' tongues and sides are bored, so that swords, 
snakes, bamboos, are put through their tongues, and 
into their sides the pointed handles of iron shovels. 
On the festival of Juggernaut, devotees throw them- 
selves under the ponderous wheels of the idol's car, 
to be crushed to death, and tbe car itself is covered 
with indecent emblems. Prostitution forms a part 
of tbe religious ceremony on tbis occasion. Widow« 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


are bamed on the death of their hasbands, as a sacri- 
fioe to the god Ram. Suicide is a most meritorions 
act, deserving immediate admission to heaven. In- 
fanticide is practiced as a sacrifice to Ganga. (Be- 
ligions of the World. India.) 

In Egypt there were twenty gods of the first and 
second rank. Those of the third rank were beyond 
counting. Every district had its special gods: cats, 
dogs, owls, crocodiles, storks, and the like; and some- 
times, to support the honor of their deities, most 
bloody wars were waged to decide whether a monkey 
or a crocodile or a cat was the greatest deity. It was 
from their slavery in Egypt that the Jews got the 
idea of adoring the golden calf while Moses was 
communing with God. Yet, f our hundred and thirty 
years before, when Abraham visited Egypt, the 
Pharaoh of that time seemed to have the knowledge 
of the one true God. How does this aceord with 
Colonel Ingersoll's assertion that man progresses by 
the aid of reason, in religioos matters? Laoian, a 
heathen of the seoond Century, writes : "You may 
enter into one of their most magnificent temples, 
adomed with gold an 1 siver, but look around you 
for a god and you will see a stork, an ape, or a cat." 
The very history of the Egyptians themselves will 
teil you how they deteriorated, for it is recorded that 
men rebelled against the gods and drove them out of 
heaven! The gods then fled to Egypt and concealed 
themselves under the forms of these various animals, 
on account of which those creatures are now wor- 
shipped. Juvenal, in Satire XY, thus ridicules the 
Gods of Egypt in his time: 

Who has not heard, where Egypt's realms are named, 
What monster gods her frantic sons have framed ? 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Here Ibis, decked with well-goiged serpent49: there» 
The crocodile commands religious fear. 


A monkey God, prodigious to be told, 
Strikes the beholder's eye with burnished gold. 
To godship here, blue Triton's tcaly herd; 
The river progeny is there preferred. 
Through towns, Diana's power neglected lies, 
While to her dogs aspiring temples rise: 
And should you leeks or onions eat, no time 
Would expiate such sacrilegious crime. 

Perhaps no nation was more thoroughly of Colonel 
IngersolPs religion of "Humanity*' than these same 
Egyptians: none believed more tboroaghly in deco- 
rat ing the tombs of tbe dead, which is tbe Colonel's 
heau ideal of religious worsbip. (P. 277.) This is 
proved by the existence of tbe pyramids, erected in 
memory of tbeir princes; and, in proportion to tbeir 
ability, this respect for the dead was imitated by the 
lower ranks. 

The rites of worship of Isis and Osiris were of so 
indecent a character as to have been deemed disrepu- 
table, and therefore to have been finally repudiated 
in Rome, though indeed it is hard to imagine that 
they could have been mach worse than those of the 
Romans themselves. 

Such, then, are the religions that Colonel Ingersoll 
considers so much superior to the Religion of the 

I might continue this sad picture by giving a sketch 
of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Chinese, 
Japanese, etc. I will, however, only add a few rites 
from some of the most cultivated and civilized 

The Carthaginians and Phoenicians ofifered human 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


saorifices to Moloch or Saturn. Children were bumed 
in a f nrnace of £re, or placed on the bands of a brass 
Statue of the god, from which they feil into the 
midst of a great fire, where they were consumed. 

Diodorus relates that when, in 311 B. C, Aga- 
thocles invaded Carthage, the people, redueed to 
great extremity, attributed their misfortunes to the 
anger of Saturn, because slaves and foreigners had 
been offered in sacrifice to him instead of the nobly 
born. As an atonement, two hundred children and 
three hundred Citizens of the noblest f amilies were 
offered up by fire. 

These practices did not cease even with the de- 
struction of the city, 146 B. C. 

This would seem to be the most appropriate place 
to answer a difficulty which Colonel Ingersbll, fol- 
lowing Paine and Voltaire, brings against the Penta- 

God " commanded the Hebrews to kill the men and 
women, the fathers, sons, and brothers, but to pre- 
serve the girls alive." (P. 253.) 

He then states that the girls were to be given over 
to the licentiousness of the soldiers and priests, and 

God "gave thousands of maidens, after having 
killed their fathers, their mothers, and their brothers, 
to satisfy the brutal lusts of men." (P. 255.) 

To prove this he appeals to Numbers, 31st chapter. 
The 18th verse is the passage meant: "But the girls, 
and all the women that are virgins, save for your- 

There is not one i^ord of their being delivered to 
the "brutal lusts of soldiers and priests." Knowing 
the striet law against such crimes, it is the height of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


impadence for Colonel Ingersoll to make such an 
assertion. He must rely very much on the stupidity 
of bis readers when making it. Perhaps he will find 
the American people not so stupid as he imagines. 
The maidens were destined to lawful marriage with 
the Jews. 

But what are we to say of the command to kill 
the men and women, and even the male children of 
the Madiauites ? Is not this worse than anything in 
the hideous rites of India, Egypt, and Carthage ? 

I answer: 1. This was no part of the religious rites 
of the Jews. It was an act of warf are. 

2. The utter extermination of this nation, and of 
the Canaanites and others was not the nsual mode of 
warf are of the Jews. The extermination of these 
nations was theref ore a transient f act, while the bar- 
barous rites of the heathens of which I have spoken 
were permanent, and part of their religion. 

3. The treatment of the Madianites and Canaanites, 
etc., was the punishment of the grossest crimes com- 
mitted by men and women. Three detestable crimes 
at least, are implied as committed by the women when 
it is Said, "they made you transgress agäinst the 
Lord by the sin of Phogor," or " to commit trespass 
against the Lord in the matter of Peor." (Num. 
xxxi, 16.) 

The Israelites were made by God the execntors of 
bis law. When Colonel Ingersoll undertook the com- 
mand of a regiment in the civil war, he did not hesi- 
tate to take the sword under authority of the United 
States Government, and to make speeches to incite 
others to do the same. The authority of God was 
Supreme to the Jews, and by that authority they in- 
flicted merited punishment. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The killing of the children was different. They 
were innocent of the chmes of their parents; bat 
after all God is the Arbiter of lif e and death. We 
mast all die, and it, in reality, is the same in the end 
whether death come to us naturally or by accident of 
fire or drowning or by the sword. In any case it is 
by God's decree. Even if God were the " constella- 
tion dreamer " imagined by Mr. Ingersoll, be it Law 
or Chance or Nature, death is His decree passed on all 
mankind. The manner of death is but a secondary 
consideration. It is trne, man cannot have the right 
of inflicting the death penalty withont sufficient cause 
of guilt, but God has that right; and He cannot be 
accased of injustice or cruelty when He inflicts it. 
He has given life gratuitously: gratuitously He may 
take it away. God might have permitted their de- 
struction by a flood or a conflagration. He could do 
so in any manner He chose to select, and no one should 
presume to arraign Hirn for it. 

The same objection is brought by Mr. Paine (Age 
of Reason, p. 15), and also by Voltaire. Of course 
this answer is equally good against them all. 

What I have said of these children applies still more 
strongly to the cattle and other animals destroyed 
either by the plagues of Egypt or by the Noachian 
deluge. The cattle were made for man's use, and 
man was punished by their destruction. We cannot 
question in either case the authority of the Supreme 
Arbiter of life and death. (Ex. xii, 29; Gen. vii, 23.) 
Colonel Ingersoll's queries on this point, therefore, 
are of no weight: 

" Why should the cattle be destroyed ?" etc. (P. 
205; see also p. 143.) 

Let US now retum to our review of the morals of 
Pagan nations. 

Digitized by VjjOOQIC 


TPhe worship of Venus and Bacchus by the Greeks 
and Romans was conducted with unbridled licentious- 
ness and drunken orgies and processions. The initia- 
tions and mysteries of these Oods were immoral 
beyond description. 

One faet will serve to illustrate the degrading in- 
fluence exercised by this worship on public morals. 
After the retreat of Xerxes from Greece, the poet 
Simonides wrote the inscription which commemorated 
the fact: 

"The prayers of the priestesses, who interceded 
with Venus saved Greece." These priestesses are 
known to have been women of ill-fame. 

In these countries also, Religion degenerated; for 
these deities were not adored by the most ancient 
Romans, and when the worship was introduced it 
grew worse and worse in every age. Thus Colonel 
IngersoU's pretended fact of the progress of religion 
by the influence of Reason, is but the product of his 
own imagination. 

A Word now on the Colonel's assertion that human 
sacrifices were commanded to the Jews. (P. 267.) 
In proof of this he appeals to the last chapter of Le- 
viticus. Now, in the last chapter of Leviticus no 
such Statement is made. The 29th verse is the only 
one by which it might be supposed that such sacri- 
fices were to be offered. The first part of this chapter 
speaks of the simple vow, called in the Hebrew origi- 
nal Neder. (Verse 2.) A clean animal so offered was 
sacrificed. An unclean animal, a field or a man was 
redeemed by a price. In verse 28 a special vow is 
spoken of, called Cherem. Under this vow there was 
no redemption. An unclean animal was sold. A 
field or a house became the property of the temple. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Human beings, that is ohildren and slaves, the only 
persons whom a master oonld devote, were dedioated 
to serve the temple. In verse 29 this special vow is 
not concerned. It is the penal vow relating to those 
who are by public authority condemued to death for 
their abominable crlmes, as in the case of the Madian* 
ites and Canaanites. This penal vow is pronounced 
against thepeople of Jericho in Jos. vi, 17, 18; against 
idolatrous Israelites in Ex. xxxii, and Deut. xiii. An- 
other example is in Judges xxi, 6. The Jews under- 
stood their own laws, and such is the meaning they 
give these words. (Jews' Letters to Voltaire, p. 362.) 

But Mr. IngersoU also adduces the order given to 
Abraham to sacrifice Isaac: 

" And a murder would have been committed had 
not God, just at the right moment, directed him to 
stay bis band and take a sheep instead." (P. 183.) 

Surely the quoting of a passage where God did not 
allow a human sacrifice, is a stränge way of proving 
that human sacrifices are to be offered! 

God tried Abraham's faith and f ound it complete. 
Abraham recognized God as the Master of Life, änd 
was ready to obey; but God, who delights not in 
such sacrifices, stayed bis band. Thus He taught to 
Abraham, His horror for such sacrifices. (Gen. zxii, 

Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary says: 
"Jephtha devoted his daughter as a whole bumt- 
oflEering '* in oonsequence of a vow he njade "to sac- 
rifice the first person who should go out of bis house 
to wish him joy of his victory." 

In this Voltaire is f ollowed by the whole host of 

Let US look into the text and see whether this be 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the case. It is foand in the eleventh ohapter of the 
Book of Judges. 

Daring the wars of the Ammonites against Israel« 
Jephtha was called on by the Israelites to be their 
prince and judge. 

After a victorious career, a decisive battle was to 
be fought near Aroer, and Jephtha made a vow: 

" K thou wilt deliver the children of Ammon into 
my hands, whatsoever oometh f orth f rom the doors of 
my hoase to meet me when I return in peace from 
the children of Ammon, the same shall I offer as a 
holocaust to the Lord." (Hebrew text, verses 30, 31.) 

The vow which Jephtha makes refers us to the law 
in Leviticus xxvii, whereby a person vowed to God 
mnst under certain circnmstanceß be redeemed, or 
under other circumstances be dedicated to serve the 
temple; bat a clean animal which could be sacrificed 
was to be ihus offered up. He gained the victory, and 
on his return Jepktha's only daughter was the first to 
come to meet him " with timbrels and dances." 
Whereupon he rent his garments and said : " Alas my 
daughter .... I have opened my mouth to the Lord, 
and I cannot do otherwise." And she answered, 
" do unto me whatsoever thou hast promised .... 
Grant me only this that I may go about the moun- 
tains for two months, to hewail my virginityy with 
my companions." Here, we do not find, that she 
laments the loss of life, but she " bewails her virgin- 
ity." Assuredly this implies that as a virgin she is 
consecrated to God. This, to the Jewish maidens 
was a source of grief, because under the expectation 
of the future Messias, all hope was lost that they 
should be of the anoestral line from which the 
Messias should spring. (Duclot, Bible Yindicated 
iii, 426.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Her reqaest was granted; "she mourned her vir- 
ginity in the mountains, and the two months being 
expired, she returned to her father, and he did to her 
as he had vowed, and she knew no man." (Verses 
38, 39.) 

There is no Statement that she was sacrificed. The 
grief is for her virginity. 

It is true that some leamed commentators have 
interpreted that the maiden was offered really as a 
burnt-offering; bat these commentators for the most 
part admit that Jephtha mistook his Obligation, aris- 
ing f rom such a vow. It was against the law to offer 
human sacrifice. God says: 

"When the Lord thy God shall have destroyed 

before thy face the nations Beware lest thou 

Imitate them .... and lest thou seek after their 
ceremonies saying: As these nations have wor- 
shipped their gods, so will I also worship. Thou shalt 
not do in like manner to the Lord thy God. For' 
they have done to their gods all the abominations 
which the Lord ahhorrethy offering their sona a?id 
daughterSy and bwming them withfire, What I com- 
mand thee, that only do thou to the Lord; neither 
add anything nor diminish. (Deut, xii, 29 to 32.) 

I will bring evil upon this place Because 

they have forsaken me and have burned in. 

cense in it unto other gods .... and have filled 
this place with the blood of innocents. They have 
built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons 
with for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I com- 
manded not, nor spake it, neitheb camb it ikto mt 
mho), etc." (Jer. xix, 3, etc.) 

^' And they sacrificed their sons and daughters to 
devils. And they shed innocent blood; the blood of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



their sons and daughters which they sacrificed to the 
Idols of Chanaan, and the land was pollnted with 
bloody and was defiled with their works .... And 
the Lord was exceedingly angry with his people." 
(Ps. cv. 37, etc. Prot. Bible cvi See also Lev. xviii, 
22; XX, 2.) 

Surely, if God desired human sacrifice, He would 
have allowed Abraham to offer up Isaac. He would 
have detailed the rights to be practiced on the oc- 
casion, as he did for all the saorifioes of the law, and 
the pious kings, David, Josias, Asa, etc., would not 
have neglected so powerful an engine to propitiate 
God in the critical circumstances in which they so 
frequently found themselves. 

No, Mr. IngersoU, God did not command human 
sacrifice. This abomination was lef t to the ^' civilized 
pagans " you so much admire. 

How sad, indeed, is it that nations whose progress 
in the arts was so great, should be morally so de- 
graded ! Only one obscure people knew the moral 
law! and they received it from Bevelation. Then 
came on earth our Bedeemer, and He sent His mes- 
sengers of peaoe to spread throughont the world the 
knowledge which was so much needed. Christian, 
ity is the result. 

A few philosophers discovered some germs of 
truth: but these were so mixed with gross error that 
they could do little good. And if some had discov- 
ered the truth, what effect would it have had on the 
World ? None whatever, unless they had appeared 
with their authority from God. They lacked unity. 
The history of philosophy is a history of contradio. 
tions. The modern philosophers are in as wof ul con- 
f usion as the ancient. Spinosa, Bailly, Hegel, Darwin, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


etc./have no sarer basis than the Epionreans, Pyth- 
agoreans, Platonists, Pyrrhonists, etc. They have no 
unity. They cannot speak with authority to teaoh. 
They have no motive to offer, of rewards and pun- 
ishments to those who accept or reject their teach- 
ing. Indeed, Revelatipn is sadly needed, if we want 
even the "Religion of Humanity." 



"The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns, is a 
benefactor whether he soweth grain or not.'* This is 
the motto which Colonel Ingersoll has placed on the 
title page of his book. I think we have already said 
enough to show that the Colonel is doing his best to 
destroy the grain and plant thistles; however, we are 
not finisbed yet. 

In 1V92, a noble, Christian country, France, was 
ruled by Atheists and Deists. The kind-hearted king, 
and soon af ter his widowed queen were cruelly be- 
headed. Christianity was formally deposed, and 
with sacrilegious rites, the worship of Beason was 
solemnized in 1793. Thomas Paine was a member of 
the Legislative body which did all this ; though to 
give him the credit he deserves, we must admit he 
voted against the execution, bat f or the deposition 
of the king. A triumvirate composed of the most 
depraved and cruel men who ever wielded power were 
now at the head of the government, and inaugurated 
the celebrated " Reign of Terror." Terror was King. 
The country was deluged with the blood of the virtu- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


OQ8, and indeed of manj of the vicioas votaries of In- 
fidelity. All was done nnder the name of Liberty 
and Hamanity. Crowds of Citizens who had fought 
for thisnew order of things, were accusedof incivism, 
and without proof were piled in dungeons where the 
air was pestilential from ordure. Men, women and 
children were thrown into the Loire, in which, as it 
was too shallow to afford instant death, they sprawled 
like toads and frogs in the spring, praying to be 
thrown into deeper water. 300,000 were thrown into 
prison, of whom 160,000 were executed. Thomas 
Paine was himself a sufferer, and was undonbtedly 
saved from execution by the fall and execution of 
Robespierre on July 27th, 1794. He attests that 
among the tyrant's papers there was a record signif y- 
ing his intention to demand a decree against Mr. 
Paine, as had been done against the other Girondists. 
Death would have been the sure result. 

Such was France nnder Infidel rule. Infidelity 
removes all responsibility to God, and this responsi- 
bility gone, the natural conseqnence is that men ren- 
der an acconnt only to their own passions. 

The Commnne of Paris of 1871 was a repetition 
of the reign of terror. It was another exemplifica- 
tion of the mle of Atheism. Its results were not so 
disastrons as those of the first Reign of Terror, be- 
cause its mle was shorter. France, tanght by the 
events of 1792 and succeeding years, rose in her 
might and crushed the serpent in its infancy; bnt it 
lived long enough to exhibit its spirit. 

In the face of these facts, Colonel IngersoU has 
the effrontery to assert that Christianity is of perse- 
cuting spirit: 

" Christianity oannot live in peace with any other 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


form of faith." . . . Christianity has "wet with 
blood the sword He (Christ) oame to bring," 
(Pp. 7, 8.) 

With these assertions I dealt already in ohapter 3. 

It may be that a few Atheists or Deists woald not 
be as wicked as their principles, bat let a nation be 
indoctrinated with such principles, and the result 
mast be the same as occurred in France Without 
Religion, man becomes a wild beast. 

Thomas Paine, dishonestly enough, attribntes the 
cruelties of his irreligious confreres to the early 
teachings of religion, not fully eradicated from their 
minds. Let us set against this the expressed opinions 
of some Infidels of note. 

Vottaire and Frederia of Prussia I qaoted bef ore. 
De l'Ambert says: 

"I attribute irreligion tothe deg^e to haveno curb 
to the passions, to the vanity of not thinking like 
the mnltitude, rather than to sophistical illusions. 
When passions and vanity cease, faith retums." 

J. J. Boussean says: 

''Christianity renders men just, moderate, lovers 
of peace, benefactors of society." (Lettr. de la 
Montagne, 1. 4.) 

Similarly, Montaigne, Fontenelle, Byron, Bayle, 
and Maupertius have expressed themselves. 

Besides the doctrines we have already referred to, 
Beason alone cannot give us positive information on 
such questions as these: 

How is Gk)d to be honored and worshipped? 
What is man*s ultimate end? How may sin be 
expiated ? 

Colonel IngersoU says we are bound by no creed 
(p. 28) ; but we have only his word f or this. We 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


need to be enlightened by Bevelation. He maintsuDs 
that God cannot demand our worship. We have 
ref ated tbis in chapter 2. He also bolds that there 
is no forgiveness for us if we offend Natural Law. 
He is for inexorable justice. To decide such matters 
we need tbe teaching of Bevelation. 



At tbis stage we are confronted witb a difficulty 
against Bevelation, wbicb is most resolutely urged 
by all Bationalists, and it seetns proper to remove it 
before proceeding furtber. Bationalists mamtain 
that all mysteries in Beligion sbould be rejected; 
that is to say, all^doctrines which we cannot f ully 

In cbapter 1, 1 gave some reasons why a mystery 
is not to be rejected merely because it is such. 
Colon el IngersoU says: 

" We are told we bave the privilege of examining 
it (the Bible) for ourselves; but this privilege is only 
extended to us on the condition that we believe it 

whether it appears reasonable or not We 

have no right to weigh it in the scales of reason — to 
test it by the laws of nature, or the facts of Observa- 
tion and experience." (Pp. 41, 42.) 

** It seems to me .... that if there can be any 
communication from God to man, it must beaddressed 
to bis reason. It does not seem possible that, in order 
to understand a message from God, it is absolutely 
essential to throw our reason away." (P. 60.) 

The olergy are obliged " to despise reason." (P. 20.) 

Digitized by VjOO^C 


They induce "all to desert the Standard of reason.** 
(P. 23.) 

They teach "the wickedness of philosophy, the 
immorality of science.'* (P. 19.) 

" The Church has said: * Believe and obey. K you 
reason you will become an unbeliever, and unbelievers 
will be lost." 

It is scarcely necessary to say that these Statements 
are false. The Church does not teach that we must 
despise reason, desert the Standard of reason, etc. 
Col. Ingersoll has a way of saying what is false, and 
at the same time of suggesting, besides, what he 
does not dare to assert plainly. This he does, as we 
bave Seen, when he suggests that there is no 6od. 
He hopes thus to evade responsibility f or propagating 
doctrines which he knows to be dangerous and disas- 
trous in their results. He evidehtly thinks that he 
will thus make it more difficult to ref ute him. On 
the present occasion he is guilty of following the 
same course. I must call this course by its proper 
name. It is both cowardly and dishonest. In the 
above extracts he ^sserts that the Church says, " If 
you reason, you will become an unbeliever." This is 
tangible, but it is false. The Church permits and 
encourages the use of reason in its proper sphere, as 
I have already shown; and it is perfectly reasonable 
that we should believe the dogmas of Christianity. 
But besides Col. IngersolVs assertion, he evidently 
wishes to oonvey the impression that mysteries of 
religion are necessarily unreasonable. This he knows 
to be untenable, and therefore he does not assert it 
boldly. However in another place he §ays: 

"The clergy must preach foolish dogmas." (P. 25.) 

Here he commits himself to a positive Statement. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


He attempts no proof, we mast take bis WdOrd for it. 
This is precisely what I do not intend to do. If only 
the Colonel's difficulties were to be met, it would be 
enougb to deny bis unproved assertions; bat as I 
wisb f urtber to prove Revelation, I will refute the 
conclusion whicb he evidently intends bis readers to 
draw from bis assertions. For this parpose I will 
cite from T. Paine's " Age of Beason " bis views on 
this subject. Paine, with all bis faults^ unlike Col« 
Ingersoll, bas the courage of bis convictions. My 
answer to Mr. Paine will refute what; Mr. Ingersoll 
intends to convey. Mr. Paine says: 

" Mystery cannot be applied to the moral trntbs of 

" Mystery is the antagonist of Truth, and Religion 
cannot have any connection with Mystery.*' Age of 

In Nature, whicb is man's own spbere, there are 
Mysteries. This is acknowledged by Mr. Paine. 

" Everything we behold is in one sense a mystery 
to US. Our own existence is a mystery. The whole 
vegetable world is a mystery. We cannot account 
how it is that an acorn when put into the ground, is 
made to develop itself and become an oak. We know 
not how it is that the seed we sow unfolds and mul- 
tiplies itself and returns to us such an abundant in- 
terest for so small a capital." 

" The f act, however, as distinct from the operating 
cause, is not a mystery, because we see it, and we 
know also the means we are to use, whicb is no other 
than putting seed into the ground. We know, there- 
f ore, as mucb^s is ndcessary for us to know, and that 
part of the Operation whicb we do not know, and 
whicb we could not perform, the Creator takes upon 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


himself and perf orms f or us. We are better oft than 
if we had been let into the s^ecret and lef t to do it for 
ourselves." Ibid, 

Thus Mr; Paine's own acknowledgment disproves 
bis Position in regard to Mysteries in Religion; for 
tbe same reasoning applies precisely to Religious 
trutb. In Nature wbicb is man's own spbere, we are 
so enveloped in Mysteries tbat Mr. Paine says 
"everytbing we bebold is a mystery to us." Our 
existence, tbe vegetable and animal worlds, tbe in- 
fluence of our soul on our body, tbe circulation of 
our blood, tbe aetion of Gravity in tbe Universe, 
Cbemistry, Natural History, all are mysteries wbicb 
we cannot penetrate. Electricity, tbat wonderful 
agent, many of wbose uses we know, and of wbicb 
we can avail ourselves, is so mysterious a power tbat 
we cannot teil its nature. Tbe greatest scientists can 
only tbeorize and speculate upon it. Thus in a mat- 
ter wbicb pertains specially to man, tbat is to say in 
tbe works of nature, we are in a world of mystery. 
Is it to be supposed tbat in tbe spbere wbicb belongs 
to God we can understand everytbing? tbat tbere 
must be notbing mysterious or incomprebensible to 
US? God would not be God: He would not be infin- 
ite in His immensity and knowledge if we could un- 
derstand all tbat relates to Him. It is, tberefore, 
preposterous for Mr. Paine to assert tbat tbere must 
be no mysteries in Religion. God is infinite. He 
knows trutb wbicb we cannot understand. Our bigb- 
est wisdom is to acknowledge tbat tbe number of 
trutbs unknown to us is infinite. If God reveals 
' sucb it is reasonable for us to believe and unreason- 
able to reject tbem. In fact we owe to God tbe 
bomage of our wbole being, of our understanding, as 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of all our other faculties; and the only way in which 
we can pay Hirn that homage, is to believe on His 
nnerring word all that He has revealed, however in- 
comprehensible it may be to us. 

Reason and Revelation unite in attesting "how 
incomprehensible are His jadgments and how un-* 
searchable His ways." Rom. xi, 33. 

Mysteries in Religion are not against Reason: they 
are above Reason. It is tberef ore nseless and absurd 
to attempt to penetrate and nnderstand them by our 
weak powers of Reason. We may, however, use our 
Reason to know that God has revealed them; and 
also to nnderstand what is meant when a mystery is 
proposed for our belief. Any f urther than this we 
cannot go, and it is not reasonable to require that we 
should nnderstand it f ully bef ore believing it. We 
do not require to nnderstand all about the mysteries 
of nature bef ore we believe. We accept them on the 
Word of those who have to some extent penetrated 
them, or who have discovered that the f acts exist. 
The testimony of God is greater than that of men. 
We are therefore bound to receive His testimony, 
even though we do not nnderstand the truths He 

It is f rom this evident that Col. Ingersoll speaks 
nonsense when he says: 

" It does not seem possible that in order to nnder- 
stand a message f rom God it is absolutely essential to 
throw our reason away." (P. 60.) 

We are not required to throw our reason away; 
but it is absurd for us to ask to nnderstand all the 
consequences and relations of a truth that is revealed« 
We do not require this in things natural, neither 
must we require it in things which are above nature. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


" How can any man accept as a revelation f rom 
God that whioh is unreasonable to him ? " Ibid, 

We are not required to accept that which is unrea- 
sonable, that is to say against reason, bat we are re- 
quired to accept that which is above reason, if God 
reveals it. We know th^t God is Truth itself, and 
that He can neither deceive nor be deceiveA We 
are theref ore saf e in receiving truth on the sole assur- 
ance of His word that it is truth. 

Mr. Paine says: "Mystery is the antagonist of 
Truth." Has he not himself proved that mystery is 
in every truth ? Does he not say " Every thing we 
behold is in one sense a mystery to us ? " How then 
can mystery be the antagonist of truth ? Mystery is, 
on the contrary Truth's constant companion. 

Mr. IngersoU also, while endeavoring to make his 
readers believe that mystery "must bo rejected by 
every honest man " admits that there must be mys- 
tery in the act of Creation, f or he says " I do not pre- 
tend to teil how all these things really are." (P. 60.) 
Why then does he constantly ask, when Mysterieb are 
in question, such queries as these ? 

" What was God doing" in eternity? Where did 
the water come from? Did Moses know anything 
about the stars ? Can any believer in the Bible give 
any reasonable account of this process of Creation ? 
etc., etc. (Pp. 57, 64, 81, 95, etc.) 

The question is not how revealed truth exists, but: 
Is this truth revealed ? If so, then we should believe 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






Thomas Painb makes a distinction of two kinds of 
Revelation which we may conceive: Immediate Me- 
velation is that which God reveals directly to any 
man: MedicUe Revelation is that which is received by 
any man, not directly from God, but through a third 
person who received it from God. 

Let US first consider the possibility of Immediate 

On the part of God there can be no obstacle to im- 
mediate Revelation; for being infinitely wise and 
powerful, He must know many ways of making 
known to us truths which relate to Himself, and of 
manifesting His will. 

Men can communicate their thoughts to one an- 
other. It follows, then, that God who is infinitely 
powerful and wise can do so also. 

On the part of man there is no obstacle to receiv- 
ing Revelation; for man is endowed with reason and 
intelligence. He may therefore receive from God 
the knowledge which God desires to communicate, 
just as we can receive the knowledge which other 
men communicate to us. 

Among the things which God may desire to reveal 
to US, there may be truths which will lead us to a 
more intimate knowledge of God himself, truths 
which will increase the manifestation of God's glory, 
and other truths which it will be for our own weif are 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to know. There is therefore no obstacle to Reve- 
lation in the nature of the truth to be revealed to ns. 

There is no other source from which an obstacle 
can arise to the possibility of Bevelation except one 
of the three we have indicated. Such obstacle must 
necessarily be either in God's nature, or in human nat- 
ure, or in the nature of the truth revealed; and as none 
of these presents an obstacle to Revelation, it f ollows 
that Immediate Revelation is possible. 

The common sense of mankind confirms the possi- 
bility of Revelation, for we find from the history of 
all nations, that Revelations, whether true or false 
were believed in. 

Mr. Paine admits the possibility of Immediate Re- 
velation, but denies the Obligation of belief in Medi- 
ale Revelation. He says : 

" Revelation when applied to Religion means some- 
thing communicated immediately from God to man. 
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Al- 
raighty to make such a communication if he pleases. 
But admitting for the sake of a case that sometbing 
bas been revealed to a cortain person and not revealed 
to any other, it is Revelation to that person only. When 
he teils it to a second, a second to a third, a third to a 
fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a Revelation to all 
these persons. It is Revelation to the first person 
only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently 
they are not obliged to believe it." 

He further gives a reason for believing in the pos- 
sibility of Revelation: 

"To the Almighty all things are possible." 

The possibility of Mediate Hevelation Mr. Paine 
denies. He says: • 

'^ It appears that Thomas did not believe the Re- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Burrection, and as he would not believe withoat 
having ocular and manual demonstrationy so neUher 
wül ly and the reason is equally as good for me, and 
for every other person as for Thomas." 

It is true the reason is as good for every one as it 
was for Thomas: but if the reason was bad for Thomas, 
it is also bad for Mr. Paine and for every one eise. 

Thomas, when he demanded ocular demonstration, 
had already the testimony of witnesses who were not 
deceived, and were not deceivers. This was saffi- 
cient to justify belief. When miracoloos events are 
related, it is not advisable to be too creduloos, but if 
they are certainly attested by witnesses of whom it 
is certain that they could not have been deceived, and 
that they are not deceivers, incredulity beoomes a 
foUy. Thomas appears to have been too incredulons: 
hence he is rebuked: 

^'Beoause thou hast seen me, Thomas, thoa hast 
believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and 
have believed." (St. John xx, 20.) 

If something nsef ul to man were revealed, is it not 
clear that by Mr. Paine's incredulity, himself, not God 
the Revealer, would, by bis ref usal of belief be the 
suflferer and loser. More wisely would we try to as- 
certain whether or not the Revel^tion be real. There 
may be among the trnths revealed, some that will be 
of great benefit to us. There may be dnties to be 
fulfiUed compliance with which will bring its own 

Mr. Paine seems totally to mistake our relations 
with Ood. He seems to consider it an act of conde- 
scension and kindness to Ood to acoept Bevelation : 
so he dictates to God the terms of acceptancia with as 
much cool consciousness of superiority as the Em- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


peror Napoleon L exhibited toward the Aastrian 
Plenipotentiary at Campo-Formio, whenthe Anstrian 
did not accept the conditions of peace whioh the Em- 
peror offered. Napoleon threw upon the pavement a 
precions vase, saying : 

" The truce is ended, and war declared. But be- 
ware: I will shatter your empire into as many frag- 
ments as that potsherd." 

Mr. Paine's language: "Unlesgyou give me ocu- 
lar and manual demonstration, neither will I belieye," 
is equally the outcome of presumptuous pride. 

Col. IngersoU holds the same doctrine as Mr. Paine, 
and wiih equal presumption dictates to God the terms 
on which he will accept his teaching: 

'^ God cannot make a Kevelation to another man 
for me. He must make it to me, and until he con- 
vinces my reason that it is true, I cannot receive it." 
(F. 60.) 

The absurdity of requiring God to adduce a series 
of arguments, and to listen to the Colonel's quibbles 
and torefute them has been shown in the lastchapter. 
We must receive Revelation on God's unerring word. 
We are now treating of the possibility of Mediate 
Revelation. The consequences of the pride which 
raises itself against God cannot be better illnstrated 
than by the example of Nabuchodonosor (or Nebuch- 
adnezzar.) This King received from God a fore- 
waming of the punishment that awaited him for his 
impiety, and when the vision which he had seen was 
interpreted to him by Daniel, he answered: 

" Is not this the great Babylon which I have built 
to be the seat of the Kingdom by the strength of my 
power and in the glory of my excellence ? And while 
the word was yet in the king's mouth a voice came 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


down from heaven: to thee, OKing Nabucbodonosor 
it is saidy tby kingdom shall pass from thee. And they 
shall cast thee out from among men, and thy dwell- 
ing shall be with cattle and wild beasts. Thou shalt 
eat grass like an ox." (Dan. iv.) 

The prophecy was f ulfiUed. 

The king's %ody was wet with the dew of heaven, 
tili his hair grew like the feathers of eagles, and his 
nails like birds' claws." 

I know, of course, that the Colonel will make little 
of this piece of scriptural history; neveriiheless it has 
been confirmed by Babylonian monuments in a re- 
markable manner. These monuments do not give the 
whole history, but they record the sudden insanity of 
the king. 

Are we, then, at liberty to reject God's Kevelatjon 
on the mere plea that it was not made directly to 
onrselves ? A little reflection will show that we are 
not. The belief that God illuminates directly the 
minds of all true believers has been the fruitful source 
of error, absurdity and crime in every age. This be- 
lief was the cause of the dreadful tragedy at Pocas- 
set, near Boston in April, 1879, when Charles F. Pree- 
man claimed to have received a Revelation to sacrifice 
his child, and, to the horror of this whole continent, he 
acted on his hallucination. Other such atrocities 
characterized the same belief in Germany and Eng- 
land: and now we have Mr. Paine and Col. IngersoU 
among these prophets! 

It oannot be denied that God could so enlighten all 
men; but it is more consistent with His general course 
to teach Beligion as we are taught natural truth. Es- 
pecially inconsistent is it f or one who, like Mr. Paine, 
says that the book of Nature is the only Revelation, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to reqnire that God shoald proceed in Religion in a 
way quite contrary to that which he follows in open- 
ing to US the book of Nature.' 

How then do we learn from Nature? Mach we 
may leam by study , much by the teaching of others; 
and some by these means become more leamed than 
others. Childfen acquire knowledge by degrees. For 
the purpose of teaching them, schools are established 
and competent teachers selected. The knowledge of 
Beligious truth must be acquired in a similar manner. 
Let US now see the consequences of Mr. Paine's 
method as applied to the laws of a country. 

Bevelation consists of truths and preceptSi the 
truths comprising doctrines and events. Laws con- 
sist of precepts, but they also frequently enumerate 
f actSy and they are always essentially connected with 
the facts of history on which their force depends. 

Now, according to Mr. Paine's and Col. IngersoU's 
treatment of Revelation, we are at liberty to reject 
the laws unless ocular and manual demonstration of 
these facts be brought home to each onc of us. It 
follows that when a new law is passed in the Con- 
gress of the United States, for example, the President 
and the members of Congress should be required to 
march all over the country to prove to the occupants 
of each hamlet that the laws of Congress have been 
validly and properly passed. 

As the case Stands, these dignitaries give ns, indi- 
vidually, very little satisfaction. The President ap- 
proves the laws af ter they have been passed in Con- 
gress. The Originals are placed in the archives of 
the country and there they stay. Newspapers may or 
may not publish them. Some lawyers obtain copi^s 
and that is all; bat they must be obeyed all the sama 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Mr. Paine had some experience as a legislator, and I 
presume he would say that enough had been done for 
tbeir Promulgation. He tberef ore demands from God 
tbe f ulfillment of conditions wbich be would not bave 
dreamed of re^uiring from tbe inferior ruler of an 
eartbly State. 

Mr. Paine and Colonel IngersoU seem to imagine 
tbat God's arrangements would bave been mucb im- 
proved if tbey bad been consulted about tbem. 

Anotber person was of tbe same opinion, an Atheist 
who bad been discussing witb a Christian companion 
about tbe Existence and Providence of God. 

The two, in tbeir travels, were obliged to rest for 
the night under an oak tree, near wbich spread out a 
pumpkin vine from wbich grew a number of very 
large pumpkins. Tbe Atheist said: 

" Now there is satisf actory evidence tbat Nature or 
God did not arrange the world as wisely as it might 
bave been ordered. You see tbat magnificent oak 
tree, yet what a miserable fruit it produces ! an insig- 
nificant acorn ! but on tbe grovelling vine tbat grows 
along tbe ground, you find large and beautiful pump- 
kins. If I bad been consulted, I would bave bad the 
pumpkin grow on tbe oak, and the acorn on the 
pumpkin vine." 

Tbe Christian argued tbat the evidences of wisdom 
are innumerable in Creation, and tbat undoubtedly 
there must be a wise end in view in tbe arrangement 
of tbe growth of tbe oak and tbe pumpkin even 
thougb we cannot see it at first glance. 

Tbe two lay down to rest after tbeir discussion 
and feil asleep; but during tbe night tbe Atheist was 
Buddenly awakened by a painful Sensation, caused by 
tbe fall of an acorn upon bis nose. The Christian 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


was awakened also by tbe Atheist's cry of pain. On 
ascertaining tbe cause, be addressed tbe Atbeist: 

" You may be well satisfied tbat it was an acom 
and not a pumpkin tbat feil npon yon, for if yon bad 
bad yonr way it woald bave been a pumpkin tbat 
wonld bave fallen upon you, and your bead would 
bave been broken." 

So Messrs. Paine and IngersoU would scarcely bave 
made the world and tbe laws by wbicb it operates, 
any better fitted for man if tbey bad been consulted 
about tbeir constrnction. If God bad followed tbe 
course tbey insist upon as necessary to make tbe ac- 
ceptance of Bevelation obligatory, miracles would 
need to be multiplied, and Mr. Paine would say as be 
has said already, tbat tbese were " tricks unwortby 
of God ; " and Colonel IngersoU would say as be says 
on page 59, tbat tbe Revelation must Be a " lie ; " for 
"Trutb does not need tbe assistance of miracle." 
Tbey would be as f ar f rom believing as tbey ever 

Tbe question of tbe |)ossibiIity and Obligation of 
Mediate Revelation depends upon tbis: Can we be 
certain of events wbicb we bave not ourselves wit- 
nessed? TJndoubtedly we can; and it is only tbus 
tbat we know of tbe existence of cities and countries 
we bave never seen: for example, it is only by sucb 
certitude tbat most people know of tbe existence of 
London, Paris, Rome, Constantinople, etc., or of sucb 
events as tbe Franco-Prussian, Busso-Turkisb and 
Napoleonic wars. 

Euler, tbe celebrated matbematician, explains tbat 
ihere are tbree kinds of certitude: Intellectual, Sen- 
sible and Historical, wbicb by otber writers are called 
Metapbysical, Pbysical and Moral. Intellectual cer- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


titude is that which regards truth which cannot even 
be conceived as false. Sensible certitude regards 
events which depend upon natural laws. Historical 
certitude is that which depends upon human testi- 
mony, and when the witnesses to a fact are not them- 
selves mistaken, nor deceivers, and when thejr could 
not deceive even if they would, the fact must be ad- 
mitted. If there exists such testimony that a Reve- 
lation has been given to man by God, the fact of 
Revelation becomes undeniable. Now, there may be 
such evidence, and therefore Mediate Revelation is 

But besides the ordinary motives f or believing that 
certain events have occurred, there are two others 
special to Revelation: namely, Miracles and Prophecy. 
Of these we shall speak in the next two chapters. 



"Miracles are impossible. It is absurd to sup- 
pose that any power can change the laws of Nature." 
So say nearly all Rationalist», whether Atheists, Pan- 
theists or Deists. Of course Messrs. Paine and Inger- 
soll f oUow in the wake' of their coryphcei. 

Mr. Paine considers miracles as mere *'' tricks.'* Col 
IngersoU considers belief in their possibility "an 
error." He says: * 

" All worship is necessarily based upon the belief 
that some being exists who can, if he will, change the 
natural order of events." (P. 49.) 

A little lower down he styles such belief * an error.' 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


" A f act never went into partnership with a miracle. 
Trath does not need the assistance of a miracle." 

If there is any sense in this, it means that truth is 
so evident to men that as soon as it is proposed it 
will be accepted without a miracle. Is this the case ? 
Every one knows tbat the world is fiUed with delu- 
sions and errors. No one is more determined than 
the Colonel in showing up the errors, real or pre- 
tended, which prevail with the whole human race, 
Christians, Jews, Pagans and Mahometans: 

"Every religion hasfor its foundation a misconcep- 
tion of the cause of phenomena." (P. 48.) 

Colonel IngersoU claims to be a "philosopher." If 
such nonsense and inconsistency be the result of his 
philosophy, the soon er he cease to philosophize for 
the world's benefit, the better. 

Again, he says: 

" All miracles are unreasonable .... The possible 
is not miraculous." (P. 145.) 

"The more reasons yougive, the more unreasonable 
the miracle will appear." (P. 160.) 

The miracles of Moses are "feats of jugglery." 
(P. 194.) 

Col. Ingersoll's estimate of miracles is therefore 
patent to all. Even in the hypothesis that there is a 
God, Infinite in power, He cannot change the " natu- 
ral Order of events." 

Let US see how this " philosophy " will stand the 
test of Beason. 

A miracle may be defined: a sensible and extraor- 
dinary effect exceeding the tcsual order of Providence 
and the laws of Nature, 

The possibility of miracles, I thus prove. The In- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


finite power of God can do whatever involves no con- 
tradiction. But a miracle involves no contradiction: 
theref ore God can perform a miracle. I show that a 
miracle involves no contradiction, thus: A miracle is 
an event which the usual laws of Nature could not 
produce; but as God's power exceeds the ordinary 
powers of Nature, He can produce eflfects exceeding 
the effects of ordinary Natural laws. Even it is pos- 
sible f or Him to suspend or change the Natural law, 
f or the same power that made the law can suspend or 
change it. Therefore there is no contradiction in- 
volved in a miracle. It follows, then, that miracles 
are i)ossible to God. 

In f act, the governmont of the world by God is not 
the mere govemment of genera and species, which 
are abstract ideas, but of individuals, which are alone 
realities. Hence the cessation of the ordinary course 
of nature, when decreed by Him is no departure f rom 
the universal law of nature, properly speaking. When 
He created the universe and established the ordinary 
laws which govem matter. He certainly did not re- 
sign His power of exceeding their Operation when cir- 
cumstances justified His intervention in that way. 
This power is in fact an essential part of the univer- 
sal law of nature. 

Col. Ingersoll does not advance the ghost of a 
proof that God cannot do thus. He expects his 
readers to accept his dictum as conclusive. Other 
Rationalists do attempt to prove the impossibility of 

Thus it has been said, "the laws of Nature are 
Gfod's own decrees, and they must therefore be un- 

I answer to this that these laws are indeed decrees 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of God, but these decrees of God include the Provis- 
ion tbat God may intervene to stay their Operation 
under certain circumstances. 

The laws of Nature owe their existence to God> 
acting freely. He must, therefore, have the power 
to intervene to stay the Operation of those laws when 
He deems it advisable. In the establishment of the 
true worship of God, miraclos are necessary to estab- 
lish the authority of him who Claims to be the mes- 
senger of God. 

Thus, when Moses appeared bef ore Pharaoh, Pha- 
raoh knew nothing of the God of the Israelites; for he 

" Who is the Lord that I should hear bis voiee and 
let Israel go ? I know not the Lord, neither will I let 
Israel go." (Ex. v. 2.) 

Only by miracles could Moses have convinced him 
that there is a Jehovah, and that he was bis acered- 
ited ambassador. 

Man, even, is endowed with a power of interfer- 
ing with the ordinary working of the laws of nature. 
This is conspicuous in Botany. Sometimes an insig- 
nificant wild plant is so completely transformed by 
ctdtivation as to produce magnificent flowers, so that 
it is hard to belle ve that the original wild flower 
could by human industry be so changed. The Ca- 
mellia Japonica is an example of this. They who 
object to miracles on the ground of their apparently 
contravening the laws of nature, make man more 
powerf ul than God. 

Next we come to the consideration of the f orce of 
miracles as a testimony to the divme authority of 

Miracles are superior to the ordinary Operations of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the laws of Nature. Now as these laws of Natore 
are the effects of God's will, the surpassing of these 
laws mast also be the eflfect of His will. Theref ore 
only God Himself, or some one acting by Hisauthority 
can surpass these laws: and as God is the Truth, He 
cannot surpass these laws for the propagation of 
error. Therefore, when miracles are wrought, and 
are appealed to in attestation of a doctrine, such doc- 
trine has the sanction of God, and is divine 

Sometimes prodigies have been enaeted which have 
perplexed beholders, and have passed for miracles; 
but since the whole human race have the invincible 
propensity to adjudge real miracles to be the work 
of God, God will not permit even.demons so to use 
their pretematural powers as to lead man into invin- 
cible error on this subject. The power of demons 
must therefore be limited in this regard. 

Against all this it has been objected that man does 
not know all the powers of nature, and that in con- 
sequence of is he can never judge a result to be 

It is true we do not know all the powers of natnre, 
80 that we cannot say of all how far their efficacy 
extends: but we know that her powers cannot attain 
a certain known effect. Rationalists delight in gener- 
alizing on this subject in order to mystify it; but we 
may take special cases. We do not know all the 
powers of medicine; still we know that no physician 
can by a word or sign heal the sick, or raise the dead 
to lif e, as in the case of Lazarus, recorded in St. Jno. 
xi, when the body had been four days buried and 
was already corrupted. Would even the Deists and 
Bationalists deny a miracle in such cases? Thus 
when a philosopher proved to a certain audience that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


motion is impossible, one present.walked to the plat- 
form and said: "bjr Walking, I prove that motion is 
possible." Similarly, wben such facts bappen as 
those wbicb I bave mentioned, it is proved that mir- 
acles are possible. The witnesses are reliable, and 
the facts, being public, were such that the witnesses 
could not have deceived, if they had wished to do so. 

Examples of pretended miracles have also been 
adduced as a proof that we should give no credit to 
the true miracles mentioned in Holy Writ. 

Base coin is circulated in the country. Does this 
prove that there is no Sterling gold or silver ? We 
should be cautious not to be too credulous, but we 
must also be cautious not to be too incredulous. 

From all that has been said, we must infer that 
when a sufficient object is to be attained, we must ad- 
mit that God may employ a miracle. The attestation 
of a Revelation is certainly a sufficient object; and 
when Moses appeared bef ore Pharaoh to declare that 
he had a commission from heaven, the credentials of 
an ordinary ambassador would be of no avail. Hence 
God chose to attest bis mission by such wondrous 
works, that thelsraelites were obliged to acknowledge 
bim, and that Pharaoh and the Egyptians should 
"know that there is none like to the Lord our God.'* 
Ex. viii. 10. 

Jean Jacques Rousseau was so Struck with the 
absurdity of denying the possibility of miracles, that 
he J)enned the following: 

"Can God work miracles ? Can he derogate from 
laws which he has established ? This question seri- 
ously tr^ted woüld be impious, if it were not ab- 
surd. .... Who has ever denied that God can 
work miracles ?" 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Lyttleton, another Rationalist, speaking of the 
miracles of Christ, says: 

" The Jews and Pagans could not evade the noto- 
riety of the miracles of Christ, but by saying that 
they were the effects of magic, or the works of de- 
mons. So, after the apostles and the Evangelists, 
the most irrefragable witnesses to the evidence of 
their truth are Celsos, Julian, and öther ancient ad- 
versaries of the Christian Religion, who, being un- 
able to contradict or deny the authenticity of Christ's 
miracles, f ound themselves reduced to invent causes 
for them as absurd as they were ridiculous." 

In fact the testimony of every historian of the 
church, of all Jews and Christians, both Catholics and 
Protestants and of the Sacred Scriptures attest that 
there have been miracles. Ought not this to be 
enough to make Colonel IngersoU hesitate bef ore pro- 
claiming that they are " impossible, puerile and f ool- 
ish? " pp. 160, 194. At least would it not be reason- 
able for him to give some proof of so dogmatic a 
Statement ? 

During the reign of Terror one La-Revieillere Le- 
peaux instituted the sect of Theophilanthropists, 
which was intended as a Substitute for Christianity. 
In spite of the high-sounding name and money spent 
to propagate it, but little progress was made. The 
founder complained to Barras, one of the most fa- 
mous Revolutionists, that bis followers did not in- 
erease, whereas Christ's disciples were f aithf ul even 
to death. He therefore asked Barras' advice. The 
blunt warrior answered reflectingly: " Well, I do not 
wonder at it. I think, however, I oan give>you good 
advice on the subject." 

"Have yourself killed on a Priday, buried on Sat- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


urday, and ön Sunday morning try your best to rise 
again. If you succeed, I assare you, you will not 
have to complain of want of devoted f oUowers." 

The advice of Barras was not followed, and Theo- 
philanthropism is dead; but Christianity lives. 



A Prophecy is the eure manifestation of a future 
event which could not heforeaeen hy natural means. 

To constitute a Prophecy, 1. the prediction should 
be certain, not merely conjectural, 2. The event 
should be free, so that it may not be known by natural 
Bcience. 3, The prediction should be determinate, so 
that it may not be accommodated to any event that 
may occur. 

The Possibility of Prophecy foUows from God's 
knowledge of all things. Being Infinite in Perfec- 
tion, He cannot acquire new knowledge. All things 
past, present and future must theref ore be known to 
Him, and from what we have proved in chapter 12, 
He is able to manifest His knowledge to man: There- 
fore Prophecy is possible. 

Prophecy is an irref ragable proof of Divine Reve- 
lation; for 6od alone can foresee the contingent 
future; theref ore He alone can foretell it or cause it 
to be foretold. Consequently Prophecy is an evidence 
of Divine Mission on the part of him who employs 
it to attest the truth of his teachings. 

Against this itis sometimes objected that Prophecy 
is the result merely of a vivid imagination, or of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


extra natnral sagacity, and tbat therefore no oertain 
argument for the divinity of Revelation es» be 
deduced from it. * 

In answer to this we must remark that such a case 
is excluded from the sense in which we receive the 
term prophecy, since what is mere conjecture is not 
prophecy, nor is that prophecy which is the result of 
scientific knowledge or natural sagacity. 

From what we have said on this subject it is clear 
that prophecy can only be appealed to as a proof of 
Divine Revelation, after its fulfiUment, for then only 
can its truth be scientifically proved. But when the 
prophecy is vested with the conditions we have men- 
tioned, when it regards events which could not be 
foreseen by conjecture or any other natural means 
and when it has been fulfilled by the events, the con- 
clusion is irresistible that it has been made by the 
foresight of God, and that the Revelation which is 
delivered under sanction of such prophecy is Divine. 

The facts that a prophecy was made, and that it 
has been fulfilled can be proved critically. The 
same criterion by which the value of human evidence 
is tested can be applied to the testimony by which 
these facts are substantiated, and thus their truth may 
be demonstrated; and though the impious and igno* 
rant may ridicule belief in them, the evidence will re- 
main unshaken. 

Among the prophecies which are found in the Pen- 
tateuch, and which prove the Divinity of the Relig- 
ion established by Moses, the foUowing may be here 
pointed out. 

We read in Deuteronomy xxviii, 46, etc. 

** And all these curses shall come upon thee, and 
shall pursue and overtake thee tili thou perish: be- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


cause thou beardest not the voice of the Lord, thy 
God, and didst not keep bis commandments and cere- 
monies wbicb be commanded tbee. 

" And they sball be as signs and wonders on tbee 
and on tby seed f orever. 

" Tbou sbalt serve tby enemy wbom tbe Lord will 
send upon tbee, in banger and tbirst and nakedness, 
and in want of all tbings; and be sball pat an iron 
yoke upon tby neck, tili be consume tbee. 

"Tbe Lord will bring upon tbee a nation from afar, 
and from tbe uttermost ends of tbe eartb, like an 
eagle tbat flietb swiftly: wbose tongue tbou canst not 

" A naost insolent nation, tbat will sbow no regard 
to tbe ancient, nor bave pity on tbe Infant, 

" And will devour tbe fruit of tby cattle, and tbe 
fruits of tby land: until tbou be destroyed, and will 
leave tbee no wbeat, nor wine, nor oil, nor berds of 
oxen, nor flocks of sbeep; until bedestroy tbee, 

" And consume tbee in all tby eitles, and tbe streng 
and higb walls be brougbt down, wberein tbou 
trustedst in all tby land. 

" Tbou sbalt be besieged witbin tbe gates in all tby 
land, wbicb tbe Lord tby God will give tbee." 

The fulfillment of all tbis is well known to bave 
occurred in tbe crimes witb wbicb our Blessed Lord 
reproacbes tbe Scribes and Pbarisees, and especially in 
the crimes committed in persecuting to deatb the 
Saviour of tbe world and His f oUowers. 

These crimes are enumerated in tbe New Testa- 
ment and even by tbe Jewish Higb-priest Josephus. 

Tbus we read in St. Matt, xxiii, 2, etc., tbe fol- 
lowing description of these Scribes and Pbarisees 
given by Christ Himself : 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^'The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the 
ohair of Moses. 

" All, theref ore, whatsoever they shall say to you, 
observe and do, but acoording to their works, do ye 
not; for they say, and do not. 

" But wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, 
because you shut the kingdom of heaven against 
men; for you go not in yourselves, and those that 
are going in you to suflfer not to enter. (Verse 13.) 

" Wo to you . . . hypocrites . . . you devour the 
honses of widows, making long prayers: theref ore 
you shall receive the greater judgment. (Verse 14.) 

"Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, 
who pay tithes of mint and anise and cummin, and 
have let alone the weightier things of the law, judg- 
ment and mercy and f aith. These things you ought 
to have done, and not to leave those others undone* 
(Verse 23.) 

"So you also outwardly appear to men just; but 
within you are füll of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Verse 

" Behold I send to you prophets and wise men and 
Scribes, and some of them you will put to death and 
crucify: and some of them you will scourge in your 
synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. 

" Amen I say to you all, these things shall come 
upon this generation, (36.) 

" O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the 
prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee ! 
how often would I have gathered together thy 
cbildren, as the hen gathereth her chiokens under her 
wings, and thou wouldst not? (37.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


'^ Behold your bonse sball be left to you desolate. 

''All tbe Chief priests and ancients of the people 
held a Council against Jesus to put bim to deatb. 
(xxvii, 1.) 

"They all say: Let bim be crncified. Tbe gov- 
emor said to tbem: Wby wbat evil bath be done ? 
But they cried out tbe more, saying: Let bim be 
crucified." (Verse 23.) 

We See by all tbis, not only tbe f ulfillment of tbe 
phophecy of Moses, but also that Christ Himself made 
propbecies concerning the same matter, which were 
f ulfilled witbin a very short time. The propbecies of 
Christ, proving Christianity divine, also prove tbe 
divinity of tbe Mosaic Religion, which is an essential 
part of Christianity .^ 

But tbe fearful punishments to be inflicted upon 
ihe Jews f or these crimes were yet to come. The 
insolent nation which was to consume the Jewish 
people in their cities, and to reduce their strong walls 
are yet to do their work of havoc. Tbis came to pass 
when the war with tbe Romans began. A few ex- 
tracts f rom Josephus will show how tbe prophecy of 
Moses was literally fulfilled. 

^'Then came Yespasian .... and commanded tbem 
to kül tbe old men, together with the others that 
were useless, who were in number one thousand and 
two hundred." (Wars of the Jews, 3 Book, x, 10,) 

" And 30,400 .... the King sold as slaves." Ih. 

"There arose such a divine storm as was instru- 
mental to their destruction . . . . a great number 
despaired of escaping, threw their wives, and their 
children and tbemselves down the precipices .... 
but the an'ger of the Romans appeared not tö be so 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


extravagant as was the madness of those who were 
captared, for while the Romans slew but four thon- 
8and,the number who threw themselves down were 
five thousand." (Book 4, i, 10.) 

" God had blinded the minds (of the Jews) for the 
transgressions thej had been guilty of . . . . a famine 
also was creeping npon them . . . . a great many had 
died already for want of necessaries." Book 6, viii, 2. 

Josephus himself , within hearing of the Jews ex- 
horted them to surrender, because on acconnt of their 
crimes they were ponished by God: 

"Nay, the temple itself, this divine place is ppl- 
luted by the hands of those of our country.** ix, 4. 

" The famine was too hard for all other passions 
.... children seized the very morseis that their fathers 
were eating, so did the mothers do to their infants. 
.... They drank the blood of the populace to one 
another, and divided the dead bodies of the poor 
creatnres between them." x, 3. 

"The famine widened its progress and devoured 
the people by whole houses and families." xii, 3. 

We have next the literal f ulfillment of the prophecy 
" thou shalt eat the fruit of thy womb, and the flesh 
of thy sons and daughters .... in the distress and 
extremity wherowith thy enemy shall oppress thee.** 
Deut., xxviii, 53. See Josephus, Book 6, iii, 3, 4. 

Again we leam from St. Matthew, xxiv, 2, that 
when the disciples came to show Jesus the buildings 
of the temple, 

"He answering said to them: Do you see all these 
things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left 
here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown 

This was fulfilled by the total destruction of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of the temple, thougb Titus himself desired to save 
it. Josepbus, Book 6, etc. 

The number of captives is stated to bave been 
97,000, and tbe number slain 1,100,000. ix, 3. 

The walls were tben so completely demolisbed tbat 
no trace of a city was lef t. Book 7, i. 

In cbapter 19, it will be seen tbat Moses foretold 
tbe period wben tbe Israelites would demand a king^ 
and gave laws wbicb sbould be observed on sueb oc- 
casion. He foretold also tbe possession of tbe prom- 
ised land. 

In Deut, xviii, 15, 18, tbe Coming of Cbrist is prom- 
ised, and a cominand given to bear Hirn, and in Gren. 
xlix, 10, tbe very period of Cbrist'sadvent is foretold 
f or it is there promised tbat tbe royal line will remain 
in the bouse of Juda tili Christ's Coming. 

Numerous otber propbecies literally f ulfilled migbt 
besides be quoted. I will merely indicate a few pas- 
sages. The sufferings of tbe Jews are furtber de- 
scribed in Deut, xxviii, 68; Jerem. xliv, 7; Osee 
(Hosea) viii, 13; ix, 3; i^i, 3 to 7. 

The Visit of Cbrist to tbe second temple is foretold 
in Mal. iii, 1; Aggeus (Haggai) ii, 4 to 10. Thus it 
is shown tbat tbe Coming of tbe Cbrist or Messias is 
an event of tbe past, sinoe this temple was utterly 

The propb%3y o^ "Haniel, ix, 21 to 27 relates tbat 
within 70 hebdomades^ or weeks (of years) from the 
going forth of tbe word to build np Jerusalem again, 
Christ tbe Prince sball appear. This is tbe very 
period wbich elapsed between tbese two great events, 
as nearly as Chronology -has been able to fix tbese 
dates. These hebdomadea are interpreted to mean 
each, seven years, because such is tbe meaning of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Word inother parts of Holy Soripture; besides whicb 
it could not be sapposed that the events described 
should occur within 490 days. 



We have proved that Divine üevelation is possible, 
and that it is necessary for man in bis present condi- 
tion, to enable bim to know and to f alfiU bis moral 
duties, We bave, furtber, pointed out tbat tbere are 
certain cbaracters and marks by means of wbicb we 
can know true Bevelation and distinguisb it from tbe 
spurious article. It is now proper tbat we sbould 
apply tbese cbaracters and marks for tbe discovery of - 
the trutb. 

Is Revelation a delusion? Has Qod, Infinitely, 
Good and bereif ul, being wanting to man in bis great 
needy or has He suppüed us with tbat sapernatural 
help whicb we so mucb require? It is a question of 
fact wbicb must be solved by an appeal to bistorical 
monuments, and to testimony. 

Christians maintain that such a Bevelation bas 
been given. Jews as well as Christians maintain tbat 
to tbe Jewisb nation, 6od revealed Himself, and tbat 
Moses, in tbe first place, recorded tbif Bevelation, 
and tbat in tbe writings of Moses consisting of five 
books, known as tbe Pentateucb, we find tbis record. 

Tbe Revelation given througb tbe bands of Moses 
was supplemented by tbe later bistorical and prophet- 
ical books, wbicb with tbe Pentateucb constitate tbe 
Old Testament. Tbus far Jews and Christians 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Bnt Judaism was to be f urtber supplemented by 
the advent of a Messias, a propbet of wbom Moses 

"Tbe Lord thy'God will raise up to tbee a propbet 
of tby nation and of tby bretbren like unto me, bim 
tbou sbalt bear .... And tbe Lord said to me: .... 
I will raise tbem up a propbet out of tbe niidst 
of tbeir bretbren like to tbee: and I will put my 
words in bis moutb, and be sball speak all tbat I sball 
command bim. And be tbat will not bear bis words, 
wbicb be sball speak in my name, I will be the re- 
venger, Deut, xviii, 16, 19. Tbe old law was known 
only to tbe Jews, but tbrougb tbis propbet, tbe Mes- 
sias, tbe ligbt of Revelation was to be spread among 
tbe nations: 

•* Bebold I bave given bim f or a witness to tbe peo- 
ple, f or a leader and a master to tbe Gentiles. Be- 
bold, tbou sbalt call a nation, wbicb tbou knewest 
not; and tbe nations tbat knew not tbee sball run to 
tbee, because of tbe Lord tby God, and f or tbe boly 
One of Israel, for be batb glorified tbee. " Is. Iv, 4, 5. 

Tbesc propbecies were fulfilled in Cbrist, and tbe 
Christian believes tbat His Apostles and immediate 
disciples bave banded down His teacbings in tbe 
New Testament. 

As it is our Intention to answer Colonel IngersolPs 
assaults against Moses, and as tbe five books of Moses 
constitute tbe first part of Revealed Religion, we will 
begin tbe proof of tbe fact of Revelation witb this 
part of Holy Scripture. I will sbow: ßrst, tbe 
Autbenticity of tbe Pentateucb; secondly, its ffis- 
torical Trutb; tbirdly, tbe Divinity of tbe Mosaio 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






Infidels attack very fiercely tbe autbenticity and 
integrity of the Pentateuch. By . autbenticity we 
mean tbat it belongs to tbe period pf, and tbat it was 
written by tbe autbor wbose work it claims to be. 
By integrity of a book we mean tbat it is, substan- 
tially, at least, tbe same work as tbat composed by 
tbe autbor. 

Colonel Ingersoll says, point-blank: 

"Tbe Pentateucb was written bundreds of years 
after tbe Jews bad settled in tbe Holy Land, and 
bundreds of years after Moses was dust and asbes." 
(P. 228.) 

He does not deny tbat tbe Hebrews may bave been 
enslaved, and tbat many plagues affticted tbe Egyp- 
tians, as tbe locusts and flies, tbe deatb of many of 
tbeir cattle, the visit of a pestilence to tbeir country, 
etc., but be asserts tbat all tbis was superstitiously 
attributed to God, tbat tbe bistory of tbe events and 
tbeir superstitious belief were banded down **from 
fatber to son simply by tradition." He adds: 

" By tbe time a written language bad been pro- 
duced tbousands of additions bad been made, and 
numberless details invented; so tbat we bave not only 
an account of tbe plagues suffered by tbe Egyptians, 
but tbe wbole woven into a connected story, contain- 
ing tbe tbreats made by Moses and Aaron, tbe mira- 
cles wrougbt by tbem, tbe promises of Pbaraob, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


finally the release of the Hebrews, as a resalt of tbe 
marvellous things performed in tbeir bebalf by 
Jebovab." (Pp. 208, 209.) 

Again : 

"As a matter of fact, it seems to be well settled 
tbat Moses bad notbing to do witb tbese books, and 
tbat tbey were not written until be bad been dust 
and asbes for bundreds of years." (P. 46.) 

It tbus appears tbat tbe Cojonel asserts: 

First, tbat tbe Pentateucb was written only " sev- 
eral bundrcd years after tbe time of Moses." 

Secondly, tbat it is a compilation from tbe legends 
tbat were banded down by tradition among tbe Jews. 

Tbirdly, tbat tbe miracles related in it are false 
and superstitious. 

Fourtbly, tbat tbis unautbenticity is a well settled 

Tbese do not represent all the opinions of Infidels 
regarding tbe^ autbenticity of tbe Pentateucb. Col- 
onel Ingersoll ooncedes tbe existence of Moses; for 
be says tbat be was " dust and asbes for bundreds of 
years ^ wben tbe Pentateucb was written. Voltaire, 
in bis Encyclopedia, denies tbe very existence of 
Moses. A tract (No. 108) publisbed by D. M. Ben- 
net in bis coUection, presumptuously asserts tbat tbe 
Pentateucb could not bavo been written before tbe 
reigu of Josias, about 625 B. C, and tbat it was 
unknown " until a priest named Hilkiab said tbat be 
found tbe book of tbe law in tbe bouse of tbe Lord." 
In proof of tbis be cites 4 Kings xxii, 8, and 2 Para- 
lipomenon xxxiv, 14. (Protestant Bible, 2 Kings, 2 
Cbronicles.) He adds tbat it was burned a few years 
after wards, and "was never recovered." Tbe same 
writer (Preston) states tbat "none of tbe (present) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


books were heard of previous to the trandation of 
the Septuagint." 280 B. C. 

Anotber tract f rom tho same coUection by A. L. 
BawsoD says that ** tbere bas been presented clearly 
and unmistakably a startling array of facts wbicb ar- 
gue tbe coQclusion tbat tbe Hebrew langoage was 
simply a creation of tbe Babbis, and was never a liv- 
ing language in use by any people." Na 104. 

Again : 

'^Tbe Hebrew language was an artifioial stracture 
framed by scholars in tbe priestbood for tbe private 
use of tbe Cburoh." 

"All tbese writings were written during the 
time of tbe Maccabees and tbe Herods .... in 
Greek.** ibid. i. e. 170 B. C. 

A squab-pie cannot be made of more discordant 
materialSy tban be bas to swallow wbo would be an 
Infidel or Agnostio of tbe nineteentb Century. The 
desire for trutb is prof essedly tbe motive of Infidel 
teacbings, yet tbe above doctrines, irreooncilable with 
tbe known f aots of bistory and witb eacb otber are 
given as tbe pabulum on wbicb so-called "Truth- 
seekers'* are f ed. How could tbe Old Testament be 
translated into Greek in 280 B. C, if it did not ex- 
ist until 170 B. C? And if it was first written in 
Greek, wbat need had Ptolemy Pbiladelpbus to get 
Interpreters to translate it from Hebrew into tbat 
language ? In f act not only does Josepbus, wbo bad 
ample means of inf ormation on a f act comparatively 
recent, testify tbat tbe Septuagint translation was 
made in Ptolemy's reign, but Philo and Aristobnlus 
attest tbe same, of wbom Aristobulus flonrisbed be- 
fore the time tbe Maccabees. AristsBus, also, wbo 
was an intimate friend of the King, and wbo took 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


part in the transaction, gives a detailed aoconnt of it. 
Josephns, Ant. xii, 2. In the face of all this it is certainly 
a piece of cool eflfrontery for these Infidels, be they 
Atheists or Deists, to teil us that there were no such 
books tili the time of the Maccabees, or that there 
was no Hebrew langaage, or as Colonel Ingersoll sug- 
gests that there was no Hebrew copy f rom which the 
translation was made. In fact the Colonel manifests 
the most blin<i ignorance of this whole history on 
which he dogmatizes so positively, for he states that 
the Septuagint was translated af ter the " Latin Bibles 
were found in Africa." I will not add to his blun- 
ders the Statement that this translation was made 
two or three years before Christ, because that might 
be a typographical error. The other is certainly not 

These last assertions of the Colonel are to be found 
in his lecture, " Mistakes of Moses," published in 1882, 
by Messrs. McClure & Rhodes, of Chicago. (P. 115.) 

Such are the straits to which Agnostics are re- 

A. L. Rawson's discovery that Hebrew was never 
a spoken language is a peculiarly happy hit; and he 
deserves some recognition from his fellow Infidels. 
If Voltaire deserved a monument in Paris in recog- 
nition of his discoveries in theology, Mr. Rawson 
deserves one in the moon. 

Just as the Latin language has its children, Italian, 
Spanish, Portuguese, French, Wallachian, and Ro- 
raanesque, and just as these children would testify to 
the existence of their raother language, if Latin had 
not been preserved to us by the classic works of the 
Augustan age, so the children of the Hebrew language 
would attest to the satisf action of all linguists the 
former existence of Hebrew as a spoken language. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The Syriac of Mesopotamia and Kurdistan, tHe Tigre 
and Amharic of Abyssinia can be accounted for only 
by the former existence of Hebrew. The Hebrew 
has besides its sister tongues, Arabic, Aramsean 
(Chaldee,) and Himyaritic, besides the Sinaitic in- 
scriptions and the monuments of Assyria. To these 
must be added the Phcenician, which has handed 
down its monuments which haye been discovered in 
Malta, Sardinia, Carthage, Algiers, Tripoli, Athens, 
and Marseilles, proving that the Phoenician as origin- 
ally spoken was substantially identical with Hebrew. 
With these facts scholars are familiär. 

Let US take a few cases to illustrate how philolo- 
gists can draw inf erences from modern tongues to 
the character of the tongues from which they are 
derived. Certainly new languages are not formed by 
the agreement of learned men that such or such a 
form of speech should convey such or such an idea. 
They are formed by the gradual ohanges ©f forms 
already in existence. 

Thus the French adverbial termination meni added 
to adjectives to form adverbs, has an origin, yet this 
termination is not in Latin. JFb7% strong^ is clearly 
from the lj2ktm fortis^ but whence comes fortemerU in 
Latin fortüer, strongly? We find in Latin such 
forms as "öo/ia mentey^ "in good faith," ^^forti 
mente,^^ "with strong will," in ^^dlia mente^^ equiva- 
lent to "altera men^" otherwise, or with other Inten- 
tion. It is now easy to see how the French got into 
the custom of using the words bo7inement^ fortement, 
autrement^ and of applying the termination to other 
cases, as figurkmenty figuratively, librkmenty fre^y^ 
etc. Italians and Spaniards, botli use the termination 
mente in the same sense. Who cannot see that these 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


all bespeak tbeir common parent, Latin ? Who can- 
not see that tbe Frencb vingt^ tbe Spanisb veinte, and 
the Italian venti are all derived from tbeir common 
parent, tbe Latin viginti twenty ? In precisely tbe 
same way could philologists inf er tbe existence of tbe 
Hebrew parent, from its derivative tongues wbicb 
exist to-day. See Max Müller, Science of Language. 

Besides all tbis, tbe Pboenician letters are, witb tbree 
or four exoeptions, identical witb tbose used in Old 

To all tbis we may add, tbat in the earliest Greek, 
there' are words wbicb are evidently of Hebrew or 
PboBnician origin. Tbis is tbe case, especially, wben 
the articles were imported from tbe East. Tbus we 
have nether, Greek nUrojiy nitre ; kinnamon, Greek 
kinnamomon, cinnamon; mor, Greek myrrha^ myrrh; 
ahushariy Greek soicsony a Uly; gamcU, Greek came- 
los, a camel; nevel, or nabal, Greek nabla, a lyre ; 
kinnor, Greek kinyra, a harp ; witb many otbers. 
See Prof. ffirscbfelder's Biblical Commentary^ p, 

Now we come to a discovery of Colone! Ingersoll 
wbicb is on a par witb that of Mr. Rawson, and wbicb 
would be as deserving of Infidel recognition, only for 
the fact tbat the wonderful discovery was made by 
Voltaire bef ore bim. It is tbat tbe Hebrews had no 
writjten langaage tili long after the time of Moses« 
See tbe passage quoted above from pp. 208, 209. 

Tbis makes clear also what Colonel Ingersoll states 
on page 49, wbicb would be otherwise obscure: 

" Many Systems of religion must have existed many 
ages before tbe art of writing was discovered, and 
must have passed througb many changes before tbe 
stories, miracles, prophecies, and mistakes became 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fixed and petrified in written words. After that, 
change was possible only hj giving new meanings to 
old words, etc., and in this way Christians of to-day 
are trying to harmonize the Mosaic account of crea» 
tion with the theories and discoveries of modern 

In chapter 35 I will speak of the Mosaic account of 
Creation. At present I have to deal with the asser- 
tion that there was no writing in the time of Moses. 

No writing in the time of Moses ! Ponder well on 
this assertion. The Colonel says, page 235, that the 
Egyptians had a code of laws, better than the Mosaic 
Code, thouaands of yeara before Moses was bom. 
What ? were those laws not written ? How then does 
he know that they were superior to the Mosaic code? 

Surely, Colonel, you have a bad memory. You say: 

" Moses received from the Egyptians the principal 
part of his narrative" of creation, "making such 
changes and additions as were necessary to satisf y the 
peculiar superstitions of his own people." (P. 61.) 

And how do you know all this ? Oh ! " Moses was 
instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians:" (Acts 
vii, 22,) and then: 

" The Story had been imprinted in curioua charac- 
ters upon the clay records of Babylon, the gigantic 
monuments of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of 
India." (P. 58.) 

What ? The story had been recorded in Babylon, 
Egypt and India, and Moses had got it there, yet 
there was no written language yet! 

Such is the brilliant reasoning of Col. Ingersoll, 
who being " an intelligent man," knows that there is 
no "seience" in the Bible, and that "it was pro- 
duced by ignorance" and "believed and defended 
by " ignorance also. (P. 242.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Of coarse the ColonePs blanders are tbe prodact of 
profound science! The clergy, forsooth, "deliver 
weak and vapid lectures upon the harmony of Gene- 
sis and Geology.'' There is nothing weak, nothing 
vapid about Col. Ingersoll's lectures! 

Elsewhere, in bis lecture on skolls, tbe Colone! as- 
serts that the Hindoo Vedas were written 4,000 years 
before the Pentateuch; and on page 165 he says: 
"An account of a general delage was discovered by 
George Smith, translated from another account that 
toaa written two thousand years before Christ." He 

This account is " without doubt much older than 
the one given by Moses." (P. 165.) 

All this before written language was invented! 

Surely, Colonel, you must have been asleep when 
you wTote all this. I fear you would have made a 
sorry werk if you had written the Pentateuch, which 
you say you could have done so much better than 

In Judges i, 11, we read that the ancient name of 
the town of Dabir (or Debir), was Cariath-Sepher (or 
Kirjath Sepher), that is to say the " City of Books," 
and in Joshua xx, 49, the same town is also called 
"Cariath Senna (or Kirjath-Sannah), the City of 
Leaming. It could scarcely have received such 
names unless it had some celebrity f or its written lore. 

It is well known that our letters A, B, C, are 
through the Latin derived from the Greek letters. 
These are named Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc., 
which in tum are derived from the Phcenician or He- 
hre w: Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth. Further back we 
oannot trace them; for in Hebrew these names all 
have a meaning, and in the old Hebrew, the letters 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


bore a certain resemblance to the objects designated. 
Aleph is an ox; Beth, a house; Gimel^ a camel, etc. 
Here^ then, we have tbe Alphabet traced to its source. 
If it was in turn derived from the Egyptian hiero- 
glyphics, as some snppose, the period must be very 
far back; but this is a mere supposition. The fact 
remains that in the time of Moses writing was in use 
in many nations. Col. Ingebsoll is mistaken. 

It will be remarked that this fact is another torpe- 
do to explode A. L. Rawson's theory. 

It may be advisable here to point out Mr. Preston's 
error concerning the first appearance of the Books of 
the law. He quotes the foUowing passages of Scrip- 
ture to prove that they were unknown previous to the 
time of King Josias: 

^^Helcias, the high priest, sai<l to Laphan the 
scribe: I have found the book of the law in the 
house of the Lord, and Helcias gave the book to 
Laphan, and he read it." 

Laphan read the book to the king and the king 

" The great wrath of the Lord is kindled against us, 
because our fathers have not hearkened to the words 
of this book, to do all that is written for us." (4 Kings 
xxii., 8, 13; Protestant Bible, 2 Kings.) 

The second passage which he refers to gives us the 
explanation of this, viz: that the book found was **by 
the band of Moses," that is tb say it was the original 
written by Moses himself. 

" Helcias the priest found the book of the law of 
the Lord, by the band of Moses." 2 Paralipomenon 
xxxiv., 14. (Prot. Bible, 2 Chron.) This is further 
confirmed by what we read in Deuteronomy xxxi., 9, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


"And Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the 
priests the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord." 

" Theref ore after Moses had written the words of 
this law in a volume, and finished it: He commanded 
the Levites, who carried the ark of the covenant of 
the Lord, saying: 

" Take this book and put it in the side of the ark 
of the covenant of the Lord your God: that it may 
be there for a testimony against thee." 

That this view is correct is further evident from 
the fact that before this time the law was regularly 
read, which certainly would not have been the case 
if it had no existence. Thus: 

"Wheresoever there is question concerning the 
law, the commandment, the ceremonies, the justifioa- 
tions: show it them," 2 Par. xix, 10. (2 Chron.) 

" And they taught the people in Juda, having with 
them the book of the law of the Lord." xvii, 9. 

See also 1 Par. (Chronicles) xxiii, 32. 

The book of the law was the civil and religipus 
code of the nation. David, Solomon, Asa, all the 
kings down to Josias made it the basis of their gov- 
ernment, and so did Josias himself. It is in the 
hands of the magistrates as the rule of their judg- 
ments. King Amasias, bases on it his judgments in 
criminal causes (4 Ki. xiv, 6; Prot. Bible 2 KL), and 
even the impious Achab is restrained by it, so as to 
go through a form of law when committing an ih- 
justice. (3 Ki. xxi, 3, 4, 9, 10. Prot. Bible, 1 Ki.) 
In the reign of Osee, the prophets constantly recailed 
the ten tribes from idolatry by appealing to the law. 
(4 Ki. xvii, 13: Prot. Bible, 2 Ki.) In fine we every- 
where find the law of Moses to be the rule by which 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


all the oonduct of the Jews was regulated, and even 
under wicked kings, great numbers of Israelites were 
faithful to it. (2 Par. xxix, xxx, xxxi, 4 Kings xxi ; 
Prot. Bible, 2 Chron: 2 Kings.) 

If it be objected that I am here appealing to the 
Bible as evidence, I reply : 

Ist. That the objection is drawn from the Bible, 
and we have therefore a perfect right to have the 
Bible explain itself. 

2ndly. These books of the Bible which I am quoting 
are the public reeprds of the nation, and are attested 
as such. They have, therefore, independently of 
their inspired f oree, all the f orce of historical monu- 
ments, and more: they have the force of authentio 
documents treasured in the archives of the nation, 
besides being made public by their authority in the 
religion of the State. 

It is simply absurd that there should have been 
only one copy in the reign of Josias. 

How then are we to account for the peculiar Im- 
pression made on Josias by the reading of the law 
bef ore him ? 

We have similar examples every day before our 
eyes. The king was a young man of twenty-three or 
twenty-four years old, not knowing as yet that Mr. 
Preston would discover, through the Information that 
Voltaire gave him, that there was no law yet written. 
He had been trained to respect that law as the work 
of God, and now the very original, written by Moses 
is brought before him ! Can we wonder that he is 
fiUed with reverence and awe, and that the peculiar 
circumstances brought more vividly to his mind. the 
enormity of the transgressions which had been com- 
mitted against it? The circumstances prove most 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


decisively that the law was the same which the Jew- 
ish people had been accustomed to reverence, but 
which daring the troubled times through whioh the 
nation had passed had been partly f orgotten, or not 
sufficiently respected. 

At the accession of Josias to the throne, not more 
than 50 years of persecution of believers had elapsed, 
and certainly there would be many Priests, Levites, 
Magistrates and people who would have the memory 
of the law, and a f alse law could not be imposed on 
them by Helcias. If this had been the case, the suc- 
cessors of Josias who restored Idolatry would have 
exposed the trick of this High-Priest. But besides 
all this, as we shall see in the next chapter, the Sam- 
aritans, hostile to the Jews would not have been im- 
posed on in this way. 





Thb testimonies we have enumerated, in the pre- 
ceding chapter fully demonstrate that the Old Testa- 
ment was translated into Greek about the year 277 or 
280 B. C. It was represented by Demetrius to Ptol- 
emy Philadelphus that these books were of very great 
value as they contained the history of the Jews from 
the earliest period. He further informed the king 
that the Hebrew language which the Jews spoke, and 
in which the books were written was difficult, and 
that it would be necessary to inour considerable ex- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


pense to obtain the translation. The king then, by 
the advice of AristsBus, wlio as well as Josephus re- 
lates the facts^ paid for the emancipation of the cap- 
tive Jews in his dominions, and thus secured the 
good-will of the High-Priest Eleazar, and obtained 
the desired translation. 

We need not enter here upon f urther details. Suf- 
fice it to say that the history proves that the Septua- 
gint had a Hebrew original: that the Hebrew lan- 
guage was a reality, a spoken language^ and that the 
Jewish national law was founded on not only the 
Pentateuch but the whole Old Testament. I say it 
proves that Hebrew was a spoken language ; for 
though the dialect then spoken was greatly changed 
by intercourse with the Assyrians, it nevertheless 
was the child of the old Hebrew tongue. We have 
then the Jewish nation in the year 280 B. C, with a 
history and code of laws, and its monuments, its tem- 
ple, its altars, its ceremonies, all of which proclaim 
the then antiquity of the law, as loudly as the Egyp- 
tian monuments and those of Assyria teil us to-day 
that these nations have a history too. The law must 
üecessarily have been hundreds of years old then. 

But the evidences of the Antiquity of the Sacred 
writings do not end here. 

There exists to-day a little nation that dates from 
the year 972 B. C. They are the Samaritans of Holy 
Writ. In the year named, according to the best 
attainable Chronology, ten tribes revolted from the 
king of all Israel and formed a new kingdom of 
Israel, leaving to Roboam the kingdom of Juda. 
This new kingdom was afterwards named Samaria. 
3 Kings (Prot. Bible, 1 Kings), xi ; xvi, 24. These 
Samaritans preserved religiously the Pentateuch, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


have preserved it to this day, while they reject the 
other books of the Old Testament. They became at 
a later period mixed with the Assyrians. The con- 
stant hostility between them and the Jews is a 
sufficient proof that they did not, by collusion with 
the latter, adopt the Pentateuch: and indeed they 
refused even to adopt the more eonvenient letter 
which Esdras (Ezra) introduced, and they still retain 
the old characters, which were used from the earliest 

There are, it is true, some differences between the 
Hebrew text and the present Septuagint and Samari- 
tan texts, but they are substantially identical. The 
Samaritans, we know, corrupted their text in many 
places to justify the monstrosity of their religion, 
mixed of Paganism and Judaism: but while these 
corruptions do not destroy the validity of the true 
text, the existence of the Samaritan copies, and their 
substantial identity with the Hebrew text, absolutely 
demonstrates that the true text, whiohever it may be, 
dates from before the Separation of the tribes into a 
distinct kingdom. 

Moreover: the existence of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch proves that already, nine hundred and seventy- 
two years before Christ, the Pentateuch, the basis of 
the laws of two nations, must have been ancient: for 
then also the monuments were extant which attested 
the antiquity of the nation founded on those laws. 
Solomon's temple was not the result of a day's belief. 
The ark of the covenant placed in it, the sacred ves- 
ßels, the Cherubim, the stone tables of the law, etc.,were 
all evidences of the same. Thus we have traeed the 
Pentateuch to nearly seven hundred years earlier than 
the date allowed by Col. Ingersoll and Mr. Preston, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


over eigbt hnndred years earlier than Mr. Bawson 
allows. Bat it must have been already hundreds of 
years old^ as the numerous monuments and f easts still 
kept suffioiently attested: and as the Separation of the 
ten tribes ocourred only four hundred and seventy- 
seven years after the death of Moses, we are already 
brougbt to within a sbort time of the date of Moses 

The books of Samuel and Kings and Paralipomenpn 
or Chronicles are the public records of the nation. 
They differ in this from other national records: that 
they raise the mind to contemplate how human things 
are governed by Divine Providence. They were 
written, as we leam from the last-named books, by 
Samuel, David, Nathan, Gad, and other prophets, 
recognized by the authorities of the synagogue as 
the prophets of God. They made use of other public 
documents of a similar character, apparently, in their 

The f act of these compilations being authentic is 
evident from their intrinsic character. The language 
in which they are written is the intermediate language 
between the Hebrew of Moses and that which was 
spoken by the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. 
They were besides read and veuerated as their sacred 
records by the Jewish people of the time, and they 
enter upon details of government and conduct of the 
Jews that none but those who were familiär with the 
events could write. 

In addition to all this, many of the events therein 
recorded, especially those which refer to foreign 
nations, are also referred to by profane authors, or 
monuments; and though it is notto be expected that 
f oreigners would take so deep an interest in the Jew- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ish domestic affairs as the Jews themselves, jet in 
pagau moDuments remarkable oonfirmations of many 
principal facta are to be fonnd. 

Tbus, in 3 Kings iif, 1 (Prot. Bible, 1 Kings), we 
have an account of Solomon's marriage witb the 
daughter of the King of Egypt; and an extant frag- 
mcnt of Eupolemus relates that friendsbip existed 
between the two kings, so much so that there was 
friendly intercourse between them by letter, and that 
Solomon, by letter, acknowledged tbe share the 
Egyptian workmen had in the construction of the 
grand temple which he brought to completion. Thus 
the traces of primitive Revelation found in Egypt 
would be easily accounted for by the friendly inter- 
course of the two kings, especially as, acccn'ding to 
the account given by Eupolemus, Solomon is in no 
way backward in announcing to Vaphres, the Egyp- 
tian Pharoah, the power of the Most High, "through 
whom he succeeds to the throne of David." Colonel 
IngersoU says (p. 50) that Moses borrowed these 
traces from the Egyptians. It will be proved in 
chapter 23 that this is not the case; so we may 
well suppose th^t the Egyptians learned these things 
imperfectly by means of their inter-communication 
with the Jews. Similarly were Communications held 
with PhoBuicia, Syria, and Ophir. To the temple 
Libanus sent its cedars, and Arabia its perfumes. 

We need not here transcribe Solomon's letter to 
Hiram, King of Tyre; but Hiram's ans wer, which 
accedes to Solomon's desires to have a large number 
of workmen "to cut down cedar trees out of Leba- 
non," etc., blesses the "Lord God," who has placed 
Solomon on the throne. It is, therefore, not to be 
mnoh wondered at if there were in these coantries 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


some traces of primitive religious truth, but they 
were only traces, as they have reached us. 

The records of Tyre fully confirmthese Statements; 
for in them is found an account of the building of 
the temple by King Solomon at Jerusalem, one hun- 
dred and forty- three years and eight months before 
the Tyrians built Cai'thage. 

Dius, moreover, relates in^his history of Phoenicia 
that Hiram, King of Tyre, had much timber cut in 
Libanus for the building of temples, and that be- 
tween Hiram and Solomon there was mach inter- 

Menander, the Ephesian, relates the same circum- 
stances in great detail. 

These f acts are in perf ect aocord with the Scrip- 
tural history of Solomon. Menander's chronology 
also agrees with that of the public records of Tyre, 
and coincides very nearly with the best modern esti- 
mates on these dates. 

Berosus, Philostratus, Megasthenes, and the Phoe- 
nician records give details concerning the Assyrian 
invasions of Judea, which agree wonderfuUy with the 
Scripture iiistory. All these testimönies may be read 
in Josephus "against Apion," Book i, 20. 

Hermippus, Theophrastus, Herodotus, Cherilus, 
Aristotle, Agatharieides, all mention various custonls 
of the Jews; from which it is seen that they were 
strict in the observance of the Mosaio law, and 
Hecateus wrote an entire book on the same subject. 
Extracts from these ancient writers may be found in 
Josephus, Book I, against Apion. 

Josephus adds that, besides the above, "Theophi- 
lus, Theodatus, Mnases, Aristophanes, Hermogenes, 
Euhemerus, Conon, and Zapyrion, all of whom, 

Digitized byVjOOQ IC 


thoagh making many mistakes in their accounts of 
the Jews, nevertheless attest many things which are 
true, and which prove their antiquity as a nation; 
while Demetrius, Phalerius, the eider Philo, and 
Eupolemus have come very near the truth. 

To these writers may be added Cheremon, Poly- 
bius of Megalopolis, Strabo, Nicolaus of Damascus, 
Timagenes, Castor, and Apollodorus. 

The place of the temple is now perfectly well- 
known. It accords with the place whither the Jews 
were accustomed to repair every Friday to pray, near 
St. Stephen's gate. Messrs. de Saulcy and Foret de- 
scribe the immense stone blocks, twenty-nine and 
one-half feet in length, which are to be seen to-day, 
and which, with the exception of the blocks at Baal- 
bec, are the largest ever used for building. 

Aristaeus describes the fountains of the temple in 
detail, and calls them " a marvel of hydraulics." 

Mr. de Saulcy reoognizes perfectly in the ruins 
now visible, the works which Solomon constructed 
over the valley of Millo. The first iudication of the 
jBpecial name of an Egyptian King, is in 3 Kings, xi, 
40. (Prot. Bible, 1 Kings.) We are told here that 
Jeroboam fled to Shishak, King of Egypt, to escape 
from Solomon's wrath. Champollion has identified 
this King with Sheschonk, the first King of the 22d 
dynasty : so that is readily understood that Solomon's 
f ather-in-law being dead, Jeroboam should look to the 
new dynasty for protection against Solomon. 

This Shishak invaded Jerusalem in the fif th year of 
Roboam and carried away the treasures of the tem- 
ple and of the King. ( xiv, 25, 2 Par. xii, 2. Prot. 
Bible, Chron.) 

The existence of Shishak was unknown to profane 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


historians until Champollion's discoveries, and Infidels 
of the last Century, ridiculed the Bible in this point 
as inconsistent with history. But at Kamak, Shishak 
is represented as holding by tbe bair a crowd of cap- 
tives whom be is in the act of destroying. Anotber 
group is beside tbis witb tbeir bands tied, amongst 
whom is one witb a decidedly Jewisb face, bearing 
a sbield with tbe inscription Jeoudhamdeky the King 
of Jvda. See Rosellini and Champollion. The latter 
adds that this Shishak is undoubtedly the Sesonchis 
of Manetbo. Tbis discovery is a remarkable proof 
that tbe Jewisb records contained in the Kings and 
Chronicles are authentic and correct records, written 
at tbe period when tbe events occurred. 

The monumental history of Assyria gives similar 
testimony. Tiglath-Peleser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, 
Sennacberib and Esarhaddon carried tbeir arms into 
Palestine, according to the Bible. All these kings 
are named on the tablets discovered in Assyria, and 
tbe events thereon recorded confirm in every respect 
the Biblical account. Of course the Assyrian ac- 
counts are given from the Assyrian point of view, 
and some slight discrepancies are found on domparing 
them witb the Bible. Thus tbe total loss of Sennacb- 
erib's army when 185,000 men were dead inthemom- 
ing is not recorded by the Assyrians, whose national 
pride did not permit them to transmit tbe memory 
of tbeir great bumiliations, but even this fact is cor- 
roborated by Herodotus. The Invasion itself is, bow- 
ever, mentioned in detail on the Assyrian tablets. 

The oldest monuments extant in Assyria are prob- 
ably to be attributed to about 1350 B. C. The two 
centuries whicb precede tbe reign of Assbur-idanni- 
pal are witbout monuments. Tbe monuments whicb 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


have been discovered in connection with Assyrian 
Mstory since that period, are recognized by Messrs. 
Layard, Kawlinson and de Saulcy as corroborating 
the Biblical records to an astonishing extent. The 
intimacy of the sacred writers with the manners of 
the various nations of whom they write, is surpris- 
ingly manifested in the incidental mention of facts 
which could not have been thought of by persona 
who had not witnessed them; and yet facts have been 
elicited by the discovery of ancient monuments which 
have fully substantiated the description of the Bib- 
lical writers. Thus, for example, the description of 
King Solomon's litter, (Canticle, iii, 9, 10. Prot. 
Bible, Song of Solomon,) with pillars of silver, the 
seat of gold, the covering of purple, is a correct pic- 
tnre of oriental monarchical magnificence of the per- 
iod. Tbe lions around Solomon's throne, ( 3 Kings, 
x; 19, 20,) are the same emblems that covered the 
wallsof Nineveh. The spear and shield and helmet 
and battering-ram, were all war-like Instruments in 
common use. Moveable towers, such as desci ibed by 
Ezechiel, iv, 2, were also employed in warfare. The 
Assyrian horses, celebrated from the earliest times 
are aptly described in Job, xxxix, 19. Habb., i, 8, 
and the scriptural account of the Kings that reigned 
in Assyria is perfectly consistent with the story told 
by the latest monumental discoveries. Mr. Layard 
has read on the Assyrian tablets the equivalent of 
Scriptural names of the Syrians: B[hitti=Hittites, and 
the siege of Lachish and succeeding events described 
in Is. xxxvi, 2, 4 Kings, xviii, 14, etc., Prot. Bible, 
2 Kings, are circumstantially described on the Assy- 
rian monuments and many other events mentioned 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


in Holy "Writ, on which Mr. Layard's "Nineveh and 
its Remains " may be consulted. 

Numerous other instancea might be adduced to 
show the accuracy of detafls in the books under con- 
sideration, but we need only add that the main facts 
recorded in Scripture undeniably accord witli known 
history : such as tbe rise and fall of tha Assyrian, 
Babylonian and Persian Empires, the springing up 
of Greece as a nation, the rise of the Roman Empire 
and the diffusion of Phcenician and Greek civilization. 
All this shows that the Jewish reeords are a f aithful 
account of the fortunes of the people of Israel. 

The wonderful accord between these books as to 
the facts related, and the prophecies of Isaias, Jere- 
mias, Amos, etc., proves that if one book is rejec- 
ted as spurious, all must be spurious, which, in the 
history of literature would be unprecedented. 

I have dwelt thus on the character of these books 
on account of the fact that they cover a great part 
of the period between Moses and the establishment 
of the Samaritan Kingdom. There are besides the 
books of Josue, Judges and Ruth, during the same 
interval. All these books are based upon the authen- 
ticity of the Pentateuch, and as they form a continu- 
ous record of Jewish history, confirmative of each 
other, and all having similar intrinsic evidences of 
authenticity, they constitute an irrefragable proof of 
the authenticity of the Pentateuch also. 

Digitized by VjOÖQIC 






Among the many passages of the later Scriptures 
which testify to the authenticity of the Pentateuch, 
during the period which elapsed from the death of 
Moses to the Separation of the twelve tribes, the fol- 
lowing may be instaneed ; and it mnst be remembered 
that they are from the public records of the nation, 
both civil and religious: records more sacred, and as 
caref nlly preseryed as ihe archives of any nation of 

From Josue we have: 

(Jos. i, 1.) " Now, it came to pass, after the death 
of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord 
spoke to Josue, the son of Nun, the minister of Moses, 
and Said to him: ^ Moses, my servant, is dead; arise, 
and pass over this Jordan,' " etc. 

(i, 3.) " I will deliver to you every place, .... 
as I have said to Moses." 

(7.) ** Observe and do all the law which Moses, my 
servant, hath commanded thee." 

(13.) " Bemember the word which Moses, the ser- 
vant of the Lord, commanded you." 

(viii, 30 to 36.) " Then Josue built an altar to the 
Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Hebal, as Moses, 

the servant of the Lord, had commanded And 

he wrote upon stones the Deuteronomy of the law of 
Moses. .... He left out nothing of those things 
which Moses h^d commanded." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


(11,15.) ''As the Lord had comman^d Moses, 
his senrant, so did Moses oommand Josue," etc. 

We find in Judges : 

(iii, 4.) '' And he lef t them, that he might try 
Israel by them, whether tbey would hear the com- 
mandments of the Lord, which he had commanded 
their fatbers by the band of Moses, or not. ^ etc. 

We find in 1, 2 Kings, or Prot. Bible, 1, 2 Samuel: 

(1 Kings xii, 6, 8 Prot. Bible, 1 Samuel.) *'Itisthe 
Lord wbo made Moses and Aaron, and brought our 
f athers out of the land of Egypt." 

'' And the Lord sent Moses and Aaro«, and brought 
your fatbers out of Egypt: and made them dwell in 
tbis place." 

(ii, 6.) " The Lord killeth and maketh alive." Tbis 
is quoted from Deut, xxxii, 39. 

(vi, 6.) " Why did you harden your bearts, as 
Egypt and Pbaraoh hardened their hearts ?" Quoted 
from Ex. iv, 21, etc. 

(2 Kings xi, 4, Prot. Bible, 2 Saml.) *• Sbe was 
purified from her uncleanness." Tbis is in accordance 
with Lev. xv, 18. 

(xii, 6.) " He sball restore the ewe fourfold.** Tbis 
is in accordance with Ex. xxii, 1. 

From Ruth we find: 

(iv, 5.) " Thou must take also Ruth the Moabitess, 
• . . . to raise up the name of thy kinsman in bis in- 

Tbis is to fulfill the law. (Deut, xxv, 7.) 

See also verse 10, 11; and in verse 12, reference is 
made to Gen. xxxviii, 29. 

Li 1, 2 Paralipomenon or Cbronicles. 

(1 Chron. vi, 49.) " But Aaron and bis sons offered 
burnt-ofPerings, etc., according to all that Moses the 
servant of God had commanded." 

Digitized by VjOOQI^ 


(xv, 15.) ** And the spns of Levi took the ark of 
God, as Moses had oommanded." 

It will be here seen, and thronghoat Kings and 
ChronicleSy that the ark of God was a standing monu- 
ment of the law given by Moses. The same is to be 
remarked of the two monaments mentioned in the 
next qnotation: 

(xxi, 29.) " But the tabernaole of the Lord, which 
Moses made in the desert, and the altar of holocausts 
was at that time (B. C. 1017) in the high place of 

(2 Chron. i, 3.) " He went . . . . to the high place 
of Gabaon where was the tabernaole of the Lord 
which Moses the servant of God made in the wilder- 

In V, 10, another impprtant memorial is mentioned 
as being kept in the ark: **the two tables which 
Moses put there at Horeb." 

I need not quote more. It is perfectly well known 
that not only these books, f rom which I have cited a 
f ew out of many passages, but also all the books of 
the Old Testament, constantly refer to the Mosaic 
writihgs as the* law which every Hebrew was bound 
to obey. The 3d and 4th books of Kings, the Psalms, 
Ecclesiasticus, the books of Proverbs, Esdras and 
Nehemias, the prophecies of Isaias, Jeremias, Eze- 
chiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets, besides Tobit, 
Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and the books of the Mac- 
cabees, all quote the law and writings of Moses, as 
the basis of religion and patriotism. Can we, in the 
face of this constant tradition and the historical 
archives of a nation, deny the authenticity of the 
Pentateuch ? 

Surely even Col. Ingersoll who accepts as authentic 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the Koran, the Yedas, the sacred and political f rag- 
ments of Egypt and China must aoknowledge that 
there is f or all these no such evidence as f or the Pen- 
tatenoh. Csasar's commentaries, Cicero's literary and 
philosophical writings, the annals of Tacitus, Xeno- 
phon, and Herodotus, the poetry of Homer and Virgil, 
might possibly be put in donbt, as works of these 
authors, but not the Pentateuch, vhich is proved by 
anthorities so constant, so positive and so numerous; 
and be it remembered, that if the books of Moses are 
not authentic, the whole of a nation's records, civil 
and religious, must be rejected also, together with 
their public monuments and traditions. 

The testimony of Christ a^^nd His Apostles we need 
not insert, as it is universally acknowledged that 
they recognized the entire Old Testament; and not 
only is this authenticity acknowledged by Jews and 
Christians of all denominations, but it is admitted by 
Mahometans and Pagans. Celsus, Porphyry and 
Julian never called it in question while writing against 
Christians, though they would certainly have done so 
if they had anything to allege against it. On the 
other band, the most ancient writers of every nation 
recognized this f act more or less fully, 

Of the Egyptians, Manetho, their oldest historian, 
States f rom the sacred writings of Egypt, much that 
is found in the Pentateuch, though he adds much that 
is erroneous. However, as far as his account is ac- 
curate, it is a streng confirmation of the äuthority of 
the Pentateuch, and even his mistakes imply the 
truth of the leading facts. 

He relates that the captive Hebrews left Egypt 
during the reign of Tethmosis, and that they occu- 
pied Judea, and built Jerusalem. Their leader, he 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


sayi^ was bom in Heliopolis the same as On (Gen. 
xli, 46,) the city of the Sun. His name was Osar- 
siph, which he changed to Moses. He f orbade the 
worship of the Egyptian Gods, and establisbed many 
customs which were opposite to those of Ihe ,Egyp- 
tians and even killed the animals which the Egyptians 
held sacred. 

Diodorus of Sioily says that "The Jew Moses pre- 
tended to have received from the God Jahal (cor- 
rnpted from Jehovah) the laws which he gave to his 
nation." Nicholaus of Damascas speaks of " Moses 
the legislator of the Jews." Strabo praises "the 
sanctity of the worship which Moses established, 
when at the head of a vast mnltitude, he left Egypt 
to fix himself in Jadea, as he detested the profane 
costoms of the Egyptians.*' 

Polemon, Hellanicus and Philochorus and Castor, 
all spoke of Moses as a man highly to be esteemed, 
and as having a divine character. The Koran of Ma- 
homet also f requently speaks of Moses as a prophet of 

Who doabts of the ezistence of a Conf ucius, a Zo- 
roaster, a LycnrguSy a Solon, a Numa, a Mahomet ? 
Yet the existence of Moses and his authorship of the 
Pentateach are proved by testimonies mach more 
worthy of credit, mach more numeroas and universal 
than those which attest the lifo and actions of these 

The books of the Old Testament, and especially the 
Pentateuch contain the laws, the doctrines, the moral- 
ity of the Je wish people, their genealogies arid their 
title-deeds. The kings and priests were obliged to 
make themselves familiär with them; They were read 
freqaently to the people. Many copies of them were 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


preserved with the greatest oare among them, and 
history attests that such was their respeot f or the sa^ 
cred volume, that every letter was regarded as so 
saoredy that no alteration was tolerated in the most 
minute particulars. Every oircumstanoe combines to 
prove that they milst be aathentio. 



Let US now see on what grounds do infidels mam- 
. tain that the Pentateuch is spurious. 

A few— very f ew — ^passages are fonnd whioh, they 
say, most evidently have been written by a later band, 
and the last chapter of Deuteronomy records the 
death of Moses. 

If it were the case that slight variations from the 
original were made by a later band, the snbstantial 
accuracy and authenticity of the work woald not be 
in the least impaired. Other books, especially those 
of ancient date have suffered changes, which do not 
prevent us from acknowledging that they are, as a 
whole, authentic. 

It is not pretended that the last ohapter of Deuteron- 
omy may not have been written by Joshua or some 
other prophet, as a Supplement to Moses' work: 
though I must say I would see no difficulty in admit- 
ting that Moses himself should have written it in the 
spirit of Prophecy, as he lived in an atmosphere of 
Prophecy and Miracles. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


In either case tlie anthenticity of the work itself^ 
in substanoe, cannot be impngned. 

It is not, however, claimed, either by the book it- 
seif, or by the Christian Church that Moses wrote this 
chapter. In fact, the sixth verse of the chapter 
seams to imply that at all events the fif th and f oUow- 
ing verses were added after Moses' death: 

^'No man hath known of his sepulohre until this 
present day." 

Josephns is, however, of the opinion that Moses 
himself wrote the account of his death ^^ through fear 
that the people should venture to say that becaüse of 
his extraordinary virtue he went to God." Antiq. 
Book iv, 48. 

This is the opinion of Josephus, individually, and 
Philo embraoes the same view ; but this is not neces- 
sarily the opinion we must entertain. It is usually 
believed among Christians that this part of Denter- 
onomy is the Supplement by another. Thus CoL 
IngersoU's witticism is harmless, though it was in- 
tended to be conolusive against the authentioity of 
the Pentateuoh. He says (pp. 265 to 268,) in an ele- 
gant sentence of nearly siz pages : 

*^Let US admit .... that God .... did not 
secretly bury a man, and then allow the corpse to 
write an account of the funeral." 

Under either hypothesis there is no question what- 
ever of a ** corpse writing an account of his own 

Among the other objections which are brought 
against the authentioity of the Pentateuch, on the 
plea that certain passages must have been written at 
a later period, we find the f oUowing in CoL Inger- 
soU's book : 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


"In the 30th chapter of Exodus (verse 13,) we are 
told that .... each öne must give a half shekel 
after the shekel of the Sanctuary. At that time no 
such money existed, and consequently the account 
could not, by any possibility have been written until 
after there was a shekel of the Sanctuary, and there 
was no such thing until long after the death of 
Moses." (P. 229.) 

On what authority does Col. IngersoU declare that 
there was no shekel of the Sanctuary ? In Exodus 
God begins to regulate everything relating to the 
Sanctuary, and He here ordains the shekel of the 
Sanctuary and declares that it shall be twenty gerahs 
or obols. Undoubtedly the weight of the shekel was 
then determined by a Standard to be kept for the 
purpose in the sanctuary. This is evident also from 
Lev. V, 15; xxvii, 3, 15; Num. iii, 47. 

Col. IngersoU evidently blunders here by f oUowing 
Voltaire blindly. If the shekel was not a coin in our 
modern form, might it not have been a weight ? The 
verb shakal from which it is derived means to weigh, 
and it was the custom to carry weights in a bag for 
the purposes of traffic. (See Deut, xxv, 13; Mic. vi, 
11; Prov. xvi, 11.) In the sanctuary, the Standard 
weights were kept. 

" No shekel of the sanctuary in the time of Moses," 
Col. IngersoU teils us. What could have induced 
Moses, then, to have spoken of such a weight ? His 
testimony is sufficient to prove that it did exist. In 
f act there is every reason to believe that there was 
no difference between the shekel of the sanctuary and 
the ordinary shekel, except that the shekel of the 
sanctuary was the Standard; and we find the shekel 
nsed over 400 years bef ore the time of Moses, in G^n- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


esis xxiii, lö, 16, xxiv. 22. Such are the puny objec- 
tions by means of which Col. Ingersoll would wish 
to destroy the credit of the Bible. 

These two absurd objections, together with the 
equally absurd objection, which I have refuted in 
chapter 16, that in the time of Moses writing was 
unknown, are the only arguments, absolutely, which 
Col. Ingersoll can find against the authenticity of the 

Mr. Thomas Paine, however, finds some difficulties 
of similar character, which it may be well to ref ute 
here. The pages are f rom the New York edition of 
**Age of Reason," 1878. 

Mr. Paine says: 

" I mean not to go out of the Bible f or evidence 
of anything, but to make the Bible itself prove his- 
torically and chronologically that Moses is not the 
author of the books ascribed to him." (P. 68.) 

" I will not go out of the Bible f or proof against 
the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False tes- 
timony is always good against itself." (P 75.) 

The following is the first evidence of unaulhen- 

"In the 14th chapter of Genesis," v. 14, we read 
that "Abraham pursued (the captors of Lot) unto 

Dan There was no such place as Dan tili 

many years after the death of Moses; and conse- 
quently Moses could not be the writer of the book of 
Genesis." (P. 69.) 

" The place that is called Dan in the Bible was 
originally a town of the Gentiles, called Laish; and 
when the tribe of Dan seized upon this town, they 
changed its name to Dan in commemoration of Dan, 
who was the father of that tribe." (P. 69.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


He then refers to Judges xviii, 27, 29. " They (the 
Danites) came ante Laish .... and bomed the city 
with fire, and they built a city .... and they called 
the name of the city Dan, af ter the name of Dan, 
their f ather, howbeit the name of the oity was Laish 
at the first." (P. 70.) 

Certainly, if the Dan to which Abraham pnrsued 
Lot's captors was the same place which was named 
Dan by the Danites, it would prove one of two things: 
viz., either Moses, by inspiration, knew that the Dan- 
ites wonld occupy the site of Laish, and call it Dan, 
or eise subseqnent copyists introduced the word Dan 
as an explanation of the word Laish, in order that the 
reading might be better understood. But, surely in 
either case, the whole work is not on this acconnt to 
be rejected as spnrions. There are in Josephus, Taoi- 
tns, Virgil, Homer, passages which some snppose to 
be interpolated accidentally or intentionally, bnt no 
one dreams of rejecting their whole work on this 
acconnt. Why then should the entire work of Moses 
be rejected, merely because an explanatory change of 
a word were made in this case, possibly even, by 
authority ? Bnt considering that Moses is through- 
ont conscious that the Israelites will possess the ter- 
ritory of the Chanaanites, it is not at all nnlikely 
that he could f oresee that the spot wonld be called 

However, there is another answer to this. Mr. 
Paine assumes that the Dan spoken of in Grenesis is 
the same place as the Dan mentioned in Jndges. This 
snpposition is entirely gratnitous, and therefore his 
whole argument falls to the ground. 

In fact St. Jerome, a perf ect scholar in Hebrew, 
who wrote fif teen hnndred years ago, teils us that the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Dan of 6enesis ziv., and the Dan of Jadges xriiL, 
are two different plaoes, in all probability. 

The river Jordan is certainly jos-dan, and itmeans 
the river Dan: and though the Hebrew syllable Jor 
differs f rom the spelling of Jor a river, as applied to 
the Nile, it has the same meaning. Jordan is there- 
f ore the river J9an, and it had this name bef ore the 
time of Moses. It is even called by this name in the 
very history of Lot, wherein the pursuit of the four 
kings by Abraham to Dan is recorded. (Glen. xiii., 11, 
12.) Why then, should not the Dan mentioned in 
Gen. xiv., 14, be some looality in the neighborhood 
of the Jordan, or the Jor-Dan itself. This is perhaps 
the most probable view to be taken of the narrative: 
forwe may far more readily understand that the four 
kings were pursued to Jordan or Jor-Dan, than to the 
Dan in the extreme north of the land of Canaad, whioh 
was altogether in a different direction f rom the coun- 
try of the four kings. 

This opinion is fnrther favored by the fact that 
there was a town Dannah (Jos. xv., 40,) the feminine 
form of Dan, as Moses wrote both words: Dn; Dnh. 
The town Dannah and the river Jordan may possibly, 
both have been named af ter Da^ bef ore Jacob and 
Dan left Canaan to make their dwelling in Egypt. 

Is this the kind of objection that is to upset all the 
positive proofs we have given of the authenticity of 
the Pentateuch ? 

Mr. Paine's next objection is against Gen. xxxvi., 

^' And these are the kings that reigned in Edom 
before there reigned a king over the children of 

On this Mr. Paine says: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


These words " conld only have been written af ter 
the first kiiig began to reign over them; and conse- 
quently the book of Grenesis, so far f rom having been 
written by Moses, could not have been written tili 
the time of Saul at least." (P. 71.) 

He then points out that the writer of Chronicies i, 
43, uses the same words through several verses. 

He infers that Genesis is not so old as Chronicies. 
(P. 72.) 

He does not attempt to explain how the Chronicies 
have managed to qnote the Pentateuch so frequently 
as we have shown (Chap. 18,) if the Pentateuch were 
written after it. However, in Deut., xvii., 14, Moses 
expressly says to the Israelites: 

" When thou art come into the land which the Lord 
thy God will give thee .... and shalt say. I will 
set a king over me, as all nations have that are round 
about. . . . Thou mayest not make a man of another 
another nation king." 

Is it a very inconsistent thing to suppose that. he 
who could foretell that they would wish for, and 
would have a king, should also be able to say, such 
and such kings reigned in Edom before Israel had a 
king ? 

In Deut, xxviii, 36, he repeats his prediction of the 
same event. 

Let US look at the matter from another point of 
view. Moses did not write in English, but in He- 
brew. The word Melek^ which we translate king, 
does not necessarily mean the ruler of 60,000^000 of 
people. The Melek was a ruler of a nation, even a 
small one, and Moses is himself called by this name 
in Deut, xxxiii, 5. "He shall be king with the Most 
Right, the princes of the people being assembied with 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the tribes of Israel." Now, since Moses is called a 
king, cannot it be that the expression " these are the 
kmgs that reigned in Edom bef ore there reigned a 
king over the children of Israel," means " these are 
the kings of Edom bef ore my rule began in Israel ? " 

WhicheverTiew we take oi this matter the anthen- 
ticity remains intact. 

Mr. Paine's next objection is not against the au- 
thenticity of the Pentateuch, bat against the charac- 
ter of Moses, who is accnsed of atrocity in his deal- 
ings with enemies. It is drawn from Num. xxxi, 13. 
We answered this in chapter 9. 

The next objection against the anthenticity is 
fonnded on Ex. xvi, 34. 

'^ The children of Israel did eat manna nntil they 
cametoa land inhabited; they did eat manna nntil 
they came nnto the borders of the land of Canaan." 

Mr. Paine says: 

^^ Moses coald not write this acconnt, because the 
acconnt extends itself beyond the life and time of 
Moses. Moses .... died in the wilderness, and 
never came upon the borders of the land of Canaan." 

(P. u.) 

Refutation. Moses reached Monnt Pisgah " over 
against Jericho." (Deut, xxxiv, 1.) This mountain 
was theref ore on the borders of Canaan. Pisgah was 
in Moab, " a land inhabited." Moses was theref ore 
with the Israelites when they reached " a land inhab- 
ited" on "the borders of the land of Canaan." The 
acconnt, theref ore, does not extend beyond the life 
and time of Moses, and there was no difficulty about 
his writing Exodns up to the date of the arrival of 
the Israelites at that spot. It is indicative of a bad 
oanse to have recourse to such petty special pleading. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Mr. Paine himself aoknowledges virtoally that this 
last objection, as well as the next, is worthless, f or he 
first says that the next objection is more remarkable 
than this one (p. 75,) and immediately afterwards he 
adds that his historical difficulty in the next is "not 
so direct and positive as in the former cases.** (P. 
76.) He adds, however: 

" It is nevertheless very presumable and corrobor- 
ating evidence, and is better than the best evidenoe 
on the contrary side." 

Mr. Paine seems to f orget that he has nndertaken 
to prove the non-authenticity of the Pentatench. We 
have given positive evidence of its authenticity and 
will ip the next chapter give more. His indirect and 
un-positive proof s are theref ore of no weight. How- 
ever, let ns see what he has to say that requires this 
apologetic introduetion. He quotes Dent. iii, 1 1 : 

" For only Og king of Bashan remained of the race 
of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of 
iron; is it not in Rabbathof the children of Ammon? 
Nine cnbits was the length thereof, and f onr cnbits 
the breadth of it after the cabit of a man." 

He adds: 

"A cnbitis 1 foot 9.8881 inches; the length, there- 
fore, of the bed was 16 feet 4 inches, and the breadth 
7 feet 4 inches." 

" The writer, by way of proving the existence of 
this giant, refers to his bed, as an ancient relic, and 
says, is it not in Rabbath (or Rabbah) of the children 
of Ammon? meaning that it i8,for such is frequently 
the Bible method of affirming a thing. But it could 
not be Moses that said this, because he conld know 
nothing about Rabbah» nor of what was in it. Rab- 
bah was not a city belonging to this giant king, nor 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


was it one of the eitles that Moses took. The kaowl- 
edge^ therefore, that this bed was at Babbah, and of 
the particulars of its dimensions must be ref erred to 
the time when Rabbah was taken, .... 400 years 
after the death of Moses." (P. 75.) 

To confirm this, he quotes 2 Sam. xii, 26. 

The difficulty implied, but not positlvely stated, in 
regard to the exlstence of glants will be treated in 
its proper place, chapter 28. The difficulty about the 
impossibility of Moses' obtaining knowledge of Rab- 
bah is but a miserable subterfuge^ as all must see 
who have the least notion of the means by which the 
general of an invading anny can obtain the knowl- 
edge of the enemy's country. During the Austro- 
Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars, the knowledge 
displayed by Baron Von Moltke of every detail of 
the enemies' countries is acknowledged to have been 
wonderful. If he were to write a book descriptive 
of these wars, and were incidentally to mention some 
such fact regarding the city of Lyons as that which 
Mr. Paine selects from Deuteronomy, if one would 
say, "Von Moltke could know nothing of Lyons, 
since it was not captured by him," the discernment of 
the skeptic would be justly ridiculed. We would 
merely answer that the General's knowledge of de- 
tails was remarkable. Why, then, should the ignor- 
ance of Moses be so positively assumed ? Certainly 
the minuteness of details related by him regarding 
many transactions shows him to be a man of great 
Observation. The admirable suitableness of his laws 
to secure the health of the Jews, manifests no little 
skill in Hygiene, the excellence of his moral code, 
exhibits genera^ wisdom, especially if, as Infidels 
maintain, his writings are merely human; why then 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


might he not have known even by human means 
something about Og's domestic arrangements ? Is 
not Information soraetimes obtained from spies? 
Sometimes do not deserters or prisoners relate such 
incidents ? And even if all other means of Informa- 
tion failed, we know that Moses was instructed by 
Bevelation, or special information given him by 
Almighty God. But after all, there could not have 
been very rauch hostility between the Israelites and 
the Ammonites, which would prevent the former from 
obtaining such information. The Israelites were ex- 
pressly forbidden to make war upon the Ammonites 
(Deut, ii, 19, 37); and though the latter showed the 
Israelifes no f avors, war was not waged against them. 
Intercourse, therefore, could not have been difficult 
between the two nations, especially as Babbath was 
less than twelve miles from Aroer, less than nine 
miles from Jezer, two cities of the tribe of Gad, and 
only about three miles from the confines of the Gad- 
ites. Mr. Paine, therefore, utterly falls in his proofs 
against the authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

Mr. Paine adds, however, that the bed of Og is re- 
ferred to as an ancient relic. It is not very clear what 
length of time is requisite to justify a writer in stat- 
ing that an article may still be seen. Much depends, 
I presume, on the estimation in which articles of the 
kind are usually held. A bedstead is not usually 
cared f or with much veneration. If, therefore, Og's 
bed had been preserved with unusual care, for a year, 
or perhaps more, I see no absurdity in calling atten- 
tion to the f act that it was still kept as a memorial of 
the last giant of the locality. Surely Mr. Paine rests 
his case, as he himself acknowledges on arguments 
that are not very positive or direct. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


I have answered all the argnments on this subject 
which have been advanced by Mr. Paine and Col. In- 
gersolL The. next chapter will be devoted to the 
farther evidence that the Pentateuch is the work of 



We already proved in chapters 21 and 22 that the 
Jews have their history as a nation, dating back from 
the time of Moses. That history is so interwoven 
with events that happened in the time of Moses, that 
it is an indubitable proof that the record is his work. 

K all oTir books were bumed, the annual celebra- 
tion of the fourth of July by the people of the 
TJuited States would teil of a remarkable occurrence 
in the lif e of the nation. It would teil that in the 
year 1776 the great Union of States ceased to be so 
many colonies and became a nation. Future gener- 
ations would know by this means alone, of the great 
event which occurred on the day of the Declaration 
of Independence. 

What Christian is there who does not call to mind, 
every Christmas-day that a Saviour was born on that 
day for our Redemption ? Who does not remember 
on Good-Friday that the same Saviour was crucified 
between two thieves ? And on Easter-Sunday, who 
forgets to recall the remembrance that the same Sa- 
viour rose from the dead glorious and triumphant ? 
And when year after year we change the date of our 
letters from 1883 to 1884, and from this again to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


1885, is there any one who is not reminded that these 
dates are intended to inform us that so many years 
have elapsed, wiih perhaps a slight error in the num- 
her, since that same Saviour appeared on earth? 

The f easts of a nation record its history as if it 
were written in ink. But these festivals are known 
also, by historical records, to have reference to the 
events they commemorate. This union of historical 
testimony, and ^nnual obseryance affords the strong- 
est possible chain of evidence to the trnth of the 
events thas attested. 

The Jews also keep at this day similar festivals. 

On the fifteenth day of the month Nisan or Abib, 
the Jews celebrate to this day the Passover or Pasch, 
called by them Pesach. This f east corresponds with 
our Easter, with the difference that Easter Sunday is 
the Sunday following the Pesach. This festival was 
celebrated when Judea was a nation, as attested by 
Josephas, Philo and all other historians who have 
written on Jewish customs. In the Old Testament 
which is the historic record of the nation, there is con- 
stant reference to its observance throughout the ages 
that have elapsed since the Exodus f rom Egypt. It 
is well known that the festival is to commemorate the 
deliverance of the Jews from their Egyptian bond- 
age, their miraculous passage through the Red Sea> 
and the death of the Egyptian first-born. It is in 
the Pentateuch that the festival is commanded, and 
the reason given f or its observance. Could such a 
festival and with such memories have been established 
if the Pentateuch were a apurious work, first known 
170 or 280 years before Christ? Tou might as easily 
persuade the American people that the Deolaration of 
Independenoe never occurred. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


In fact it was in remembrance of these transaotions 
that the month Nisan or Abib was made the begin- 
ning of the year, as we read in Exodus xii: the year 
beginning bef ore that with the month Tißhri, corres- 
ponding with our September and October. This is 
evident from Ex. xxiii, 16, xxxiv, 22. Hence the 
manner in whieh the Jews begin the year is a testi- 
mony to the authenticity of the Pentateuch. The 
civil year begins in Tishri, and the religious year in 
Nisan. See Josephus Ant. B. 1, c. 3. The change of 
the beginning of the year was made preoisely in 
memory of the Passover. (Ex. xii, 1.) 

It is a remarkable faot that down to the olose of 
the fifth Century of the Christian era, and probably 
to a later period, the Egyptians observed the vernal 
equinox with mouming for a great calamity, on 
account of whioh they spread red clay on their houses 
and the trees. It would appear to be an imitation of 
the means by which the Hebrews averted the death 
of the first-bom in their houses. This is attested by 
St. Epiphanius. 

* The feast of Pentecost on which the Revelation of 
the law on Mount Sinai is celebrated, the fast of ex- 
piation on the lOth of Tishri, and commanded in 
Lev. xxiii, the feast of tents or tabemacles com- 
manded in the same chapter, and other feasts are all 
additional evidences of the authenticity of the Penta- 
teuch. To these may be added the weekly obser- 
vance of the Sabbath, which is commanded Ex. xvi, 
23 to 29; xx, 8, 11, and elsewhere. 

Thus also, to this day, m obedience to the com- 
mandment of Moses circumcision is observed, and the 
eating of unleavened bread is also practiced* but per- 
haps above all the observance of the Sabbatioal year 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


was a testimony to the authority of the Pentateuch 
which cannot be gainsaid. Every seventh year it 
was commanded that the land should rest, and 
^hat crops should not be sown. It was promised 
that in the sizth year there should be a triple 
crop to enable them to observe the law: and all 
history attests that as long as the Jews were a na- 
tion this law was observed. Thus the authenticity 
of the Pentateuch was attested by a standing miracle. 

That the Sabbatical year was observed is evident 
from many testimonies. I may select the foUowing 
from Josephüs B. 11, c. 8. It is here related that on 
the occasion of the visit of Alexander the Great to 
Jerusalem, B. C* 334, the Jews obtained the privilege 
of not paying tribute in the seventh, i. e. in the 
Sabbatical year. The Samaritans, hearing that the 
Jews had obtained such favors, also made a petition 
f or the same privilege, because, they said, they also 
were Jews, and did not sow during that year. It 
does not, however, appear that the Samaritans gained 
the f avor. 

In this same chapter is related another circum- 
stance which may be added to the proofs of the au- 
thenticity of the other books of the Old Testament; 
f or it is related that Jaddus, the high-priest, in conse- 
quence of a vision from God, went forth in bis 
priestly robes, to meet Alexander as the latter ap- 
proached the city, and that Alexander saluted Jaddus 
with great respect. When the king's attendants 
observed this they were much surprised, but Alexan- 
der, answering Parmenio, replied: **I did not adore 
him, but that God who hath honored him with this 
high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a 
dream . • . . at Dios in Macedonia, who .... ex- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


horted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over 
the sea thither, for that he would condact my army 
and would give me dominion over the Persians," etc. 

"In the temple the high-priest showed to Alexan- 
der the book of Daniel, wherein Daniel declared that 
one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the 
Persians, and he supposed that himself was the per- 
son intended." 

It is here worthy of remark that the peculiar privi-- 
lege of the sabbatical year no longer preserved the 
Jews from famine, af ter the time of Christ, as we 
leam from Josephus, B. xy, 9; xx, 2. 





Bbsidbs the extrinsic proofs of aathenticity which 
we have already given, the Pentateach afEords many 
intrinsic evidences of the same point. 

To ascertain by intrinsic evidence whetber a given 
work is authentic or not, we examine whether it is 
such a work as agrees with the circumstances under 
which the author writeß. In examining the Penta- 
teuch, we may fairly ask: 

Is its language such as might have been written by 
Moses ? 

Does the writer show such acquaintance with the 
lifo and history qf the Israelites and Egyptians and 
other nations with whom he came into contact as jus- 
tif y US to attribute the work to Moses ? 

Is he as familiär with the geography of the country 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


as we woald have reason to expect f rom the leader of 
the Israelites at that time ? 

If the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, or at 
least by some one living very olose to the time 
of Moses, we would naturally expect that in all 
these respects it would vary mach from what might 
be expected from Moses. In fact none bat a ootem- 
porary coald so write as to conf orm with what Moses 
would be likely to write ander the three aspects which 
I have mentioned; and that cotemporary should be 
perfectly intimate, as Moses was, with Jewish and 
Egyptian history, and with the secrets of Moses hira- 
self, and should be acquainted with the geography of 
the countries described, as none coald be except one 
who had travelled with the Israelites on their depart- 
ure from Egypt. Now no cotemporary could possibly 
have palmed his work on the Israelites as the work of 
Moses, unless he were authorized by Moses himself 
to do so, in which case the work would have to be 
regarded as Moses' work, sinoe it would be promul- 
gated by his authority. 

If, then, we can show that these three questions are 
to be answered affirmatively, it will f oUow that the 
Pentateuch is authentic. 

First, then, let us see whether the language is such 
as we might expect Moses to write. 

Por the correct understanding of this question, it 
is necessary to say something of the entire Old Tes- 
tament. There are seven books received by Catho- 
lios, bat rejected by Protestants and the Jews of 
to-day, namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesias- 
ticus, Baruch, and two books of Maccabees. There 
are, besides, some chapters of Esther and Daniel in 
the same position« These chapters and books were 
not found with the Hebrews of Palestine at the time 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the New Testament canon was f ormed, though the 
Jews of Alexandria received them. They were there- 
fore translated from the Greek. Even Protestants 
acknowledge that they are historical monumentSy 
though they ref use to them the authority of Inspired 
Scripture; and some of them are quoted by Josephus 
as sacred books. However, it is not to our purpose 
here to enter upon any disquisition on the authority 
of these books; for it is readily seen that as we have 
not their Hebrew Originals, they do not bear so di- 
rectly upon the subject we are at present considering, 
the language in which Moses wrote. 

The other books of the Old Testament were writ- 
ten in Hebrew, except a few chapters of Esdras and 
Daniel, and a verse of the prophecy of Jeremias. 
These are written in Chaldee, called Biblical Chaldee 
because of the many Hebraisms f ound in it. 

Chaldee is a language, cognate with Hebrew, being 
very similar to it: still it is not Hebrew. The He- 
brews when in the Babylonian or Chaldean captivity 
from 605 B. C, to 536 B. C, lost their language, and 
spoke a mixed dialect of the two tongues. Hence we 
find different gradations of language in the Old Tes- 
tament according to the amount of intercourse with 
the Assyrians, Persians, Hindoos and especially the 
Chaldeans or Babylonians: and even in the Chaldee 
there are dialectic varieties, according to the perioA 
to which it belongs. 

This is what happens in all languages to this day. 
Horace teils that it has always been, and always will 
be the oase "that new words will be coined with 
the stamp of the present day " (Ars Poetica): 

"üt silvfle, f Ollis pronos mutantis in annos, 
Prima cadunt ; ita verborum vetus interit aetas, 
Et juvenum ritu florent modo natavigentque." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


** Afl the earliest leaves of the forest fall, whfle its 
foliage changes with progressing years, so do old 
words perish, and by the usage of rieing generations, 
new ones take their place and flourisli." 

Thus by phonetic dfecay, the English word Lord 
hasbeen derived from the Anglo-Saxon KLaf-ord^ L e., 
hread origiriy f or Maf is hread^ and ord is origin : and 
lady is from Maf-digCy from Jüafy bread or loa/ and 
dige from dugan, to serve. Thus ZfOrd and Lady 
signify originally the bread-winner and the bread- 
Server. (Max Müller, Science of Language.) 

Some languages change rapidly, others very slowly. 
Thus, Du Ponceau says that the Huron and Iroquois 
languages did not change at all in two hundred 
years; while in Central America, some missionaries 
formed with great care a dictionary of a language, 
but when they retumed to the same tribe in 10 years, 
the language was so changed that the dictionary was 
antiquated and useless." (Max Müller, ib,) 

Hebrew, being fixed by the respect paid to the sa- 
cred books, did not change very much from the data 
of the giving of the law on Mount Sinai 1491 B. C, 
to the Babylonish captivity, 606 B. C. Nevertheless, 
the changes have been sufficient to enable us to trace 
the period to which each book belongs. Thus we are 
furnished with a powerful and irrefragable evidence 
of the authenticity of both the Pentateuch and the 
foUowing books of the Bible. • 

A genuine book bears about it the impress af the 
time when it was- written, so characteristic that an 
impostor cannot imitate it; and, with the necessarily 
limited means at command, which an impostor in the 
time of Esdras (Ezra) must have had, and indeed at 
any other period, it must have been absolutely impos- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


sible to imitate the charaoteristios of the period of 
any of the books of f oimer days, and much more was 
it impossible to Imitate those of the most ancient 
times. We must bear in mind that literatare was con. 
fined to a muoh narrower sphere when printing was 
onknown, and when books were therefore necessarily 
scarce. Besides, the forger would have to know per- 
^ f ectly the history of the nations of which he treated, 
when it was impossible f or him to obtain accurate 
inf onnation. He would need to know the geograph^c 
of countries which he had not visited, and the man- 
ners and customs of people conceming whom he 
could have no sure information; for they were dust 
centuries bef ore he lived. Besides he would have to 
provide for a contingency which has actually occurred. 
His writings would have to stand the test of compari- 
soii, on all thes« points, with monuinents of ancient 
days which have lain buried in the bosom of the 
earth for centuH^s, nay even for thousands of years. 
This contingency, it is impossible he should have 
foreseen, and if ^q had f oreseen it, it isa contingency 
for which no imposter would ever dream of provid- 

I intend, principally, to show here that the Penta- 
teueh possesses these characteristics; but while doing 
80, many proof s will occur to show that the other books 
of the Old Testament possess them also. 

The Chaldaic parte of the Old Testament ref er to 
matters which relate to Babylon. This may be seen 
by ref erring to them, The portions are Jer. x, 11. 
Dan. ii, 4 to the end of vil Esdras iv, 8 to vi, 18, 
and vii, 12 to 26. 

^ow natural was it for Jeremias to f umish those 
Jewfi who were just j^furried into captivity, with an 

Digitized by-VjOOQlC 


answer to the Babylonians in their own tongue, when 
the latter would endeavor to persuade them to for. 
sake the true 6od ? 

"Thus then shall you say to them: the Gods that 
have not made heaven and earth, let them perish 
from the earth, and fromitmong those places that are 
under heaven." (x, 11.) 

The Chaldee of Daniel is very different from the 
Chaldee of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, as is 
])ointed out in the able Biblical Commentary of Pro- 
fessor Hirschfelder of Toronto University. 

Usually the opponents of the Bible place the 
appearance of their pseudo-Daniel in the reign of 
Antiochus, about one hundred and sixty years B. C 
Now at this time the Hebrews had lost their original 
language. The Hebrew portion would only be un- 
derstood by the leamed, and even the Chaldee, being 
of a style then not in use, would have to be trans- 
lated for the more modern Hebrews. If the prophecy 
of Daniel were of the late period, it would undoubt- 
edly have been written in the language then current, 
which is the language employed in the Targums 
which were written soon after the time indicated. 
Indeed there would have been no reason for writing 
in two languages, if it had been of the modern pe- 

The time of the closing of the Jewish canon is 
placed by Josephus in the reign of Artaxerxes, king 
of Persia, i. e., about 436 B. C, and he counts the 
prophecy of Daniel with the other books, and we 
have already seen that he states that it was showji to 
Alexander the Great in 334 B. C. and he adds, when 
speaking of the canon: '^during so many ages as have 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


already passed, no one has been so bold as to add 
anything to them, or to take anything from them, or 
to make any change in them; but it becomes natural 
to all Je WS, immediately from their very birth to 
esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to 
persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die 
for them." (Against Apion i, 8.) 

It is asserted in the Talmud that the great syna- 
gogue of one hundred and twenty members, chosen 
for their eminence in learning, was established by 
Ezra to enforce the religious observances. Is it pos- 
sible that Daniel, and other prophecies could have 
been introduced into the canon, if they were spurious, 
without being noticed by the members of this assem- 
bly, ör of the Sanhedrim which succeeded it? 

The book of Ecclesiasticus was written about two 
hundred years before Christ. The writer refers to 
the three divisions of the Canon of the Jews, ** the 
law, the prophets, and other books of our fathers;" 
(Prologue), and in chapter xxxix, 1 to 15, the por- 
trait is so closely drawn to the life that there can be 
little doubt that in his description of the wise man, 
he has Daniel in view. 

All these intrinsic and extrinsic proofs combine in 
pointing out that both Daniel and Jeremias were 
written at the time claimed for them, that is to say 
during or near the time of the captivity of Babylon; 
for the reasons we have given for the authenticity of 
Daniel, nearly all apply likewise to the prophecy of 

The books of the Old Testament which intervene 
between the time of Moses, and that of Daniel and 
Jeremias show all the gradations of language which 
might be reasonably expected between the ancient 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


and more modern forms; and when we reach the Pen- 
tateuch the evidenoes of the greatest a^tiqaity be- 
come very positive. 

Thus, with the extension of commercial intercoürse 
with f oreign conntiies, it is natural to expect that 
f oreign words would be introduced into a language. 
The time of Solomon was especially such a period, 
and hence we find just in the books which are attri- 
buted to him, and to his cotemporaries, the begin- 
ning of the frequent use of such words. Thus, into 
English, the word damask was introduced with the 
rieh silk of that name, originally made at Damascas. 
Mandolin and hoomerang are words borrowed from 
the countries where the thmgs expressed were used. 

Thus also in the reign of Solomon and afterwards, 
evidences of the more extensive intercourse of the 
Hebrews with foreign nations, are to be found in the 

In 3 Kings x, 22 (Prot. Bible 1 Ki.), we have men- 
tion of "ivory, apes and peacocks," brought from 
Tharshish: *^ shen-habim ve-kopim ve-thukiyimy^^ 
where the words hdbim^ köpim, thuhiyim are Sans- 
crit or Hindoo words, with the Hebrew plural ending. 

In Sanscrit, ihhas is an elephant, kapi is an ape^ 
and togei a peacock in the Malabar tongue. 

The same words occur in 2 Par (Chronicles) ix, 21. 

Ahalim^ aloes, from the Hindoo Äghü (probably), 
is also used in Prov vii, 17; Ps. xliv, 9 (Prot. 
Bible, Ps. xlv); Cant. iv, 14 (Prot. Bible, Song of 
Solomon) \ 2 Par. (Chron.) ii, 7. 

Argavan and argaman, purpUy occur in Dan. v, 7, 
16, 29; 2 Par. (Chron.) ii, 6; Ex. xxvii, 16; Prov. 
xxxi, 22; Jer. x, 9. This word is found in Sanscrit; 
ragaman^ rctgavan, Wilson's Sanscrit Dictionary. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


In the Pentateuch^ Joshua, Judges and Ruth such 
words are verj rarely found, though aloea are men- 
tioned in Num. xxiv, 6, and in iv, 13 we find arga- 
maUfpurpley and in many places in Exodus, where it 
is ordered for ritual purposes. 

In 2 Par. ii, 1, Algum wood is spoken of as algvr 
mim. In 3 Kings x, 11, 12; 2 Par. ix, 10, 11, (Prot. 
Bible 1 Kings, 2 Chron.) cUmugim is used. 

Persian words are also found; thus, achaaTUranim, 
m,idesy f rom Persic estar or Sanserit acwatara, Esther 
viii, 10. The usual Hebrew name for a mule is 
phered used 19 times, the first ocoasion being 2 Kings, 
xiii, 29. (Prot Bible, 2 Samuel.) This is an addi- 
tional proof of the authenticity of the preceding 
books, as well as of those in which the word occurs, 
for it was the law not to bring together animals of 
different species, for the production of mules, though 
the use of the mule itself is not forbidden. Hence 
not until there was considerable interoourse with 
f oreign nations, could mules be common. 

Darkmon and adarkon are used for the Persian 
coin daric in 1 Esdras ii, 69; viii, 27; 2 Esdras vii, 
71; 1 Par. xxix, 7. (Prot. Bible, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 

Satrapsy achaahdarphim, are spoken of in 1 Esdras 
{Ezra) viii, 35; Dan. iii, 2, 3. 28; vi, 1, 2, 4, 7; Esther 
iii, 12' viii, 9; ix, 3 

Pecha a govemor, from the VerA^npashaw, a noble, 
puckten to care for, or Sanserit pdksha a companion 
is also found in 3 Kings x, 15; xx, 24; 4 Kings xviii, 
24; 1 Par. ix, 14; (Prot. Bible 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 
Chron.) 1 Esdras viii, 36; v 3, 14; vi, 6, 7, 13; 2 Es- 
dras, ii, 7, 9; V 14, 15, 18; xii, 26; (Prot. Bible, Ezra, 
Nehem.) Is. xxxvi, 9; Jer. Ii, 2, 3, 28; Ezeoh. xxiii, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


6, 28; Esther viü,"©; ix, 3; Aggeus (Haggai) l 1, 14; 
ii, 2, 21; Mal. i, 8; Dan. iii, 2, 3, 28; vi, 7. 

Bagyfood^ and pcUhhag^ the king*8 food are used, 
the former in Ezech. xxv, 7, the latter in Daniel i, 5^ 
8, 13, 15, 16; xi, 26. 

Pethigily a fine cloak is nsed in Isaias iii, 24. 
Pithgam a decree is used in Esther i, 20; EcclL viü» 
2; 1 Esdras (Ezra) iv, 17; v, 7, 11; vi, 11; Dan. iii, 
16; iv, 14. (Prot. Bible iv, 17.) 

All of these are Persian words. The Targams ose 
pithgam ior a word^ and in other respects differ even 
f rom the latest books of the Bible. Parthminiy fioblea 
is also a Persian word. Dan. i, 3, eta 

Froni all that we have said it f oUows that the books 
of the Bible are all older than the Targums, and in- 
deedasregards Esdras and Nehemias, astheir writings 
are of comparatively modern date, and were written 
just before the appointment of the Great synagogue 
of 120 members, it is clear that they cannot be spuri- 
ous. The other books of the Old Testament are evi- 
dently older still, and Daniel, Esther and Jeremias 
mast date f rom near the beginning of the Baby lonian 

The books of Samuel and Kings, Chronicles or 
Paralipomenon, must necessarily be intermediate be- 
tween the time of the Judges and the Captivity; and, 
as we have seen that they record with wonderf ol ac- 
euracy the events which they describe, they must be- 
long respectively to thp periods to which they ref er. 
Thus we arrive at an incontrovertible proof of their 

The other prophetic books for similar reasons, 
evinced by their language and by their descriptions of 
passing events, sufSciently demonstrate that they also 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


belong to the periods to which they are asoribed, and 
that they were written either by the authors to whom 
they are attributed, or by their authority. 

The books of -Josue and Judges, by means of the 
proofs we have given, are also evidently seen to be 
older than the books of Samuel and Eings. They 
belong evidently to a period when there was little or 
no intercourse with foreigners, and just such a period 
the books themselves show the Hebrews to have been 
in at that time. * 

This argument might be extended almost indefinite- 
ly and the greatest nicety in date could be thus ascer- 
tained. Besides the gradual introduction of Chalda- 
isms into Hebrew might be shown, and thus the intrin- 
ßic evidences of authenticity would be very greatly 
accumulated. I have, however given proofs enough 
to establish the dates of the principalhistorical books 
of the Old Testament, and of some of the prophecies, 
I will therefore proceed in the next chapter to show 
the intrinsic proofs that the Pentateuch is above all 
the others in antiquity. 



I have next to show that the language of Moses 
betokens an eariier stage than that of the other books 
of the Old Testament. The method of proof is simi- 
lar to that adopted in the last chapter. 

The name Medinahy a province, oecurs in the Old 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Testament 36 times: jet its first ocourrence is in 8 
Kings xxy 14. (Prot. Bible 1 Kings.) It is a Persic 
Word and was introduced about king Solomon's time, 
or soon af ter^ into the language. 

Nebel a mosioal instrument is used 25 times in the 
Old Testament. Its earliest use is in King David's 
reign, Psalms xxxii, 2. (Prot. Bible Psalm xxxiii.) 
It is the name, in Hebrew, of the "instrument of 10 

The täbernacle which Moses erected .was a very fine 
structure, and was built with the voluntary offerings 
which the Israelites sapplied from the spoils of the 
Eg) ptians, which they brought with them on their 
departure from bondage. Ex. xxxv; xxxvi, 3, etc. 
The Hebrew words by which this täbernacle was 
named were Ohel and Miahkan, 

But in Kings i, 9 (1 Samuel,) we find a new word 
applied to this täbernacle for the fir^t time, Hikal^ 
the teraple; and this name is afterwards constantly 
applied to it as well as the names by which it was 
hitherto known, the older names being from this 
time forward but seldom used. 

I might multiply instances where new words began 
to be used as soon as the Israelites came forth out 
of the troublesome times they passed through ander 
the Judges, but I will merely mention a few more, 
all of which will substantiate my thesis that a marked 
change in the language took place at the date when 
the Israelites became settled as a prosperous nation. 
Thus we have seen several stages through which the 
language passed. I may give the foUowing examples 

Matsady the summit of a mountain, occurring thirty- 
three tiraes in the Old Testament, is first used in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Judges vi, 2. Nagid, a Uader^ used forty times, 
occurs first in 1 Kings ix, 16 (Prot. Bible, 1 Samuel) 
Nathaby a patL occurring twenty-five times, is first 
used in Judges v, 6. 

Finally, the Jewish year began in March or April, 
as explained above in chapter 20. The names of the 
Months are Nisariy Zify Sivan, Tammuz, Ahy Elul, 
Tishri or J5ihanim, Bul^ Kisleu, Tebeth, Shebat, and 
Ädar, with a supplementary month, Veadar, every 
three years, to make the year of these lunar months 
accord with the solar year. 

The first mention of these months occurs in 3 
Kings vi. (Prot. Bible, 1 Kings.) The only exception 
is but an apparent one. The month Nisan is called 
Abib at an earlier period : but Abib means " the new 
corriy^^ and is a purely Hebrew* word, while the other 
names are borrowed from the Chaldeans. Hence the 
first month was naturally called Abib, the month of 
new corn, before names were really given to the 
other months. Until the Cbaldean names were 
adopted, the monthä were known as First, Second, 
etc. This, then, is another important change of 
laQguage during or about Solomon's reign. 

Now whät forger, writing the books of Moses, 
Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, in the reign of Josias, or 
at the tilne of Ptolemy Philadelphus, would have 
ßucceeded in giving to them these characteristics of 
antiquity ? 

But I must further show that the Pentateuoh is 
older than the other books here enumerated. 

Many of the more recent words I have already 
quoted are used first in Judges. This of itself stamps 
the books of Moses and Joshua as of much higher 
antiquity than Judges. We need further only show 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tbe veiy great antiquity of the Pentateuch above all 
the rest. Of course the fact that both Judges and 
Joshua rest upon the Pentateuch as on their founda- 
tion is sufficient evidence, but we wish here to see 
what testiinony the lauguage of the books themselves 
will give on this subject. 

In the later Hebrew, hua signifies he; hiOj ehe, as 
pronounced by those who do not use the Masoretic 
points. Tliese two words are, of course, exceedingly 
f requent in the Old Testament, especially as there are 
but two genders in the language, but in the Penta- 
teuch hua is nearly always used for the feminine, as 
well as the masculine, as the form hia^ according to 
the Masora occurs only eleven times in the whole 
Pentateuch, while At^a, outside of the Pentateuch, is 
used for the feminine only in three places at most: 
3 Kings xvii, 15; (Prot. Bible, 1 Ki.) Job xxxi, 11; 
Isa. XXX, 33. Here, then, is an evident change to- 
wards definiteness in the language. (See Lexicon of 

N^aaVy a boy, Stands in a like position to hua, The 
feminine is Naarah^ a girl. In the Pentateuch, Naar 
is used indiscriminately for a boy or girL It means, 
therefore, a young person or a child. In the later 
Hebrew the distinction of meaning is observed be- 
tween the two words. 

The process of employing what were f ormerly gen- 
eric terms for species, and inventing new words for 
other species is constantly going on in languages. 
We have examples of its occurrence in English in 
our own days. Thus we had daguerreotypes, and now 
we have ambrotypes, photographs, etc. We had form- 
erly velocipedes, now we have velocipedes, bicycles, 
tricycles, etc. So naar must have been the original 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


word, whioh afterwards became developed into the 
two words to signif y hoy and girl respectively. 

The Pentateuch uses the word tsachaJc^ to laughy 
13 times. In all the rest of the Old Testament it is 
only used twice, viz: in Judges xvi., 25; and Ezech. 
xxiii., 32. In both places the antiquated form seems 
to be used for boisterous laughing. Thus in Judges 
xvi., the Philistines call Samson to sport for them, 
and he sported for them boisterously. He had in 
this an object in view, namely to prevent their sus- 
picion of bis design to destroy at one bold stroke 
many enemies of bis nation. The word in Ezechiel 
appears to have similar f orce. The more recent verb 
is sachak, 

There is also a contraction she or sha for the rela- 
tive pronoun asher^ whoy which, This contraction 
belongs to the more recent Hebrew, and is first found 
in Judges. 

- Thus we have established f ully a gradation in the 
Hebi^ew language from the time of Moses to the 
Restoration of Israel. We have shown that there 
is a well-marked dialectic difference at each of 
these epochs: 1, the Mosaic, 2, the Judiciair 3, the 
period of Samuel, 4, the period of Solomon, 5, the 
Babylönian captivity, 6, the Restoration from cap- 
tivity. There would be an average of 161 years to 
effect each of these changes, which I contend is a 
very reasonable allowance, epecially as it has the his- 
lory of the times to confirm it. I am there fore quite 
justified in saying that the language of Moses, and 
of the other Scriptural writers proves the authenticity 
of their writings. 

Besides what we have already stated, we must not 
overlook the fact that the Israelites came out of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Egypt, where they had lived for 215 years, out of 
which they spent at least 80 years in bondage. Now 
though the territory they chiefly occupied was sepa- 
rate f rom that occupied by the Egyptians, very many 
Hebrews lived in the Egyptian territory: and though 
they were further separated by the difference of 
religion, we would expect some words to have crept 
into the Hebrew tongue from the Egyptian, and such 
is really the case. 

The Word Achu^ which occurs in Genesis xli, 2, 18, 
and 8uph in Exodus ii, 8, 5, are both Egyptian words. 
Aehu is anytbing green, which grows in marshy 
places. St Jerome says that he expressly inquired - 
from learned Egyptians the meaning of this word, 
and was so informed. Hence in translating the Bible 
into modern Egyptian, or Coptic, the translator uses 
achi. Kindred words in Egyptian are ake^ oke^ bul- 
ruahy reed, Lexicon of Gesenius. 

Suph is translated in the English bibles respeo- 
tively, sedgeSy flags, Though transposed as to its 
letters from the Egyptian phouSy philologists agree 
that there is no way of accounting for it otherwise 
than as of Egyptian origin. 

Lashon^ a tongue; Yam^ the sea; Saris, a eunuchy 
or officer; Ephahy a measure of gram; Shesh, ßne 
linen; are all acknowledged to be of Egyptian origin. 
These words are found respectively in Genesis x, ö; 
Gen. xiv, 3; Gen. xxxvii, 86; Ex. xvi, 86; Ex. xxvi, 1. 

Tor, a rivery is of constant occürrence. It is the 
Egyptian iaro, and is used almost exclusively of the 
Nile. Ex. i, 22, etc. Thus even after the Israelites 
were out of Egypt, tor refers to the Nile. See Ex. 
xvii, 5; and after wards this use continued as part of 
the Hebrew language. Is. xix, 7. No one bat one 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


who had lived in Egypt oould have dreamed of call- 
ing the Nile t?ie river, and only to a nation Coming 
out of Egypt could this language be intelligible. 

In asserting that the Pentateuch is a spurious 
writing of late origin, Colonel Ingersoll is evidently 
very mach mistaken. 



I already proved in chapter 11 that the historical 
parts of the later books of the Old Testament agree 
wonderfuUy with the history of the nation s referred 
to, as recorded in profane authors, and with the monu- 
ments of those nations. This of itself is a strong 
argument in favor of their truth in testifying to the 
existence and authenticity of the Mosaic record: 
more especially as these books constitute the archives 
of the nation, which are always held as most pre- 
cious, and are preserved with the greatest care. The 
universal consent of Christians and Jews, Mahome- 
tans and Pagans, that Moses is the author of the Pen- 
tateuch is a further testimony to the same fact, and 
the books of the Bible forming a continuous chain of 
testimony, prove the tradition of their genuineness 
to be as constant as it is universal. 

These texts f rom the Old and New Testaments will 
showthe spirit in which Jews and Christians unite in 
this testimony. 

" Only take courage and be caref ul to observe all 
things that are written in the book of the law of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Moses: and turn not aside from thcm, noitber to the 
right band nor to tbe left." Jos. xxiii, 6. 

" There was no king before bim like unto bim (Jo- 
sias) that retumed to tbe Lord witb all bis beart and 
witb all bis soul and witb all bis strengtb, according 
to all the law of Moses." (4 Ki. xxiii, 25; Prot. Bible 
2 Kings.) 

" And beginning at Moses and all tbe propbets, he 
(Jesus) expounded to them in all tbe Scriptures the 
tbings that were conceming bim." (St. Luke xxiv, 

"And he said to tbem: These are the words wbich 
I spoke to you wbile I was yet witb you, that all 
tbings must needs be fulfiHed which are written in 
tbe laws of Moses, and in tbe Propbets, and in the 
Psalms, conceming me." (Verse 44.) 

Tb US also, as a bistorian, Josephus attestd: 
"But now as to our forefatbers (tbe Jews,) that 
they took no less care (than the Egyptians and Baby- 
lonians) about writing such records, .... and that 
they committed that matter to their high priests and 
propbets, and that these records have been written 
all along down to our own times witb tbe utmost ac- 
curacy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it, 

our history will be so written bereafter " 

" For our forefatbers did not only appoint the best 
of those priests, and tbose that atteuded upon the 
divine worship, for Chat design, from tbe beginning 
but made provision that the stock of tbe priests sbould 
continue unmixed and pure." (Against Apion, book 

I have already mentioned that Celsus, Porphyry 
and Julian did not dispute, but took for granted the 
authentioity of the Pentateuoh. Josephus also quotec . 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


against Apion the testimony of Manetho, th eztant, 
who was the oldest historian of Egypt, and who had 
all access to the Egyptian records. 

"Manetho says that the Jews departed out of 
Egypt (ui>der Moses, as he says elsewhere,) in the 
reign of Tethmosis, 393 years before Danaas fled to 
Argos. Lysimachus says it was ander king Bocch- 
oris, that is 1700 years ago. Molo and some others 
determined it as every one pleased." (B. 2.) 

The fact is therefore historically attested by old 
Egyptian records that at a most remote age, very 
near the period, to say the least, recorded in the Pen- 
tateach, Moses led the Israelites oat of Egypt. What 
record is more likely to give the trae particulars than 
the attested records of the Israelites themselves? 
There might be some uncertainty regarding the exact 
date of the occurrence, but there can be none con- 
cerning the fact itself ; and this outside testimony is 
one of the collateral evidences of the genaine char- 
acter of the Pentateuch. 

With the history of Joseph we may very properly 
begin oar examination of the accaracy of the histori- 
cal narrative of the Pentateuch, for with the facilities 
which Moses possessed for obtaining knowledge, 
reared and educated in the palace of Pharaoh, it was 
no hard task for him to trace back the history of 
Egypt for 215 years. The Egyptians were a civilized 
people, in a secular sense, and were able to keep a 
record of events, as the monuments even now extant 
prove. True, Col. IngersoU teils us there y^sls no 
writing then, and therefore Moses could not write, 
but the monuments of Egypt teil a different story. 
There oan be no doubt that in the archives of the 
nation records were kept, and that the priests of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Heliopolis were also well able to give to Moses much 
information, besides what he woald leam from the 
traditions of bis own kindred and coantrymen. 

The grandfatber o£ Moses was one of the seventy 
who came into Egypt wbile Joseph occupied the posi- 
tion of Pharaob's chief officer. Certainly there could 
be no difficulty about bis bearing from bis father 
those few particulars which be relates of that period, 
in which bis grandfatber took a prominent and active 
part. Besides, the evidence that the Israelites bad 
their reeords to which he bad access, is clear from 
the fact that their genealogies were faitbfully kept, 
and those genealogies are banded down to tbis day in 
Genesis xlvi, and Num. i, iii. 

Moses bad therefore all the f aoility for writing bis 
history that any zealous historian possesses, who 
needs only to write a short account of a oompara- 
tively recent event, an event in which bis own grand- 
fatber was a participator. 

There are other events in ^osepb's history which 
touch on the manners and customs and history of the 
Egyptians. Let us see bow they accord with the 
testimony of such history of the time as is witbin our 
reach at the present day. 

The earliest Egyptian historian is Manetho, who 
wrote about 350 years B. C. His history is not ex- 
tant, but there are quotations from it in Josephus, 
and epitomes by Eusebius and other early Christian 
writers, which are undoubtedly correct enough to 
give a good general idea of Manetho's views of early 
Egyptian events. 

Manetho may have been, and in all probability was, 
an accurate historian of events which came reason« 
ably witbin the soope of a historian; but when he 

Digitize(;i by VjOOQIC 


related events, not founded on historical documents 
of credit, but on legends which were related as his- 
tory solely on the authority of the Egyptian priests, 
lie «eases to be a historian. 

Thus when he merely names a series of.kings wliose 
reigns when summed up amount to 3,555 years from 
Menes to 350 B. C, he evidently roams in the region 
of fable. 

Thus, also, when he relates that for thirteen thou- 
sand nine hundred years Egypt was governed by a 
dynasty of Gods, Vulcan or Ptah, Helios, the Sun 
or Ra, etc., he will scarcely be deemed worthy of 
credit. After these came Menes and the demi-gods. 
With Menes began a series of kings, three hundred 
in number, divided into thirty-one dynasties and 
reigning three thousand five hundred and fifty-five 
years, when the lengths of their reigns are added up, 
to the year 350 B. C. 

Now, among the memorials of some of these 
dynasties, some records have actually survived to the 
present day which cannot be reconciled with Man- 
etho's lists. (See Chambers' Encyclopaedia Art. 
Egypt.) The only way to reconcile theni is to sup- 
pose that many of Manetho's dynasties are simulta- 
taneous, in different parts of Egypt, instead of 
successive. When once we begin to apply this 
principle of simultaneous dynasties, the three thou- 
sand five hundred and fifty-five years will be very 
much reduced. Most of bis kings have undoubtedly 
existed, for their monuments have survived to the 
present day, but in all probability many were mere 
nlyths. Probably Manetho copied the lists correctly 
from the Egyptian sacred books, etc., but in their 
national pride, to show a f abulous antiquity, many of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the records were imaginary. Manetho is not wilf uUy 
a f alsifier, bat bis sources of Inf ormation were f re- 
quently unreliable. 

Tbe illustrious Champollion was the discoverer of 
the method of reading the Egyptian hieroglyphics, 
and bis method has been fully demonstrated. He 

"I have demonstrated that there is no Egyptian 
monument really anterior to the year 2200 before 
our era. This is certainly a very high antiquity, but 
it aftords nothing against the sacred träditions^ and 
I dare to say even that it confirms them on all points. 
It is^ in fact, by the adoption and succession of the 
kings named on the Egyptian monuments that the 
history of Egypt aecords admirably with the Sacred 
books. For example, Abraham arrived in Egypt 
about the year 1900 (B. C), that is, under the shep- 
herd kings. The kings of the Egyptian race would. 
not have permitted a stranger to enter into their 
country. It is equally under a shepherd king that 
Joseph becomes the highest official in Egypt, and 
establishes there bis brothers. This could not have 
oecurred under the kings of Egyptian race. The 
head of the dynasty of Diospolitans, called the 
eighteenth, is the "new king that knew not Joseph" 
(Exodus i, 8,) wbo, being of Egyptian race, would 
not acknowledge Joseph the official of the usurping 
kings, and theref ore reduced the Hebrews to slavery. 
The captivity lasted during the eighteenth dynasty, 
and it was under Eameses V, called Amenophis, at 
the commencement of the fifteenth Century (B. C.,) 
that Moses delivered the Hebrews. This oecurred 
during the youth of Sesostris, who succeeded imme- 
diately bis father, and made bis conquests in Asia, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


while Moses and Israel wandered in the desert f or 
forty years. This is the reason why the sacred books 
cannot be expected to speak of this great oonqueror. 
All the other kings of Egypt named in the Bible are 
found on the Egyptian monuments in the same order 
of succession, and at the precise epochs where the 
sacred books place them. I will add, even, that the 
Bible gives, more accurately than the Greek histori- 
ans, their true names. I would be curious to know 
what answer to these facts will be made by those 
who have malicioasly asserted that Egyptian sttidies 
tend to change our belief in the historical documents 
f umished by the books of Moses. On the contrary, 
my discoveries come invincibly to their support." 
Quoted by Cardinal Wiseman in " Lecture Eight, on 
Science and Revealed Religion." 

Rosseliniy also well known as an Egyptian scholar, 
States in bis " Monuments of Egypt," that such parts 
of the early history of Egypt as go beyond the limits 
prescribed iu Genesis, are unworthy of credit; and all 
Egyptian archeologists agree that^there is much ob- 
scority about the Egyptian monumental history even 
at the period when Moses and the Israelites were in 
Egypt. Hence there are great difference of opinion as 
to who was the king reigning at the time of their de- 
parture. The facts, however, above mentioned regard- 
ing Abraham and Joseph's history are authenticated, 
and we may thence infer a surprising knowledge of 
Egyptian history on the part of the writer of the 

Besides all this, we find that Joseph was, in the first 
place, sold tosome Ismaelite merchants of Madian, 
"on their way f rom Galaad, with their cameis carrying 
spioes, balm and myrrh to Egypt." (Gen, xxxvi., 25.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


This indioates a large commerce in the articles 
meDtioned, and it strikes us, at first, as eztraordinary 
that such articles would be in great demand. Here 
again the Scriptural account is confirmed by the mod- 
ern discoveries that it was the practice of the Egyp- 
tians to embalm their dead, and that eveu the poorer 
classes did this by a less expensive process than was 
employed by those who were able to^afford the more 
effectual and costly methods. 

The museums of Europe are teeming with mum- 
mies of the date of thß Pharaohs, and the amount of 
spices used f or embalming purposes^ must have been 

Madian, situated on the eastem brauch of the Bed 
Sea, was the high road from Canaan and Arabia, the 
two great emporiums of balm and myrrh, and it was 
celebrated f or its cameis. " Their cameis also were 
innumerable as the sand that lieth on the £ea shore." 
(Jud. vii, 12.) This part of Joseph's history is there- 
fore quite in accord with the facts of known profane 
history, and exhibits the perfect acquaintance of the 
writer of the Pentateuch with the State of all those 
countries of which he spoke. 

Besides all this the fact is attested by Egyptian 
monuments, that the people of Canaan were f requently 
held as slaves in Egypt. On the tomb of Imai, a 
prince of Suphis, three hundred years bef ore the time 
of Joseph, Canaanite men and women are depicted as 
posturers, tumblers and jugglers exhibiting beforethe 
Egyptian princes, and one hundred and fifty years 
later hundreds of Canaanite slaves are represented as 
gladiators fighting before Chetei, a prince of the 
twelfth dynasty. Jacob and his family dwelt in 
Canaan. Thus, again, is the accord between sacred 
and reliable profane history complete. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 






We have seen, in the preoeding chapter, f our cir- 
cumstances of the history of Joseph confirmed by 
profane history. Other instancesof this agreement 
are still to be found. The Madianites seil Joseph 
to Potiphar, an officer: in later times a eunuch 
{SariSf) of Pharaoh. (Gen. xxxix, 1.) We already 
pointed out that the Hebrew Saris is an Egyptian 
Word. It is spelled in unpointed Hebrew, as Moses 
wrote, Sris. Almost letter for letter, this word is 
found on the tombs of the Egyptian magnates, Sr$ or 
srsh, Israel in Egypt. 

The name Potiphary in Coptic Ptaphre^ means be- 
longing to the Sun. This Potiphar may or may not 
have been the same who is named in Grenesis, xli, 45, 
Poti-pherah. At all events the signification of the 
Word is the same. Potipherah being priest of On or 
Heliopolis, that is the City of the Sun, is appropri- 
ately styled "He who belongs to the Sun, or the 
Sun's own." Lexicon of Gesenius. 

Next, it will be remarked that there are several 
words in Hebrew to express magicians: Chartomy Gen. 
xli, 8, Asaphy Daniel, i, 20, Chahinty Dan. ii, 21. Of 
these the word chartom is found in Egyptian under 
the form carecton, Now though it is possible that 
chartom has a Hebrew root, it was natural for one 
just Coming out of Egypt to use that name for the 
Egyptian magicians which most resembled the Egyp- 
tian name by which they were oalled. Hence we 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


find that whenever Moses speaks of tbe maglcians of 
Egypt he uses this word, chartom. This implies his 
complete knowlödge of Egyptian customs. See Gen. 
xli, 8, 24; Ex. xi, 22; viii, 7, 18; ix, 11. 

In the relation of Joseph's Interpretation of Pba- 
raoh's dreams, Gen. xli, tlie magicians and wise men 
who failed in interpreting it are spoken of under the 
names chartomim and chakamim. 

In tbe same cliapter it is related tbat wben Joseph 
was brougbt from prison "be sbaved bimself and 
cbanged bis raiment, and came in unto Pbaraoh.'^ 
Mr. Tripard in bis "Moses" remarks on tbis that 
"owing to tbe reputation of tbe young Hebrew, for 
bis ability in Interpretation . . . . be would, most 
probably, be presented in tbe Sacerdotal costume, 
tbat is to say in tbe costume of offioial Seers." 

Herodotus states (Book ii, 36), " in otber countries 
tbe priests wear tbeir bair; in Egypt tbey sbave. 
Tbey wear garments of irreproacbable wbiteness, and 
every tbree days tbey sbave tbeir bair entirely, 
tbrougb respeet to tbe Sanetity of tbe Gods wbose 
ministers tbey are." 

Anotber expression in tbe first verse of Gen. xli, is 
worthy of notice. After Potipbar's name, it is added 
tbat be was an Egyptian. Tbis would, at first sight, 
seem to be an unnecessary piece of inf ormation re- 
garding a bigb official of tbe Court of Egypt; yet 
tbree times in tbe same cbapter be is described by 
this name. Now in tbe present case, as we are aware 
that tbe shepherd kings, Canaanites, were reigning, 
and that Canaanites, as well as Egyptians held high , 
ofiices, it became important for the descendants of 
Joseph to know that tbe progenitor of tbeir tribe was 
not a bond-slave in tbe bouse of one of tbe doomed 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


lace of Canaan, but of a prince of Egypt. The 
epithet, Egyptian, therefore, shows the knowledge of 
Egyptian history possessed by the author of the Pen- 

On the Egyptian monuments a great famine is 
attested to have taken place, of which we have a 
more detailed acconnt in Genesis xli, xlii. This 
occun-ed in the reign of Osirtesen I. It is remark- 
able that an Egyptian papyrus of this period is among 
the modern discoveries of the country in which some 
of the king's dreams, and other events of bis life are 
recorded. This unusual circumstance of the record 
of dreams undoubtedly proves that the dreams of this 
king were regarded as of more than usual importance. 
Why this sbould be the case, it would be difficult to 
surraise if it were not told us in Genesis xli, how bis 
two dreams which Joseph interpreted, were the occa- 
ßion of saving the country f rom the dire consequences 
which the famine would other wise have entailed 
upon it. 

This famine eztended to Canaan, and obliged ten 
of Jacob's sons to go into Egypt to buy com, leaving 
at home Benjamin, Joseph's füll brother. 

I need not dwell upon the affecting scene which 
occurred when Joseph beheld bis ten brethren coming 
on such an errand. When these sold him into slav- 
ery, they were filled with savagery, frowning upon a 
helpless stripling, whom they were prevented from 
slaying by the Providential appearance of the Ismael- 
ite merchants; and even then they changed their plan 
into another still more cruel and heartless. Now 
they appear before their brother, wrinkled and grey 
with age, bowing themselves to the earth before bis 
royal State; but though they are recognized by Jo- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


seph, they do not recognize him. Joseph spoke 
roughly to tbem and said " Ye are spies; to see the 
nakedness of the land ye are come." 

Joseph was not aware that his brother Reuben had 
remonstrated against the cruel designs of the rest. 
Hence it is not to be wondered at that he addressed 
them roughly, remembering their wickedness towards 
him. At all events, occupying the position he did as 
Chief adviser of the king, he would be an object of 
suspicion if he too readily yielded a kind reception 
to strangers, especially in the then existing political 
relations of the Egyptians with the Canaanites. 
Though the shepherd kings were originally from 
Canaan, with the most of the Canaanites the Egyp- 
tians were frequently at war, and on these occasions 
the Canaanites of Egypt united with the Egyptians. 
Hence, lest a formidable force should be introduced, 
it was necessary to be very cantious in the reception 
of Canaanites Coming in, even under the pretext of 
buying com. The conduct of Joseph arose, there- 
fore, from the circumstances of the period; and in his 
narration, Moses manifests a perfect knowledge of 
the history of the country. 

The Egyptian monuments everywhere attest that 
a great change took place in the position of the Pha- 
raohs from about the date to which we must attri- 
bute Joseph's elevation. Only from that period does 
the power of the kings become real. Hitherto the 
nobles had been almost independent, but from that 
time Pharaoh is at the head of every movement. Up 
to that time the powers of the nobles were so great 
that the king was like the kings of Europe in the 
Middle Ages, the vassal of his haughty nobles. 
Hence there were continu 1 changes of dynasty, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


anarchy, and wars. All this was changed by the 
measures of Joseph. During the years of plenty 
the king bought up the snperfluous com, and sold it 
again duriilg the years of famine for the cattle and 
lands of the inhabitants. Then the lands were given 
back to the people to tili, on condition that one-fifth 
of the proceeds should belong to the king. (Gen. xlvii.) 

The land of the priests, however, was not bought 
np, *^ for the priests had a portion assigned to them 
of Pharaoh." (Verse 22.) 

In the preoeding periods the great works of Egypt 
were exeouted by the nobles, and the Pharaohs left 
few memorials of their existence, save the pyramids 
in which they were boried; bat in succeeding ages 
the nobles have no monaments of any consequence. 
This fuUy accords with the Scriptural account. 

Diodorus Siculus confirms this testimony of Scrip- 
ture and monamental history. He visited Egypt 
aboat 20 years before the birth of Christ, and he de- 
clares that the king's right at aboat that time was 
one-third of the produce, bat that it had been com- 
muted by the king receiving one-third of the land. 
(ffistory i, 73.) 

The history of Joseph is so aniversally known that 
it would be useless to introdace it here. Saffice it to 
say, that when his brethren returned to Egypt a 
second time, with Benjamin, Joseph made himself 
known, and directed them to retarn home, and to 
bring their f ather back with them, promising, " I will 
giVe you the good of the land of Egypt." xlv, 18. 
"And they came into Egypt, Jacob and all his seed 
with him," to the namber of " 10 soals." 

The directions which Joseph gave his f ather and 
brethren on their arrival in Egypt has often appeared 
«trange to readers of the Bible. He says: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


** My brethren, and my f ather's honse, that were in 
the land of Canaan, are come to me, and the men are 

" And when he shall call you and shall say," What 
is your occupation ? " • 

"You shall answer: We thy servants are shep- 

herds And this you shall say, that you may 

dwell in the land of Goshen, because the Egyptians 
have all shepherds in abomination.'' Gen. xlvi, 31, 34. 

How could Joseph expeet bis f ather and brothers 
to be received the more favorably by Pharaoh on ac- 
count of their occupation as shepherds, whereas 
shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians ? 

The answer to this is f ound in the fact which a 
stranger to Egypt would not have known. Pharaoh 
was one of the shepherd kings, a foreign race from 
Canaan. Thus he would the more readily admit 
strangers to power in bis dominion, and especially 
Canaanites, though the Egyptians were very jealous 
against strangers. Thus also the circumstance of 
these strangers being shepherds, though it would ren- 
der them odious to the Egyptians, would make them 
more dear to the king wbose f amily were of the same 

An impostor writing hundreds of years af ter Moses 
could never have dreamed of inserting such a circum- 
stance into hia history ; or if he had done so, he would 
have given an explanation which would have recon- 
ciled the apparent contradiction. The history is told 
with the simplicity of truth, by one who was conscious 
that he was telling the truth and that the truth 
would vindicate itself ; and now, after the lapse of 
more than 33 centuries, the testimony of witnesses 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


who bave been 36 centnries in tbeir tombs bas been 
recoveredy and tbis testimony authei^ticates tbe Mo- 
saic record. 



Afteb tbe deatb of Jacob and bis sons, tbe Israel- 
ites^grew exceedingly strong and filled tbe land.'* 
(Ex. i, 1.) 

"In tbe meantime tbere arose a new king over 
Egypt tbat knew not Josepb." 

"And be said to bis people, Behold tbe people of 
the cbildren of Israel are numerous, and stronger tban 

" Come, let us wisely oppress tbem, lest tbey mul- 
^^ply* änd if any war sball rise against us, join witb 
our enemies, and baving overcome us, depart out of 
the land." 

" Theref ore be set over them masters of tbe works 
to afflict them witb burdens, and tbey built for Pha- 
raoh cities of tabemaeles, Pithom and Rameses." 

"And the Egyptians hated the cbildren of Israel, 
and afflicted them, and mocked them." (Exod. i.) 

Concerning the exact date of these events tbere is 
some uncertainty. It is generally acknowledged tbat 
the Exodus of the cbildren of Israel occurred about 
1491 B. C. Assuming tbis as correct, or very nearly 
80, we would bave the date of the decree for the de- 
struction of the male Hebrew cbildren, 1671 .B. C, 
and the king who knew not Joseph would be reign- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ing at that date. This brings U8 necessarily into the 
18th or 19tb dynasty of Egyptian history. 

There is a great deal of difference of opinion be- 
tween learned Egyptiologists as to tbe exact dates 
wben tbe monarcbs of tbe 18tb and 19tb dynasties 
reigned. I do not pretend to settle tbese difEerences, 
but there are some facta wbicb are acknowledged as 
demonstrated by tbe testimony of tbe monuments. 
We bave already sbown bow aptly tbe bistory of 
Josepb fits tbe reigns of some of tbe sbepberd kings, 
during wbose reigns Josepb mast bave flourisbed. 
We sball now see bow tbe monamental testimony üts 
tbe bistory of Moses. 

" A king arose tbat knew not Josepb." We bave 
Seen bow tbis fact is confirmed by tbe expnlsion of 
the Shepherd dynasty. A king succeeds to tbe throne 
wbo would naturally be bostile to tbe Canaanites, 
wbo would be supposed to be favorable to tbe 
Canaanite dynasty. Tbe Israelites are tberefore ill- 
treated and reduced to slavery. Even an attempt is 
made to. exterminate the nation in a short time by a 
decree for tbe destruction of tbe male cbildren. 

Tbe cruelty with wbicb slaves were treated is of ten 
depicted on the monuments of Egypt. The buge 
stones wbicb are found in the walls of tbe temples 
and their quadrangular precincts, and tbose wbicb 
are found in the colonnades were brought to their 
places by sheer human force, working on inclined 
planes, and any dilatoriness or mistake was visited 
on tbe unbappy delinquent with most cruel scourg- 
ings. This accords exactly with the description given 
in Ex. i: "Come, let us wisely oppress them," and 
^'be set over them masters of tbe works to afflict 
tbem with burdens." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


When the Israelites were thus reduced to slavery^ 
an immense number of men were at once added to 
the usual number employed on the publio works. In- 
deed, when the Egyptian priests related their history 
to Diodorus they explained that the great works of 
Sesostris had been entirely erected by f oreed labor of 
bis captives. This was to be expected, for such was 
always the custom, when possible. The memory of 
Cheops was detested in Egypt because he had em- 
ployed upon the great pyramid which bears bis name, 
the f orced labor of bis own subjects. Sesostris would 
also have been held in detestation if he had done the 
same. The fact that he was always venerated con- 
fiims what Diodorus states. 

With the inmiense number of workmen added to 
the usual workmen, it is to be expected that the 
moniiments of some one limited period, or of some 
one king would far exceed the works of many of the 
most famous building periods together, and if the 
Bible account be true, we may reasonably look for 
this to be the case; and if this be the case, we shall 
have at once a strong confirmation of the Bible his- 
tory. We shall have a proof that the writer of the 
Pentateuch was familiär with Egypt and its past 

Diodorus and Herodotus both visited Egypt, and 
many of the things they repeat are f abulous. They 
repeat the stories told them by the Egyptian priests, 
and many things they say will not stand the crucial 
test of comparison with the monumental records. 
Any impostor of later days than Moses would have 
fallen into similar errors, more especially as the de- 
tails given are such as would expose to an easy detec- 
tion as soon as they would be tested by the f acts. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


What then is the testimony of ihe monnments in 
regard to the accession of so many workmen? The 
entire namber must have been abont 300,000 or 
400y000 at least. 

There is a short period in the monamental history 
of Egypt which in the grandeur and nmnber of its 
public works excels the ages of all the Pharaohs^that 
came bef ore and after it. This period is the begin- 
ning of the ninoteenth dynasty. Seti IL reigned 
probably abont thirty years. "He erected the 
great temple of Osiris, at Abydos, and built the 
famoos hall of colonms in the palace of Kamak." 
His warlike ezploits are represented by an immense 
series of magnificent sculptures. Bamesses II. snc- 
ceeded him and reigned at least 66 or 67 years. 
Bamesses was ihe greatest builder among the Pha- 
raohs. Obelisks, temples and magnificent edifices of 
all kinds are among his works. 

In the Delta, in Nubia and Egypt proper, nearly 
every monnd and every min is marked with bis 
nama Truly, then, this must be the period when the 
** king arose who knew not Joseph." The persecu- 
tion of the Israelites must have begun with one of 
the kings of this period, perhaps with Bamesses him- 

Since ChampoUion's day, leamed Egyptiologists 
have come to the conclusion that the acoounts given 
of Sesostris by Herodotus and Diodorus are grossly 
inaccurate. In this case the views of Mr. Champol- 
lion may need to be modified. It becomes unneces- 
sary to account f or the silence of Moses conceming 
Sesostris. It is now generally believed that Bamesses 
IL was the Sesostris of the Greeks (American Cyclo- 
pssdia, Art. Egypt,) and the silence of Moses is suffi- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 


oiently accounted for by the fact that he belongs to 
the period previous to wbere tbe detailed bistory in 
Exodas beging. Ramesses was Ra-merois-sothpre, 
contracted by the priests into Sesothpre and Hellen- 
ized to Sesostris. 

The monumental records of the reign of Ramesses 
Sesostris are so decisive, that a flood of light is 
thrown by them on the Scriptural account, and they 
prove beyond shadow of doubt that the Pentateuch 
which records these f acts, without aiming at effect, 
and without having in view the f uture discovery and 
ahnost miraculous deciphering of the hieroglyphics, 
mast be the authentic record of what took place in 
the reigns of Ramesses-Sesostris and his successors. 

The land of Goshen was undoubtedly the Eastem 
part of the territory of the Delta, " the good of the 
land of Egypt," which Pharaoh gave to the children 
of Israel. (Gen. xlv, 18; xlvii, 6.) The Egyptians 
occupied the West, near where Ramesses was sit- 
uated. The use of straw in brick-making has been 
attested by monuments whereon the process is pro- 
trayed, and gangs of Jewish slaves have been discov- 
ered pictured at Thebes in the act of brick-making, 
confirmatory of the account given in Ex. v, 10, etc. 

"And the overseers of the works and the taskmas- 
ters went out and said to the people: " Thus saith 
Pharaoh: I allow you no straw: go, and gather it 
where you can find it: neither shall anything of your 
work be diminished," etc. 

The destruction of the first-born, and the over- 
whelming of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, are not 
represented or recorded on the monuments, for the 
Egyptians of that day possessed a national pride 
somewhat like that of modern nations. They were 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ready enough to proclaim their victories, but they 
wished their disasters and defeats to be forgotten. 

The name of Moses was given because he was 
saved f rom the water. 

Pharaoh's daughter ^'called his name Moses (in 
Hebrew Moaheh;) and she said> because I drew him 
out of the water." (Ex. ii, 10.) 

In Egyptian mo is wcUeVy ttses, to ddivery according 
to Josephus, and the name is derived from these 
words, signifying " saved from the water." 

When it is bome in mind that the Pentateuch is 
by far the most ancient record that we have of any 
nation, it will be readily understood that it is not 
easy to find corroborative history for all its details. 
At least six hundred years elapsed before Homer 
wrote the Iliad. Manetho was eleven hundred years 
after Moses. Berosus wrote about 268 B. C. The 
only written records which compare in antiquity to 
the Pentateuch are the Yedas of India, the brick 
records of Nineveh, which belonged to the library of 
Sardanapalus, and the Egyptian monuments. Some 
of the latter are undoubtedly older than the Penta- 
teuchy but they are disconnected and but a small 
amount of information so ancient is to be obtained 
from them. The age of the Vedas is purely hypo- 
theticaly though their antiquity is very great, and the 
Assyrian brick books are in the same position. They 
State that they were written in the reign of Sardan 
apalus, that is, about 606 B. C; but they claim to be 
transcripts from more ancient copies, which of course 
would bring their Originals back to a very early date. 
However, few of these, except the Assyrian and 
Egyptian monuments, and these but incidentally, 
treat at all of the same subjects as the Pentateuch, so 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


that we cannot look to them for much confirmatory 
evidence, except as they testify to a common tradi- 

We have, tberefore, ander the circumstances, all 
the historical evidence we could expect for the genu- 
inenesB of the Pentateuch. More, however, wUl be 
given in the next chapter. 



OuB next proof of the familiarity of the author 
of the Pentateuch with Egypt will be derived from 
the history of the plagues which afflicted Egypt, as 
related in Exodus vii to xiL 

Moses had fled to Madian at the age of forty years, 
because Pharaoh sought to kill him on account of bis 
having slain an Egyptian who was oppressing one of 
the Hebrew slaves. From Madian, at the age of 
eighty years, he was recalled by God, who wished to 
make him the Instrument of the delivery of the 
Israelites from bondage. To prove the divinity of 
bis mission, he was empowered by Almighty God to 
work miracles. By these miracles the Hebrews were 
convinced of the truth of bis mission, and Moses was 
enabled to go to Pharaoh as the ambassador of God 
and the representative of tte Israelites. 

In the presence of Pharaoh, to prove bis divine 
mission Moses commanded Aaron to cast bis rod upon 
the ground, and it was turned into a serpent. The 
Egyptian magicians did likewise and their rods were 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


turned into serpents also, but Aaron's rod devoured 
their rods. 

Pbaraob refused to give the Hebrews tbe permis- 
sion tbey demanded to go to tbe desert to offer sacri- 
fice to God. He oppressed tbem more tban before. 

As a f urther sign, by will of God, tbe first plague 
came upon Egypt: 

Ist. The waters of tbe river were tnmed into 
blood. Tbe magicians imitated tbis miracle also, and 
Pbaraob did not yield. 

2. Tbe second plague was tben brougbt on: frogs 
came from tbe waters and covered tbe land. Tbe 
magicians imitated tbis also and brougbt a few frogs 
likewise. Pbaraob promised to accede to Moses' re- 
quest, if tbe frogs would be removed, but on tbe re- 
moval of tbe frogs, be broke bis promise. 
' 3. Tbe tbird plague was of kinnim in Hebrew. 
By tbis word tbe modern Hebrews, foUowed by tbe 
Protestant version, understand lice. Tbe Septua- 
gint, the Vulgate and Philo, f oUowed by tbe Catbolic 
Englisb translator understand sciniphs, gnats. These 
the magicians could not produce, and tbey acknowl- 
edged that tbe finger of God was there. 

4. Tbe f ourth plague was of flies swarming into all 
the houses. Pbaraob again promised to grant the 
demands of tbe Israelites, but broke bis faith when 
tbe plague was removed. 

6. The fiftb was a murrain on tbe beasts in tbe-field 
so that tbey died. Still Pbaraob was unmoved. 

6. Tbe sixtb was of .boils on men and beasts. Still 
Pbaraob remained obdurate. 

7. Tbe seventb plague was a storm of thunder and 
ligbtning and bail, such "as never before was seen in 
tbe whole land of Egypt since that nation was 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


founded." (ix, 23, 24.) The Egyptians were warned 
to remain themselves and to put their cattle under 
Cover, for all foand abroad when the hail would fall 
should die. Many paid no heed to the warning and 
were killed, and so with their cattle. The flax and 
the barley were hurt- but the wheat and com were 
lateward and were not injured. Pharaoh made simi- 
lar promises to those he had formerly made, and 
broke them in like ni^nner. 

8. The eighth was of locusts which eat up every- 
tbing that was green. Pharoah promised as before 
but again violated bis promise. 

9. The ninth plague was of darkness: "horrible 
darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days." 
(Ex. X, 22.) Pharaoh still refused the required per- 

10. Lastly God ordered Moses to threaten the 
Egyptians with the death of the first-bom in each 
house. The threat was afterwards put into execu- 
tion, and the Egyptians resisted no longer, but hur- 
ried the Israelites to go forth. 

None of these plagues afflicted the Hebrews. 

We notice, first, that ,on the return of Moses, no 
effort is made to punish him an account of the act for 
which the former Pharaoh had sought to put him to 
death. The Egyptian monuments in form us that 
after the death of Ramesses, Mernephtha I. succeeded 
to the throne, leaving bis son Seti IL concealed in 
Ethiopia on account of the troubles of the Kingdom. 
Seti n. was then 6 years of age. Two usurping kings 
reigned before Seti came to the throne. American 
CJyc. Art. Egypt. 

In one of these reigns the retum of Moses must 
have taken place, and in any case the Egyptian law 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


relieved him from proscription on the death of the 
monarcb who bad proscribed bim. 

Tbe easy access of Moses and Aaron to Pbaraoh 
can only be acconnted for by tbe fact tbat Moses was 
the adopted son of a Pbaraob's daugbter, and tbat 
Aaron was elevated to noble degree on account of 
tbe bigb position of Moses. We see in all tbis tbe 
perfect consistency of tbe sacred witb profane his- 

Tbe Egyptian magicians by tbeir jugglery are able 
to Imitate Moses by tbrowing tbeir rods upon the 
groand, on wbicb they are also cbanged into serpents. 
God undoubtedly permitted tbe magicians to imitate 
tbis miracle in order to make manifest bis superior 
power: and probably even all tbe power of tbe devil 
was exerted in tbeir aid. 

Tbe act of Moses and Aaron was a true miracle, 
but tbe devil cannot work real miracles. It was tbere- 
fore a delasion, and we know tbat tbe jugglers of 
Egypt bave surprising powers of deception in tbeir 
serpent cbarming to tbis day. Lane's Modern Egyp- 
tians. Moses refers to these powers of jugglery, 
adding " by tbeir encbantments " 

** They dally with the crested worm, 
They stroke his azure neck, or they receive 
The lambent homage of his arrowy tongue." 

In tbis again tbe knowledge of Egyptian manners 
displayed by tbe autbor of tbe Pentateucb is com- 

Tbe same is to be said of tbe cbange of water into 
blood, and of tbe production of frogs. Tbe magi 
produced tbese marvels by tbeir jugglery, most pro- 
bably by such prestigiation as jugglers usually em- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ploy, or possibly by diaboHcal Intervention. Of 
coarse they only prodnced a small quantity of blood 
and a few frogs: In this respect they did not equal 
Moses who changed tbe water of the wbole river into 
blood, and prodnced frogs to swarm over the land and 
to corrapt it with their dead bodies. By chemical 
means, tbe appearance of blood is readily imitated; 
and the Egyptians were aequainted with Chemistry 
at a very early period. 

The cbange of water into blood panisbed the 
Egyptians in the sorest of spots; for on the river they 
depended entirely for the irrigation of the country, 
and for drinking pnrposes. Rain does not fall at all 
except very seldom about Alexandria and Bosetta. 
This is another evidence of Moses' intimate knowl- 
edge of tbe country. 

Frogs are very numerous in the Nile, and were 
adored by the Egyptians. Hence they were punished 
in their own superstition. Here also the knowledge 
of the country possessed by the writer of the Penta- 
teuch is displayed 

The sciniphs and flies are common in warm, and 
the sciniphs especially in marshy countries. Hence 
both were numerous in Egypt. We remark through- 
out that God by His power intensifies evils that are in 
existence already, instead of creating 6ntirely new 
plagues. Thus also the knowledge of the writer of 
the Pentateuch with the condition of Egypt is the 
more manifest. 

The murrain on the cattle is simply a very griev- 
0U8 plague : in Hebre w, deber kdbd mod. This pesti- 
lence is well known in Egypt, as it occurs when the 
annual overflow of the Nile exceeds twenty-seven 
f eet. (Chambers' Encyclopsedia, Nile.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The nezt plague was of boils and blains. This 
blain was a burning ulcer. In Deut, xxviii, 27, the 
"ulcer of Egypt" is spoken of as peculiar to the 
country: in Hebrew shichin, This ulcer of Egypt is 
a kind of black leprosy or elepbantiasis. (Lexicon of 
Gesenius.) Again, the knowledge of Egypt is mani- 
f ested in both passages of the Pentateuch. 

XJp to the present the magicians failed in imitating 
the miracles of Moses, excepting his first three. Now 
they are stricken with the blains, and the victory over 
their enchantments is complete. ^ 

Of the hail the inspired writer says, "There was 
none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became 
a nation." Hereby he insinuates that such storms 
have been elsewhere. 

On the 5th of August, 1514, in Cremona, hailstones 
feil as large as hens' eggs. Olaus the Great, B. i, 22, 
States that in Scandinavia, hail feil the size of a man's 
head. Even in warm countries, dreadf ul hailstoims 
sometimes occur. Commodore Porter describes a 
dreadf ul hailstorm which he experienced on the Bos- 
phorus in 1831. 

The words " since it became a nation,** seem to im- 
ply that the vanity of the Egyptians in boasting of the 
immense antiquity of their nation was already intoler- 
able, and thei*efore Moses insinuates here their com- 
paratively modern origin. In ix, 18, he uses almosi 
the same words in speaking to Pharaoh. It is 
equivalent to saying, " instead of your boasted an- 
tiquity of over thirteen thousand years before Menes, 
the date of the kingdom is still to be computed. It 
took its rise from Mizraim, within six hundred and 
twenty-seven years." 

The eighth plague was of locusts. The mere men- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tion of tbe name of locusts invading tbe country was 
calcnlated to strike terror in a country like Egypt, 
where their ravages are so well known. Pliny says: 
"This plague is believed to be a manifestation of tbe 
aoger of tbe Gods .... even tbeir toucb destroy- 
ing mucb, and tbeir bite consuming everytbing." (xi, 

The plague of darkness f oUowed, " borrible dark- 
ness in all tbe land of Egypt f or tbree days," and "so 
thick tbat it may be feit." (Ex. ix.) Wben dense 
clonds fill tbe air, saturated witb beavy mist, it may 
snrely be said tbat tbe clouds are palpable. Tbey are 
really sensible to tbe toucb. Tbis is precisely wbat 
to be feit means. Under sucb circumstances, tbere- 
fore, it could be said, tbe darkness could be feit. But 
some wbo bave been in Egypt f or years teil us of an- 
other source of tbis darkness. Tbe author of " Israel 
in Egypt " says: 

" No one wbo bas been in Egypt to experieDce it, 
will doubt f or a moment tbe agency wbereby Jebo- 
vah wrougbt. Tbe plague of darkness was a sand- 
storm. It is impossible for words to describe tbis 
fearful Visitation miSre accurately than tbe passage 
before us.'* 

" During tbe wbole season of tbe prevalence of tbis 
wind {hamseen in tbe middle of April,) tbe atmos- 
phere is excessively dry, and loaded witb tbe fine par- 
ticles of tbe sand of tbe Sabara, to tbe great discom- 
fort of tbe inbabitants of Egypt. But occasionally 
tbe west} wind suddenly fresbens to a perfect burri- 
cane, and sweeping before it tbe ligbt sands of tbe 
desert, precipitates tbem in columns and drifts upon 
tbe Valley of tbe Nile. Tbe sufferings of man and 
beast during these dreadf ul storms, in ordinary years, 



baffle deseription. They who are overtaken by them, 
wrap their f aces in tbeir mantles, aud lie prostrate on 
the ground. It is their only chance of life. The 
light of noon-day is but a red angry twilight. At 
intervals, thoagh brief ones, the sun is obscnred, and 
the darkness is total while the heavy drifts pass the 
sun's diso. We testify that we have seen on this 
point, It is impossible by any expedient to keep the 
sand out of the houses. So saturated is the air with 
the sand, that it seems to lose its transparency, so 
that artificial light is of little Service. The sand also 
gets into the eyes, prödncing Ophthalmia; so that 
men *see not one another.'" 

" We speak f rom personal endurance, when we say, 
that for intense and universal misery the plague of 
darkness would far surpass all that went before it." 
(Pp. 367, 369.) 

Surely this is a "darkness that may be feit." Tet 
the author says he only describes "the sand-storm of 
an ordinary year." What language, then>. are we to 
use to describe the special plague sent by the Al- 
mighty to punish Egypt ? And who could describe 
the scene except one whose ififormation was most 
accurate, or who had himself been an eye-witness to 
it ? Moses, then, exhibits familiär acquaintance with 
the condition of Egypt. 

Here we may stop to see what Col. Ingersoll has 
to say about this plague. 

" There could have been no better time for the He- 
brews to have left the country," than when Egypt 
was covered with such darkness. (P. 203.) 

True, they might have left at that time, but people 
do not always do what might be done. Why should 
the Hebrews be an exception to the general rule ? 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The f act is, it was God's will that still another pen- 
alty should be inflicted on Egypt for the crimes of 
Prince and people, and until this was done it was not 
His will that the Hebrews should go. 

The Colonel says also : 

Moses ''speaks of a darkness that could be feit. 
They used to have on exhibition at Rome, a bottle of 
the darkness that overspread Egypt." (P. 62.) 

" Well: is not the darkness of the hamseen a dark- 
ness that could be feit?" 

Oh! ^^ darkness is simply the absence of light," so 
that you cannot have " pieces and chunks of darkness 
on one side, and rays and beams of light on other." 
Col. Ingersoll, (P. 61.) 

"But where did you learn all this?" 

We may imagine the Colonel answering: 

" Why every naturalist knows that darkness is the 
mere absence of light." 

" Yes, that is undoubtedly correct, in the conven- 
tionallanguage of modern chemistry; but how long 
is it since this conventional language was invented?" 

"Oh! the Jews in the time of Moses were * barbar- 
ous people:' (P. 1.) Of course they did not talk the 
language of chemistry. In fact the language of 
chemistry was really no language at all until this en- 
lightened 19th Century." 

"Well; would you have Moses talk to them in a 
language which was not to be invented tili three 
thousand three hundred years af ter his time? " 

"At least an inspired writer should speak in scientif- 
ically correct language." 

"But if ^ darkness^ meant quite a different thing 
in the language Moses spoke f rom what it means in 
the modern conventional language; if for instance 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the Word ^darknesa* meant the atmosphere üself in 
the condition tohich tüoukl mdke it imposaiMe for 
U8 to see^ woald it not be scienUßcaUy correct to bslj 
that auch darkness as we have described could be 

I think tbat even Colonel IngersoU woald be 
obliged to answer "yes** to this question. 

Well such was exactly the case in which Moses 
stood. The language he spoke, and every othör lan- 
guage in the world understood this when they spoke 
of darkness, and under such circumstances bis lan- 
guage was perfectly correct. 

The ColonePs assertion that a bettle of Egyptian 
darkness was exhibited in, Borne is afraud. Perhaps 
some mountebank of the IngersoU creed may have 
made such an exhibition, but if he means, what his 
words would imply, that there was ever such an ex- 
hibition, sanctioned by the Catholic Church, his State- 
ment is false. The Colonel is evidently befogged in 
the Egyptian darkness. 

I have already given the reason why the death of 
the first-bom is not mentioned on the Egyptian mon- 
uments. The Egyptians were too proud to record 
their national disasters. But in chapter 20 . 1 men- 
tioned an annual commemoration which existed in 
Egypt, and was celebrated in sorrow. The only ex- 
planation which can be given for this is that it was 
the effect of a distorted tradition of the facts related 
in Exodus. 

Thus the entire history of the plagues of Egypt. 
agrees wonderf ully with the history and condition of 
Egypt, and manifests on the part of the writer of the 
Pentateuch a thorough knowledge of the history of 
that country. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


It is trne, the circnmBtances I have pointed out 
regarding tbe first nine plagues are true of Egypt at 
any time and coald be ascertained by a writer later 
than Moses; but many other coincidences already 
pointed out, and more which will appear after, could 
not be so ascertained. Taken altogether they estab- 
lish my point f uUy. 



As Colonel Ingersoll takes oocasion, in the twenty- 
second cbapter of bis book, to draw certain objections 
against tbe trutb of the Pentateuch, f rom the history 
of the ten plagues of Egypt, this will be the most 
appropriate place to answer them. 

He begins by stating the cruel treatment under- 
gone by the Jews, particularizing the destruction of 
aU the male children. 

The Colonel is not accurate here. He should State 
a case properly. I hope he does not thus bungle bis 
cases when he pleads before the bench. Surely he 
did not do so in the "Star Route" cases. 

AU the male, children were not destroyed. Orders 
were given that they should be destroyed, but the 
Orders were not obeyed. (Ex. i, 11.) 

If the male children had been aU destroyed, there 
would have been no nation to leave Egypt forty 
years after. 

Is this Statement made in order to make out another 
inoonsistency in the Bible? This would seem to be 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the case, f or so able a lawyer would scarcely make so 
gross a blander unintentionally. 

The Colone! continaes: 

" If the accouDt given is true, the Egyptians were 
the most cmel, heartless, and infamous people of 
which history gives any record." 

Probably he wishes us to infer from this that the 
history conld not have been true. Is such a mode of 
reasoning to upset all the positive proofs we have 
given and those which will be seen in the succeeding 
chapters ? The Egyptians were accustomed to thro w 
children into the Nile as a sacrifice. They could, as 
a rule, have but little scruple about destroying the 
children of their slaves, who were always treated 
with heartless cruelty. But that there were tender- 
hearted persons among them is evident from the f act 
that the midwives spared the children in spite of the 
King's decree; and this they did, not because of Infi- 
delity, but because they feared God, 

The Colonel next ridicules the miracles which God 
empowered Moses to work. 

We proved in chapter 13 the possibility of miracles, 
and that they attest the divine mission of him who 
employs them for this purpose. These proofs need 
not be repeated. Nearly the whole of Colonel Inger- 
soU's chapter 22d is an attempt to throw ridicule on 
the belief in the possibility of miracles. He adduces 
no argument to refute our proof of chapter 13; so 
that it is unnecessary to refute his chapter on "the 
Plagues/' further than to say: "Once we admit the 
possibility of miracles, we must infer that there is no 
absurdity in believing that they have occurred, and 
that they occurred, through the instrumentality of 
Moses, when he presented himself before Pharaoh as 
the ambassador of the Almighty." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The Colonel puts bis case thns: 

" Sappose we wished to make a treaty with a bar- 
barous nation, and tbe President should employ a 
sleight-of-hand performer as envoy extraordinary, 
and instract bim tbat wben be came into tbe presence 
of tbe savage monarcb, be sbould east down an 
nmbrella or a Walking stick, wbicb would cbange 
into a lizard or a turtle: wbat would we tbink? 
Would we not regard sucb a Performance as beneatb 
tbe dignity even of a President ? And wbat would 
be our f^elings if tbe savage king sent for bis sorcer- 
ers and bad tbem perform tbe same f eat ? If sucb 
tbings would appear puerile and foolisb in tbe Presi- 
dent of a great Republic, wbat sball be said wben 
they were resorted to by tbe Creator of all worlds ?" 
(P. 194.) 

Miracles being possible to Qod, it was quite fitting 
tbat He sbould confer on Moses tbe power of per- 
forming tbem; for we can imagine no otber way by" 
wbicb tbe power of 6od, and tbe autbority of His 
ambassadors can be so well attested. Col. IngersoU 
calls tbis sleigbt-of-band. He blaspbemously calls 
6od, wben working miracles, " a prestigiator, magi- 
cian or sorcerer." Tbese terms imply deceit. Now 
witb 6od tbere is no deceit. Tbe miracles of Moses 
were tberefore real. Tbere was no deceit about 
tbem. Tbe occasion was one wbicb undoubtedly 
called for tbe exbibition of God's power over created 
tbings; for a Bevelation was to be made to man 
tbrougb Moses, Revelation wbicb we bave already 
proved to be necessary for buman welfare. Miracles 
were tbe means wbereby tbat Revelation was to be 
attested, and tberefore Moses was empowered to work 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


It waa *neee88ary that the Jewisb people should be 
impressed with the conviction that Moses had received 
bis authority from God. It is the <jonviction of the 
baman race that the claimant to authority to promul- 
gate a new Revelation should prove bis claim by 
works surpassing the powers of Nature, that is by 

We have seen in cbapter 12 that both Mr. Paine 
and Col. Ingersoll demand from God a multiplieation 
of miracles in case of Revelation, since tbey require 
direct Revelation to each individual. 

God bas not seen fit to make His Revelation after 
the fashion these gentlemen require of Him, nor bas 
He seen fit to work exactly the miracles tbey demand. 
He is surely as wise as tbey are, and we may feel 
satisfied with the way He bas ebosen to make known 
to US His will. 

All men of good sound sense will acknowledge that 
God manifests both wisdom and mercy in attesting 
Revelation, rather by the means that the conviction 
and sense of mankind have prononnced appropriate, 
that is by miracles, than by the means demanded so 
dictatorially by Mr. Ingersoll, especially as we have 
the Colonel's own word for it that.even if God were 
to accept his terms, and acknowledge the Colonel's 
right to command Him, he would only be treated as 
a juggler and sorcerer. (Mistakes of Moses, p. 194.) 

But the Colonel calls the miracles which Grod 
wrought through Moses small and contelnptible. (P. 
194.) Let US examine wbether this be the case. 

The Egyptians adored serpents. How appropri- 
ately then did God sbow the nothingness of tbis 
Egyptian deity by proving his control over serpents 
as over all creation? God made the GU>d of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Egyptians the means of overthrowing their supersti- 
tion; for the serpents brought out by Moses devoured 
the serpents prodaced by the Egyptian magicians. 

The turning of the Nile into blood was likewise a 
reproof for their superstition in paying divine honors 
to that river. In fact this and all the following 
plagues were highly calculated to impress both on 
Hebrews and Egyptians the conviction that He alone 
rules all ereation, who could make all creatures obey 
his commands. 

" You shall know that I am the Lord your God." 
(Ex. vi, 1.) 

" The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord." 
(Vii, 5.) 

The Colonel teils us the sorcerers did the same feat 
as Moses. See quotation above, p. 194. 

The sorcerers did not the same as Moses. Moses 
performed real miracles; the sorcerers practiced de- 
ceptions. "The magicians of Egypt did so (or in 
like manner) toüh their enchantments.^^ (vii, 22; viii, 

The Hebrew ken^ so, or in like mannery expresses 
resemblance, not identity. Besides in each case 6od 
showed his superiority over the devils or false Gods 
on whom the Egyptians relied. Their serpents were 
devoured. Their juggling trick of substituting a 
basin of blood for a basin of water was not to be 
compared with the conversion of the Nile into blood, 
and the production of a few frogs by similar means 
does not equal the causing of the whole country to 
swarm with them. The Egyptian f eats could be done 
by jugglery, those of Moses could not. 

If the magicians wished to show the power of their 
gods, it would have been more to the purpose to re- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Store tbe Nile to purity, and to drive away the f rogs. 
This they could not do, and they could not even Im- 
itate the other wonders of Moses. They were f orced 
to acknowledge that Moses wrought by the power of 
God, thus confessing that they did not, "I^is is the 
finger of God." TÜi, 18. 

It is true, the President of the United States or the 
Ruler of any great Kingdom would act beneath bis 
dignity if he required bis ambasaadors to exbibit 
juggling tricks as bis credentials to any king, savage 
or civilized; but the miracles of Moses were no jug- 
gling tricks. The President would rely on the external 
grandeur of bis State, bis armies and bis navies to com- 
mand due respect; but Moses appeared before Pha- 
raoh and even before bis own countrymen without all 
these. They had a right to demand f rom bim proofs 
of bis mission of a character such as no earthly Ruler 
could produce. They had a right to demand, not 
juggling tricks, but a manifestation of such power as 
no earthly Ruler possesses; and this they did demand 
from bim, for we read, Ex. iv, that he is empowered 
to change the rod into a serpent before the Hebrews. 

"That they may believe that the Lord God of their 
fathers .... bath appeared to thee." Verse 6. 

In case of their unbelief, he is empowered to work 
a second miracle, and God adds: 

"If they will not believe thee .... nor bear the 
voice of the formet sign^ they will believe the word 
of the latter sign, but if they will not even believe 
these two signs, nor bear thy voice: take of tbe 
river water and pour it out upon tbe dry land, and 
and whatsoever thou drawest out of the river shall 
be turned into blood." 7, 8. 

Digitized by VjjOOQIC 


That Pharaoh ako demanded Bigns is evident from 
vii, 9. 

" When Pbaraoh shall say to you, Shew signs: thus 
thon shalt say to Aaron: Take thy rod and cast it 
down bef ore Pharaoh, and it shall be tumed into a 

I already quoted in chapter 13 the testimony of 
Jean Jacques Rousseau on miracles. Let us nowliear 
Voltaire speak: 

"Miracles were necessaryto the nascent Church; 
they are not so f or the Church once established. God 
being among men should act as Grod. Miracles are 
f or him ordinary actions. The master of nature must 
always be above nature." 

There remains now very little requiring an answer 
in Col. IngersolPs essay on the plagues. 

We treated of the plague of darkness in chapter 
26. Let US now see what the Colonel says in detail of 
the other plagues: 

We are told: 

"We are not informed where they (the magicians) 
got the water to turn into blood since all the water 
in Egypt had already been so changed." (P. 195.) 

Where did the Colonel find that all the waters of 
Egypt had already been so changed? The Bible 
does not say so: it speaks only df the waters of the 
Nile System: so the Egyptians dug wells to procure 
water which was pure. 

"I will smite with the rod .... upon the waters 
which are in the river; and they shall be tumed into 
blood." Ex. vii, 11. 

True, it is said (verse 19) that there shall be blood 
in the wooden and stone vessels, but this shows 
merely that the blood remained so when they fiUed 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


their vessels from the river. Streams, ponds and 
pools also are said to bave been turned into blood, 
bat tbese f ormed part of tbe river System. It is no 
where said that the water wbich had previously been 
in the hpases, or tha^ that found in the weUs was 
turned into blood also: 

He asks: 

Is it necessary to believe all this was done ^^that 
a king might be induced to allow the children of 
Israel the privilege of going a three days' joumey into 
the wildemess to make sacrifices to their God ? " 

Tes, Colonel. Religious liberty, the liberty to 
serve the .true God is a precious treasure. You would 
find miUions in the United States alone, who would 
sacrifice everything they possess, even their lives, 
rather than be deprived of it. It would appear you 
do not appreciate it so highly. 

Again you say: 

" The only claim that Moses and Aaron made f or 
their God was that he was the greatest and most pow- 
erful of all the Gods." (P. 196.) 

This is not true. In the first chapter and first verse 
of the Bible we are told : 

"In the beginning God (Mohim) created heaven 
and earth." Gen. i, 1. 

The God of Israel is the only Creator; therefore he 
is the only God. 

" The Lord he is God, and there is no other besides 
him." Deut, iv, 35. 

In many other passages we find the same doctrine. 

We have next: 

"AU the cattle of Egypt died; that is to say all 
the horses, all the asses, all the cameis, all the ozen 
and all the sheep." (P. 199.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


After this ^^ boils broke f orth with blains upon man 
and npon beast throughout the land." (P. 199.) 

Tou add that: 

" These boils with blains broke out upon oattle that 
were abeady dead. It must not be forgotten that all 
the cattle and all beasts had died with the murrain 
before the boils had broken out." (Pp. 199, 200.) 

If you had read the text carefully you would have 
Seen that the murrain feil upon the cattle in theßelds. 

'* Behold my band shall be upon thyüelds; and a 
very grievous murrain upon thy horses and asses and 
cameis and oxen and sheep." (Ex. ix, 3.) 

In verse 6 it is said: 

** And all the beasts of the Egyptians died." * 

This refers to the beasts already mentioned, that 
"were in the field." There were, therefore, some 
left on which the boils would have effect. Besides 
" all the beasts " and similar expressions are of ten 
used to signify a very great part, or nearly all. 

I suppose that in explaining the coincidence of the 
Pentateuch with history, geography and language 
you would say the writer of the Pentateuch was a 
cunning impostor, and skilf ul in all these branches of 
knowledge to put on such an appearance of antiquity : 
but truly, now, you are making him a stupid Wun- 
derer. He could not have been both. Which was 
he? In truth he was neither. He is the faithful 
cotemporary historian. 

The Colonel's next attack is on God for having 
slain the first born of Egypt, and the cattle. He 

" What had these children done ? Why should babes 
in the cradle be destroyed on account of the crime of 
Pharaoh ? Why should the cattle be destroyed be- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


cause man had enslaved his brother ? .... Where 
oan words be f ound bitter enough to describe a God 
wbo would kill wives and babes becanse busbands 
and fatbers had failed to keep his law?" (P. 205.) 

I need only refer tbe reader to chapter 9 
for tbe answer to tbis. We may add here: God is 
tbe Supreme Arbiter of lif e and death. He may and 
does doom all to die. There is no escape. We are. 
liable to die by accident or tbe malice of otbers; and 
if we escape these, still we must die by natural decay. 
God must not be accused for this. After all, pbysi- 
cal evil is no real evil; and for mankind all will be 
rectified in tbe future life. Tbe just wbo suffer bere 
will gain tbeir compensating reward, and tbe wicked 
wbo prosper will meet tbeir merited punishment. 

"But this everyone is sure of that worshippeth 
tbee, that his life if it be under trial, sball be crowned: 
and if it be under tribulation it sball be delivered; 
and if it be under correction, it sball be allowed to 
come to thy mercy. For thou art not delighted in 
cur being lost: because* after a storm thou makest a 
calm; and after tears and weeping thou pourest in 
joyfulness." (Tobias iii, 21, 22.) 

The Colonel continues thus: 

" Of course God must have known that turning the 
waterö into blood, covering the country with frogs, 

etc would not accomplish his object, and 

that all these plagues would have no effect lyhatever 
upon the Egyptian King." (P. 207.) 

Certainly God knew that tbe first plagues would 
not produce a permanent effect on Pharaoh: 

"For I know tbeir thoughts and wbat they are 
about to do this day." (Deut, xxxi, 21.) 

However, He has left man free- will; and Pharaoh 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


in the exercise of hig free- will was hardened. There- 
f ore 6od did not lessen bis pnnishment, and the pun- 
ishment of bis nation, wbicb also took part in tbe op- 
pression of Israel. (See also, on tbis subject, cbap- 
ters 1 and 38.) 

Next, tbe Colonel says: 

" Is it not altogetber more reasonable to say tbat 
tbe Jewisb people, being in slavery, aecounted f or tbe 
misf ortunes and calamities, suffered by tbe Egyptians, 
by saying tb^t tbey were tbe judgments of God ?" 
(Pp. 207, 208.) 

No; fbr God bas revealed tbat He inflioted tbem, 
and He confirmed His Bevelation by miraeles. It is 
more reasotiable to believe God tban to f rame fanoi- 
f al tbeories, and believe tbem in pref erenoe. 





Tbere are still some points of Egyptian bistory and 
manners wbicb f rom tbe ref erences in tbe Pentatencb 
demonstrate tbe writer's familiarity witb tbe country. 

llie next evidences of tbis to wbicb I sball call at- 
tention is tbe answer of Moses to Pbaraob in tbe f ol- 
lowing passage: 

^^ Pbaraob called Moses and Aaron and said to tbem: 
Go and sacrifice to your God in tbis land. And Moses 
Said: It cannot be so, for we sball sacrificetbe abomi" 

nations of tbe Egyptians Now if we kill 

tbose tbings wbicb tbe Egyptians worsbip in tbeir 
l)resence tbey junll stone us.*' (Ex. viii, 26.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


It is evident that the writer of this knew that the 
Egyptians worshipped sheep and oxen, lambs, cows, 
etc., which were the ohief sacrifices offered by the 
Jews. He knew that the Jewish sacrifices were sac- 
rilegioos in the estimation of the Egyptians, for 
which reason he calls them the ^' abominations of the 
. Egyptians." He knew that the Egyptians would be 
angry at the Jews, and would stone them if they saw 
them offering these animals. The Egyptian history 
is in perf ect accord Mrith all this. The monnments 
and all historic records prove the people to have been 
devoted to their religion. Their religious wars were 
frequent, and whoever the writer of the Pentateuch 
may be, he proves that both Moses and himself (if he 
were another person) knew their character. 

Another evidence to this is the worship to which 
the Jews were addicted when they lef t the true God. 
The worship of Baal was in later days their besetting 
sin. When they were settled in Judea, snrrounded 
as they were by nations that adored Baals and Asta- 
roth {Baälim and Aataroth) and Moloch, they never 
dreamed of setting up a calf for worship for over 
five handred years. This was the peculiar worship 
of the Egyptians; and so we find (Ex, xxxii, 4,) that 
during the absence of Moses for a short time on 
Monnt Sinai, when they f orgot the true God, the god 
they made for themselves was a calf. They had just 
escaped out of Egypt: they had been constant wit- 
nesses of calf and ox worship: undoubtedly many 
had even participated in it, and nearly all knew the 
manner in which its worship was carried on. It was 
the most natural form of idolatry for them to fall 
into just at that time, and the writer of the Penta- 
teuch must have been familiär with all the events a^ 
they occurred. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


I have Said, for over fi^fe hundred years oalf- 
worship was not thought bf. I might say for fifteen 
hundred years, for the only exception was when Jero- 
boam set up two oalves, one in Dan, the other in 
Bethel, for adoration; but he also leamed by his visit 
to Egypt this mode of worship. This exception is a 
confirmation of my Statement. (See 3 Kings xii, 26, 
29; xi, 40. Prot. Bible, 1 Kings.) 

My next illustration on this snbject will be taken 
from Num. xi, 6. The Israelites mnrmured when 
they were tired of manna. They longed for "the fish 
and meat, the eucambers, melons, leeks, onions. and 
garlio of Egypt." 

Fish and meat are the staple f ood of all oonntries 
where they can be had. It is theref ore no matter of 
surprise that these should be in their mind first of all. 
The plants named seem to be rather an odd selection 
from among garden vegetables, that they should be 
particularly named as being so mueh longed for. 

Now, it is a f act attested by travellers that these 
very vegetables are to this day highly prized in 
Egypt. Cueumbers, melons, and onions are among 
the leading produetions of the country, and they 
grow in great perfection there, being f ar superior to 
the same articles as grown in America or Europe. 
One traveller says that our onions, in comparison with 
those of Egypt are as bad turnips to good apples. 
Onions, in fact, are there exceedingly palatable and 
agreeable. (Dr. Eadie, Bib. Cyc. Cueumbers, Onions, 

Again: The country between Hebron and Jerusa- 
lem was inhabited by a tribe called Anakim, being 
the descendants of Anak. When the twelve spies of 
Israel were sent in to view the land of Ganaan they 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



retumed and reported it to be " flowing witli milk 
and honey,'' and that its fmits, specimens of which 
they brought, were of great exoellence: yet the land 
through which they had to pass was inhabited by 
"men of great stature." 

'^And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak of 
the giants, and we were in onr own sight as grass- 
hoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Nnm. 
xiii, 33.) 

We may add to this the short history of Og, given 
in Deut, iii, 1, 11. Og is declared to be the only one 
remaining " of the race of the giants." His bedstead 
was sixteen f eet five inches in length and seven feet 
three and one-half inches in breadth, more accurately 
than Mr. Paine states, as we have seen in chapter 19. 

Mr. Paine means to suggest that the existence of 
such giants is a mere myth. We are not to suppose 
that the sons of Anak described by the Israelite spies 
were quite as large as they stated. The Bible does 
not say they were. It merely records the report of 
the spies. Now these relating, under the influence of 
their terror, what they saw, very naturally exagger- 
ated the size of the giants. Still there is no doubt 
that the Anakim must have been of huge size, and 
Og must have been of immense stature also, though 
necessarily not so large as was his bedstead. 

The writer of the Pentateuch could have had no 
object in inventing this story about the giants; and 
if an impostor wished to pass it as the work of 
Moses he would have omitted these details, whioh at 
first sight would throw discredit on his story. J)id 
giants ever exist of the immense proportions de- 
scribed ? The traditions of every country kept the 
memory of such men. Are these traditions entirely 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


baseless, or are they founded on faots whicb have 
been considerably magnified and distorted by tbe 
vagueness of tbe traditions? Tbere is certainly 
strong evidence tbat tbe latter is tbe case. Persons 
and families of great size bave from time to time 
appeared in many countries; Barnum exbibits sueb 
men to-day, and tbe ruins of Baalbek attest tbat in 
very ancient days tbere. must bave been a race of 
enormous men: tbat indeed "tbere were giants in 
tbose days" wben tbe edifices of Baalbek were 

Baalbek is tbirty-six miles nortbwest of Damascus. 
Tbe greater temple stood apon an artificial platform 
between twenty and tbirty feet bigb, and extended 
one thousand feet from east to west. Tbe peristyle 
is elevated on a platfor:m fifty feet above tbe sur- 
rounding country, and on tbe western side tbere are 
tbree immense stones wbose united lengtb is one 
bundred and ninety feet, tbe largest being sixty-f our 
feet long, tbeir average beigbt tbirteen feet, tbeir 
tbickness still greater. Am. Oc. Baalbek. 

Tbese stones if no beavier tban limestone would 
eacb exceed nine bundred tons in weigbt. Modern 
Science bas constructed no engines wbicb could 
bring from tbe quarry a quarter of a mile distant» 
and raise tbem to tbeir present position. A late 
traveller, Cbester Glass, Esq., a leading Barrister, late 
of London, now of Winnepeg, Canada, states in bis 
book of travels, tbat wben standing in tbe presence 
of tbese gigantio blocks, be was strongly impressed 
witb tbe trutb of tbe Scriptural recbrd, " tbere were 
giants in tbose days." Tbus does modern science 
vindicate tbe Bible. 

The record proves by tbis Statement tbat tbe writer 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


was familiär with tlie history of the days of which 
he wrote. 

To conclnde our proof from history, we must not 
omit the insoriptions found engraved on Mount 
Sinai, and along the adjacent valley. In the year 
630 A. D. Cosmas, an Egyptian Christian had occa- 
sion to travel from Alexandria to Thibet, through the 
Sinaitie deserts. With his varied knowledge he was 
able to assist in deeiphering certain characters which 
he beheld in great numbers ön the Sinaitio rocks. 
He says: 

" On the rocks of Sinai, at the different stations of 
the Hebrews wo enoounter rocks covered with 
inscriptions in Hebrew characters. I passed through 
these places and testify to the fact. Some Jews 
who accompanied ns read the inscriptions and trans- 
lated them for ns. They were to the effect: * depart- 
ure of'Such, or such a tribe, in such a year and such 
a month' .... and so numerous are the inscriptions 
that all the rocks are covered with them." The -Val- 
ley and mountain have been named Wady-MokaUeb^ 
Djebel Mokatteb, Written Valley y Written Mountain. 
An Anglican clergyman, Rev. Chas. Forster, B. D., 
in a work published in London, Eng,, 1851 says: 

"These inscriptions of the same style, the same 
oharacter and the same language, are to be counted 
by thousands, and in the valley of Wady-Mokatteb 
alone there are several thousand. In length they ez- 
tend for several leagues. They are at inaccessible 
heights, .... and many are of such proportions as 
to have required immense labor and a long time. 
These inscriptions are almost entirely confined to the 
route from Suez to Sinai, which must have been the 
route f oUowed by the Israelites on leaving Egypt.'' 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


One of these inscriptions attests the passage of the 
Israelites through the Bed Sea. 

" Turned into dry land the sea, the Hebrews flee 
through the sea." Sinai Photographed. 

Another is composed of 41 lines, the letters being 
one inch in relief, and a f oot long. This has a title 
the letters of which are three inches in relief, and six 
feet long. The exact translation has not been made 
f or certain, bat the title speaks of the horses and 
riders of Pharaoh being cast down. The 41 lines 
are* believed to be a transcript of the canticle of 
Moses in Ex. xvi. Undoubtedly when these inscrip- 
tions shall be interpreted with the certainty of the 
monnments of Egypt, they will thröw great light 
upon the history of Israel. Even what is already 
known of them serves to confirm what is related of 
it in the Pentateueh. Darras' Unabridged History 
of Church, vol. i, p. 701. 

The testimony of history to the authentioity of the 
Pentateueh is cumulative. The larger the number of 
coinoidences, the more convineing is the evidence 
that the writer must have been intimately acquainted 
witb the f acts he relates. If he had not been so he 
would have blundered hopelessly in his narration, as 
did Herodotus and Diodorus, and he would f requently 
have Said things irrqconeilable with facts now known 
by other means. The fact that be has not thus gone 
astray is conclusive evidence that the Pentateueh 
was written in the time of Moses, and by Moses, or 
by his authority. Ool. IngersoU and Mr. Paine are 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Wb have next to see what testimony the science 
of Geography affords to the authentioity of the Pen- 

1. Let US turn to Exodus vü, 19; yiii, 6. 

**.,.. Stretch out thine hand upon the watiBrs 
of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their riverSy and 
upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of waten 
that they may become blood." Ex. vii, 19. 

". . . . Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod 
over the streams, over the rivera, and over the ponds, 
and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt." 
Ex. viii, 6, 

In these two passages f or riverSy Moses wrote iorirn^ 
the plural of ioVy river, which, as we explained in 
chapter 22, is used for the Jfile. Aaron, then, is com- 
manded to Stretch his hand over the Niles. The Nile 
is the only river in the world that for 1,600 miles has 
no affluent whatever, notwithstanding which it is able 
to get through the burning sands of Nubia. In the 
strictest sense, therefore, there is but one Nile in 
Egypt, until the Delta is reached, where it separates 
into several streams and flows into the sea. How 
easily would one unacquainted with the f acts of the 
case, blunder in speaking of such a river ! Yet the 
writer, speaking of an occurrence which happened 
precisely at the place where these branches are, 
speaks of the NUeSy that is at the only part of the 
river where such a term oould be used. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


2. The Israelites, reduced to slavery " bailt f or Pha- 
raoh cities of tabemacles, Pithom and Bamesses." 
(Ex. i, 11.) 

It is certainly not by mere guess-work that the 
writer of the Pentateuch attributes the building of 
the city Ramesses just to^he period when a king of 
thatname was reigning, or even if it were not exactly 
the case that a Ramesses were reigning, Seti L 
whose reign was between those of Ramesses I. and 
Ramesses II., being the Son of one Bamesses, and the 
f ather of another might easily be supposed to have 
so named a city. However, it is almost certain that 
these cities were built in the reign of Ramesses- 

3. The cities of Pithom and Ramesses are named 
on the Egyptian monumonts only af ter the period we 
have indicäted. This is another proof of the geo- 
graphica! accuracy of the Pentateuch. 

4. It has long been a matter of dispute whether Tyre 
or Sidon is the more ancient city. Both are undoubt- 
edly of very great antiquity. The Tyrians them- 
selyes claimed on the strength of their traditions to 
be the oldest settlement in Phoenicia, dating from 
about 2750 B. C. 

NoTjf if, as Col. IngersoU and his fellow Infidels 
pretend, the Pentateuch were a late spurious work, 
the writer would certainly not wish to meddle with 
so dangerous a topic as the decision against Tyre at 
a time when the glory of this city was in its heyday. 
Tot this he does virtually. From the time of Jere- 
mias, Tyre and Sidon are nearly always coupled to- 
gether, except when Tyre, on account of its greater 
importance, is spoken of alone, as in 2 Ki. v, 11. (2 
Samuel.) See Jerem. xxvii, 3, xlvii, 4, etc. But be- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fore the time of Samuel we find in Soriptnre only one 
meution of Tyre, viz: in Josh. xix, 29. Tyre is then 
oalled "the strong city." Sidon is spoken of five 
times in Joshua, and three times in the Pentateuch, 
without counting the passages where Sidon the f ather 
of the Sidonians, is meant. ^See Gen. x, 19, etc.) Now 
this is in perfect accord with Homer, who also men- 
tions only the Sidonians. Probably Tyre, though then 
important by its strength, was as yet much inferior 
to Sidon. The prophet Isaias, indeed, calls Tyre " the 
daughter of Sidon." This thorough self-consistency 
of the Bible, in Opposition to Tyrian boasts, together 
with the silent testimony of Homer, certainly seem 
to show conclusively that the geography of the Pen- 
tateuch is right here also. 

6. In Genesis x, 11, 12, we are told of the beginning 
of the kingdom of Assyria. One of the cities of 
this kingdom, Resen, is said to be " between Nineveh 
and Calah: the same is a great oity." 

Nineveh, the great capital of Assyria, bad perished 
so completely, that even the classic authors of an- 
tiquity now extant, speak of it as an extinct city. 
Herodotus describes the Tigris as the river on 
which Nineveh had been, but heknew nothing of the 
city itself. Xenophon actually encamped on its site, 
which he calls " a vast deserted enclosure." Strabo 
was only aware that it was in the heart of Assyria. 
Alexander the Great overcam« the Persians near it, 
but his historians were not aware of its existence. 
Lucian says that no one knew of its whereabouts in 
his day. Yet to-day its site has been • fixed by the 
discoveries of its magnificent palaces and temples, 
and the very libraries of its ancient kings are ran- 
sacked and read. Is not this a thorough vindication 
of the geography pf the whole Cid Testament ? 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


6. Again, the city of Calah is spoken of as a oity 
distinct from Nineveli. The monumental records 
shoTY^ that Calah, the ruins of whieh are also now 
known, was the capital f or a long time. 

7. Of Resen, history teils absolutely nothing: yet 
Moses describes it as a great city between Calah and 
Nineveh. To this description the ruins of Nimrud 
correspond. The geography of Moses is therefore 
vindicated, and it precedes all extant profane history. 

8. Egypt is in Hebrew called'by two names: Mits- 
raim and Cham. Mitsraim is plural of Mataor^ 
Lower Egypt. The Egyptians called the country 
Metouro and E[am, the latter name being spelled on 
the Rosetta stone Km, exactly corresponding to the 
Hebrew Chm. In Coptic it is still called Chemi, and 
in Sahidic Keme. This correspondence is a f arther 
proof of the accuracy of the Pentateuch. 

9. If we were to enumerate the names of places 
which have been retained from the days of Moses to 
the Christian era, or even to this day, with bat little 
or no change the list would be swelled to vast pro- 
portions, bat as many of these names are of places 
near Palestine, which therefore would be familiär 
even to a late writer, I will give only a few in illus- 
tration, which required a more extensive knowledge. 
Thus, Ur, Tadmor, Sabtah, Ekron, Lud, Lubim» 
Pheleseth, etc., are called in modern times: 

Ur, Palmyra, (being the Greek of Tadmor=2k palm 
treey) Sabal, (so called by Strabo in Greek,) Akir, 
Lydia, the Lybians, Philistaea, (so called by Strabo), 
etc. Thas is proved the thorough knowledge of the 
writer of the Pentateuch, with f acts he relates. 

10. The tenth ohapter of Genesis contains the ori- 
gin of Nations. The names of Noah's sons and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


grandsons need not be repeated here. Suffice it to 
say, that these descendaDts of the Patriarch dis- 
persed themselves tbrough'tbe various parts of the 
World then witbin reacb, and tbe countries to wbioh 
tbey went bave retained even to tbis day tbe very 
names of many of Noab's cbildren, or grand-cbildren, 
as recorded in tbis cbapter: and tbe tradition of a 
tripartite division of tbe world between tbe descend- 
ants of tbe tbr^e sons of Noab, is f ound interwoven 
in tbe bistory of all Eastern nations. Tbe annals of 
PhcBnicia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Cbina, pertain to 
tbe individual nation, but in tbis record of Moses 
tbe wbole world finds its earliest bistory. We cannot- 
identif y tbe descendants of eye];y one named, bat tbe 
leading divisions are seen at a glanee. Tbey may be 
found in Darras' Unabridged Cburcb Bßstory, i, 836 
to 345 ; or abridged in Eadie's Biblioal TJyclopsBdia^ 
Nations, Origin of. 

Tbus tbe Egyptians acknowledge tbo origin of 
tbeir nation wbicb is giyen in tbe Bible, wben tbey 
name tbemselves from Mizraim. Tbe Etbiopians are 
called Cusb. Tbe Medes, Tbracians, lonians, and tbe 
natives of Elis acknowledge by tbeir naines tbeir 
descent from Madai, Thiras^ Javan, Elisbab. Tbe 
Assyrians, Ai'amseans, Lydians and Elamites by tbeir 
very names proclaim tbeir parentage in Assur, Aram, 
Lud and Elam. 

Tbere are estimated to be about 4,000 naines of 
persons and places in tbe Bible: yet of all tbese, it 
bas never been sbown that tbere is a single person 
named wbo is fabulous, or a locality misplaced, 
wbereas on tbe contrary, f or tbe most part, both per- 
sons and places bave been perfectly identified both 
by bistory and geography. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


There can be no more decisive evidenoe of any f aot 
than the evidence that the writer of the Pentateucli 
had access to authentic records of the past^ as well as 
f amiliarity with the events that were passing at the 
periods of whioh it treats, and that none but Moses, 
or some one writing by bis authority, could be in a 
Position to write it. All this I Ifave shown, 

First. By its existence f rom age to age as we go 
back, first to the time of its translation into Greek, 
then to the period of the Samaritan revolt, and then 
to the time of Moses himself. Chaps. 16 and 17. 

Seeondly. By the authenticated records of the 
nation whioh form an uninterrupted testimony to the 
days of Moses himself. Chap. 17. 

Thirdly. By the testimony of Jews and Christians, 
Pagans and Mahometans. Chaps. 17 and 18. 

Fourthly. By the petty character of the attacks of 
Messrs. IngersoU, Paine and others, apon its authority. 
Chap. 19. 

Fifthly. By the monnments and feasts of the Jews, 
whioh constitute a lasting testimony to the genuine- 
ness of the boöks on whioh they are foanded. Chap. 

Sixthly, By the an,tiquity of the language inwhich 
the books arc written. Chaps. 21, 22. 

Seventhly. By its agreement with the history oi 
the times. Chaps. 23, 24, 25, 26, 28. 

Eighthly. By the perfect knowledge displayed in 
them of the geography of the places described.t Chap. 

Any one of these proof s woüld in itöelf be satis- 
factory: but combined their evidence is irresistible 
and overwhelming. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Thb Pentateuch Jias been proved to be the work 
of Moses. The next qnestion we have to oonsider is: 
Did he write the truth, or was he an impostor, trying, 
f or some purpose, to pasa apon the Israelites a tissae 
of lies? We maintain that the Pentateuch is histor- 
ically true, 

The testimony of a witness mnst be received as 
trne if he be not himself deceived and he be not a 

Now, in examining the truth of the Mosaic history 
we may begin with Exodus, the portion of the narra- 
tive in which he was himself the central character. 
Of course he was an inf ant when the events occurred 
which are related in the first ten verses of the second 
chapter. These events are not complicated nor 
numerous. They are just such events as a family 
would constantly talk of, and could not f orget, and 
he would readily be inf ormed concerning them, both 
by his own family and that of Pharaoh, as well as 
those of the Israelites in general. The events of the 
first chapter are in part contemporaneous with him, 
and part concern the period just before his birth. 
These were matters of notoriety with both Egyptians 
and Hebrews. They were merely the prominent 
facts which regarded. the bondage of Israel. Moses 
could not but be familiär with them, even by ordinary 
human means. He was, therefore, not deceived in 
respect to them. The succeeding events of the Pen- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tateucb were events public, obvious to bis senses and 
to tbose of bis wbole nation. If bis own senses bad 
deceivedi bim, an impossible supposition, be would * 
have been undeceived by tbe universal testimony of 
tbose wbo surrounded bim. Only a confinned mad- 
man could bave been deceived conceming sucb facts. 
Tbis Moses was not. His writings, bis leaming, bis 
admirable doctrine, bis laws, bis skilful leadersbip of 
bis nation under immense difficulties, prove bim to be 
a man of very great prudence and wisdom. Tbis 
even infidels admit. If , tberef ore, tbe Pentateucb be 
f alse, Moses must bave been an impostor. 

It cannot be siipposed tbat tbe Hebrews conspired 
witb Moses to pass a fraudulent bistory upon pos- 
terity. A nation never desires to concoct a fraud 
wbiob is to tbem perfectly useless, and wbicb indeed 
would bold tbem up to f uture generations in an odious 
ligbt Many migbt indeed be willing to allow tbem- 
selves to be represented as baving received special 
favors from 6od,but even tben tbere would be many 
wbo would not endure tbe palpable falsebood: but 
wben tbe question is unnecessarily to perpetuate a 
fraud wbicb represents tbem as a perverse and un- 
gratef ul people, tbe deceit would be at once unani- 
mously repudiated. 

Now tbere are many facts in tbe Pentateucb wbicb 
are disgraceful to tbe nation: sucb is tbeir incon- 
stancy wbile Moses was on Mount Sinai communing 
witb God. Tbey could not persevere for forty days 
in God's service, but tbey feil into most gross idola- 
try, setting up a golden calf of tbeir own make and 
offering up tbeir bomage to it witb absurd ceremo- 
nies; and even Aaron, tbe brotber of Moses, was 
induced to assist in tbeir delinquency. (Ex. xxzii.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ThnSy also, tbeir many sbortcoiaings brongbt upon 
tbem so strong a reproacb from God as tbis: 

"Tbe Lord bad said unto Moses: Say^ unto tbe 
cbildren of Israel, Ye are a stiflE-necked people: I will 
come up into tbe midst of tbee in a moment and con- 
some tbee.** (xxxiii, 5.) 

So also in Exod. xxxiv, 9, Moses tbus prays to 

"O Lord, let my Lord, I pray tbee, go among us; 
for it is a stiff-necked people." 

We find, besides, a mutin y among tbe people 
beaded by two bundred and fifty princes of tbe assem- 
bly, recorded in Num. xvi; and at a later period a 
very general delinquency, wben a vast number feil 
into idolatry and otber gross crimes, on account of 
wbich tbey were punisbed by terrible marks of God's 
Indignation. We need not specify otber occasions of 
thcir fall, justifying tbe name by wbicb tbey were 
called, a stiflE-necked people. 

One additional f act may be named wbicb, tbougb 
mentioned in Genesis, would be of itself a reason 
wby tbe Hebrews would not bave ^onspired witb 
Moses in concocting and preserving a false record. 

Respect for one's ancestry is a common feeling 
among men. Especially is tbis tbe case wben tbe 
ancestors are not very distant from us. Now tbe 
twelve sons of Jacob were tbe ancestors of every 
Israelite; and as ancestors tbey were not remote. As 
ancestors tbey were beld in great veneration. Tbey 
brougbt tbe bones of Josepb witb tbem from Egypt 
in veneration of bis memory and in obedience to bis 
last will. Now it is quite inconceivable tbat any 
nation imbued witb sucb sentiments sbould permit 
tbe bistory of Josepb and bis brotbers to be banded 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


down to posterity as it is recorded in Genesis xxxviiy 
unless they were perfectly consoious of its truth: for 
these ancestors of all tbe tribes, except Joseph, Ben- 
jamin, and Reuben, are represented as plotting 
togetber for tbe perpetration of one of tbe most 
beartless acta ever committed by men. Would tbe 
otber tribes bave consented to bave tbeir ancestors 
tbus blackened, wbile tbose of tbe tbree tribes, and 
especially Josepb and Reuben, were elevated above 
tbem all? Yes, even above tbe tribe of Judab, wbicb 
was promised to be tbe royal tribe, and tbat of Levi, 
which was already tbe ruling and priestly tribe, wben 
tbe Pentateucb was written. 

After tbis read tbe last of words of Jacob, füll of 
sorrowf ul and propbetic reproacbes, some to be f ul- 
filled in regard to many of tbe tribes, and tbis time 
even tbe tribes of Reuben and Benjamin do not 
escape tbe scatbing. See Genesis xliz. 

The Pentateucb, therefore, is not tbe result of a 
conspiracy between Moses and bis people. Was it 
tbe deceit, then, of Moses himself ? According to tbe 
rul^s of fair criticism jf bistorical writer, especially an 
eye-witness is to be supposed sincere, unless tbere are 
positive reasons for calling bis sincerity to doubt. In 
tbe case of Moses no such reiäsons can be given. On 
tbe contrary he possesses all tbe characteristics of 
sincerity wbicb tbe most f astidious critic can require. 

Thefirst thing that strikes us wben we read tbe 
Pentateucb is tbe sublimity and boliness of the doc- 
trines therein taught.. 

In the first words of Genesis we bave tbe autbon- 
tative declaration of the world's origin : " In the begin- 
ning God created heaven and eartb." Matter then is 
not etemal. It is Qod^a creation. The world is not 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


made by chanoe or by the action of blind forces, nor 
is matter a part of God, as the pantheists say, but 
matter is creature subject to its Creator, and depend- 
ing ontirely upon Him. 

The idoa of God the Creator is, as we have already 
shown, in perfect accord with human reason, and 
more, it is the only view of God which reason approves * 
and demonstrates. However, it would seem that un- 
aided reason is incapable of rising to this sublime 
idea. Paganphilosophy never attained it. Its Systems 
always rest on the first oristonce of a ohaotic mass, 
which the divine power organizetl. Butwhence came 
matter? How came it into the hands of him who 
organized it and gave it form?« These problems Plato 
could not solve. As we havo soen in chapter 7, CoL 
IngersoU cannot solve it either. 

Moses, on the other band, lets us at once into the 
secrets of the Eternal, and teaches this most sublime 
truth. Tet the Colonel has the hardihood to say that 
"Moses received from the Egyptians the principal 
parts of bis narrative, (of Creation,) making such 
changes and additions as were'necessary to satisf y.the 
peculiar superstitions of bis own people." (P. 51.) 

He f urther explains this by saying that " if some 
man shoald assert that he had received from God the 
theories of evolution, etc." and we should find that 
" he had lived in the f amily of Charles Darwin, we 
certainly would account for bis having these theories 
in a natural way." (P. 51.) 

The diflEerences between the two cases are that, 

1. The Egyptian Cosmogony is evidently not the 
original of the Mosaic. The onfy so-called Egyptian 
work which could even in a remote degree be com- 
pared with the Mosaic record are the Hermetic books 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


which are aoknowledged by learned men to be in 
great part at least sparioas. Wherever Hermes Tris- 
megistus resembles tbe Mosaic record be falls into 
absurdities. See Champollion's "Ancient Egypt." 
Darras' imabridged Cburcb History voL i, (P. 125.) 

Instead of Moses copying, Hermes oopied Moses, 
and f ailing to copy truly, bis mistakes are absurd. 

2. Mizraim tbe fatber of tbe Egyptians was one 
of tbose wbo dispersed tbemselves after tbe boilding 
of tbe tower of Babel, 587 years before tbe birtb of 
Moses. Tbe f atbers of tbe bnman race at tbat period 
certainly knew tbe traditions banded to tbem by Noab 
(still alive) and bis sons. Is it wonderf ul, tben, tbat 
tbe pagan nations retained some notion, derived from 
tbe common ancestors of mankind, of Creation, God, 
Providence, tbe Immortality of tbe soul, etc. ? It is 
tbus tbat we find traces of religion among tbose 

But we bave seen bow men, in spite of buman rea- 
son, degenerated in tbeir belief, and corrupted it so 
tbat tbe original creed of mankind can scarcely be re- 
cognized. Tbat tbis degeneration took place we proved 
in cbapter 9. Tbis is f uUy confirmed by tbe testimony 
of Sacred Scripture. 

" A fatber being aflücted .... made to binuself 
tbe image of bis son .... and bim wbo tben bad 
died as a man, be began now to worsbip as a god, 

and appointed bim rites and sacrifices Tben in 

process of time .... tbis error was kept as a law, 
and stataes were worsbipped by tbe conmiandments 
of tyrants." (Wis. xiv, 16.) 

" And tbe multitude of men carried away by tbe 
beauty of tbe work took bim now for a god tbat but 
a little before was bonored as a man." (Verse 20.) 


by Google 


" When they knew God they have not glorified him 

. . . • and they changed the glory of the incorrupti- 

ble Qod into the likeness of the. image of a corrupti- 

ble man, and of birds and of f oar f ooted beasts and 

of creeping things." (Rom. i, 23.) 

It is th^ climax of impertinence and dishonesty to 
say that the religion of the Bible was borrowed from 
the absordities and impieties of Egypt. 



1. The doctrines, then, of one only God, the Crea- 
tor of all things, of God's Providence, Holiness, Jus- 
tice, Mei-cy, Eternity, Truth, the doctrines and pre- 
cepts of human responsibility to God, the punishment 
of the wicked, the reward of virtue, the immortality 
of the soul, the Obligation of worshipping God, the 
ten commandments are so sublime, so consistent, so 
elevating, that they must leave their impress on one 
who had meditated on them like Moses. An eamest 
beliöf in them is one of the characteristics of Truth, 
possessed by Moses. 

These doctrines and precepts Moses inculcated on 
the Jews as necessary for belief and practice. His 
zeal in promulgating them is seen in innumerable 
passages of the Pentateuch. How then could he so 
grossly manifest his own contempt for them by en- 
deavoring to palm on the people such a tissue of 
f alsehoods as the Pentateuch must be if its miracles 
be untrue ? Take out the miracles and the Penta- 
teuch will be a reoord without a meaning. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


2. The wisdom of the Mosaic Laws is acknowl- 
edged by infidels. They are well adapted to their 
object, to attach the Jews to their owncountry and 
religioD, and to keep them distinct from the idola- 
trous nations that snrrounded them. Their laws of 
health are so conducive to this end that in countries 
which have been visited by plagues, the Jews, f ol- 
lowing the Mosaic Law strictly, have escaped härm 
on many occasions. 

" A contagious distemper raged in Palestine and 

the neighborhood; tho wiso precautions of our legis- 

tor prevented its communication and ourfathers thus 

.... kept ofiE this scourge.'* (Jews* Letters to 

Voltaire, p. 345.) 

" In this (Hebrow) legislation there were none of 
those hereditary prof essions .... those blemishing 
distinotions of castes established among the Egyptians 
and Brahmins; none of tbose contempts of one Order 
f or the other, which caused seditions f or a long time 
in Bome. Everything recalled to the minds of the He- 
brews that original equality and those fratemal feel- 
ings with which their common descent*f rom one stock 
ought to inspire them." 

" Where oan laws be found which require * the ten- 
der care of the Jewish lawtgiver f or the orphan, the 
widow, the poor and all the distressed ? ' " 

"Almost all ancient govemments abandoned .... 
slaves . . . . to the lust and brutality of their masters." 

" Our laws didnot give to masters these tyrannicajr 
powers. They watched over the lives and moäemy 
of slaves. Our f athers, f or this reason, were almost 
the only ancient people among whom were never rebel- 
lions of slaves which brought so many other states to 
the brink of ruin," (Jews' Letters, pp. 334, 338.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Can we suppose that a legislator so pradent, so 
zealous for justice and meroy among his people, is 
himself an impudent and characterless liar ? 

3. Moses seeks in all his acts the good of the na- 
tion. His family are not placed in lofty positions. 
His sons live in obscurity. This does not look like 
the conduct of one who would lie Impudently for 

4. An impostor desirous of passing upon the public 
a false history would not make Statements publicly 
known to be false. The, appearances of God to him 
would be all private, as was the case with Mahomet 
and Joe Smith, the Mormon Prophet; or at most a 
very few persons conspiring with him would be the 
witnesses. So also if there were any miracles pro- 
fessed to have been wrought, they would in like 
manner be private, or if some stränge f eats were done 
in public, they would be mere juggling tricks, and 
such tricks would need to be but sparingly used, un- 
less indeed the impostor were a man of extraordinary 
boldness. Even then he would scarcely be able to 
keep up for long so daring an imposture. Let üb 
look at the deeds of Moses in this light. It is not 
denied by inüdels that the ordinary or non-miraculous 
events described may be true. Thus we have seen 
that Mr. IngersoU does not deny a few of the promi- 
nent occurrences, such as the leadership of Moses, 
the escape from bondage under that leadership, the 
Visitation of a pestilence on Egypt, etc., (pp, 207, 
208;) but all that is in any degree miraculous he 
would reject. 

We need, therefore, only specify the miraculous 
facts, The truth of the non-miraculous facts is 
shown by exactly similar reasoning. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Moses proclaims miracalous facts the falsebood of 
which would be known to bis people as soon as tbey 
were proolaimed, unless tbey were absolutely true; 
and be would bave been at once confronted by wit- 
nesses innumerable wbo would bave refuted tbem. 
It was only on tbe strengtb of bis miracles tbat be 
obtained autbority among bis people. If tbese bad 
been f alse tbey would bave been palpable f alseboods, 
and tbey would not bave obtained bis autbority f or 
bim. Sucb facts as tbe tuming of tl\e waters of tbe 
Nile into blood, tbe frogs overrunning tbe wbole 
country, tbe scinipbs and flies annoying tbe wbole 
country in so extraordinary a manner, tbe murrain, 
tbe boils and blai^s on men^ and beasts, and finally 
tbe deatb of tbe first-bom, were so public, so obvious 
to all tbat an impostor would not bave dared to relate 
tbem as a proof of bis divine missiou, to tbe very 
people wbo bad been witnesses tbat tbey bad not 
occurred. ^ 

6. Col. IngersoU maintains, (p. 207) tbat it is more 
reasonable tosay tbat tbe Jews "accounted for tbe 
misf ortunes and calamities suffered by tbe Egyptians, 
by saying tbat tbey were tbe judgments of God." 

Tbis is, on tbe contrary, quite unreasonable. Sucb 
calamities do not occur at tbe command of man, in 
tbe ordinary course of nature; but in tbe account 
wbicb Moses wrote for tbe Jews tbey are described 
as occurring at bis coinmand. Tbis is an essential 
point of tbe bistory, and as bis command was public, 
every one knew wbetber or not tbe command was 
given. It is also recorded of eigbt out of tbe ten 
plagues tbat tbey were positively foretold. It is not 
Said wbetber or not any sucb warning was given of 
tbe otber two, the plague of boils witb blains, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tbe plague of darkness: but these two, as well as 
the others oame only at the command of Moses. So 
certain is it that these plagues were mirades, and not 
ordinary events, that the Israelites are directed to 
take certain precautions to avert from themselves the 
death which was imminent upon the first-born; and 
before the plague of the hail came, the Egyptians 
were wamed to keep their oattle under cover, and the 
plague injured only those wbo heeded not the warn- 

The same is to be'said of the passage of the Israel- 
ites through the Red Sea. When Moses holding in 
bis band bis rod stretched it over the Red Sea, the 
waters divided so that the Israelites passed through, 
and when the Egyptians f ollowing were in the bed 
of tbe sea, with the waters on each side as a wall, 
Moses again stretched bis rod over the sea, the Egyp- 
tians were overwhelmed by the retum of the waters 
to their place. (Ex. xiv.) • 

This also was a public fact which the whole nation 
could have contradicted if it were not true. 

The same can be said of the suppiy of manna which 
f alling from heaven (the sky) six days of each week, 
kept the nation supplied with f ood during their forty 
years' wanderings in the deserts of Arabia: (Ex. 
xvi:) of the water which gushed from the rock in 
Horeb: (Ex. xvii:) of the sudden death which befeil 
Nadab and Abibu wbo were consumed by " fire from 
the Lord " because they " oflEered stränge fire before 
the liord: " (Lev. x, 1, 2:) of the fire that was quenched 
by the prayer of Moses: (Num. xi, 2:) of the open- 
ing of the earth to swallow up Korah, Dathan, and 
Abiron and their foUowers, because of their mutiny 
against Moses and Aaron, (Num. xvi,) besides many 
other facts eq«ally above nature. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Of all these works, Moses testifies ^Hhe Lord hatli 
sent me to do aU tbese works; for I haye not done 
them of my own mind." (Num. xvi, 28.) 

6. The miracles of Moses were therefore the work 
of God. They were the testimony of God that 
Moses had divine mission. It is evident that in 
relating such faots, Moses could not have de- 
ceived the Hebrews, even if he had wished to do so, 
and the single f act that they reeeived his teachings 
and writings as divine is a demonstration that no one 
could gainsay his miracles. Moses therefore has no 
hesitation in saying to the nation what an impostor 
would not presume to say: 

"Tour eyes have seen all the great works of the 
Lord which he hath done." (Deut, xi, 7.) 

Again: ^^Tou have seen all the things that the 
Lord did bef ore you in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, 
and to all his servants, and to his whole Is^nd." 

" The great temptations which thy eyes have seen, 
those mighty signs and wonders." (Deut, xix, 2, 3.) 

*I, These miracles are not attested by Moses alone. 
Joshua speaks of the passage through the Red Sea as 
a matter well known oven to foreign nations. Thus 
Kahab of Jericho teils the Hebrew spies: 

" We have heard that the Lord dried up the water 
of the Red Sea at youi* going in, when you came out 
of Egypt." (Jos. ii, 10.) 

We find also that, 

Joshua '^built an altar . . . • as Moses the servant 
of the Lor<} had commanded, .... and he read all 
the words of the blessing and the cursing that were 
written in the book of the law. He left out nothing 
of those things which Moses had commanded." 
(Jösh. viii.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Why should he be so partioulary now that Moses 
was dead, and bis power need not be feared, unless 
both he and the nation KNfiW by the miracles of 
Moses which they had witnessed that the latter exer- 
cised authority f rom God ? 

We might multiply similar proofs, but these will 
suffice to show that the Mosaic Religion was ordained 
by God; for we have proved in chapter 13 that Mir- 
acles give this testimony to doctrin& 





Having demonstrated the truth of the last four 
books of the Pentateuch, it is proper now to show 
the truth of Genesis. 

This book contains a summary of the history of 
mankind from the Creation to the bailding of the 
Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the human race, 
after which the narrative is confined chiefly to the 
history of God's chosen race down to the death of 
Joseph. According to the usually received ohron- 
ology, the Tower of Babel was built in the year of 
the World 1800, or 2204 B. 0. Abraham was bom 
1996 B. C, and died 1821 B. 0. The Israelites en- 
tered Egypt 1708 B. C. Joseph died 1635 B. C. 

1. Moses was not deceived in regard to the faots 
related in Genesis; for we have already seen that the 
Hebrews preserved carefuUy their genealogies, and 
undoubtedly the principal f acts of the history of their 
ancestors, at all events as far back as Abraham; for 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


they expeoted that tbe promises made by God to 
Abraham would be fulfilled in their nation. Tbus 
tbe covenant made by God witb Abrabam is fre- 
quently referred to in tbe later books, as to a f act 
wbicb is well known to tbe Hebrews. (See Ex. ii, 24, 
vi, 3j 8.) 

Tbns also Moses appeals to God to preserve Israel: 

" Remember Abrabam, Isaac and Israel, tby ser- 
vants to wbom tbou sworest by tby own seif saying: 
I will multiply your seed as tbe stars of beaven; and 
tbis wbole land tbat I bave spoken of, I will give to 
yonr seed, and you shall possess it for ever." (Ex. 
xxxii, 13.) 

2. Tbere were also m^ans of knowing many of tbe 
events related, for example, tbe bistory of Joseph, 
from Egyptian annals, records and monuments; for 
we bave evidence, even to-day, tbat tbe Egyptians 
were very careful to keep such records. There must 
have been very many extant then wbicb bave perished 

. 3. Even from tbe Creation of tbe world to Abta- 
ham, ^ well as from Abraham to Moses, there were 
means of knowing tbe tinith, of wbicb Moses could 
make use, viz., oral tradition, written records, histori- 
cal songs, monuments, and above all, Bevelation 
from God. 

*Now, though 2473 years had passed from tbe Crea- 
tion to tbe birth of Moses, .tbe number of generations 
was but small, on account of the long lives of tbe 
first men. Tbus Adam was 300 years living witb 
Mathusala, and Mathusala 600 years witb Noah, and 
theref ore he must have conversed witb Noab's f amily, 
and have handed down the tradition of Creation. 

Sem saw Isaac, Isaac saw Levi, and Levi lived a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^ long time with Amram the f ather of Moses. Thus, 
as f ar as tbe perpetuation of traditions was concemed, 
^ Moses was» at most» in tbe sixth generation after 
Adam. We cannot say, theref ore, that a man like 
Moses, a historian, skillf ul in the science of tbe day, 
could bave been deceived as to tbe f acts wbieb are 
related of tbe early bistory of mankind. Tbe f acts 
be relates are just tbe salient points of bistory, just 
Bucb f acts as could be. transmitted easily from gen- 
eration to generation. Tbe details of tbe ages and 
genealogies given in Genesis prove tbat be bad to 
direct bim^ records wbicb could be relied on, and be- 
sides, tbe long time tbat one generation lived with 
tbe next gave ample opportunity f or eacb generation 
to acquaint tbe next succeeding, of all tbe tbings 
wbicb Moses records. If, tberef ore, tbe Mosaic bis- 
tory of tbe period be spurious it must be tbat Moses 
was a deceiver, not tbat be was deceived. 

4. In tbe next place we find tbat it was tbe custom 
in tbose early days, to record tbe principal facts of 
bistory in song so tbat tbey would not be forgotten 
from generation to generation. Tbe song of Moses 
wbicb sets f orth, in tbe tbirty-second cbapter of Deu- 
teronomy, tbe mercies of God to bis people and bis 
vengeance on tbeir oppressors was written for tbis 
purpose by command of God. (Deut, xxxi, 19, 21.) 

We bave, for a similar purpose, tbe song of Moses 
in Ex. XV. Tbis song was sung by Mary tbe sister of 
Moses, witb a cboir of tbe Hebrew women. 

From Genesis xxxi, 27, we leam tbat tbis was no 
new custom, but tbat it prevailed in tbe days of 
Jacob, for it is spoken of as a common practice tben. 

6. It bas been proved in cbapter 15 tbat writing 
was used bef ore tbe time of Moses. We cannot teil 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


when writing was first used. There is, theref ore, no 
difficulty in supposiog tbat Moses reoeived Informa- 
tion f rom written records. 

6. We have besides examples of the custom of 
erecting memorial altars, as did Noab, Abrabam, Isaac 
and Jacob in many places. (See Gen. viii, 20; xii, 7; 
xxvi, 26; etc.) / 

Wells were named on acoount of events wbicb oc- 
carred near tbem^ and tbe traditioa of tbe events was 
kept up in connection witb tbem. (Gen. xvi, 14; xxiv, 
62; XXV, 11; xxi, 31. Compare also tbe Hebrew in 
Deut. X, 6, and Num. xxx, 31: Beeroth Bene-Jaakan^ 
the weUa of the sons of Jaahan^ etc.) 

Stones were also erected as monuments to mark tbe 
locality^ wbere special events had occurred. (Gen. 
xxviii, 18, etc.) Tbe knowledge of tbe events was 
transmitted in connection witb sucb memorials also. 

7. In fine, wbatever migbt be lacking of otber 
means, Moses bad ßevelation f rom God. Tbe miracles 
of Exodus prove tbis. From God, tberefore, be 
could well bave tbe bistory of Creation, and all tbe 
otber facts wbicb be records down to tbe call of 
Abrabam; and even after, if it were needed. Tbus 
Moses bad more tban all tbe means wbicb bistorians 
usually bave of ascertaining tbe trutb concerning 
tbose past ages. 


8. Neitber was Moses a deceiver. Tbis we bave 
already proved in regard to tbe later books of tbe 
Pentateuob. Since be bas all tbe cbaracteristics of 
sincerity in writing tbem, be cannot be supposed to 
have laid tbem aside in order to concoct a fictitious 
Genesis. We bave proved tbat it is against bis real 
oharacter and divine mission to suppose tbat be was a 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


deoeiyer. These reasons are equally valid as regards 
OenesiB. (See chapters 30 and 31.) 

9. An impostor would not have invented such facta 
as are related in Genesis, f or their incongruity would 
have been detected hj his nation, who still held in 
their minds the traditions of the past conceming 
the primitive ages, the long lives of antediluvian 
men, etc. An impostor, therefore, would have 
omitted the names and genealogies given by Moses, 
and the dates, for by giving these he would have 
f umished f acilities for the ref utation of his history. 
Besides, we cannot suppose that God would perf onn 
miracles to attest the truth of an impostor's story. 

10. The exact date of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey 
is unknown. Herodotus places it at about four hun- • 
dred years bef ore his own time, which would be about 
860 B. C. The siege of Troy, conceming which he 
writes chiefly, occurred about the year 1184 B. C. 
Critics agree that, with wonderf ul 'acumen, this bard 
drew from the national ballads of Greece, chiefly, the 
materials which form the basis of his work, and that 
if all the details are not strictiy accurate, neverthe- 
less they rest upon an honest substratum, and show 
the real life and manners of their age. Homer is 
acknowledged to be a correct delineator of the life 
of mankind in its early stages. In his works we und 
the sfate of the arts and sciences in their very begin- 
ning. In the writings of Moses we also find the de- 
lineation of the manners of men in the very earliest 
stages of human life. We find the beginnings of 
the most powerful empires, and the simplicity of 
manners which must have been characteristic of that 
early stage of society. 

Thus, when Abraham enters Egypt, Pharaoh is at 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


once inf ormed o£ the arrival of the stranger. (Gren. 
xii.) » Th'e same hagpens at Gerar, when Abimelech 
is king. (xx.) All this meets with its counterpart in 
our own times. We see the same happen when such 
men as Livingstone and Stanley enter the territory 
of the simple monarchs of iuterior Africa. 

Every city has its king in Palestine, and in the 
neighboring country the largest extent of a kingdom 
is a small province. (Gen. xiv.) This is in perfect 
keeping with all that is known of the ea^liest ages. 
Thus at the siege of Troy we find a King of Mycenae, 
a King of the Myrmidones, a King of the Locri, a 
Eling of Ithaca, etc. Thus, also, Abraham with three 
hundred and eighteen f oUowers, conquers and puts to 
flight five kings. (Gen. xiv.) ^ 

The wealth of the most prominent men is repre- 
sented by the number of their servants and of their 
cattle. (xii, 16; xx, 14; xxiv, 32; etc.) 

The heads of wealthy families, the fathers and 
mothers, and their sons and daughters took part in 
the ordinary occupations of lif e, took care of their 
flocks, received guests, brought water to wash their 
feet, prepared the meals, etc. (Gen. xxiv.) The food 
was of the simplest character, even when it was de- 
sired to show ^he greatest respect to honored guests. 
(G^n. xviii, 2 to 8.) All this is quite natural before 
the introduction of modern formalities. As we 
would expect, there is no evidence that there was any 
great progress made, at that early period, in the arts 
and Sciences, at all events^b any much greater extent 
than would naturally have been transmitted through 
through the f amily of Noah f rom antediluvian times. 
Thus the buildJing of the tower of Babel, recorded 
in Genesis xi, arad of the cities ^^ Babel, Erech, Accad, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


andCalnah . . . . andNineveh .... Behobothand 
Calah," etc., shows some progress in arobitectnre, an 
art which would naturally be one of the first to wbich 
the necessities of man would call bis attention at a 
very early date. 

If such eyidences of the tratb of Homer's pictures 
of ancient times demonstrate tbe accuracy of bis 
sources of information, wby sbould tbey not be a 
proof also tbat Moses drew bis knowledge of early 
times f rom accurate sources ? 

11. Tbe traditions of nations confirm in many par- 
ticulars tbe account given by Moses. Tbe proof of 
tbis in detail we leav^ to tbe next cbapter. 



In tbe traditions of var^ as nations tbe main faots 
mentioned by Moses in Gt lesis are preserved more 
or less distinctly. Thns we* find testimonies to the 
great cbaos wbich existed be ^ore God brought the 
earth to its present form, tba earth being covered 
witb water, tbe spirit of God *i vivif ying all tbings, 
darkness covering tbe face of tbö' deep, tbe formation 
of man f rom clay, tbe original ini locence and fall of 
man, the bistory of Adam and Eve, and of the 
temptation by tbe serpent.^ Tbe H ndoo booksrelat- 
ing tbis bistory even give tbe na; nes of our first 
parents as tbey are given in Grenesi» We find also 
testimonies to tbe long lives of tbe^ first men, the 
building of the tower of Babel, tbe flo\3d, etc. 



We already quoted from Colonel IngersoU the 
Statement that the Egyptian account of Creation 
bears strong resemblance to the Mosaic, so that he 
maintains that Moses borrowed bis account from thenu 
See chapters 22, 23. Yet he states that the same 
account substaatially was f ound with the Babylonians 
and Hindoos. (Pp. 51, 58.) 

Did Moses then borrow his account from the Baby- 
lonians and Hindoos too ? Or did these borrow from 
the Egyptians ? Or did the three nations all borrow 
from oneanother? Surely separated as they were 
from one another, and having very little, if any inter- 
course with each other, the ColonePs borrowing 
theory does not appear a very reasonable one.^ It 
would certainly seem that their various cosmogonies 
are distorted from one common source; and if this 
be the case, then the conmion source must be that 
account which existed bef ore the dispersion of the 
human race, and if this account has been handed 
down to posterity, to it we must look for the origi- 
nal truth from which the erroneous accounts have 
been derived. If there is one account, self-consistent, 
sublime, bearing intrinsic characteristics of truth and 
originality, whereas the others engraft upon it what 
is absurd, and evidently a distortion of the original 
truth, we must conclude that these have copied from 
one original, but as theyTiave not copied faithfuUy, 
they are disfigured by errors which do not ocour in 
the original. 

This is precisely the case with the traditions of 
Pagan nations. Where they resemble the Mosaic 
narrative, they confirm it as the original, which they 
attempt to copy: where they vary from it, they have 
disfigured it with absurdities for which the original 
is not responsible. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Let US now take a bird's-eye view of the principal 
events mentioned in the Pagan cosmogonies and his- 
tories of the earliest times. 

The Egyptian cosmogony is as yet not completely 
known. However, Ammon-Ba is described as the 
Supreme principle, uncreated and invisible, distinct 
from matter, the Creator of all things. Plntarch 
has preserved the inscription to Isis on the temple of 
Sais: '^ I am all that has been, and that will be, and 
no one has yet lifted my veil." 

Apuleius States in Metamorphoses zi, that the 
sacerdotal hymns thus address Isis: 

"By thee seeds are produced, grow and arrive at 
matarity: thou rulest the order of time, the move- 
ments of the heaven: thou givest light to the sun, 
and all the stars are subject to thee.*' 

Manetho says, as quoted by Eosebius: "The first 
god of the Egyptians was Vulcan, the principle of 
fire. From Vulcan was born the Sun, then the bene- 
volent God, then Saturn, Osiris, and Typhon, the 
brother of Osiris, then Horus, the son of Osiris and 

These notions of Manetho are evidently derived 
partly from the Greeks and introduced into Egyptian 

In the di^courses of Thoth, as found in Hermes 
Trismegistus, the doctrine of Creation is found: 

The judgment of M. ChampoUion is that the basis 
of these books is truly Egyptian, but that many of 
the thoughts interspersed have been introduced from 
foreign sources. 

Mixed with the doctrine of Creation we find in 

*' There are seven agents which contain in ciroles 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the material world, and their aotion is named des- 

" The operating Intelligence and the Word, com- 
prising these circles in themselves and turning with 
great velocity, this machine moves from the begin- 
ning to the end, without beginning or end, for it 
continues always at the point where it begins. And 
from the totality of these circles, animals without 
reason have been made from the inferior Clements.'' 

Certainly the simple and sublime account in Gene- 
sis, which asserts at once the infinite power of God, 
the Creator, could not be drawn from such absurdi- 
ties. ThQ notion of Creation in Hermes, must either 
have been drawn from Genesis, and the nonsense 
mixed with it, or both were drawn from the common 
tiadition which mankind held before their dispersion 
through the world. 

The idea of the Trinity is also found in the Egyp- 
tian Cosmogony. Among the Persians, Zoroaster ap- 
peared about 600 B. C. He travelled in many ooun- 
tries to instruct himself in religious knowledge, and 
the Zend Avesta is the result. 

According to this book, Ormuzd produced heaven 
in 40 days, water in 60 days, the earth in 65 days, 
trees in 30 days, animals in 80 days, man in 65 days, 
each work being f ollowed by a f estival. 

No where eise than in Zoroaster outside of Genesis, 
is the division of Creation into six periods found. 

Zoroaster visiting Babylon, just when the Jews 
were in captivity, no doubt became acquainted with 
the book of Genesis, and some of the difficulties 
occurred to him which strike modern infidels, such 
as the creation of light before the sun, and he 
changed the Order of creation to make it seem more 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


likely. Hence he pnts the creation of heaven first 
to inclade sun, moon, planets and stars, and light 
Water is, aocording to him, created before the earth, 
and the earth itself is created a considerable time 
after the whole immense universe, and it takes mach 
longer time. All this to avoid the apparent diffictd- 
ties of Oenesis. 

Zoroaster also has a notion of the Trinity. 

Among the Hindoos the most ancient sacred bock 
is Said to be the book of Manon. Colonel IngersoU 
wonld make the Hindoo books older than the Penta- 
tenchy bat M. G. Panthier, a leamed Sanscrit scholar, 
declares that it cannot be older than 1300 years B.G 

Aocording to this book, Manoa is sapremely pow- 
erfnL He is alone the first bom of beings, knowing 
all trath. • 

The visible nniverse was in darkness incomprehen« 
sible and indistinct antil the self-existing Great-Power 
rendered it visible, dissipating darkness. 

The Sapreme Spirit resolved to make all creatares 
from bis own sabstance, and prodaced an egg, bril* 
liant as gold, from which Brahma came forth, the 
ancestor of all the worlds. 

In time the egg became divided and from it were 
prodnced heaven, the earth, the atmosphere, the 
regions of light and the abyss of water. 

Aboat 200 years B. C. the Hindoos broaght oat a 
new Cosmogony, that of Baddha. This is chieflyre- 
markable for its difficnlties and absardities. 

This System is also founded on the belief in one 
Qod Sapreme served by hierarchies of Spirits. 

The Phoenician Cosmogony is said to have been 
written by Sanchoniathon, who floarished aboat the 
time of the Trojan war, 1184 B. C. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Voltaire pretended that the acoount in Genesis was 
borrowed f rom the Phoenicians, bat there is no resem- 
blance whatever between the two: if we except that 
there is but one Supreme Gk)d according to Sanchoni- 
athon: but that God is the Sun. However, as the 
Phcenioian writer, whose existence even is doubtful, 
is certainly not so ancient as Moses, therefore Moses 
oould not have copied from him. 

The Chaldean Cosmogony is known through frag- 
ments of Berosus, some f ew of which have been pre- 
served by Eusebius, who obtained them from Poly- 

Berosus lived about 260 B. C. He teaches a prim- 
eval chaos. Bei made heaven and earth, formed 
man's body from clay, but his soul from the divine 

The Chinese account of Creation is by Confucius, 
who lived 500 B. C. He also teaches one Supreme Be- 
ing the maker of heaven and earth. See the tezts of 
all these Systems in Darras' Church History, voL 1, 
c. 2. 

The formation of man from clay is f ound in the 
Latin and Greek fable of Prometheus, and the forma- 
tion of man's soul by the breath of God. 

The Mosaic history of man placed by God in a 
garden of pleasure finds its counterpart among the 
Chinese, who say that man obtained happiness after 
contemplating the tree of life for seven days. 

The Hindoo Big- Vedla says that the tree of life 
Springs from the throne of Ormuzd, and if man had 
tasted its fruit he would not have died. Homer and 
Hesiod also teil of a food of the gods, ambrosia, the 
eating of which transmits immortality. 

Among the Buddhists, the God Buddha discovers 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tmth and finds his doctrine ander the Xree of knowl- 
edge. (Mr. Schoebel, Buddha and Buddhism. Annais 
of Christian Phil., 4 «eries, voL 15.) 

According to the Persian Zend-Avesta, Meschia 
and Meschian6 were seduced by Ahriman (the Evil 
Spirit,) under the form of an adder who presentQd to 
them deceitful fruits. (Vol. 2.) 

The Japanese traditions represent the fall of man 
ander figare of a tree aroand which a dreadf al ser- 
pent is coiled. Noel's Japanese Cosmogony. 

The Mongols say that on the soll where oar first 
parents lived, the plant schima grew abundantly, 
white and sweet like sagar. Its aspect sedaced man 
to eat of it and all things were oonsamed. (A. Nich- 
olas, Phil. Stadies, vol. 2.) 

Mexican monuments previoas to the discovery of 
America represented the first man and first woman 
separated from each other by a tree. The woman is 
named the woman of the aerpent and holds in her 
hand fruits. (De Humboldt, Cordilleras and Ameri- 
can Mountains.) 

Are all these coincidences merely accidental ? The 
Infidels of Germany are perplexed to explain thenti. 
Populär traditions which are extraordinary are always 
local; but here are traditions which find a place in 
Theogonies most remote and unconnected. • Is there 
any way to explain them except by a common foan- 
tain, the primeval tradition of mankind before their 
dispersion into different countries? Thus the uni- 
formity of the traditions proves another fact attested 
by Moses, the original unity of the human species. 

Mr. Renan is even obliged to acknowledge that in 
Genesis we find '' the most ancient memorials of the 
Semitic races« Written at a most ancient epoch, the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


first chapters of Oenesis present to us, if not in detail, 
at least in substance, the primitive traditions of tbe 
Semitio race." 

The accord of traditions might be largely eztended 
on this subject, but we have above those wbich are 
most clear and'decisive. Among the different na- 
tions of Asia a primitive paradise is believed, adorned 
with such circamstances as accord with the lastes of 
the divers nations. In Thibet degraded spirits tempt 
men to sin. In Greenlaud, oar first parents are de- 
scribed as having fallen into sin. Their posterity 
were drowned for their sins and only one man was 
saved. Under form of a serpent the Scandinavians 
represented the devil, etc. 

From Adam to Noah there are ten patriarchal gen- 
erations: 1, Adam; 2, Seth; 3, Enos; 4, Cainan; 5, 
Malaleel; 6, Jared; 7, Enoch; 8, Mathusalem; 9, La- 
mech; 10, Noah. Berosus gives from the beginning 
also ten Chaldean kings to Xisuthrus, ander whose 
reign came the deluge. 

Sanchoniathon gives ten generations from the father 
of the human race, down to the present race of 

The Hindoos count ten successive ages or a'oatara 
down to Manou the Eastem Noah.' 

The history of the Deluge is also perfectly attested 
by the traditions and monuments of ancient nations. 
The proof of this, however, we may leave to ohapter 
45, where the deluge will be treated of more in detail. 

From all these testimonies we draw the inference 
that the truth of the history delivered by Moses in 
Genesis is incontestably established by the records 
and traditions of mankindt 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Thb proof 8 of the authenticity, integrity and truth 
oi the books of the New Testament are even stronger 
than those we have advanoed f or the Pentateuch. It 
would, however, swell this bodk to much larger 
dimensions than would suit the writer'.s design, to 
treat it here at the same length as we have treated 
the Pentateuch, and it would interfere with the wri- 
ter's inteution to answer all Col. IngersolPs attacks 
upon the Pentateuch. For this.reason, we shall rather 
indicate the method of proof of the New Testament, 
than give it in detail. Should this book receive a 
favorable reception from the public, it is the writer'B 
Intention, hereafter, to continue the work here begun, 
by another volume which will be specially devoted to 
the consideration of the claims of the New Testament. 

The New Testament was written entirely by con- 
temporaries of Christ, and in great part by His Apos- 
tles, who were His intimate friends and companions. 
It is theref ore an easy matter, comparatively, to prove 
that they were not deceived in regard ' to the f acts 
which they narrate. It was written within a short 
time of the death of Christ, at a historical period. 
The evidences of its authenticity and integrity are on 
this account more numerous and decisive even than 
the evidences of authenticity and integrity of the 
Pentateuch. The evidences of the sincerity of the 
writers of the New Testament, also exceed those 
which can be adduced in favor of Moses, fn every 

Digitized by VjOOSIC 


respect, therefore, the historical proof s in favor of 
the New Testament are complete. ^ 

The Catholic Church has a history which goes 
back for over 1800 years to the very date when the 
books of the New Testament were written. During 
that period her testimony has been constant and un- 
varying that the books of the New Testament are 
the work of the anthors, to whom they are attributSed 
to this day. Even infidels acknowledge that since 
the third Century, this has been the case: bntthe per- 
snasion could not then have been so universal unless 
it had originated in the very beginning of the 
Church's existence. Its universality is attested by a 
St. Cyprian, a Tertullian, and a Clement in Africa, 
and by Origen, whose testimony unites both Africa 
and Asia. The dates of these four writers are re- 
spectively A. D. 270, 200, 180, 220. 

We have besides in Asia a Theophilus of Antioch, 
A. D. 168, Theodotus of Byzantium, A. D. 192, Pa- 
pias of about A. D. 100, Polycarp, a disciple of St. 
John, martyred about A. D., 164, IrenaBus, A. D. 170, 
who unites by his testimony, his native Asia with 
France, where he exercised so long his Episcopate. 

In Europe we have besides IrenaBus, a Clement of 
Rome, whose name is f ound as a dear f riend of St. 
Paul, recorded in Philippians iv, 3, a Justin Martyr, 
wbo WTOte about 140 A. D., Hippolytus A. D. 190, 
Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom in Borne, A. D. 
109, who also thus unites the testimony of the East 
and West. The list of witnesses might bemultiplied 
to a very great extent. These, however, will suffice 
to show that the books of the New Testament are cer- 
tified as authentio by a constant and universal tradi- 
tion. The heretical sects, the Ebionites, Marcionists, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Montanists, Gnostios, etc., cnt off from the early 
Churoh, give the same testimony: to say nothing of 
the inDumerable witnesses who give no uncertaiii 
sound from the beginning of the f ourth Century. 

The pagans, Celsus and Porphyry, wrote respect- 
ively about the years 200 and 260, and Julian the 
Apostate, about 361. Their works were professedly 
directed against Christianity and aimed at its over- 
throw. None of these denied the authenticity of the 
books of the New Testament. They on the contrary 
attribute them to the authors whose names they 
bear. Thus when Julian forbade Christians to leam 
literature, he said: 

" It will be sufficient for them to explain Matthew 
and Luke in the Galilean assemblages." 

Again: "Neither Paul nor Matthew dared to 
call Jesus God, nor Luke nor Mark, but that good 
John . . . ." 

The integrity of the New Testament is snfficiently 
evidenced by the large number of copies which wen 
written of each book, and by the translations which 
were immediately made into many languages, as 
Latin, Syriac, etc. It was known in Judea, Syria, 
Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Africa, and was received 
by heretics cut off from the Church, as well as by 
those who were recognized as members of the Church 
It would therefore be impossible to make serious 
changes without calling down the protests of the 
many whose oare it was to see the text preserved in 
its purity. 

The books of the New Testament were read pub- 
licly in the assemblies of the early Christians, as Ter- 
tullian, Justin Martyr and others attest. They must, 
therefore, have been preserved with great care; and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


indeed wben Diocletian ordered all copies to be de- 
livered up to him, very maDy men and women pre- 
f erred to die rather than to deliver them, and those 
who did deliver them were always esteemed as traitors 
and Apostates. Men and women who so strongly 
clung to their New Testament cannot be supposed 
to have beensilent if any serious alterations badbeen 
made to tbe text. 

Add to tbis tbat tbere bas been a constant series 
of Christian writers who quoted largely from tbe 
New Testament. If tbere had been any cormption 
of tbe text it would be necessary also to corrupt in a 
corresponding way all tbe sermons and bomilies, 
commentaries and quotations of tbese Christian 
fatbersy as well as tbe original itself : and some of 
them have quoted tbe text so copiously, tbat if tbe 
New Testament were actually lost, it could be almost 
entirely reconstructed from a f ew of them only. 
• We have already shown tbat tbe writers of tbe 
New Testament were not deceived. Neither were 
they deceivers. It would be absurd to attribute tO a 
f ew obscure, poor and illiterate men, wbose morals 
were so pure tbat no vice could be attributed to them 
by such enemies as Celsus, Porphyry and Julian, tbe 
design of Converting mankind to their doctrines by 

They have all tbe characteristics of sincerity. They 
do not äim at rbetorical effect or philosopbical soph- 
istry. Thety State facts simply, witbout appeal to 
passion: as wben recording tbe ignominious deat]} of 
their Master they say, " Tbere they crucified bim." 
Their own faults and cowardice they ingenuously 
confess, their ambitious bickerings, their incredulity 
frequently reproved by Christ. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The faots they relate are in most cases public and 
of great importance where they are said to have oc- 
onrred. Particularly is this true of the miracles 
which are related. They do not utter reproaches 
against those who persecuted tbem, they make no 
complaints of injuries received. They relate the time^ 
the places and persons who were concemed in or 
present at the miracles recorded, so that it would be 
easy to detect the fraud, if there were any. They 
name the emperors, kings, prQconsols, govemors,^nd 
high priests ander whom the events occurred, so that 
no means is concealed by which the fraud would be 
discovered if there were any in their writings. Im- 
postops do not act in this manner. 

In fine they are ready to suffer any punishment in 
testimony to the truth of their narrative; and as a 
matter of f act all suffered death in testimony of their 
sincerity, except St« Johu, and it is only by a miracle 
that he did not suffer death also, for he was thrown 
into a caldron of boiling oil for witnessing the truth 
of hifl teaching. 

The perf eotion of their moral teaching is acknowl- 
edged. They give rules for the practice of all vir- 
tues; and that they themselves practiced those vir- 
tues is attested by contemporary evidence. A greater 
proof * of sincerity than this can scarcely be con- 

They could not have deceived others even if they 
had wished to do so. Their Statements were subjected 
to the strictest scrutiny. The question at stake was a 
complete change of religion, the belief in mysteries 
beyond the reach of reason, the abrogation of Jud- 
aism, the overthrow of idols, the belief in prodigies 
hitherto unheard of , the blind are made to see, the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, thecrip{>ledbegin to 
walk, diseases of all kinds are healed, devils are cast 
out, the dead are restored to life! 

Those who embrace the doctrine are not promised 
any earthly reward. They inust ezpect affliction, 
persecution, death and they must practice self-denial, 
mortifications, fasts and yet both Jews and Pagans 
embrace this doctrine knowing what they are to expect 
as believers in it. What eise but the notoriety of the 
miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles could 
have induced them to become believers? Certainly, 
then, the Apostle^were not deceivers nor were they 
deceived regarding the Gospel history which they at- 

In Gonclusion: asthe principal facts mentioned in 
tbe Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are 
miracles, we have the divine attestation that Christ 
and his Apostles established a divine Religion, and 
theref ore Cheistianity is Divinr 

In many respects the evidences of Christianity ex- 
cel those of Judaism. Christ's character snrpasses 
that of Moses. The morals of Christianity bring us 
nearer to God, because they are more perf ect. There 
is more devotedness in the martyrs, who as witnesses 
to the truth laid down their lives in attestation of 
Christianity : the number who did so being estimated 
at from twelve and a half millions to twenty-five mil- 
lions in the first three hundred years of the existence 
of Christ's church. The world was more critical and 
imposture would be more readily detected in the first 
ages of Christianity. The writers who attest Chris- 
tianity are more numerous, and are nearer to the period 
of its establishment, than are those who attest the 
Mosaic law. The miracles of Christ and His Apostles 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


are more nnmerons and splendid than those of Moses. 
The miraoles of Moses are confined chiefly to himself, 
wbereas Christ empowered his Apostles to continue 
their Operation. The modes in which Christ and 
his Apostles wrought miracles are more varied than 
those of Moses: they are performed whether the 
Operator be present or absent, by word, by sign, 
or by a mere aot of the will. They are more 
universal in their character being wrought on creat- 
nres of every kind and on the dead as wel\ as the liv- 
ing. Their conseqnences are more momentous as they 
have resolted in the conversion of a yast proportion 
of mankind. 

Against the Authenticity and historical truth of 
the New Testament we often meet the objectiön 
made that the genealogy of Christ as giveii in the 
first chapter of St. Matthew's gospel in quite differ- 
ent from that given by St. Lake, chapter iii: so that 
in f act none of the ancestors of Joseph as given by 
St. Matthew are the same with his ancestors as given 
by St. Luke. 

This objectiön is also made by Col. IngersoU, thongh 
not in his "Mistakes of Moses." I will therefore 
reply to it here. 

This difficulty was raised by Julian the Apostate, 
and was answered by St. Augustine in the f ourth 
Century of our era. It was really no difficulty to those 
who knew the Jewish law; and St. \ Luke certainly 
could not have considered it as such, for when he 
wrote his gospel, he knew of St. Matthew*s gospel to 
which he undoubtedly refers in beginning his own. 
He could therefore have no object in giving a differ- 
ent genealogy, unless both were true. There is no 
inconsistency whatsoever between them. The gene* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


alogy given by St. Matthew is that of Joseph. The 
genealogy given by' St. Luke is that of Mary. This 
is the usual opinion on the subject. 

This being the case how can the genealogy of Joseph 
as given by St. Matthew prove Christ's descent from 
David? This will be clear from Num. xxxvi, 8, where 
it is prescribed that every daiighter with an inheri- 
tance should be wif e to one of the f amily of her f ather's 
tribe. For this reason the daughters of Zelophedad 
married their f ather*s brothers' sons. (verse 11.) For 
the same reason Mary married her mother's brother's 
son. Mary's mother was Anna, the aunt of Joseph, 
and Mathan, the father of Anna and Jacob, was 
grandf ather to both Joseph and Mary. The genealogy 
of Joseph was theref ore the genealogy of Mary and 
also of Christ, showing Christ's descent from David 
through Nathan. The genealogy of Mary given by 
St. Luke shows His descent from«David through Solo- 

We have heard it objected against this: How then 
can Joseph be called " the son of Heli," as we read 
in the Protestant Bible in Luke iii? To this lanswer 
that the words " the son " are not in the original Greek. 
It is to show this that they are in Italics in the Pro- 
testant Bible. The original reads as in the Catholic 
Bible, "of Heli." However, by his marriage with 
Mary, Joseph was adopted into the family of Heli, 
being his son-in-law. • 

The f acts niight have occurred in another way, and 
öome commentators thus explain them. 

By Deuteronomy xxv, 5, 6, when a man dies child- 
less, the widow marries his brother in the name of the 
dead brother, so that she is regarded as rearing child- 
J*en to the dead brother. . 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Thns Hell died, and his wife married Jacob. 
Joseph wfis bom of tbis marriage, and was theref ore 
by law the son of Hell, and by nature the son of Jacob. 
Jacob and Hell were brothers by the same mother 
bnt by different f athers, viz. Mathan and Matbat. 
Hence there are two genealogies. Either gonealogy ^ 
was the genealogy of Christ, since, as we have already 
explained, Mary and Joseph were first cousins. 



Havinq proved the truth of Revelation, and the 
Divinity of the Jewish and Christian Religions, it is 
now proper to examine those of Colonel IngersoU's 
objections against onr thesis, which we have not 
already refuted in the course of this work. 

We may begin with his chapters on Creation, viz: 
vi to XV. 

Let US here remark tbat the Colonel Starts out with 
a most egregions blander, which is carried through 
his treatise on Creation. 

"The Creation of the world commenced, accordin^ 
to the Bible, on Monday moming, about 5,883 years 
ago.'* (P. 56.) 

Thus, of course, on Monday the Colonel places the 
Creation of light, on Tuesday was niade the firma- 
ment and the division of the waters below from the 
waters above, etc. (Gkn. i. See pages 61, 63, etc.) 
Naturally it f oUows that he makes Saturday the sixth 
day of Creation, and Sunday the day of the appointed 
rest. (Pp. 8Y, 101.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Now, to use the ColonePs own expression (p. 99,) 
"if we know anytlimg we know that" the tfewish 
day begins at even, and ends the next even. Dark- 
bess preceded light, according to the first chapter of 
Genesis, and the keeping of the day thns is a monu- 
ment in memory of Creation. (Ex. xii, 18.) Besides, 
the last day of Creation was Friday, not Saturday; 
and the day of rest was Saturday, not Sunday. The 
day of rest began on Priday evening at sunset, and 
ended on Saturday evening at sunset. (Lev: xxiii, 32.) 

Perhaps the Colonel will say this is a mere over- 
sight. Well, one who sets himself up as a public 
teacher of History, Geography, Astronomy, and all 
the other sciences (pp. 99, 122, 81, etc.), ought to 
have some knowledge of a well-known fact whose 
history extends over nearly six thousand years. 

The Colonel says: 

*^ Moses conveys .... the idea that the matter of 
which heaven and earth are composed was created." 
(P. 66.) 

" It is impossible f or me to conceive of something 
being created from nothing. Nothing, regarded in 
the light of a raw material, is a decided failure.** 


We proved in chapters 5 and 1 that matter is cre- 
ated. Matter is finite. Whatever is finite is contin- 
gent. Whatever is contingent is the effect of an 
extrinsio cause. The ^ect of an extrinsic cause is a 
created being. Therefore, Matter is a created being. 

"It is impossible" for you "to conceive of some- 
thing created from nothing." The Operation of Infi- 
nite Power can effect that the possible shall become 
actual or existing. A reasonable being conceives a 
contingent being as possible, and as matter is a con- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tiDgent being, a reasonable being can conceive of pos- 
sible matter becoming actaal by the Operation of In- 
finite Power. If you cannot conceive this, ybu are 
not a reasonable being. 

There is no question of nothing hemgregSLrded "as 
raw material.'* If we can say " the world was made 
out of nothing," it is not because nothing is the ma- 
terial out of which the world is made, but beoaase 
ordinary haman speech uses this form of ezpression 
to signify that a substance previously non-existent 
began to exist. In the same way, it is only common 
usage that can justify your use of the word "idea'' 
when you mean " judgment." The primary sense of 
the word idea, and its philosophical sense, is "the 
mere mental representation of an object, without 
affirmation^or negation concerning it." Hence, **mat- 
ter was created " is a judgment expressed in words, 
and not a mere idea. 

Kext you assert that bef ore Crea^tion, "An Infinite 
Intelligence " was "wasting an etemity" doing 
nothing. (P. 57.) 

God in all etemity acts in the exercise of his Infi- 
nite Perf ections. It is, theref ore, not true that he is 
doing nothing, or wasting etemity. It is not neces- 
sary for him to act externally. In creating, he is a 
free agent. Created beings add nothing to his in- 
trinsic perf ections. They are but the exteraal mani- 
festation of his glory and power. Tou say: 

" I do not pretend to teil how all these things really 
are." (P. 67.) 

What right have you, then, to ask that others 
should explain the mysteries of the Infinite, which 
you here virtually acknowledge and deolare to be 
inexplicable ? . \ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Tie nexir assertions, that the acoonnt of Creation 
is imaginativey and that miraoles are lies, we dealt 
with in chapters 13 and 2Y. 

Weare next told that the writer of Genesis "be- 
lievedthat darkness was a tlung, an entity, etc.'* We 
have sLown in cbapter 26 that Moses spoke of dark- 
ness in tbe cnrrent language of tbe day, and not in 
tbe neMy invented but usef nl language of Natural 
Philosopiy. He could do tbis and still be perfectly 
oorrect. By darkness Moses meant tbe atmospbere 
itself in stieb a condition tbat ligbt could not reacb 
one wbo bad tbe faculty of vision. 

The Colonel has notbing more to say about the 
work of tbe first day of Creation. 

On.the second day, ^'God ihade tbe firmamenty and 
divided tbe waters which were under tbe firmament 
from the waters which were above tbe firmament." 

On tbis tezt tbe Colonel says: 

" Wbat did the writer mean by the word firma- 
ment ? Theologians now teil us that be meant an ^ex- 
panse.' Tbis will not do. How could an expanse 
divide tbe waters from tbe waters so tbat the waters 
above tbe expanse would not fall into and mingle 
with the waters below the expanse ? Tbe truth is 
that Moses regarded the firmament as a solid affair. 
It was wbere Qod lived and wbere water was kept. 
.... They supposed tbat some angel could with a 
lever raise a gate and let out the quantity of moisture 
desired." (P. 63.) 

Tbis he illustrates further, by showing that "the 
World was drowned when the Windows of heaven 
were opened," (Gen. vü, 11,) and tbat in the dream 
of Jacob the top of a ladder "reaohed to heaven." 
(zzviü, 12.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

' / 


He goes on to say that God lived on the floor of 
this firmament, "surrounded by bis sons," andihat 
*' Moses knew nothing abont tbe laws of evajora- 

"He did not know thj^t tbe sun wooed witbamor- 
ons kisses tbe waves of tbe sea^ and tbat thefy clad 
in glorified mist, rising to meet their lover, Tiere, by 
disappointment, cbanged to tears^ and feil ib rain." 

Let US analyze tbis af ter tbe Colonel's ow» fasbion. 
" Colone! IngersoU is evidently of tbe opinion tbat 
tbe sun and tbe water are reasonable bei«gs^ moved 
by tbeir passions. Tbe sun is actually in love, and 
tbe water meets witb disappointment ! Again: He 
is a believer in encbantment; for tbe water, from 
being at first a disappointed lover, in haman form, of 
course (see pages 93, 94), according to bis antbropo- 
morpbic principles, is metamorpbosed into tears t 
Evidently be knows " notbing of tbe laws of evapora- 

Tbe Colonel would be likely to answer if we would 
analyze bis sentences in tbis manner: 

"Tou know notbing of tbe usages o^ language, 
or you would recognize tbat I bave made use of a 
figure of speecb." 

In tbe same way may we answer bis commentary 
on tbe firmament and tbe Windows of beaven. 

Tbe opening of tbe Windows of beaven is evidently 
a figurative expression for tbe falling of a large 
qnantity of rain. The ladder wbose top reacbed jto 
beaven^s a dream or vision, and tbe passage of tbe 
ängels up and down tbe ladder signifies tbat tbe 
angels minister to €k)d, and execute on eartb His will 
towards men. All tbis is expressly stated to be a 

Digitized by VjjOOQIC 


^ream, thoagh it is a symbol of what bappens in 
i^ality. It is dishonest to represent it as literally 

ÄJ9 regards the firmament, the word is indeed de- 
ri^ed f rom t^e Latin word which signifies a sapport 
or }rop, but is Colonel IngersoU Ignorant of the f act 
tha\ as it is used to express the sky, the original 
meaiing is modified to make the word express its new 
signHcation? There is absolutely nothing in the 
Bibleto justify Colonel Ingersoll's fanfaronade on 
this sibject. 

Eqmily f utile is the Colon^Ps conclusion: 

" The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away 
with th( heaven of the New Testament, rendered the 
AscensicQ of oar Lord and the Assumption of bis 
motber itfinitely absurd." 

Similarly he indulges in ill-timed witticism about 
Enoch and Elias (Elijah) being taken to heaven. He 
says, " Enoch and the rest would have been f rozen 
perfectly stiff before the journey could have been 
completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the 
voyage, as he was carried to heaven in a chariot of 
fire *by awhiilwind.' " (Pp. 66, 66.) 

It is the bdief of all Christians that there is a 
place in the uni7erse where God manifests himself to 
the blessed by a visible display of bis glory, Never- 
ending bliss will be the privilege enjoyed by all who 
are admitted there. The precise locality we do not 
pretend to know. God has not revealed this; but we 
are satisfied with bis promise, as we know he is able 
to fnlfil it, though we do not know precisely in what 
way this will be done. The Bible nowhere pretends 
that either the firmament or heaven is a solid arch, 
which is at the same time a hörne f or God and a res- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


eryoir of water f rom which rain is made to fall as i' 
is required. The words of Elihu in Job xxxvii, 1$ 
have been quoted as having this meaning, bat Gd 
ezpressly repndiates Eliha's whole speech in zzxvä, 
2: " Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in ai- 
skilful words?'* 

On the third day God said: 

"Let the waters that are ander the heave? be 
gathered together in one place; and let the <iryland 
appear." (Geü. i, 9.) 

Colonel Ingersoll says: 

^^ The writer of this did not have any conce|]tion of 
the real form of the eai1;h. He could not havf known 
anything of the attraction of gravitation. 3e mnst 
have regarded the earth as flat and supposid that it 
required considerable f orce and power to induce the 
water to leave the mountains and collect in the Val- 
leys. Just as soon as the water was f oiDed to ran 
down hill the dry land appeared/' etc. 

It is not necessary to insert the poetto omaments, 
the mantles of green, the laaghing tr^es, the trem- 
bling hands of Dawn, etc. These add nothing to the 

The Rev. Father Lambert has derft so well with 
the ColonePs assertion that "water always runs down 
hin/* that I need only, on this sulject, give a sam- 
mary of his remarks. 

Water has to get up hill befove it ean run dovm. 
Water riaes aa vapor or ateam. More water riaea in 
the vegetable world through capÜlary tubea^ in a day^ 
thanfalla at Niagara in a yedr. The earth being a 
apheroidy not a aphere^ the JS^ttator ia "thirteen miles 
higher than the Poka of the Earthy and all rivera 
running totoarda the equatot run up hiU, not dovm. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Col. Ingersoll, then^ shows tbat it is himself who 
has " no conception of the shape of the earth." Our 
Philosopher evidently knows but little of Natural 

In what way is the Statement of Moses contradic- 
ory of the law of gravitation ? Cöl. Ingersoll does 
fot enlighten as on this subject, so we may rest content 
tlat Col. Ingersoll is mistaken. There is nothing 
coitrary to gravitation, either in the gathering to- 
getier of waters, or in the appearance of dry land. 
To «ihis day waters gather into our rivers, lakes and 
seas,and dry land appears always when a flood sub- 
sideSj yet we never hear tbat the laws of gravitation 
are ditturbed thereby. 



Thb nex^ objection against the truth of Genesis is 
derived from discoveries in Geology, Astronomy, etc. 

Col. Ingenoll says: 

The Bible b " f alse and mistaken in its astronomy, 
geology, geography, history and philosophy." (F. 

" A f ew years ago Science endeavored to show tbat 
it was not inconsistent witb the Bible. The tables 
have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring 
to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent witb sci- 
ence." (P. 242.) 

The Colonel does not specify wherein tbese dis- 
crepancies ponsist. On Astronomy he contents him- 
self witb asking a number of questions regarding the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


extent of Moses' knowledge on this snbject. AU this 
has nothing whatever to do with the qaestion, Is the 
Bible false in its Astronomy ? Thas he asks: 

** Can we believe that the inspired writer had any 
idea of the size of the Snn ? . . . . Did he know thaf 
the San was (is?) 860,000 miles in diameter? Did b 
know that the volume of the earth is less than on- 
millionth of that of the san ? . . . . Did he know>f 
the 104 planets ? . . . . Did he know anything abAt 
Saturn, bis rings and bis eight moons ? " etc' - ^- 
Y2, 73.) 

The Bible is not a handbook of Astronomy. Il» ob- 
ject is to teach Morality and the way to serveGod. 
All this can be attained without the knowleij^e in- 
sisted on by Col. IngersoU, thoagh it is possiHe that 
Moses knew as mach aboat Astronomy as d^s CoL 
Ingersoll. This, however, makes not a pafticle of 
difference as to the truth of the Pentateach. No 
matter, then, even if it were true what tte Colonel 

^^ Moses supposed the San to be about tlree or foor 
f eet in diameter, and the moon about haf that size.'' 
(P. 74.) 

Of this we need only say that the Colonel knows 
nothing about the extent of Moses' kjiowledge. His 
.assertion then is simply a piece of in^ertinence. 

As the Colonel does not teil exaotiy the Greologioal 
difficulty, we must look f or it else^here. As stated 
by Huxley in his "Lectures on Bvolution^" by For- 
niss in his "Anonymous Hypothesis of Creation," 
and a host of Infidels besides, tha difficulty is that: 

" The narration of Moses on the f ormation of the 
earth is irreconcilable with trme science, and esped- 
ally with G^ology." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Does Grenesis affirm that the earth was created just 
five days bef ore the creation of man ? 

Prof. Hnxley says that he will abstain f rom giving 

' any opinion 6n this question. '^ It is not my bosiness 

to say what the Hebrew tezt contains and what it 

does not." (Theory of Evolution: Chickering Hall, 


He says, however, amid " laaghter and applause," 
that if we give any other Interpretation to the words of 
Genesis than that it does make this Statement, that "sl 
person who is not a critic, and is not a Hebrew scholar 
can only stand up and admire the marvellous flexibil- 
ity of the language which admits of such diverse 

The meaning of all this is onmistakable. Prof. 
Huxley, Co^ Ingersoll, and other Infidels assert that 
the Mosaic record is ref uted by Geology. 

I maintain, then, that the discoveries of Q^ology 
* do not clash with the words of Genesis. We read, 

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth." 

"And the earth was void and empty and darkness 
was upon the face of the deep: And the spirit of 
God moved over the waters." 

"And God Said: Be light made. And light was 
made." Gen. i, 1, 2, 3. 

1. Geology teaches that the earth is of very great 
age. Th,e plants, fishes and beasts embedded in 
many strata of rocks, which mnst have been f ormed 
by degrees betoken that the earth dates back into 
most remote antiqnity. Now do the above words of 
Genesis imply that Creation is recent? The first 
event recorded has no date given: the Creation of 
heaven and earth: and even then it is not stated that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the second event is closely allied wlth the first in the 
matter of time. The Hebrew partide ve, andy does 
not imply immediate seqnence. Thns in Chapters yi, 
xiy xxiv^ beginning with the same particle, there is 
no immediate sequence. A very great time may 
theref ore have elapsed between the events of the first 
and second Verses, and between the second and third 
Verses of Genesis i. 

Even fifteen hundred years ago, liefere Q^ology 
was dreamed of as a science, Sts. Augustine, Basil, 
and Gregory of Nazianzen pointed this out, and Ori- 
gen and Justin Martyr still earlier. This interpreta- 
tion, therefore, was not invented for the purpose of 
meeting the geological difficulty. There is, there- 
fore, 80 far, no conflict between Genesis and Geology. 
There is no need of making the Hebrew language so 
marvellously flexible. 

The period which intervened between the original 
Creation of the üniverse, aüd its preparation for the 
use of man is not defined. It may therefore have 
been of very great duration and may have included 
all the time requisite for the geological effects which 
have been discovered. There may have been any 
aDiount of animal and vegetable life, and undoubt- 
edly Geology seems to require that an immense period 
of time must have Blapsed. There are evidences that 
the earth passed through many great revolutions and 
successive aots of Creation, compared with which 
man's time on earth is but ephemeral. All this, far 
from clashing with the Mosaic account, confirms it; 
for every period öf change betokens the exercise of 
Infinite power and wisdom. Every successive period 
betokens a new Creative Act; for every period has 
its own Vegetation, its own aninud life. Geology 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


demonstrates tbat these snccesBive Greations are the 
work of God, for only God could produce these liviDg 
organisms, different from each other in every geolo- 
gioal epoch. Geology demonstrates that the Natural 
laws were the same in every epoch, as they are now. 
If animals and plants were the mere resolt of natural 
causes like crystaliization, operating on inert atoms, 
animal and vegetable lif e would have been in those 
remote ages, the same or nearly the same as it is to- 
day. If the evolution theory, so f avored now by in- 
fidelsy were true, we would behold the gradual change 
from one form of lif e to another tili the present stage 
were reached. But this is not the case. Bef ore man 
appeared on earth, with the animals and vegetables 
which are contemporary with him, all life was com- 
pletely sWept away. Such is the teaching of Geo- 
logy, and the book of Genesis teaches us the same. 
Previous to the six days' work of Genesis, " the earth 
was void an^ empty." i, 2. 

Dr. Buckland, by far a more eminent geologist 
than any of those who have made of this science an 
engine wherewith to attack the Mosaic Cosmogony, 

<< Moses does not deny the existence of another 
Order of things prior to the preparation of this globe 
for the reception of the human race, to which he con- 
fines the details of bis history. There is nothing in 
the proposition inconsistent with the Mosaic declara- 
tion of the Creation.'* 

This explanation of the Mosaic Cosmogony I do 
not put forward as the Interpretation necessarily to 
be adopted. Other methods of reconciliatioik have 
been adopted by men of leaming, but perhaps this 
method bas the greatest sanotion of authority and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


evidenoe in its f avor. The late leamed and illustrions 
Cardinal Wiseman also f avors this view in bis ^^ Sci- 
ence and Bevealed Religion." Lectare 6. 

^'The Scriptural narrative, sabjected to the examin- 
ation of the most different parsnits, defies their power 
therein to discover any error, forms in the aggregate 
of various examples, a streng positive proof of its 
unassailable veracity. Thos, here, had the Scriptare 
allowed no interval between creation and organiza- 
tioTiy but deolared that they were simoltaneoas er 
closely consecQtive acts, we should, perhaps have 
stood perplexed in the reconciliation between its 
assertions and modern discoveries. Bat when, instead 
of this, it leaves an undecided interval between the 
two, nay, more, inf orms us that there was a State of 
confasion and conflict, of waste and darkness, and a 
want of a proper basin f or the sea, which thas woald 
Cover first one part of the earth and then another; 
we may traly say, that the geologist reads in those 
f ew lines the history of the earth, sach as his monu- 
ments have recorded it — a series of disraptions, eleva- 
tions and dislocations; sadden inroads of the an- 
chained element, entombing saccessive generations of 
amphibioas animals, etc., .... and the earth re- 
mained in that State of sallen and gloomy prostra- 
tion, f rom "^irhich it was recalled by the reproductian 
of light, and the aicbsequent wojrk of the six days' 

Bat if this be true, how are we to explain that on 
the first day "God^said: Be light made; and light 
was made," that on the second day the firmament 
was made, and on the f oarth day, the san, moon and 
Stars ? Gklology, we are told, teaches us* decisively 
that light existed, and Astronomy proves that thei 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


snn and planets existed as f ar back in the past as did 
the earth; so that if the earth existed thousands, even 
millions of years before the days of Genesis, light 
and the sun mast also have existed dnring that 

I answer by calling attention to the change in the 
Sacred Writer's language. 

The change is quite perceptible in Hebrew, and is 
well marked in the English translation. In the He- 
brew, bara is created: hasah is made, Bara^ createdy 
is used in the acoount of cyeation, where there is a 
new being broiight into existence. From Gen. i, 1, 
to ii, 4, creation is mentioned seven times. Gpd 
created heaven and earth.' He created the great 
whales. He created man. Three times in the twenty- 
seventh verse is the creation of man declared: 
4 " And God created man to his own image; to the 
image of God he created him: male and female he 
created thenL" 

In ii, 3, we find that " God rested from all his work 
which he created and made?'^ 

There is a distinction, then, between creating and 
making, When God forms a being entirely from 
snbstance already existing, he does not create^ he 
makea: hasah, Ha&ahy to make^ may be used for 
creating^ but not bara, to create^ for making. Sasahy 
theref ore, does not necessarily imply creating from 
notbing. It is used much as we use in English the 
verb to make, as when a carpenter makes a door^ or a 
table. He does not create^ he makes it from boards 
which already exist. 

Hence also it is not said that God created \ig)at on 
the first day. It is "Be light, and light was." It is 
not said that he created the firmament on the second 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


day, bat: '^firmament be • . • • and Gbd made 
(hasah) the firmament.'' 

Hence it is quite possible that ligbt and the firma- 
menty and the san, moon and stars had existed from 
the time when God created heaven and earth; bat 
that now they are fashionedy made^ or, to use Car- 
dinal Wiseman's term, organized and reproduced so 
as to be fit f or man's use, f or whose dwelling place 
God is now preparing the world. 

Thas there is absolately no contradiotion between 
Genesis and G^ology, and there is no distortion of 
the words of the sacred text. Thus, also, all the diffi- 
calties disappear which are broaght against the text 
by Professor Huxley, CoL Ingersoll, Mr. James For- 
niss and others. 

I have already said that I do not give this explana- 
tion as the one necessarily to be adopted. Other Systems 
of reconcUiation have been maintained by able schol- 
ars; and if any one of them accounts for the wörding of 
the Mosaic narrative, withoat being contrary to the 
proved conclusions of G^ology, then the Geological 
objection is of no weight whatever. Now, it is well 
known that Geology is still very largely specnlative 
as a soienoe, and in some things so is Astronomy. 
Trae, in both sciences mach has been demonstrated 
in late years which has confirmed theories that pre- 
ceded demonstration; bat also, many theories which 
were before almost universälly held by those versed 
in these sciences, have since been exploded, and are 
now as aniversally rejected. 

In proof of this, I may instance the corpusctdar 
theory of light, of which Sir Isaac Newton was the 
author. The great name of Newton was almost saffi- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


cient of itself to clause a theory of Natural Philos- 
ophy to be accepted without dispute; but when such 
a theory was supported by arguments and f acts such 
as he was able to adduce in its favor, it seemed pre- 
sumptuous to entertain any other opinion than that 
which he advanced. Novertheless, the rival theory of 
undxdationa has at last almost driven Sir Isaac New- 
ton's corpuscular theory from the field; and the more 
it has been studied, the strenger has become the evi- 
dence in its favor. Yet even this System can even 
now only be termed a theory. 

" Of all' Sciences," says Cardinal Wiseman, " none 
has been more given up to the devices of man's heart 
and Imagination than geology; none bas afforded 
ampler scope f or ideal theories, and brittle, though 
brilliant Systems, constructed f or the most conflicting 

** From the time of Buffon, System rose beside Sys- 
tem, like the moving pillars of the desert, advancing 
in threatening array; but like them, they were fa- 
brics of sand; and though in 1806 the French Insti- 
tute counted more than eighty such tbeories hostile 
to Scripture history, not one of them has stood tili 
now, or deserves to be recorded." (Lecture 6, Science . 
and Religion.) 

2. Some have reconciled Genesis with Geology by 
affirming that the rocks discovered by geology with 
f ossils in them were created as they are, with all the 
apparent evidences of antiquity. This is certainly 
possible, and it would be difficult to ref ute it. The 
power of Gk>d to create the world so must be ad- 
mitted. * 

Still it must be acknowledged that this opinion is 
opposed to the ^own analogies of nature. If, for 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


instance, we find a fossil animal, whose teeth arc 
wom as they would be by eating, or if we find a 
fossil animal, Trith a smallcr fossil animal in its crop, 
as if the latter had been eaten by the former, are we 
not inevitably Icd to the conclusion tbat these ani- 
mals have üved, and eaten, and died just as such ani- 
mals do at this day ? 

This theory, then, is not admitted generally by 
scientific men; though it would be difficolt to prove 
absolately that it is f alse. 

3. Another theory is that the fossils brought to 
light by geology were deposited by the dringe. To 
this also there are many objections which are, proba- 
bly, insuperable. Can we snppose that numerous 
strata thousands of feet thick, have been deposited 
in regulär groups, and for the most part petrified, 
and with their most delicate parts uninjured, and 
that distinct races of plants and animals were depo- 
sited according to fixed laws, by a sudden and violent 
inundation? and that in one year all this should occur» 
whereas according to the universal Operation of 
nature's laws, ages upon ages are required to bring 
about these effects? 

4. Others have thought that the days of Genesis 
are not ordinary days, but long periods of time during 
which the processes were going on which geology 
demands. This theory may possibly be correct, still 
there are serious objections to it which we need not 
enumerate here. Suffice it to say that if we accept the 
theory f avored by such great names as Dr. Buckland 
and Cardinal Wiseman, as well as being suggested 
by a St. Augustine, a St.^Basil, an Origen, there isno 
need of departing from the ordinary acceptation of 
the term " day " as a period of 24 hours. It is on 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


this last hypothesis that I will answer the remaining 
objections of Col. Ingersoll anä others against the 
Mosaio narrative. 

I mnst not omit to mention two otlier Systems of 
reconciliation, either of which, if accepted, would 
seein to reconcile the Mosaio narrative with the dis- 
coveries of modern research. 

6. Some suppose that Moses is shown the work of 
Creation in a vision, and that by direction of Qoä. he 
describes the vision as it would appear to one behold- 
ing it from the earth. In this case an absolute 
accordance with f acts discovered in the bowels of the 
earth would not be required. It would be sufficient 
that the vision be described according to appearances. 

6. In the other hypothesis, the first chapter of 
Genesis, and seven verses of the second chapter con- 
Btitute a liturgical hymn in which the praises of 6od 
as our Creator are celebrated. The week is divided 
into seven days, on each of which God is to be 
honored as having performed that portion of the 
work of Creation which is attributed to that day. 

According to this theory, we are not to look to 
Geology at all for an explanation of the words of 
Genesis. We are simply to regard God as the Creator 
of all things, and to devote each day to His honor, 
under the special aspect recorded in the Mosaic nar. 
rative as the work of that day. 

7. Many other theories have been devised on this 
subject. It is sufficient for us to know that there are 
many modes of reconcilation; and'if any one of them 
oan be def ended, the whole attack of Infidelity against 
this portion of the Pentateuoh will be repelled. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Thb first section of the preceding chapter shows 
US how we may answer nearly all the remaining ob- 
jections against the Mosaio Cosmogony. Thos Ool. 
Ingersoll says: 

"Moses says that 6od said on the third day, * Let 

the earth bring f orth grass, eto And the 

earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed 
af ter his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed 
was in itself after his kind; and God saw that it was 
göod, and the evening and morning were the third 

"There was nothing to eat this fruit; notan insect 
with painted wings sought the honey of the flowers; 
not a Single living breathing thing upon the earth. 

Plenty of grass, etc butnot amouthinallthe 

World. If Moses is right, this State of things lasted 
only two days: but if the modern theologians are 
correct^ it continued for millions of ages." (Pp. 68, 

" There is in Nature an even balance f orever kept 
between the total amounts of animal and vegetable 
life. In her wonderf ul economy she must form and 
bountifully nourish her vegetable progeny — twin 
brother life to her, with that of animals. The per- 
fect balance between plant existences and animal 
existences must always be maintained." Ib. 

XJnder the caption, "Friday " on pages 84, 86, we 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


bave the same thonght repeated, with tbe addition 

"Not a scientist of high ßtanding will say that in 
bis judgment the earth was covered with fruit-bear- 
ing trees before the moners, the ancestors, it may he 
of the human race, feit in Laarentian seas the first 
throb of lif e." 

If tbe book of Genesis is to be impngnedy let qs 
bave positive proofs against it. We have given posi- 
tive proofs of its truth, maybes cannot be accepted • 
as demonstration against it. 

Why the balance should be maintained between 
plants and animals, if there is no Sapreme Intelli- 
gence directing all, we are not inf ormed. If Nature 
is bat the Operation of blind f orces, as Col. IngersoU 
maintains, the above is simply nonsense; and if ITatore 
is the Supreme Intelligent Being^ that directs all 
tbings, then Nature must be Qod. 

In any case, whether blind f orce, or an Infinite and 
Free 6od directs all things, there is no reason why 
plants at least shoold not be created independently 
of animals. Hence Col. IngersoU gives no reason. 
We are to accept his word as the inf allible dictum 
which mnst not be disputed. 

However he acknowledges that if Moses is right, 
only two days would elapse while plants existed with- 
out animals to eat them. Surely the plants could sur- 
vive that long without being eaten. In the hypothesis 
we are assuming, millions of years are altogether be- 
side the qaestion. We take the days of Genesis to 
be natural days. 

The next objection is foundedon Joshua x, 13: "So 
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted 
not to godown about a whole day." 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


In connectioQ with thk the Colonel also objects to 
the miracle recorded in Isaias xxviii, 8. A Jewish 
King, EzechiaSy "was sick, ^and God to convince 
him that he would oltimately recover offered to make 
the shadow on the dial go forward or backward ten 
degrees. The king thought it was too easy a thing 
to make the shadow go forward, and asked that itbe 
tumed back.' Thereupon ' Isaias the prophet cried 
nnto the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees 
baokward by which it had gone down in the dial of 
Achaz.'" See also 4 Kings xx, 1, 11. (Prot. Bible, 2 

These miracles are not related by Moses. They do 
not belong to the Pentateuch .history: however, as 
they are constantly in the mouths of Infidels, I will 
treat of them here. What has the Colonel to object 
regarding them? He says: 

"It is impossible to conceive of a more absord 
Story than this about the stopping of the snn and 
moon; and yet nothing so excites the malice qt the 
orthodox preacher as to call its truth in question." 
(P. 15.) 

The miracle regarding King Ezechias he considers 
more wonderf ul still, and of course equally or more 
absurd. (P.. 78.) 

We might ask how the latter can be more wonder- 
ful or absnrd, if it be impossible to conceive any- 
thing more absurd than the former ? We suppose, 
however, that Col. IngersoU is to be allowed to con- 
tradict himself with impunity. If not, then the " Miä- 
takes of Moses" ought not to have been written. 

There is no other reason for calling these two 
events absurd than because they are miracles. Now 
we have proved that miracles are not absurd. There- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fore CoL Ingersoll has no reason for calling these 
events absurd. 

He says: *^ If he (Joshua) had known tbat the 
earth tumed upon its azis at the rate of a thousand 
miles an hour, and swept in its course about the sun 
at the rate of sixty-eight thousand miles an hour, he* 
would have .... allowed the sun and moon to rise 
and set in the usual way." (P. 74.) 

Answeb. Since a miracle is in question, it makes 
little difference whether the rate of the earth's mo- 
tion be one thousand or one million miles per hour. 
God is equally powerf ul in one case as in the other. 

He says: **Some endeavor to account for the 
phenomenon by natural oauses." 

Yes. There are infidels in disguise who pretend 
that there are really no miracles in the Bible. The 
two events are recorded as miracles, and as miracles 
true Christians believe them. 

He adds: ^^Others attempt to show that God 
could, by the refraction of light have m^e the sun 
visible, although actually shining on the opposite side 
of the earth." Thus: " The Rev. Henry M. Morey, 
of South Bend, Indiana, says that the phenomenon* 
was simply optical. The rotary motion of the earth 
was not disturbed." 

Possibly, the Rev. H. M. Morey is right. There is 
no need to supposethat the motion of the earth on its 
azis was stayed, when we know that the same effect 
would be produced by the bending or refraction of 
the rays of light. Even in working miracles, God 
usually works with a simplicity resembling the sim- 
plicity of nature. We may be satisfied that God 
wrought the miracles on the two occasions mentioned 
in holy Scripture, beoause they are attested by truth- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fnl lii^torians. Oar only soarce of information on 
the subject is the Bible, and as it does not State in 
what manner the miracle was effected, I do not pre- 
tend to decide whether the ^^ phenomenon was simply 
optical," or that " the rotary motion was stopped." 
God could have effected it in either way, and in eitber 
way there is no absurdity, because God's power is in- 

It is nseless to objeot that the stoppage of the 
earth's rotary motion would have produced an im- 
mense amonnt of heat. The miracle may not have 
been effected in that way. At all events, God nnder- 
took to work the miracle, to manifest to Jews and 
Gentiles His Infinite power, and a physical difficulty 
could not prevent him from executing his will. 

The Colonel objects that the occasion was not, in 
either case, important enough to justify so great a 
prodigy. The miracle of Joshua was done, he says: 

" That one barbarian might def eat another." (P. 

The miracle in the case of Ezechias is said to be ** a 
useless display of power." (P. 79.) 
. Answbb. Is it then f or man to fix the limits with- 
. in which God's wisdom and power ai'e to operate ? 
The Israelites were fighting a defiensive battle. The 
Gibeonite^ were the allies of .Joshua, and on this ac- 
count fiye kings joined in league to annihilate them. 
Joshua could not but regard the conf ederation as un- 
just, and even God's honor tya^ interested in the pre- 
^eiTation of the allies of.liis cl^osen people, as the al- 
liahce of the Israelites with^thQm ha,d been ratified 
by the higb-priest of God incJ^iö n^me. God, there- 
for^, to manifest to the CA^aanites his greatness» 
wrou^t thiß miracle. If the viotoiy had been at- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tained solely by the sword of Israel, it would have 
been attributed to the saperior valor of the nation. 
As it was, the vanity of the Canaanite Gods was 
shown by the superior power of the God of JsraeL 

In the case of Ezechias, we must bear in mind that 
the Jewish kingdom was ander God's direction and 
protection in a manner more marked than are even 
the most religious kingdoms, ordinarily speaking. 
The kings ruled, even in their temporal sovereignty 
as God's viceroys; and God had always promised 
special marks of his f avor when the kings and people 
were faithf al to him. 

Ezechias had been a faithful King. He had abol- 
ished idolatry, and the character given of him is that 
either before or after him, " there was none like him 
among the Kings of Juda." (4 Ki. xviii, 5 ; Prot. Bible, 
2 Kings.) Is it a matter, then, of great snrprise, that 
God should by an extraordinary sign from heaven 
show his approval of the king's conduct? He ex- 
tended hislife for fifteen years, and ratified Hisprom- 
ise to this effect, certainly by an astonishing mani- 
f estation of His Power. ^ 

But Col. Ingersoll wishes to make it appear that 
Ezechias was already healed, and therefore he 
needed not the testimony of the new miracle that he 
would be healed. 

In answer to this I would point out that God's prom- 
ise was notyet entirely fulfilled. Ezechias was healed 
of his ulcer or boil by the application of the figs, but 
he was not yet healed of his sickness, completely. 
His disease appears to have been a complicated one, 
and he would not be in füll health for three days, when 
fie would be able to go to the temple. (xx, 6, 8.) 
Besides fifteen years were to be added to his lifa 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The miracle was Gk>d's testimony that these promises 
would be f ulfilled. 

The treatment of this sübject would be incomplete 
were I to omit an objection which is constantly ad- 
vanced by Infidels, though not directly insisted on by 
Col. IngersolL 

Voltaire in bis *^ Bible explained," puts the diffi- 
cnlty thus: 

"Natural Philosophers find it troublesome to ex- 
plain how the sun, which does not move, stood still" 
at Joshua's command. 

We may allow Col. Ingersoll to answer this diffi- 

" We are told that the sacred writer wrote in. com-^ 
mon Speech as we do when we talk about the rising 
and setting of the sun, and that all he intended to say 
was that the earth eeased tb tum on its axis * for 
about a whole day.' " (P. 74.) 

Exactly; and it would have been absurd and unin- 
telligible to have spoken otherwise than in the gen- 
eral language of mankind. The Compilers of our 
almanacs are aware that it is the revolütion of the 
earth on its axis which causes the sun, apparentlyy to 
rise and set. Yet the phenomenon is always described 
by them as sunrise and sunset. 

Voltaire says "the sun does not move." Astrono- 
mers teach difEerently. The sun moves, 1, around its 
own axis; 2, around the centre of gravity of the solar 
System; 3, around the centre of gravity of the TJni- 

These consequences foUow from the law of the 
attraction of Gravitation. Voltaire was mistaken. 

Now according to those who would have Joshua 
speak in scientific language, he should have explained 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


all these motions of the sun, and the influence that 
each motion had on the effect which was visible. 
There was no other oourse poi^sible if he were boand 
to speak in modern scientific language. Joshua had 
common sense enongh to speak in a language which 
would be intelligible, the language of his nation, and 
in a certain sense, the language of all mankind. 

As we use the word motion in regard to the hea- 
venly bodies, it is always used relcUivelf/y not absol- 
i^ely ; for we do not know the absolute motion of 
any celestial orb. Why then should Joshua be re- 
quired to speak of absolute motioik ? Why should he 
alone of all men be compelled at the beck of modern 
Infidels, to speak a language which no mortal would 
nnderstand ? 

CoL Ingersoll's nezt difficulty is: 

^'The view of Moses (that the heavenly bodies 
were as nothing compared with the earth) was ae- 
quiesced in by the Jewish people and by the Christian 

Considering that Moses says absolutely nothing 
about the relative sizes of the earth and the heavenly 
bodies, the ColonePs assertion is simply arrant non- 
sense. He adds: 

'^ The ancient Chinese knew not only the motions 
of the planetSy but they could calculate eclipses. 
• . . • ,Is it not Strange that a Chinaman should find 
out (one thousand years before Moses,) by his own 
exertions more about the material Universe than 
Moses could when assisted by his Creator?" (P. 78.) 

If the Chinese annalists are to be believed the na- 
tion has, indeed, a very great antiquity. Their an- 
nals reach to the reign of Yao, two thousand five 
handred and fif ty-seven years before Christ, and they 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


assert that the emperors bef ore Tao go back to three 
million two bundred and seventy-six thoasand years 
before Christ. Now it is well known that tbe annals 
of Confucius did not exist tili five hundred years 
before Christ: for this was tbe time when Confacias 
wrote. His writings were destroyed by order of Chi- 
Hoang-Ti about three hundred years before Christ, 
and were only written by memory in their present 
shape at the dictation of an old man, who during the 
next dynasty pretended to know them by heart. The 
Chinese have no other authority for their annals, 
than this. It will be evident to all that there is 
no reliance to be placed on the fabulous histories 
l-elated by Col. IngersoU as if they were gospel truths. 
Elaproth affirms confidently that no reliance what- 
ever is to be placed on the Statements of the Chinese 
annals which go back further than seven hundred 
and thirty-two years before Christ. 




The lOth chapter of Col. IngersoU's book treats of 
the Stars. Here again he asks a number of questions 
which have no reference to the truth or falsity of 

^^^He made the stars also.' Moses • • . • only 
gave five words to all the hosts of heaven.'* (P. 81.) 

In fact Moses did not use five words to describe 
the Creation of the stars. He only said ^'Ve^h 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Sakkokabira^^ also the atara: four words, at mosty 
if we divide the above into its distinct parts. These 
f oar words were quite sufficient to convey all the in- 
formation he intended to give on the subject, viz., 
that God also made the stars. The Colonel then asks: 

^'Did he know that the nearest star . . . . is 
twenty-one billion of miles away ? . . . . that Sirius 
is a sun two tbousand six handred and eighty-eight 
times lar^er than our own?" etc. (P. 81.) 

" It may be replied that it was not the Intention of 
God to teach geology and astronomy. Th^n why 
did he say anything upon these subjects?" (P. 82.) 

It is true: the object of God in the Pentateuch, is 
not to teach geology and astronomy. He has, how- 
ever, a moral and dogmatic end in view in teaching 
as that the sun, moon and stars, and all things, are 
His work. 

In chapter 37 we have answei'ed the ColonePs on- 
slanght, found on pages 84 and 85 of his book, 
regarding the co-existence of plants and animals, 
and of the moner ancestry of • man. 

He next maintains that: 

"A belief in the great truths of science are fully 
as essential to Salvation as the creed of any Church." 
(P. 86.) 

The main difference between the truths of Science 
and those of Religion is this: the former do not 
affect our morals and the latter do. By means of the 
truths of Religion, we are f umished with motives for 
fulfilling duties towards God, our neighbors, and our- 
selves. It is by the fulfillment of these duties that 
Salvation is deserved. Thus it is that the creed 
which teaohes Religious truth is more essential to 
Salvation than is merely Scientific trutb. 


by Google 


For the third time the Colone! asks, on page 87, 
whether it is possible that plants, etc., should have 
existed before ammals. We need not repeat the 
answer already given in the last chapter. The Moner 
theory, and that of natural antecedents, promulgated 
on page 88, we will deal with in chapter 40. 

We next find the f oUowing extraordinary theory 
proponnded by the Colonel: 

"If (the Bible) was inspired, of course Qoi 
must have known just how it would be understood, 
and consequently must have intended that it should 
be understood just as he knew it would be.*' (P. 88.) 

" If a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or 
caused it to be written, he must have known exactly 
how his words would be interpreted by all the world, 
and he must have intended to convey the very mean- 
ing that was conveyed." (P. 89.) 

Then he infers that all the erroneous views of man- 
kind in regard to the meaning of the Bible were 
intended by 6od: the errors of men as to the shape 
and antiquity and size of this world: the support of 
slavery and polygamy: the persecutions which men 
have carried on against each other on the plea of 
religion; even unbelief itself. (P. 89.) 

This is all so preposterous that Colonel IngersoU 
might have su^pected that some error must pervade 
his whole theory; and this is, indeed, the case. 

We have shown in chapter 1 that God has made 
man free. In the exercise of his freedom, perverse 
man disobeys God, His evil acts are attributable, 
not to God but to himself . In a similar way we are 
to reason in respect to God's f oreknowledge. Ood's 
foreknowledge does not force man's actiona The 
power remains in man to act otherwise, though GFod 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


foresees bis action, or rather sees how he will act. 
God's presoience does not destroy liberty; it sup- 
poses liberty in man. The f oreknowledge of God 
far from destroying liberty, assures it: for God fore- 
sees that we, exercising our freedom, will act in such 
a way. Now God cannot be deceived. Therefore, 
it is certain that our act will be a free act. 

The absurdity of Colonel Ingersoll's reasoning 
may be illustrated by innumerable examples. Thus 
the sluggard might reason in a similar way: ** God 
foresees whether or not my crops will be good this 
year. Whether I labor or not, God's f oresight cannot 
be belied. If, therefore, he foresees that the crops 
will be good, I need not sow grain. The crop will 
be good without my doing so. If, however, he fore- 
sees that the crops will fall, the sowing of grain will 
involve useless labor and expense. Therefore, in any 
case, it is useless for me to labor." The utter ab- 
surdity of such reasoning is evident. It is therefore 
evident that God does not intend that his Revelations 
shall be tumed to ill use, though he foresees that 
they will be so tumed. 

Colonel IngersoU's sophistry is an example of the 
hallucinations to which a man may become a victim 
when he is not guided by the light of Divine teach- 
ing. The true philosophy of this matter is clearly 
laid down in Holy Writ. 

" Because I knew that thou art stubborn, and thy 
neck is an iron sinew, and thy f orehead of brass. I 
foretold thee of old: before they came to pass I told 
thee .... for I know that transgressing thou wilt ^ 
transgress." (Is. xlviii, 4 to 8.) 

. Colonel IngersolPs vagaries are another proof of 
the necessity of the divine light of Revelation to 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


preserve ns f rom beooming the victims of such f ool- 
ish f ancies as he propounds. * 

Bnt, it will be said, many who err, do so not ma- 
licionsly but throngh weakness of understanding. 
God is at least accountable for their errors. 

I answer that Gk>d in His wisdom has f ormed and 
oanied out a great plan. In the carrying out of 
this plan, some individuals may endure certain hard- 
ships; nevertheless the plan itself is benefioiaL The 
hardships, real or apparent, are not to be attributed 
to the designer; and in the works of God He has 
even taken care that these hardships shall be turned 
to the advantage of him who endures them with 
proper Submission to His will. Thns, in the case in 
point, the errors which are made in the interpretation 
of God's Bevelation are not attributed as sins to 
thpse who fall into them through ignorance, unless 
their ignorance be culpable. Errors conceming the 
antiquity, shape, and size of the world do not affect 
morality. Errors conceming our duties to God, our 
neighbors, and ourselves do affect our moral conduct: 
but God has even left on earth a guide by whose 
direction we shall be certainly led to know what is 
right and what is wrong. If we f ollow the directions 
of this guide, evil effects will not f ollow: that is, 
moral evil: for merely physical evils and misfortunes 
are not evils properly so called. 

Very f requently also what we consider evils, in a 
physical sense, tum to the general good. Col. Inger- 
soll himself acknowledges this when he says in ihis 
"Lecture on Skulls": 

" If man's eyes had not f ailed, he would never have 
made any spectacles, he would never have had the 
telescope, and he would never have been able to read 
the leaves of heaven.** 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Thus the wisdom of God in bis disposition of all 
tbings, and especially in the giving of Bevelation, is 
completely vindicated. Errors of malice are to be 
attnbuted only to those wbo bave by tbeir own fault 
fallen into tbem, wbile errors of inculpable weakness, 
are not really sins wbicb cast any blot npon tbe per- 
f ection of Glod*s work. 





GoLONBL Ingersolly like tbe Mormons, is an Antbro- 
pomorpbist. Tbat is, be declares tbat God must bave 
a buman form: of course, be leavea it to be ander- 
stood tbat tbis is subject to tbe condition, " if tbere 
be a God at all." The reasoning by wbicb be arrives 
at tbis conclusion is a cnriosity. 

First, be maintains tbat Moses represents God as 
baving buman form. He says: 

"Moses, wbile be speaks of man as baving been 
made in tbe Image of God, never speaks of God ex- 
oept as baving tbe form of a man." 

" Tbe God of Moses was a God witb bands, with 
feet, witb tbe organs of speech. A God of passion, 
of batred, of revenge, of äff ection, of repentance, a 
Gk)d wbo made mistakes: in other words, an immense 
and powerful man." (Pp. 92, 93.) 

It is bumiliating to tbe intelligence of tbe 19tb 
Century, tbat a so-called pbilosopber, reared under 
Christian tutelage, sbould give utterance to such an 
opinion, wbereas a Pagan poet, Ovid, understood 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


better in what sense man is , said to be created af ter 
Ood's own Image: 

" Sanctius bis animal, mentisque capacius altSB, 
Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in coBtera posset: 
Natus homo est" Metam. i, 4. 

*^ A more sacred animal, and more capable of deep 
thought, was still wanting, whioh could rule over the 
rest of creation: then man was made.'' 

It is, therefore, in bis power of ruling, in bis intel- 
lect, in bis soul, tbat man is like to God: not as Col. 
IngersoU says: in bis " pbysical image.** (P. 92.) 

Tacitus, also a Pagan, knows more of tbe Jewish 
belief tban does Colonel IngersoU. 

" Tbe Je WS conceivB in mindonly^ of one only God, 
supreme and eternal, neitber cbangeable nor perish- 
able." Hist. 1. i, 5. 

If tbe Colonel bad opened tbe little Catbolic Cate- 
cbism, be would bave f ound tbat Man is created af ter 
God's image " in bis soul,** and tbat Man's soul is 
like to God, in being a " spirit and immortal, and 
capable of knowing and loving God.*' 

Tbat tbe Jews believed God to be a Spirit is clear 
from tbese and otber passages of Holy Writ: 

" Keep, tberef ore, your souls caref uUy. Ton saw 
not any similitude in tbe day tbat tbe Lord God spoke 
to you in Horeb, from tbe midst of tbe fire. Lest, 
perbaps, being deoeived, you migbt make you a 
graven similitude or image of male or female: Tbe 
similitude of any beast, etc., and being deceived by 
error tbou adore and serve tbem, wblcb tbe Lord tby 
God created for tbe servioe of all tbe nations tbatare 
ander tbe beaven." Deut, iv, 15, 19. ' 

'' Sball a man be bid in secret plaoes, and I not see 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? 
saith the Lord." Jer. xxiii, 24. 

" O, Israel, how great is the house of God, and how 
vast is the place of his possession! It is great and 
hath no end: it is high and immense." Baruch iii, 
24, 25. 

'' God is not as a man, that he should lie, nor as 
the son of man, that he should be changed." Nam. 
xxiii, 19. 

The Jews, then, did not consider God merely as a 
powerf ul man. 

This gross idea belongs to Colonel Ingersoll — firell, 
not to Colonel Ingersoll precisely, f or he has borrowed 
it from the half Pagan sources of exploded heresies; 
bnt surely it is a poor commentary on Rational Re- 
ligion that it has substituted for the Etemal, Immut- 
able, Infinite, Self-existing, Omnipotent, Spiritual 
Being adored by Christians and Jews, a huge and 
powerf ul Man. The worst Paganisms of India, 
Egypt, and Africa have scarcely gone lower. The 
Colonel says, as his own opinion : 

"It 18 impossible for a man to conceive of a per- 
sonal God, other than as a being having the human 
fcÄ-m." (P. 94.) 

On the contrar}»^,^ it is impossible to conoeive of 
God, a being infinitely perfect, etemal, self-existing, 
and necessary, except as a Spirit, a being above the 
whole material Creatiön, and differing essentially 
from matter in every form. 

The Colonel asks, "How did God make man?" 
(P. 95.) "How were Adam and Eve created?" 
(P. 97.) 

Does he not say, " I do not pretend to teil HOW 
all these things (Creatiön) really are? (P. 57.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


H0W9 then, can he have the effrontery to ask, 
" How did God create man?" 

We know that God created man. It is not necea- 
8ary we sbould know exactly how he did it. 

The Colonel next makes it a great wonder that 
since the flood up to 1879, the Mosaic accoant makes 
only 4,227 yearB. *^ Since that event all the ancient 
kingdoms of the earth were f onnded, and their in- 
habitants passed through all the stages of savage, 
nomadic, barbaric, and gemi-cirilized life: through 
the epochs of 8tone, bronze, and iron; established 
commerce, cultivated the arte, bailt cities, fiUed them 
with palacesand temples, inventedwriting, produced 
a literature, and slowly feil to shapeless min. We 
must believe that all this happened within a period 
of 4,000 years." (Pp. 97, 98) 

Here is certainly a formidable array of events hap- 
pening within "4,000 years:" but the time is ac- 
knowledged a little before to be 4,227 years, 227 
years make a considerable time in human progress. 
And they h^d to begin by b^ing savages ! What ? 
Were the eight parents of the human race, Noah and 
hiß sons and their wives, all savages ? They were the 
surviving remnants of the antediluvian age: and 
surely the antediluvians had time to get out of 
savagery in 1,656 years, even if Adam and Eye had 
been savages, whioh does not seem to have been the 
case. Well, then, does it not look as if the savage 
State were a stage of deterioration purely local in- 
stead of the starting point of the post-diluvian men ? 

And "they cultivated the arts, built eitles," etc., 

Well, did not Noah know something about the 
arts, when he built his ship 547 feet long by 91 in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


breadth? Bemember, you have put forw^ard pomp- 
ously your Intention of finding inconsistencies in the 
Mosaio record. If the inconsistency is only in your 
own brain, you will fail egregiously in your under- 
iaking. It does not appear, then, that Noah's descend- 
ants were quite so backward incivilization as you 
would have ns believe. And had they not some skill 
inarchitecture when they built Babel, Nineveh, and 
other cities mentioned in Genesis z, 10, etc.? 

"They had to pass through the epochs of Stone, 
Bronze, and Lron.*' 

Are these epochs then so very distinot ? G^ikie's 
Geological Text Book teils us: 

"In many European oountries where metal has 
been known for many oenturies, there are districts 
where stone implements are still employed, or where 
they were in use tili quite recently. It is obvious 
also that, as there are still barbarous tribes unao- 
quainted with the f abrication of metal, the Stone Age 
is not yet extinct in some parts of the world. In this 
instance we again see how geological periods run into 
each other. The nature or shape of the implement 
cannot, theref öre, be always a very satisfactory proof 
of antiquity." (P. 902.) 

Indeed, from Genesis iv, 21, 22, it appears not only 
that the "Iron Epoch'*was before the deluge, but 
that even music was already cultivated. Real geolo- 
gists do not seem to agree very well with the amateur 
Colonel. It has been well said: 

"The.writers against Religion have been, for the 
most part, men of great pride and audacity, but in 
leaming little better than sciolists." 

The Colonel's remarks on the antiquity of the Negro 
raoe will be tieated of in their proper place, chapter 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


40. Let OS now see what he has to say of king 

" If we know anything, we know that magnificent 
statues were made in Egypt f oür ^oosand years be- 
fore our era — that is to say, siz thousand years ago. 
There wasf at the World's Exposition, in the Egyp- 
tian department, a statae of king Cephren, hnown to 
have been chiselled more than six thousand years ago. 
In other words, if the Mosaic acconnt must be be- 
lieved, this statae was made before the world." 

" We also know, if we know anything, that men 
lived in Europe with the hairy mammoth, the cave 
bear, the rhinoceros and the hyena. Among the 
bones of these animals have been fonnd the stone 
hatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the 
caves where they lived have been discovered the re- 
mains of these animals that had been conquered, 
killed and devoured as f ood hundreds of thousands of 
years ago. If these facts are true, Moses was mis- 
taken." (Pp. 99, 100.) 

In the first place, it must be bome in mind that the 
usually aocepted Chronology which fixes the Exodus 
to the year 1491 B. C, and the entry of the Israelites 
into Egypt to the year 1706 B. C, is not pretended to 
be absolutely certain. There are periods both in 
sacred and profane history, the length of whioh is not 
known with certainty. Hence the overthrow of the 
generally received chronology would not affect the 
vera^ity of the Pentateuch, unless the discrepanoy 
were very great indeed. It would only overthrow 
the received chronology. However, let us exainine 
the matter of King Cephren. 

When did king Cephren reign? It is <K)nceded 
that when Abraham came into Egypt it was during 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the twelf th dynasty of Egypt. Cephren or Ehaf ren 
was the builder of the second Pyramid, and he be- 
longed to the f ourth dynasty of Manetho. Now, of 
all the periods of ügyptian history, there is none 
more fancifal and nncertain than this intervening 
period between the fourth and twelfth dynasties. 
Colonel Ingersoll makes Cephren's statue to have 
been carved fnore than 4121 years B. C. 

Manetho is the only ancient authority who gives 
anything approaching the Colonel's figures. Now, 
accoi^ing to Manetho we find the foUowing: 

From flrst year of Menes to Manetho, . . . 8,555 years. 
Year of Manetho, B. C, 850 

First year of Menes, B. C, 8,905 

First year of Menes to fifth dynasty, . . . 1,084 years. 

First year of fifth dynasty B. C 3,871 

AUow for reigns of last t^o kings of fourth 

dynasty, say, 40 years. 

Bstimated date B. C. of Cephren's death, . 2,911 B. C. 

This makes a difference of 1,210 years between 
Manetho's date and that given by Colonel Ingersoll: 
no small amount. The CoIonePs talk about King 
Cephren's statue being older than the world, is,there- 
fore, nonsense. 

The above figures may be f ound in the American 
Cyclopaedia, art. Egypt, with the exception of 1,034, 
which number will be f ound from Chambers' Cyclo- 
psedia, and 40 years' allowance for two kings. The 
sum 1,034 is thus made up: 

Durdtion of Ist dynasty 250 years. 
2d '* 800 " 
8d '* 200 •* 
4th " 284 *• 

Total, . . . 1084 '* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Bat are Manetho's date4 reliable in this instance? 
A papyrus in the Tarin maseam belonging to tbe 
period of the 19th dynasty reoords that between the 
6tb and 12th dynasties twenty-three kings reigned in- 
stead of eighty-six as stated by Manetho: while the 
monaments only record six kings instead of six dyn- 
asties, coYering a period of nearly one thoasand 
years. This last fact woald certainly bring the 
period eight handred years at least, nearer to the 
birth of Christ, which woald give aboat 2111 B. C. 
as the date of Gephren's death. 

Sir John Herschell and Professor Piazzi Smith en- 
deavored to ascertain, astronomically, the age of the 
Pyramid of Cheops, which is bef ore the äge of Ce- 
phren, and thas they fixed the date between 2171 and 
2123 B. C, and Sir Charles Lyell says '^the exact date 
of these (Egjrptian temples, obelisks, pyramids, etc«,) 
after they have been stadied with so mach patience 
and sagacity for centaries, remains nncertain and 
obscare." Let as f urther bear in mind Mr. Cham- 
poUion's deliberate judgment that not one of all 
these monaments dates farther back than 2200 B. C, 
and we may jadge of the valae of CoL IngersolPs 
pretended knowledge on this sabject It is a sham. 

Are sach ancertainties to be taken as a ref atation 
of the proved records of Holy Writ ? 

Next, as regards the finding of haman implements 
sach as the stone hatchets and flint arrows of pre-his- 
toric man, mixed with the bones of animals in caves, 
we mast again remember that the term pre-historic 
does not necessarily mean that the men thas described 
existed bef ore any history was written. The historic 
and the pre-historic ages necessarily ran into one 
another, as do the Stone, Bronze and Iren Ages. The 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


same period may have been historic in Egypt and pre- 
historic in England, Germäny and Switzerland: and 
as far as we are aware, this is actually the case. 
Geologists acknowledge that the traces of man hith- 
erto found in caves with bones of the mammoth, 
hyena, bear, rhinoceros, etc., afford very uncertain 
data for deciding the age when the deposits were 
made. One of the most recent geological works pub- 
lished in 1882 by the Director-General of the Geolo- 
gical Survey of Great Britain and Ireland, Archibald 
Geikie of Edinburgh XJniveraity, says: 

"A satisfactory chronological Classification of the 
deposits containing the first relics of man is perhaps 
nnattainable, for these deposits occur in detached 
areas with no means of determining their physical 
sequences." (P. 904.) 

These deposits may sometimes have been f ormed 
of the bones of animals, as hyenas, that made their 
homes in the caves: in which case it is not likelj that 
men were dwelling there at the same time. The 
bones of the Carnivora most frequently belong to a 
very different period from that when the caves were 
tenanted by men. Sometimes these deposits were 
made by land animals falling into the pits accident- 
ally. At other times, no doubt, men brought the ani- 
mals there for f ood, but there is no proof in all this 
that man is of higher antiqoity than is stated in the 
book of Genesis. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




CoL. Ingebsoll maintains that the antiquity of 
man on earth is to be measured by "millions of 
years." Here is bis tbeory: 

^^One can bardly compute in bis imagination the 
time necessary f or man to emerge f rom tbe barbarous 
State, naked and belpless, surrounded by animals far 
more powerf ul than he, to progress and finally create 
the civilizations of India, Egypt and Athens. The 
distance from savagery to Shakespeare must be mea- 
sured not by hundreds, but by millions of years." 
(P. 100.) 

In f act we have seen already that he makes man to 
have progressed gradually from monad to moner, 
from moner to higher stages of life, a tadpole, for 
example, then a monkey, tili at last he emerged a 
man: and now we find that he comes out first a sav- 
age, tili at last he is evolved into a Philosopher — a 
Col. Ingersoll in fact. 

Now is this theory proved? The Colonel gives no 
proof of it any better than his absurd Statement about 
king Cephren. The Holy Scripture, on the contrary, 
plainly declares that the first parents of mankiod 
were created, not slowly developed from lower forms. 
Here is a Statement proved to be part of a divine Re- 
ligion: a direct Revelation from 6od. Are we to 
accept in the face of this a purely imaginative theory, 
advanced on speculation, without proof of any kind ? 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


f or even the most ardent and leamed of the evolu- 
tionists conoede that Evolution is no more than a 
theory ; and it is a theory invented apparently f or the 
parpose of getting rid of the necessity of acknowl- 
edging Gk>d's existence. It is based, not on faet but 
conjecture and assumption. 

1. It has never been known that one animal species 
has been developed from another. This Professor 
Huxley admits: 

**There is no instance in whioh a group of animals 
having all the characters exhibited by species in na- 
tare, has ever been originated by selection, whether 
natural or artificial." (Lay Sermons, 12.) 

2. Nature herseif or rather the God of nature has 
placed an obstacle to the production of new species. 
Animals of the same species, male and f emale produce 
off spring like themselves: animals of different species 
are sterile. There are a few cases where a hybrid is 
produced, but the hybrid is always sterile. This is 
exemplified in the mule. 

Col. IngersoU boasts of the discoveries of man. 
"The brave prow of discovery has visited every sea; 
the traveller has pressed with weary f eet the soil of 
every olime." (P. 122.) 

He might have added that man has penetrated the 
recesses of the earth, he has examined critically the 
traces of lif e which existed on earth for millions of 
years: He has found animal and vegetable organiza- 
tions of high development, without any trace of na- 
tural ancestors from which they were developed. 
Man himself has no discoverable ancestors: for surely 
it will not be seriously maintained that man has for 
ancestors any series of animals at present existing, or 
that ever existed. The Gorilla, the Chimpanzee, the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Orang-Oatang all differ essentially from man in all 
physical f eatures, to say nothing of his soal> which is 
created after Qod's image and likeness. Professor 
Haxley himself admits that: 

" Every bone of the Gorilla bears marks by which 
it might be distinguished from the corresponding 
bone of a man, and in the present creation, at any 
rate^ there are no intermediate links, between Homo 
(Mari) and Troglodytes?'* (Man's Place in Nature.) 

4. Lastly: If the theory of Evolution were true, 
the varieties of living creatares would be fortnitous, 
and there would be no plan, no order in nature, for 
plan and order cannot spring from mere accident or 

Bat there is order; and CoL Ingersoll himself ad- 
mits this, for we have seen that he in^ists on the 
necessity of order and plan in his argument against 
the Mosaic account of Creation. It is true that wheo 
he argues for the existence of animals simultaneoudy 
with that of plants (pp. 69, 85, 87,) he reasons on a 
false assumption, as far as Creation is concemed, 
nevertheless, he admits that there is a plan through 
Nature, and he assumes that this plan is a necessity. 
Yet he adopts the theory of Evolution, which is in- 
consistent with plan in the general design of Nature. 

5. The history of the human race on earth confirms 
the account given in Genesis of Man's Creation. 
There are no evidences of Man's existence on earth 
tili long after the time named by Moses for his Crea- 
tion. No evidences of antediluvian Man have yet 
been discovered: though possibly they may be in the 
f uture. All history begins at a period after the time 
indicated by Moses for the beginning of our race, 
anythiüg earlierbeing mere fahles, as we have shown 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


in the cases öf Egypt and China. (Chapters 37 and 

The same is to be said of the Chaldeans, Hindoos 
and other nations that had an early civilization. Some 
have pretended that the Chaldeans have a history of 
four hundred thousand years; but Berosus the first 
historian of Chaldea lived only in the time of Alexan- 
der the Great, about 334 B. C, and according to 
Pliny he only gave a regulär history of four hundred 
and eighty years. Only fragments of it are now ex- 
tant, and where evident fables are eliminated it agrees 
very well with the f acts contained in the Biblioal nar- 
rative, The history of the deluge, and of the ark ffjr 
which Noah was saved, and his aocount of the fall of 
man and of the long lives of the patriarchs, all agree 
with Genesis to a remarkable extent. (Duclot, Bible 
Vindicated, vol. 1.) 

Besides the statue of King Cephren, whose Claims 
to immense antiquity, we examined in chapter 39, 
the only monument which Col. Ingersoll can adduce 
to prove the f abulous antiquity of man is " a repre- 
sentationupon Egyptian granite made more than three 
thousand years ago/' wherein " the negro is as black, 
his Ups as füll, his hair as closely curled as now." 

These figures must be very perfect likenesses, if 
we can attach to them so much faith. Now, it is 
well known that the Egyptian figures are alwaysgro- 
tesque, and that as representations of the human 
form, they are mere caricatures. A peep into any 
museum, or into any book on Egyptian antiquities will 
convince the reader of this. Yet such are the pic- 
tures which Col. Ingersoll would try to pass upon us 
as perfect representations of men three thousand 
years ago. 

Digitized by VjOÖQIC 


Charles Darwin will not be suspected of partiality 
to the Christian cause, yet in his " Descent of Man," 
he says, " Mr. Pouchet was f ar from finding recogni- 
zable representations of the dozen or more nations 
which some authors belieye they can recognize. Even 
some of the most sVtongly marked racea cannot be 
identified with that degree of nnanimity which might 
have been expected." (Vol, i, p. 209.) 

It is very possible that the negroes have retained 
the same physical type for so long a period, for tbey 
are in the same social condition that they occupied 
t]}ree thoasand years ago: bat it is fnlly established 
that ander the influence of changes of climate, seil, 
education and mode of life, the physical forms of 
races change, and sometimes very rapidly. 

The Turks of Earope are known to be of Mongo- 
lian origin, yet even in the form of their crania 
they have approximated to the Caucasian type, and 
they now diflfer widejy from their Eastem Mongol 

Many other examples of like Import might be 
given, bat I have said enoagh to show that the im- 
perfect pictures of Egypt do not avail, against the 
positive testimony of Moses, to establish an existence 
of millions of years for that monarohy, 

To the Hindoos, modern ihfidels have also assigned 
a stapendoas antiquity, an existence of foar million 
three handred and twenty thoasand years being 
claimed in some of their bookii. Bailly, in his Htatory 
ofÄncient Ast/ronomyy states that they were, in hiß 
opinion, a fully established nation three thoasand five 
handred and fifty-three years before Christ, and that 
the Brahmins had astronomioal tables five or six 
iJioasand years old. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Mr. Bentley travelled in India purposely in order to 
ascertain the truth of the Hindoo claims to great an- 
tiqnity, and f oond that the earliest astronomical data 
so mach relied on by Bailly could not mark an^earlier 
period than 1528 B. C. (Historioal View of Hindoo 

Infidels have also pretended that the history of 
Christ was borrowed from that of Krishna, whö in 
Hindoo legends is represented as an Incamation of 
the Divinity, at whose birth spirits sung hymns of 
praise, while shepherds sorrounded his cradle. The 
tyrant Gansa endeavored to destroy him, so that it 
was necessary to conceal his birth, and the child was 
taken by his parents beyond the coast of Tamouna. 
He afterwards lived in obscurity, then commenced a 
public lif e, preached a perf ect dootrine and protected 
the poor, bat was finally nailed to a tree, and bef ore 
dying foretold the evils which would take place in 
the wicked age of the world thirty-six years af ter his 
death. (Paulinus, '* The Brahman System; Bome, 

The very great similarity of many events in the 

' legend of Krishna with those of Christ's life, and 

even the likeness of the name were truly perplexing, 

and gave plausibility to the Infidel pretence that the 

life of Christ was borrowed from the Hindoo story. 

The established authentioity of the life of Christ 
was not allowed to weigh anything in the scaje when 
confronted by this legend of Krishna, which was pro- 
nounced by Sir Wm. Jones as anterior to the Chris- 
tian era, and at least as old as Homer. The learning 
of Sir Wm. Jones was indisputable, especially in Hin- 
doo literatare, and on his expression of this opinion 
modern infidels laid great str^gs, as if it proved that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Christianity is itself a mere legend; though Mr. Jones 
drew no such inference. It was his opinion that some 
of the facts of Christianity had been engrafted on 
the original story of Krishna. 

Mr. Bentley, however, applied his mathematical 
skill to the case, and was f ortunate enough to find the 
Horoscope of Krishna which gives the position of the 
planets at his birth. By astronomical calcnlation, he 
found that the planets could oecupy the positions 
thereon depicted, only on the seventh of August, A. 
D., 600. 

The ooincidence of the lif e of Krishna with events 
reoorded in the Gospels could not be merely acciden- 
tal, so Mr. Bentley's discovery settled the matter that 
the Hindoo story is merely a distorted Version of 
Christ's life as recorded in the Gospels. 

Mr. Bentley is of opinion that it wasjsoncocted hy 
the Brahmans for the express purpose of preventing 
the people from embracing Christianity. 

In other countries there is still less diffieulty than 
with those we have enumerated. All history is of 
comparatively modern date, though, from its very be- 
ginning it is evident that some speeies of civilization 
existed. Thus human history is a strong confirmation 
of the facts stated and implied in Genesis, that at the 
time of the dispersion of mankind, our race was not 
in the State of savagery as infidels pretend: and that 
man's beginning on earth is to be placed at about the 
date recorded by Moses, History, when properly un- 
derstood is irreconcilable with the fabulous antiquity 
which Infidels attribute to man on earth. 

Other evidences of these trutbs might be added. 
There are proofs that a civilization existed in former 
times over the whole continent of North America. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


There have been f oand works of art whioh betoken 
a high State of civilization, but we all know that this 
high State of oivilization had disappeared^ so that on 
the discovery of America the continent was almost 
entirely peopled by savages. On this fact Mr. Mott 
pointb out that the present State of savagery has 
arisen " by degradation, not by progress .... 
but if this be the case ,over an entire continent, what 
becömes of the idea that savage lif e in general is an 
example of arrested progress and not an ezample of 
retrogression?" (Mivart's Lessons.) 

Of course not mean to deny that man inmany 
cases has progi'essed. ' I do not mean to deny that in 
the nineteenth Century the arts have in every depart- 
ment progressed wonderfully, but when we read of 
the high civilizations of former days, and behold how 
tbey have degenerated into savagery, it is unreason- 
able to assume, as if it were a demonstrated fact, that 
man's lif e on earth began with savagery. Due respect 
should be paid to the testimony of history on this 
subject, and surely the Sacred History whose authen- 
ticity and truth are so well attested is not to be thrown 
aside as if its testimony were of no weight. ' This 
testimony is to the effect that man did not make bis 
appearance on earth as a savage, but at least as a 
moderately civilized being. This is certainly far 
more consistent with the records of humanity, than 
that he has existed for millions of years, and that he 
has developed himself into the highly civilized being 
of the present Century. 

Another consideration must not be omitted, as it 
throws great light on the Scriptural account of the 
peopling of the earth. It is founded on the mathe- 
matical calculation of the ordinary increase of popu- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


lation. In different coantries the ordinary increase 
of popalation varies very mach. In England it has 
been mach more rapid tban in France daring the 
present Century. Thus the popalation of France 
was in 1801, 27,349,003, according to official statis- 
tics. In 1861 it had increased to 37,382,225. (Cham- 
bers' Cyclopsodia.) The ezponential equation, where- 
by the number of years required to double the 
popalation will be foand, is, therefore: 

mmm) " = 2. 

The valae of m= 133.08, »the namber of years 
required to double the popalation in France, or nearly 
133 years 1 month. 

If , now, we assume as correct the generally accepted 
chronology which places the deluge as having taken 
place 2348 B. C, we shall have 4,232 years down to the 
present year (-1884). The present population of the 
globe is estimated to be 1,400,000,000. If, then, on 
account of their extreme old age, we leave out Noah 
and bis wife from the estimate, we shall have 
1,400,000,000 descended from 6 persons in 4,232 
years. To find the number of years during which 
the population of the earth must have doubled daring 
.this period, we must solve this equation: 


TSTST ■* • 

n is found to be ■* 152.24. That is, since the 
deluge the population of the earth doubled every 
152t^ years, very nearly: a very reasonable resolt. 
If the Infidel theory were correct, a much longer 
time must have been required to double the popala- 
tion. Mathematical calculation, therefore, renders 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the Infidel. theory of man's indefinite occupation of 
the earth very ai^ikely, while it renders highly prob- 
able the Scriptural acoount that the beginning is to 
be dated from very nearly the time indicated by 





GoD ^^blessed the Seventh day, and sanctified it: 
because in it he had rested from all His work which 
God created and made." (G^n. ii, 3.) 

St. Augustine explainsthesewords: "The Omnipo- 
tence of the Creator is the cause of subsistence to 
every creature, and if this virtue were withdrawn 
from things created, nature and beings of all kinds 
would cease to exist. Theref ore, when the Lord says 
*My Father worketheven tili now' (St. John v, 17), 
he shows a perseverance of his work by which he 
govems and regulates all things. .... Wheref ore 
God is to be understood as resting from all his works 
in this sense that he is not creating as at first, not 
that he ceases to govern and regulate his Creation." 
(SententisB, num. 277.)' 

It is thus Seen how f utile are Colonel IngersolPs 
queries and commentaries: 

^ **There ought to be some account of what he did 
the following Monday. Did he rest on that day? 
What did he do after he got rested? Has he done 
anything in the way of Creation since Saturday even- 
ing of the first week?" (Pp. 101, 102.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


There is an aooount o£ God's work " even tili now." 
He rests in the sense that He has oeased from the 
great work recorded in the first ohapter of Genesis. 
Moses speaks according to human intelligence. 

The Colonel says next: 

*'K they (theologians) take the groand that the 
days were periods of twenty-f our hours, then Geology 
will force them to throw away the whole accoont. 
If, on the other hand, they admit that the days were 
vast * periods/ then the sacredness of the Sabbath 
must be given up." (P. 103.) 

We have seen in ohapter 36 that geology does not 
force US to give up the Mosaic Cosmogony. How 
the Colonel can inf er that the sacredness of the Sab- 
bath must be given up under either Interpretation it 
is hard to see. The Sabbath was instituted to recall 
to fiian the memory of God's work, and how He 
ceased from His work or rested on the seventh day. 
It makes little difference whether the days were long 
or short periods; it was in God's power to Institute 
a day on which thanksgiving should be specially 
offered to Hirn for our indebtedness to Hirn m Crea- 
tion. It is proper that part of our time should be set 
apart for this purpose, lest in the midst of our secular 
concerns we should forget God. It is therefore 
"possible to sanctify a space of time," though the 
Colonel thinks it is not. (P. 103.) , 

He wishes to know how we can please God '*by 
staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of 
Walking in the pei*f umed fields." I am not aware 
that God has commanded at all any such mode of 
celebrating the Sabbath as that imagined by the 
Colonel. The Sunday is to be kept "holy" by serv- 
ing Gtod more particularly on it, and by abstaining 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


from servile work, the ordinary secular ocoapation of 

" Why should that day be filled with gloom instead 
of joy?" (P. 104.) 

There is no reason for being gloomy, and there is 
no preoept of the kind. It should be a pleasure to 
serve 6od. , " Christas yoke is sweet and his bürden 
light." (St. Matt, xi, 30.) 

" Every Freethinker, as a matter of duty, should 
violate this day." (P. 104.) 

Freethinkers do, as a rule, violate this and other 
days; for without responsibility to God, man will 
naturally be govemed by his passions, and restrained 
only by the fear of f orce whioh others can bring to 
bear apon him. 

" They should do so as a duty." 

How can there be a duty when there is no Being 
to whom we are responsible ? 

The Colonel then asks: 

" Why should we care for the superstition of men 
who began the Sabbath by paring their nails, begin- 
ning at the fourth finger, thejj going to the seoond, 
then to the fifth, then to the third, and ending with 

" The Jews were very caref ul of these nail parings. 
They who threw theni upon the ground were wicked, 
because Satan used them to work evil upon the earth. 
They believed that upon the Sabbath souls were 
allowed to leave purgatory, and cool their buming 
souls in water^ .... and *' if a Jew on a joumey 
was overtaken by the sacred day .... he must sit 
down and there remain until the day was gone. If 
he feil in the dirt he was compelled to stay until the 
day was done." (Pp. 105, 106.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Allthis is not in the Bible. Col. IngersoU will 
gain no credit for honesty by his attempt to make 
tbe public believe that tbese tbings are to be f ound 
in tbe Pentateucb. If any Jews observe sucb rules, 
Moses is not responsible for tbem. Tbey are not 
**mi8take8 of Moses.*' In tbe time of Cbrist, even, 
Our Lord condemned tbe numerous superstitions 
wbicb tbe Pbarisees bad engraf ted on tbe law. 

**You bave made void tbe commandment' of God 
for your tradition .... and in vain do tbey wor- 
sbip me, teacbing doctrines and commandments of 
mea." St. Mattbew xv, 6, 9. 

TbeApostles " understood tbat .... tbey sbould 
beware . . . . of tbe doctrine of tbe Pbarisees and 
Sadducees.*' xvi, 12. 

Unnecessary labor was forbidden; and of course 
tbe Performance of unnecessary labor was punisbed 
by tbe law. Tbe law, of course, endured as long as 
it was tbe will of 6od tbat sucb sbould be tbe case. 
But God appeared on eartb and left tbe law of tbe 
New Testament. Tbe same autbority tbat appointed 
freely tbe Saturdayto bekept bolycould reverse tbe 
law: and tbis Cbrist did. (Col. ii, 16.) Tbe Cbristian 
cburcb tberefore appointed tbe Sunday to take tbe 
Position of tbe Sabbatb under tbe New Law. Tbus 
we See wbere Cbristians gottbe rigbt "to labor on tbe 
day " wbicb God " sanctified, and to keep as sacred ** 
a day wbicb previously to tbe establisbment of tbe 
Cbristian law, was devoted to labor. 

Col. Ligersoll makes of tbis a mountain of a diffi- 
culty. He says " if any day is to be kept boly *' Sat- 
urday is tbe day, "and not tbe Sunday of tbe Cbris- 
tian." Tbe mountain becomes but a mole-bill wben 
it is examined. (Mistakegr of Moses, pp. 106, 107.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


TheColonel adds: "the Christian Sabbath or the 
•Lord's day ' was legally established by the murderer 
Constantine, beoause on that day Christ was sapposed 
to have risen from the dead." (P. 108.) 
. The Colonel is astray in his history. The day was 
established long before Constantine's time. Easebias, 
the cotemporary of Constantine says. 

"The Logos (Christ) by the new convenant tran- 
slated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to 
the moming light, and gave us the Symbol of true 
rest, the saving Lord^a day^ the first day of the week, 

St. Athanasius gives similar testimony, so also do 
Sts. Bamabas, Ignatias and Justin Martyr, who flour- 
ished two centuries before Constantine. 
. Constantine is called by Col. IngersoU " the mur- 
derer." It is true that the death which he inflicted 
on his son Crispus is regarded as a great stain upon his 
otherwise illustrious reign, but a Sovereign is some- 
times placed in difficult positions. Crispus was 
charged with treason, and it seems to havebeen proved 
against him. Be the crime of Constantine as great 
as Colonel IngersoU represents it to be, surely the 
crime of a Pagan, as Constantine was at the time, is 
not a reproach against Christianity. 

We are next told that: 

" There are two aocounts of the Creation in Grenesis 
.... These accounts are materially diflferent, and 
both cannot be true." (P. 108.) 

The first acoount begins with Genesis i, 1, and ends 
with Genesis ii, 3. " The second account begins with 
the föurth verse of the second chapter." (P. 108.) 

There is no oontradiction between these so called 
different accounts. Two men may describe the same 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


eyent without mentioning precisely the same cirotun« 
BtanceSy yet both aocoonts may be perf ectly true. 

The two acoounts in Genesis are both true. They 
do not ooiitra<liot eaoh other in the least. 

The Colonel says: 

** In the second acooant man was made bef ore the 
beasts and fowls. If this is true, the first accoont is 
false.'* (P. 112.) . 

Answer: bat this is not true. The so-called second 
accoant does not give, nor prof ess to give the order 
of Creation. It relates merely certain facts in such 
Order as the exigencies of the second narrative de- 
mand. The like is done every day by historians. 
The object of Moses in the second chapter was to show 
the dominion of man over beasts. The natural order 
then was to State first the Privileges of man. This 
he does by repeating the manner of man's creation 
with a living soal, and addingthatthegardeninEden 
was placed ander his care. Then the beasts were 
broaght to him to be named. Preyioasly to this 
episode we are told that God formed beasts and f owl; 
bat there was no necessity here f or preserving the 
Order of Creation between man and beasts, for this 
order had been already narrated a f ew lines previous- 
ly. We were already informed in detail that the 
f owl were formed on the fif th day, the beasts, and 
finally man on the sixth day. Hence also the follow- 
ing assertions are unfoanded and false. 

''According to the second account, Adam existed 
millions of years before Eve was formed. He must 
have lived one Mosaic day before there were any 
trees, and another Mosaic day before the beasts and 
fowls were created. Will some kind clergyman teil 
US upon what kind of f ood Adam subsisted doringr 
these immense periods?" (P. 112.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


As Adam was created on the sixth day, af ter both 
fowls and beasts and plants, there was no difficulty 
about bis getting food. "The millions of years" 
difficulty we disposed of in cbapter 36. Eve was 
created on tbe sixtb day af ter Adam. 

The Colonel next says that to f urnish " a helpmeet 
for Adam," God^ instead of . proceeding at once to 
make a woman, "tried to induce Adam to take one 
of them (the beasts) for *an helpmeet.' " (P. 113.) 

To prove this he qaotes: 

"And Adam gave hames to all cattle, and to the 
fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; bat 
for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him." 
(P. 113.) 

There is no Statement here that can be even 
plansibly distorted into meaning that Ood 'Hried to 
induce Adam to take a beast for a helpmeet." We 
are told that Ood brought the beasts "to Adamto see 
what he would call them," and not for him to choose 
a helpmeet from amon'g them. The Colonel asks: 

" Unless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet 
for Adam, why did he cause the animals to pass 

There was no need to ask so nonsensical a question. 
The text itself gives the reason: They were brought 
to be named by Adam. Another reason may, prob- 
ably, have been to show that there was no beast suit- 
able to be man's companion. This is implied by the 
con^xt. Colonel IngersolVs pathetic thanksgiving 
is out of place: 

** Let vüs rejoice that this was so. Had he (Adam) 
fallen in love then, there would never have been a 
Freethinker in the world?" 

Why ? Are we not told by the Colonel that it is 

'Digitizedby Google 


exactly from the lowest form of beasts, moners 
yclept, that Freethinkers are descended? (P. 96.) 
From the "Moners" must yoa not traoe your ances- 
try through the Gk>rilla or some such beast? Ah! 
Colonel, it is not creditable to you to be ashamed of 
your ancestry. And do you not, in your lecture on 
skulls, even State positively that you can trace your 
ancestry " to the Duke Orang-Outang or to the Prin- 
cess Chimpanzee " ?• Christians have quite a different 
genealogy, and can prove it by their records. 

To confirm his gross ribaldry, the Colonel quotes 
Dr. Adam Clark and Dr. Scott. As both of these 
merely repeat th^t "among all the animals .... 
there was not a helpmeet f or Adam," it is difficult to 
see how they confirm the Colonel's view. 
. Dr. Matthew Henry is also quoted with the same 
purpose. Even if Dr. Henry were of this opinion, 
the absurdity is not to be attributed to Moses. But 
Dr. Henry seems only to imply that the animals were 
brought to convince Adam that he could not be 
matched among them. He has perhaps awkwardly 
expressed his meaning, but I am convinced that this 
was what he intended to express. If, however, he 
wished to convey what the Colonel pretends, they are 
mistaken together. 

The Colonel next ridicules the creation of Eve out 
of "one of Adam's ribs." (P. 116.) 

As God's power is necessarily infinite, there can be 
no more difficulty about His creating Eve out of 
matter already existing than about His creation of 
the World from nothing. The f act that this was done 
we already proved in chapters 6 and 7. 

We have next the supposed cross-examination of 
two applicants f or admission into heaven. The first 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


was an infideL He loved bis f amily, paid bis debts, 
but did not belong to any oboroh, f or cborobes were 
" too narrow " f or bim. He did not believe tbat tbe 
wicked are ponisbed f or ever, nor did be believe tbat 
Qod created Eye as described in tbe Bible. 

"Away witb bim to beU.'* (P. 118.) Well: tbis 
infidel ref uses to believe wbat God bas taugbt. Tbere 
is a positive act of rebellion against God. Oan a 
natural love f or wif e and obildren be an offset f or 
bigb treason against God's Supreme Autbority? 
Would it be a sufficient exouse for bigb treason 
against tbe State? Sui'ely not. Now it must be 
remembered tbat tbere is no sin wbere tbere is not 
wilfulness. We bave tberefore one wbo wilfully 
ref uses tobonor God by acknowledging His veracity, 
and to pay to Him tbe bomage of bis understanding. 
Gan sacb a one be guiltless ? 

The Colonel says, bowever, tbat belief is not vol- 

^^For my part, I cannot admit tbat belief is a vol- 
untary tbing. It seems to me tbat evidence, even in 
spite of ourselves, will bave its weight, and tbat, 
whatever our wisb may be, we are compelled to stand 
witb f aimess by tbe soales, and give tbe exact result." 

Does it not sometimes bappen tbat fraudulent 
weigbts and balances are used ? We read tbat tbe 
invader JBrennitSy by means of sucb weigbts, endeav- 
ored onoe to impose upon tbe Romans, and tbat wben 
tbe latter remonstrated be tbrew bis sword and belt 
into tbe scale, saying tbat ** it is tbe lot of tbe van- 
quisbed to suffer." 

Man bas liberty to use bis intellect or not. Tbe 
will moves tbe intellect as f ar as tbe exercise of tbe 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


intelleot is ooncemed, and theref ore that ezercise of 
the intellect is volantary. Thus wß may refuse to 
examine the motives of credibility of Religion. Oar 
ref osal is Yolantary. Unbelief is the consequence of 
this refusal, therefore such unbelief is voluntary. 
Begolarly, therefore, Unbelief in Qod's Revelation 
is criminal, and sinf ul. If, however, the case should 
ooour that the means of knowing God's Revelation 
are not within reaoh, there will be no sii^ beoause 
God obliges no one to an impossibility. 

The Colonel's second ezample is the cross-ezamin- 
ation of a Bank Cashier, a member of a '^ Young 
Men's Christian Association'' who stole f rom his bank 
a handred thousand doUars and desertedhis wife and 
family, committing other orimesalso; bnt becansehe 
believed with " all his heart " the Scriptural history 
of JEve's Creation, profanely called by the Colonel 
"the rib story," he was admitted to heaven. (Pp. 
119, 120.) 

This is a slander on Christianity. Christianity does 
not teach that they who are guilty of such crimes as 
the Colonel has enumerated, are saved merely by be- 
liemng what God has taught. There are, I believe, 
some sectaries that teach that God does not impute 
to the Christian the sins which he may commit äfter 
his con Version, but I repudiate this doctrine on behalf 
of the vast bulk of Christendom: it is not the 
doctrine of either the Old or the New Testament. The 
Catholic church known to number nearly two hun- 
dred and fifty millions of Christians repudiates it. So 
do the Greek churches numbering probably ninety- 
five millions, and I believe the great bulk of Protes- 
tants of to-day also . repudiate it strongly. I will 
merely quote a passage from the Old Testament and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


anoiher f rom the New, whioh will prove what I have 

^' Bat if the jnst man tarn bimself away f rom his 
jostice, and do iniquitj etc., shall he live? All his 
jastice which he had done shall not be remembered 
.... and in bis sin .... be shall die." (Ez. xviii, 

"Not every one that saitb to me Lord, Lord, shall 
enter into the kingdom of beaven, bat be that doth 
the will of my Fatber wbo is in beaven, be shall en- 
ter into tbe kingdom of heaven.'' (St. Matthew vii, 

The Colonel accases tbe clergy of slandering bim. 
He deals in generalities. He does not State what tbe 
slanders are. I have taken care in tbis book not to 
deal in any personalities, even: bat I cannot bat call 
attention to tbcNfact that I have proved tbe Colonel 
guilty of f alsebood in many parts of bis book besides 
tbis. I may therefore fairly qaote bis own words 
against bimself, withsome necessary verbal cbanges: 

*' There is no logic in slander; and f alsebood, in the 
long ran def eats itself. People wbo profess loadly 
tbe Religion of Hamanity sboald at least teil tbe trath 
aboat their friends." (See page vi, Preface to Mis- 
takes of Moses.) 

Tbe next objection which we find is: 

" It is Said that f rom Moant Sinai Gknl gave, amid 
thanderings and ligbtnings, ten commandments for 
tbe gaidance of mankind: and yet among them is not 
foand— *Tboa shalt believe tbe Bible.'" (P. 120.) 

And what of that? Is it anywbere claimed that 
the ten commandments contain eaplicitly all our 
obligations? Tbe ten commandments are an admir- 
able sammary of the law, and contain implicitly all 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


oordutieSy yet there are other commandments whicb 
are not fouDcl explioitly among the ten. (See Deut, 
xxvii, etc.) The duty of believing his word is im- 
plicitly contained in the first of the ten. 

As well might the Colonel asglert that mnrder is 
lawful, because it is not easplicül^ forbidden in the 
still shorter sommary f oond in St. Matthew's Gk>spel9 
xzii, 37, 39. It is implieMy forbidden in the com- 

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'' (St. 
Matthew xxii, 39.) 

Surely the cause which must resort to subterf uges 
so weak, must itself be very f eeble. 

The Christian who commits grievous sin at once 
separates himself from Almighty God, and cannot 
become God's friend until with his whole heart he 
returns to QoA. He must be heartily sorry f or his 
sin: he must be firmly resolved not to sin again, and 
if he has injured his neighbor in person, property or 
character, he must repair the injury done. Hence 
the bank Cashier imagined by Col. Ingersoll would 
be obliged not only to be sorry for the offenses com- 
mitted by him, but also to make restitation for his 
theft, to repair the injury done to his family and 
neighbor, as f ar as possible, " otherwise hia sin would 
not be f orgiven.'* (Cath. Catechism.) Is there ai^y re- 
semblance between the true State of the case and Col- 
onel Ingersoll's representation of it? i 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




The Colonel is yery keen at finding inconsistenoies. 
In Genesis i, 28, we are told that: 

^' God blessed them, (Adam and Eye,) sa^ing, ^ In- 
crease and multiply and replenish the earth and sub- 

In Gtenesis ii, 15, the Colonel teils os: 

Man *^ is not told to subdue the earth, bat to dress 
and keep a garden." (P. 121,) 

It is simply an insult to the intelligence of his 
readers to assert that keeping of a garden is irrecon- 
cilable with dominion over the earth. 

We have, however, a more plausible difficolty in 
the determining of the f our rivers of the garden of 
Eden. The Colonel takes care to make the most of 
this difficulty. He says: 

^* There was issuing f rom this garden a river that 
was parted into f our heads. The first of these, Pison, 
compassed the whole land of Havilah, the second, 
Gihon, that compassed the whole land of Ethiopia, 
the third, Hiddekel, that flowed toward the east of 
Assyria, and the f ourth, the Euphrates. Where are 
these four rivers now? The brave prow of discovery 
has visited every sea; the traveller häs pressed with 
weary f eet the soll of every clime; and yet there has 
been f ound no place f rom which f onr rivers sprang. 
The Euphrates still joumeys to the gulf, but where 
are Pison, Gihon and the mighty Hiddekel ? Surely 
by going to the source of the Euphrates we ought 
to find either these three rivers or their ancient 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


beds. Will some minister when be answers the 
^Mistakesof Moses/ teil us where these rivers are 
or were? The maps of the world are incomplete 
without these mighty streams,** etc. (Pp. 121, 122.) 

Hiddekel does not present the difficulty the Col- 
onel raises. It is known to be the Hebrew name f or 
the Tigris. In fact, philologists teil ns that these 
words are derived by well known philological rules, 
one from the other. Thus the consonants D, K, L, 
are respectively allied in the organs of speech with T, 
G, R, and these letters are f requently interchanged 
with each other by different nations, as the Chinese 
call an American, a Melican man, (See Gesenias' 
Lexicon, Hiddekel: Max Müller's Science of Laa- 
guage, Lecture 5.) 

However, without insisting upon this derivation, 
we have positive testimony that Hiddekel is the 

Josephos naming these four rivers states that, 
^* Euphrates and Tigris flow into the Bed Sea • . • . 
Tigris or Diglath signifies swift and narrow." (Antiq. 
Book i, 1.) Diglath is the Aramsean name. Daniel 
speaks of Hiddekel as the ^' great river " beside which 
he stood in his captivity, when God gave revelation 
to him by means of visions. The Septuagint (70) 
translators say **the great river which is Tigris 
Eddekeiy (Dan. x, 4.) They also translate " Tigris '» 
in Genesis. 

In Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 35, also, the Tigris is the 
name given to Hiddekel in the Greek. 

Both in Genesis and in Ecclesiasticus not only is 
Hiddekel spoken of as a river well known, but Pisoa 
and ^ihon also. TSo doubt these terms were, at that 
time, perf ectly well understood by the Hebrews. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The Tigris and Enphrates rise not f ar from each 
other, and the anoient writers Quintus Curtius, Pro- 
copius, Xenophon and Lucan, State tbat they rose 
tben from a common source. The Ara^es, majestio 
and slow, is called Gechon by the natives, and it 
waters ChiUha^ Scythia. It is true this country is 
not now called Ethiopia, bnl being settled by the de- 
seendants of Cash, was called Cush, (Ethiopia,) 
eqoally with the Cush of Af rica. The Araxes has an 
annaal overflow like the Nile, as stated of Gihon in 
Ecclesiasticus. It empties into the Caspian Sea, and 
is probably the Qihon of Genesis. 

The river called by the Turks Fasi^ passes thröugh 
Colchis or Mingrelia, famous f or its gold and gums. 
(Strabo,Book i; Pliny, Book xxxiii, 3.) The country 
watered by Phison or Pison, is in Genesis called 
Eavilah. This is the name of a son of Cush who set- 
tled in that neighborhood. (Gen. x.) The Pasi 
empties into the Black Sea. It is probably the Pison 
of Genesis. (Calmet " Terrestial Paradise.") 

Cornelius a Lapide, proves that after the Tigris 
and Euphrates unite at Apamoea, they separate at a 
city called Asia making a large Island, Teredon, and 
flow into the Persian Gulf. The two lower branches 
he considers to be th6 Gihon and Pison of Genesis. 
This view, also, accords well with what is related in 

The Euphrates, Tigris, Araxes and Pison rise near 
each other, and in spite of Turkish misrule, the re- 
gion at their source is to-day one of the most fertile 
in ther world. This locality, in all probability, is the 
place of the garden of Eden; though according to 
Cornelius a Lapide, it would be partly between the 
jonction and subsequent division of the waters of the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Euphrates and Tigris. It appears, then, that these 
four rivers have not "been obliterated by convul- 
sions of natura within six thousand years;'* (Mis- 
takes of Moses, p. 123;) thougb possibly there has 
been consideVable change in tbem. 

Josephus imagines the Gihon to be the Nile, and 
Pison the Ganges. He is evidently mistaken in this, 
as the description given in Genesis is incompatible 
with bis faypothesis. Let us f ollow the text, and not 

The Colonel asks: '' Can we not aoeount for these 
contradictions, absurdities and f alsehoods by simply 
saying that although the writer may have done his 
level best, he f ailed because he was limited in knowl- 
edge, led away by tradition, and depended too im- 
plicitly upon the correotness of his imagination?" 
(P. 123.) 

Answer, — No, we cannot. Ist. We have proved 
that Moses' Statements are neither contradiotions, 
absurdities nor f alsehoods. 2ndly. "Simply saying"* 
does not "account for" anything: though, indeed, 
from the frequency with which you "simply say** 
things, one would imagine that nothing more were 
required. Proofs are needed, ColoneL Nothing 
but positive proofs will satisfy us. 

27ie Colo7iel. — "Is not such a course far more rea- 
sonable than to insist that all these things are true» 
and must stand though every science shall fall to 
mental dust?" (P. 123.) 

Answer. — As the Christian has no desire that sci- 
ence shall become mental dast, your question is 
verbal balderdash. Again, as your course has been 
proved to be most unreasonable, it will not become 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



reasonable by comparing it with another unreason- 
able course. ♦ 

27ie Colonel. — "Can any reason be given for not 
allowing man to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowl- 
edge?» (P. 123.) 

Ansioer. — ^Yes. St. Chrysostom gave a reason fif- 
teen hundred years ago: "Qod gave the command- 
ment to prove man's obedience. He imposes a law 

to try man's good will Qod threatens to save, 

the serpent entices to harass With Qod there 

is severity whioh is benignant, with the Devil there 
is persnasion which is hurtf uL" (Porbidden Tree, 
part 1.) 

7%6 Colonel, — "Will some minister, some graduate 
of Andover teil us what this means ?" (P. 124.) 

Anawer. — ^Though not a minister of Andover, we 
have endeavored to answer this. We may add, that 
if Adam was to merit the heavenly reward for obedi- 
ence, it was needed that there should be some law 
whioh he woold have an opportunity to obey. 

Uie ColoneL — "What objeotion could 6od have 
had to the immortality of man ?" (P. 126.) 

Answer. — God had no intention of making man in- 
finite. Man's perfections then must be limited, and 
if limited they must end somewhere. God» being 
free in His acts may place that limit where He thinks 
fit: and it is absurd to ask why God has placed the 
limit in this place rather than in that. 

77ie Colond.—** You see that af ter all this sacred 
record, instead of assuring us of immortality, shows 
US only how we lost it." (P. 126.) 

" TJpon the subject of a f uture State, there is not 
one Word in the Pentateuch." (P. 47.) ) 

Answer. — Even if this were the oase, would not 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the Beyelation of aonie trnths be usef ul to ns, even if 
€Ul truths were not revealed? God must biß fbe' 
Jndge what tmtbs it is expedient we sbould know. . 
Besides^ it is nowbere asserted tbat tbe Pentateucb 
contains everything tbat tbe Jews knew concerning 
God. In difficult cases, tbe Higb Priest and tbe San- 
bedrim were to be oonsulted. Tbere is no doubt tbat 
tbe Immortality of tbe soul was known to tbe Jews. 
It is tangbt by tbeir propbets, and tbe line of proph- 
ets, taugbt directly by God, and to wbose directions 
tbey were obliged to yield obedience, was constantly 
kept np. Tbus tbe ancient tradition of tbe soul's 
immortality could be constantly kept np among tbem, 
even tbougb tbe dootrine were not explicitly taugbt 
in tbe Pentateucb. 

Tbe Pentateucb contains chiefly tbe bistory of a 
nation, tbe people of God. It deals, for tbe most part, 
with tbe extemal acts of tbat nation, as subject to 
God's Sovereign rule. Tbus Josepbus explains in 
bis preface to tbe Antiquities of tbe Jews: 

'^ Moses deemed it exceeding necessary tbat be wbo 
would conduct bis own life well, and give laws to 
otbers, in tbe first place sbould consider tbe diyine 
nature ; and upon tbe contemplation of God's Opera- 
tions, sbould tbereby imitate tbe best of all pattems, 
so f ar aas it is possible for buman nature to do, . . . . 
nor would anytbing be sbould write tend to tbe pro- 
motion of virtue in bis readers; I mean unless tbey 
be taugbt first of all tbat God is tbe Fatber and Lord 
of all tbings, and sees all tbings; and tbat tbence he 
bestows a bappy life upon tbose tbat f oUow bim, but 
plunges sucb as do not walk in the patbs of virtue 

into inevitable miseries But as for our legis- 

lator, when he had once demonstrated ihat GU>d was 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


possessed of perfeot yirtue, he supposed that men 
also ought to strive after the participation of it." 

Many passages of the Pentateuch manifest the 
Jewish belief in the Immortality of the soul. 

" If thou dost well «halt thou not receive ? but if 
111, shall not sin f orthwith be present at the door ?'* 
(Gen. iv, 7.) 

Abel received no reward of virtue on earth, sinie 
he was out off by a violent and premature death. 
These words, theref ore, refer to future rewards and 
punishments, arid they were so believed. 

" Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy re- 
ward exceeding great." (xv, 1.) 

Certainly Abraham *did not expect this promise, to 
be kept, merely by the blessings which would be con- 
f erred on his posterity. He had certainly the expec- 
tation of a future reward to be enjoyed in tfte 
Company of his fathers. This cpnsciousness alone 
could be the cause why Abraham, Jacob and Joseph 
should be anxious to be interred with their fathers. 
(xxiii, 16, 20; xlvii, 30; xlix, 29, etc.) This belief 
is f urther attested in Job xiii, 15: 

" Although he should kill me, I will trust in him." 

"In the last day I shall rise out of the earth, and 
I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh 
I shall see my God: whom I myself shall see and not 
another: this my hope is laid up in my bosom." (xix, 
25, 27.) 

Other practices of the Jews sufSciently attest their 
belief in a future lif e. Saul invoked the dead (1 Ki. 
xxviii, 1 1 ; Prot. Bible, 1 Sam.) ; though the practice 
was strictly forbidden. (Deut, xviii, 11.) See also 
xiv, 1, etc.) We need not quote other texts of both 
the Pentateuch and the later sacred Scriptures, as 

Digitized by VaOOQlC 


these sufficiently evince that in the time of Moses the 
Jews held the Immortality of the soulas part of their 
religious belief. 



Colonel IngersoU denies the Fall of Man. He says: 

" Is it tme that man was once perfectly pure and 
innocent, and that he became degenerate by disobe- 
dience? No; the real trath is, and the history of 
man shows that he has advanced." (P. 126.) 

Where, then, are we to find these historical docu- 
ments that prove man's adyance ? Profane authentic 
hktory in its modern shape, carries us but a small 
way backwards. It goes but little, if any, further 
back than the Christian era. Since that time, un- 
-nioubtedly, man has advanced both intellectually and 
morally. But is it not undeniable that the influence 
of Christianity has been very great in producing this 
result ? Even intellectual progress has been in great 
^ measure due to her influence; though, indeed, itmust 
be Said, moral advancement was her chief object. 
Before Christianity there were civilizations purely 
material, but nowhere, except among the Jews, was 
there the least notion of moral progress. We liave 
already stated the facts which substantiate this. 

It is not true, then, that without religion man has 
made substantial progress. Education purely intel- 
lectual cannot elevate mankind. A f ew scholars may, 
indeed, without religion, under the influence of the 
Christian atmosphere which they have breathed all 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


their lives, shape their outward conduct in aooordanoe 
with the current principles of morality, but a moral 
nation, without religion, is an impossibility, whatever 
may be their intelleotual training. A Robespierre or 
er a Danton will not become better by a more ex- 
tended knowledge. They will only acqaire additional 
facilities to work out their evil designs. 

According to Ecclesiastes/ vii, 4, " God made man 
right." As a history, even, the account given in 
the Pentateuch, of bis fall, merits all respect. It is 
a miraculous history; but we have shown that this is 
no valid reason for rejecting it, for the question 
relates to the early life of man on earth, whereon he 
bad just been placed by God, who had ajready em- 
ployed His infinite power in creating him. Surely 
there canbe no absurdity in His further Intervention, 
either in His placing him in the garden of pleasure, 
or in His imposing a law for his observance. 

Colonel IngersoU asks, " Why did God not defend 
his children " against the snares of the serpent? (P. 

We have already answered that God wisely required 
man's free Service, so that the reward he had promised 
should be merited. Thus it was necessary man should 
have the liberty of obedience or disobedictoce, in Or- 
der that God's design should be accomplished. 

We are asked also: 

*' Is it possible that God would make a successf ul 
rival?" (P. 133.) 

God did not make the devilas he is. He made him 
an angel of light; but by his pride and disobedience, 
he by his own act became a <^evil. Even as a devil 
he is not God's successf ul rival. It is true, his wiles 
prevail over many men, but the grace which God 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 


affords to all His children will enable them to resist 
the devil's wiles successf ully. Man cannot be f orced 
to sin against his own will. If, therefore, he chooses 
the way of death, it is his own act, not that of Gh)d. 
It was, theref ore, by man's own act that he feil in the 
garden of Eden. 

Infidels are fond of saying that it was an injostice 
in God to make the sin of Adam pass to his posterity. 

This is the natural condition of humanity. A f ather, 
by his evil conduet, brings many miseries upon his 
ch Idren, even from the moment of their birth. Even 
from this dispensation good results follow. The faot 
is a motive which inspires parents with greater horror 
for crimes and vices which they know will entail 
misf ortunes on their children. Children alsA have an 
additional reason for gratitude to parents who by 
their wisdom and good morals have preserved them 
from many evils. 

Of coorse Christians do not deny the power of 
God to have creäted man in a social condition diSer* 
ent from his present State. Man might have been 
crcated with such aids of grace as would have effec- 
tually prevented him from committing sin. However, 
in the event of creation, God is not obliged to grant 
to creatures the greatest possible gifts or benefits. 
The lesser gift, even, does not become an evil, he- 
cause a greater can be conceived. Now, undoubtedly» 
the gift of liberty of choicc between good and evil, 
givcn to man, is a good gift. God, therefore, may 
give it, as Hc actually does, and it is no valid arga- 
ment against His justice that He has not given in iis 
stead another gift which we may imagine to be pro* 
ferable. It is very possible, also, that we may bö 
mistaken when we persuade ourselves that the gift 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


we have pictured is the superior one. It may be, 
after all, not so desirable as we imagine, in compari- 
son with that which we enjoy. At all events, God is 
in no vise bound to adopt our view. 

The history of Eve's temptation by the devil, under 
the form of a serpent, the conversation between the 
two, the Statement that the serpent was " more subtle 
than any beast," that Eve could be deceived by him, 
are altogether a f ruitf ul theme f or Colonel IngersolPs 
ridicule. (Pp. 128 to 137.) 

Is the Scriptural account, then, so fall of absurdi- 
ties as the Colonel represents ? He quotes Dr. Adam 
Clark as giving his opinion that " a creature of the' 
ape or orang-ontang kind is here intended.'* Dr. 
Clark is an able scholar, and is f requently very happy 
in his line of argument; but he may sometimes faiL 
In the present case I see no reason for interpreting 
the text otherwise than that the devil clothed himseÜ 
with a serpent's body to appear to Eve. The devil * 
is called "the serpent," and "the old serpent," in 
Apocalypsö xii, 9, 14, 15 (Prot. Bible, Rev.) Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, points out that the subtlety men- 
tioned in Gfen. iii, 1, may, according to the Hebrew, 
signify the physical aptitude of the serpent to coil 
itself in circles, as well as its cunning. Certainly 
there is no absardity in attributing to the serpent 
one or both of these qualities, for it possesses them. 
Cornelius a Lapide in loco. 

There would be some plausibility in denying the 
possibility of the devil making nse of the body of a 
beast for his purposes, if we were not already aware 
that spirits can and do make nse of material bodies. 
The Union of soul and body in man is an example of 
tbis, within the experience of all. The possession of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


a serpent's body by the devil is not so close or com* 
plete a union as the one we know to exist within oar- 
selves. Since, then, the latter is a fact, it cannot be 
Said that the former is impossible. 

Assuming, then, that the possession took place, the 
possibility of the conversation of Eve with the devil^ 
or the serpent, becomes at once established. There is 
no more difficulty in it than in the use our soul makes 
of our Organs of speech for conversational purposes. 

All this being proved, we have. only to suppose a 
moderate degree of astuteness on the devil's part to 
enable him to deoeive Eve; for though her under- 
Standing was undoubtedly less dark before her sin, 
the cunning of the devil is confessedly very great. 

Thus all Colonel Ingersoll's difßculties about the 
Fall of mankind disappear. 

We may add here the mature judgment of a well- 
known infidel, Bayle, on this very subject: 

^' Froni^ the manner in which the historian relates 
this sad event it appears evident that his inten tion 
was to let US know what actually took place, and this 
alone ought to persuade any reasonable person that 
the pen of Moses was nnder special direction of the 
Holy Ghost. In f act, if Moses had been the master 
of his expressions and his thoughts, he would not 
have enveloped the recital of such an action in such 
an astounding fashion. He would have spoken in a 
style more human, and more fitted to instruct pos- 
terity. But a greater power, an infinite wisdom, 
directed him that he should write, not accori^ing to 
his own views, bat according to the hidden designs 
of Providence." {Nbuvelles^ IßSßy art. 2: quoted by 
Bergier Dict. Theol. Adam.) 

Is there any sense, then, in such questions as the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


** What and wbo was tliis serpent ? He was not a 

man He was not a woman. .... He was 

not a beast He was neither fish nor fowl 

nor snake Where did this serpent come 

from? Why did not the Lord Qod take him, by the 
tail and snap bis bead oflf ?'* (Pp. 133, 134.) 

In f act tbere is neitber bead nor tail in tbe Colonel's 
whole category of qaeries. 

Equally void of common sense is tbe slur tbrown 
upon tbe tradesme.n of America by ridiculing " (Jod 
as a butcber, tanner, and tailor." These trades are 
by no means disbonorable, tbougb tbe Colonel's In- 
tention is none the less blaspbemous, inasmucb as he 
aims at degrading tbe Infinite God to tbe level of 
Finite Man. 



Thb bistory of the Deluge is related in tbe sixtb, 
seventh and eigbth chapters of Genesis. 

'^^nd Ood seeing tbat tbe wickedness of men was 
great on the eartb . . . . it repented him tbat he bad 
made man on the eartb. And .... he said: I will 
destroy man^whom I have created from the face of 
tbe eartb, from man even to beasts, from the creeping 
tbing even to the fowls of tbe air, for it repentetb 
me that I have made them." 

We cannot conceive a more oomplete snnmiary of 
buman wickedness tban this. I need not again prove 
tbat Golonel Ingersoll is mistaken in making God 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


responsible f or all man's wiokedness. This has been 
done already. 

" Bat Noah f ound grace bef ore the Lord.'* 

Noah was commanded to build an ark, and to enter 
therein with bis housebold, and to take witb him ol 
all animalsy two of every sort, bat of all clean beasts 
^'seven and seven": that is seven of akind, since 
tbe anclean beasts are taken " two and two," vii, 2, 
which is otberwise expressed in vi, 19, 20, "two of a 
sort . • . • male and female." 

The command of Ood was obeyed, and thereupon 
**after the seven days were passed, the waters of the 

flood overflowed the earth All the fonntains 

of the great deep were foroken np, and the flood-gates 
of heaven were opened. And the rain feil apon the 
earth forty days and forty nights . : . . And the 
waters prevailed foeyond measare upon the earth, and 
all the high moantains ander the whole heaven were 
covered. The water was fif teeri cabits higher than 
the moantains which it covered .... And all things 
wherein there is the breath of lif e on the earth died." 

"And the waters prevailed apon the earth a handred 
and fifty days." 

"And God remembered Noah and all the living 
creatares .... which were with him in the ark, and 
broaght a wind apon the earth, and the waters were 

"And the ark rested .... apon the Moantains 
of Armenia." 

The Hebrew has " moantains of Ararat," this be- 
ing the Hebrew name for Armenia, as may be seen 
in 4 Kings xix, 37; Isa. xxxvii, 38. 

To use one of Col. Ingersoll's elegant forms of ex- 
pression "I will remark just here" that the Colonel 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


is rather a^stray in liis Oeography. He insists tbat 
the moantain on which the ark rested is the one now 
usually called Mount Ararat. 

*^It must not be forgotten that the mountain where 
the ark is supposed .to have touched bottom, was 
about seventeen thousand feet high." (P. 161.) 

It is tme the Persians call the highest peak of 
Armenia, which is also the highest of Western Asia, 
"Koh-i-Nuh,'* Noah*s Moantain. It is true that it is 
now called Mount Ararat, bat it by no means f ollows 
that this is the moantain on which the ark rested. 
Hence the ColonePs sad pictare of the animals freez- 
ing, and thenecessity for "stoves, furnaces, fire-places 
and steam coils/' (P. 161,) is a mere fancy-sketcb. 
The Colonel maintains that the ark must have rested 
upon "about the highest peak in that country,"but 
there is nothing in Genesis to show this. If you main- 
tain that the account in Oenesis is self-contradictory, 
you mast show the contradictions in the text not in 
your f ancy. 

The Corydsean mountains of Armenia are of dif- 
ferent heights, and when it is stated that " the tops 
of the mountains appeared " on the first day of the 
tenth month, this evidently implies that in great measr 
ure or for the most part the mountain tops within sight 
became visible to Noah. It does not at all follow that 
Noah was on the highest peak. 

Let US now take the greatest difficulty which the 
Colonel can find in the history of the deluge. It is; 
Whence came the water sufficient to deluge the 
World? He makes the f ollowing catechism on this 
subject, question and answer. 

**How long did it rain? 

"Forty days. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


"How deep did the water get? 

^^ About five miles and a half. 

" How mach did it rain a day? 

" Enough to Cover the whole world to a depth of 
about 742 feet.** 

^' Some Christians say that the f onntains of the great 
deep were broken up. Will they be kind enough to 
teil US what the fountains of the great deep are? 
Others say that God had vast Stores of water in the 
centre of the earth that he used on that occasion. 
How did these waters happen to run up hill? " (Pp. 
150, 151., 

The Scriptural account states two sources from 
which the water was supplied: 

" All the fountains of the great deep were broken 
up, and the flood-gatee ofheaven were (^ened, and 
the rain feil upon the earth forty days and forty 
nights.*' (Genesis vii, 11, 2.) 

It is evident that the power of the Alniighty was 
exerted to bring about this prodigy: and when the 
Almighty wills, all physical difficulties disappear. 
We will not pretend that this stupendous miracle was 
brought about by the ordinary Operation of the laws 
of nature: nevertheless it appears that two natural 
means were used as auxiliaries in prodücing the de- 
luge, the breaking up of the fountains of the great 
deep, and a continuous rain for forty days and forty 

It is of ten said by Infidels that all the waters of the 
earth together would not be enough to cover tbe 
land. Yet it bas been proved, and all scientific men 
acknowledge that by subsidence of the land, or by 
the elevation of the sea bottom, every portion of the 
earth's surf ace may be brought beneath the aea» In 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fact it is acknowledged that every part of the surf ace 
has been at some time or other, and repeatedly sub- 
merged. On the highest mountaios, oh the Alps, the 
Pyrenees, the Andes, the Himalajas, as well as on 
the vast plains of the Old and New Worlds, there 
are irrefragable proofs that the waters of the sea have 
bieen there. In the bowels of the earth everywhere 
are found shell-fish, fish-bones and the remains of 
sea-monsters, and even in the hardest rocks. Pt'ob- 
ably at the delnge, both the land subsided and the 
sea bottoms were elevated. This would be very 
aptly described as the breaking up of the fountains 
of the deep. 

Besides this, possibly, even probably, an acceler- 
ated motion would be given to the earth in its daily 
rotation. , This would suffice to bring out from the 
recesses of the earth the vast Stores of water therein 
contained, and waters would rush from the polar re- 
gions towards the eqnator. Thus would Col. Inger- 
solPs little problem be solved: "How did these 
waters happen to run up hill?" 

Some remote idea of the vast quantities of water 
contained in the earth may be attained when it is 
considered that not only does it exist in fissures and 
reservoirs in the earth, but that it fiUs the pores of 
every rock. 

" Gjrpsum absorbs from 0.50 to 1.60 per cent of 
water by weight; granite about 0.37 ; . . . . chalk 
about 20; plastic clay from 19.5 to 24.5 per cent." 
(Geikie's Text Book of Geology, p. 299.) 

Further: " The Abbö Le Brun made a perfect imi- 
tation of the deluge by filling with water a terrestrial 
globe fitted with valves, and causing it to revolve 
within a globe of glass. The water rushed from the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

346 MISTJSlKBS of modeb» infidsls. 

valves and deluged the terrestrial globe, filling the 
ezterior glas^ globe, biit as soon as the hiotion was 
relaxed it re-entered the valves by its own weight." 
(Duclot, Bible Vindicated, ii, 59.) 

If , then, men could find means to make water ^^ run 
up hin," surely God also could do so. 

There is also in the atmosphere a vast amonnt of 
water of which undoubtedly God could make use in 
Order to send rain on its mission to punish sinf ul man. 

Science suggests other modes by which the same 
end could be accomplished; but where there is ques- 
tion of the power of God, it would be a work of 
supererogation to enumerate them. Thus also dis- 
appear the difficulties raised by the Colone! against 
the possibility of coUecting the animals and of sup- 
plying them with sufficient food and water, and of 
preserving them ägainst the effects of an incongenial 

However, there are not wanting natural means of 
explaining most of these points satisf actorily. Where 
natural means are insufficient,. we must suppose 
divine intervention. 

As regards the gathering of the animals, the Col- 
onel täkes for granted several propositions which are 
undoubtedly false. On these his whole argument 
rests, and witli them all his reasonings on this subject 
crumble into dust. 

1. He assum'es that before the deluge the conti- 
nents were very much the same as they are now. 
Thus he says: 

"We know that there are raany animals on this 
continent not fouud in the old world. These must 
have been camed from here to the ark and then 
brought back afterwards. Were the peccary, arma- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


dillo, ant-eater, sloth, etc., carried by the Angels f rom 
Am€trica to Asia ? Did the polar bear leave bis field 
of ice and journey toward the tropics ? How did he 
know wbere the ark was ? Did the kangaroo swim 

or jump from Australia to Asia? What had 

these animals to eat while on the journey?" (P. 

One of the foremost Geologists of the world, Cu- 
vier, who was convinced, not only that the deluge 
was a f act, but that Geology proves that it occurred, 
says that, 

'^It engulphed and caused to disappear, countries 
before inhabited by man, and changed the bottom of 
the sea into dry land, and formed the countries 
which are inhabited to-day." (The Revolutions of 
the Globe.) 

Colonel IngersolPs assumption that the continents 
were the same as to-day is therefore an absurdity. 

2. The Colonel also assumes that the animals must 
have been distributed before the deluge, in the same 
way as they are now. Surely this does not accord 
with common sense, for after the deluge Armenia 
must have been the centre from which both animals 
and men dispersed themselves over different parts of 
the earth. 

3. The Colonel assumes that the climate of Ar- 
menia was not suited to be the dwelling place of all 
the animals, even for the space of one year. This 
assumption is altogether gratuitous, and Col. Inger- 
soll himself is very loud in his denunciation of those 
who "believe without evidence or in spite of it." 
(P. 19.) Tuet him not expect us, therefore, to believe 
him in regard to the climate of Armenia. It is to- 
day a delightful climate. You say 'Howard the 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


tropica," to convey, probably, the idea of intense 
heat. Tes, Armenia was toward the tropiös in rela- 
tion to the North Pole; but after all its latitude cor- 
responds to tbat of the middle part of the Golonel's 
own State, Illinois. Its cliraate, then is not quite so 
intolerable but that the Colonel himself might pos- 
sibly live in ip if he were suddenly transported thither. 
It is not at aH unlikely that before the flood the 
climate was very different from what it is to-day, 
and in all probability pairs of all the animals could 
be fonnd in Armenia itself or the countries immedi- 
ately adjaoent. At all events, Noah may not have 
had more trouble about collecting them than had 
Adam when all created beasts passed before him to 
be named. Noah is not commanded to aearch f or the 
beasts, as if they were distant and diffioult to be 
fonnd, but to take them as the »hepherd selects from 
his flock which is at band. 





Another objection is put forward by infidels with 
great persistency, and of course it is not oraitted by 
Col. Ingersoll. They say: "An ark of the dimen- 
sions given by Moses could not contain the number 
of animals requisite f or the preservation of existing 

Col. Ingersoll puts the matter thus: 

^^The next question, is, how many beasts, fowb 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


and creeping tbings did Noah take into the ark?'' 

He then says, there are at least twelve thoosand 
five bundred kinds of birds, besides birds of regions 
yet nnexplored, one thousand six bundred and fifty- 
eigbt kinds of beasts, about twenty-fiva being clean, 
six hundred and fifty speoies of reptiles, one million 
species of insects, including creeping tbings, and 
probably bundreds of tbousands of animalcul», all 
of whieb "Noab had to pick out by pairs." (P. 149.) 

Would it not bave been more satisf actory if tbe 
Colonel bad sbown bow much space eacb of tbe ani- 
mala would require, and to bave computed wbether 
tbe Space in tbe ark was sufficient f or them ? 

Tbe Colonel seems to exaggerate tbe number of 
species of birds at all events. Chambers' EncyclopsBdia 
gives tbe number at about five thousand. Many of 
these live on the water, or are amphibious, and would 
not need to be brought into tbe ark, and the same is 
true of the animals. The reptiles are nearly all amphib- 
ious. The insects and animalcul» nearly all deposit 
their eggs where they are secure f rom the causes of 
destruction, frost, snow, rain or flood. Hence it is 
certain that a sufficiency of these would be preserved 
even from the effects of a general deluge, to propa- 
gate their kind after tbe subsidence of the waters. 
We bave, therefore, only to consider the non-aqnatio 
birds, and the mammals, and even of these all wbales 
live in the water, while many are amphibious, as the 
hippopotamus, beaver, etc. 

" It is certain," says Mr. Glaire, " that nearly all 
the animals of these two classes are known. Tbe dis- 
covery of a new species of bird or mammal is an 
event in science, and if any one will take tbe trouble 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to risit die Paris mnseimi, one of the inost oomplete 
in the world, he will aee that the oells which contain 
the greater part of the species of mammals and birds 
of fall growth, form scarcely one story of a bailding 
which is mach smaller than was the ark of Noak" 

Chambers' Encyclopaodia nambers the mammak 
at two thoasand and siity-seven. Of the few clean 
mammalsy seven of a kind were broaght into the ark: 
of the rest two of a kind. The total namber of indi- 
vidaals coald not have exceeded foar thoasand two 
handred. A stall of tweWe cabic feet each way 
woald accommodate the largest individaal, that is to 
say, one thoasand seven handred and twenty-eight 
cubio feet of space, while a very large namber would 
reqaire less than one cabic foot each. Now, the 
length of the ark is stated tobethree handred cubits, 
its breadth fifty cabits^ and its height tbirty cubits: 
that is to say, omitting €ractions, five handred and 
forty-seven feet by ninety-one feet, by fifty-four feet 
—two million six handred and eighty-seven thoasand 
nine handred and fifty-eight cabic feet. 

The following estimate is liberal in the amount of 
Space allowed to each animal. 



Space for eaoh No. of indiTiduals. Space for eaob 

indlTldual. class. 

10x10x10 ft Spersons S.OOOft 

155x12x13 " 20aniiiial8 34.560" 

lltllxll '* 20 •• 26,620" 

10x10x10** 20 •' 20,000" 

9x 9x 9 " 40 " 29,160" 

8x 8x 8 " 60 " 30.720" 

7x 7x 7 " 80 " 27,440" 

6x6x6" 120 " 25,920" 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^SSS?v?5;;2r* NcofindiTiduals. ' Spacefor each 

5 x5 x5 ft 200 animals 25,000ft. 

4x4x4 " 400 " 25,000" 

8x3x3 " 540 *' 14,580** 

2x2x2 " 700 ** 5,600*' 

Hxlixli '* 800 *• 2.700'* 

1x1x1 " 1200 *' 1,200" 

4,208 277,100 ft 

Birds: an equal space 277,100 ** 

Total Space occupied by animals 654,200 ft 

Total capacity of ark : . 2,687,958 " 

Space for access, provisions and water, and 
for the few purely land reptiles 2,183,768 ft 

Vice Admiral Thevenard of the French Navy, 
formerly master builder, säys "the ark was more 
than ample to accommodatc all the animals with f ood 
and water sufficient for their sustenance." (Sea 
Memoirs, vol. iv.) 

I have sapposed, hitherto, that the deluge was uni- 
versal. This was the opinion of nearly all the An- 
eient Fathers and writers of Christianity. However, 
many are of opinion that the words of Holy Sorip- 
ture do not imply absolute uni versall ty, but only uni- 
versality as regards the portion of the earth which 
was then inhabited by man. It is the known usage 
of the Orientais to speak of all the earth, or all of 
anything for a very consideräblepart; and this usage 
is frequent even in our more matter of f act Western 
languages. In the present case, the terms are so 
strong, so frequently repeated with particular insist- 
ence, that it is difficult to believe that a partial de- 
luge is meant. We shall not attempt to decide this 
dispute here; but the proofs we have advanced show 
that even the universal deluge is by no means impos- 
sible or inoredible. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


If we ask what testimony Gteology gives regarding 
the deluge, we receive a rather uncertain answer. 
Geology makes it certain that the earth has been de- 
luged; bat many modern scholars are of opinion that 
the deluges whioh Geology attests are far more an- 
cient than that recorded in Oenesis. Other geolo- 
gists have arrived at a different conclusion. It will 
saffice to quote the conclusion of Cavier, fonnded on 
a close Observation of innumerable facts. 

" I think, theref ore, with Messrs. Deluc and Dolo- 
mieu, that if thera is anything proved in geology, it 
is that the surface of our globe has been the viotim 
of a great and sndden revolation, which does not 
date forther back than five or six thousand years: 
that it is since that revolution that the small number 
of individuals spared from it have been propagatcd 
on the earth newly made dry, and consequently that 
it is since that time only that society has taken np its 
f orward march, formed all its works, raised its monu- 
ments, coUected its natural facts, and combined its 
scientific Systems." (Revolutions of the Globe.) 

The learned geologists Messrs Bou6 and Pallas are 
equally positive in their language. This is all in 
perfect accord with the Mosaic narrative. On the 
other band, the geologists who maintain that the 
Noachian deluge is not proved by geology, do not 
deny that such a deluge may have occurred. They 
merely maintain that the revolutions attested by 
geology are more permanent in consequences, because 
they were more lasting and more violent than the 
deluge of Genesis could have been, so that, in com- 
parison, the latter could be ezpected to leave few if 
any geological traces. 

If the Noachian deluge occurred, we ahould ezpect 

Digiti'zed by VjOOQIC OF MOIXBBX INFIDEL8. 353 

tbat the tradition of so great a catastrophe should 
be handed down among numerous nations, more or 
less obscured by the Omission of some circumstances, 
and the addition of others; bat if it did not occur, it 
would be absurd to suppose that anything like the 
bistory of such an event should be preserved by na- 
tions scattered through all parts of the world, and 
having little and often no communication with each 

It is so incontestably true tbat this tradition has 
been universally preserved, that Boulanger, one of 
the most incredulous writers of the last Century, 

"That incomprehensible fact, the deluge, which 
people believe by habit, and philosophers deny by 
habit, is both most nototious and incontestable. Yes: 
the naturalist would believe it if there were no tra- 
ditions to attest it, and any man of good sense would 
believe it solely on the ground of human traditions. 
It were necessary to be the most narrow-minded and 
self-opinionated of men to doubt it, when we consider 
the united testimonies of physical science and bis- 
tory, and thfe universal voice of mankind." (An- 
tiquity TJnveiled, C. 1.) 

The poet Lucian relates the Greek, Scythian, and 
Sygan traditions, Hieronymus of Tyre, Mnaseas, and 
others relate those of the Pbcenicians, Nicholas of 
Bamascus, and Josephus record those of the Arme- 
i^ians. Similar narratives are found in the ancient 
sacred books of the Hindoos and Chinese; Humboldt 
found them among the savages of North America, 
and Goassin among those of Polynesia, while the 
most ancient records of the Chaldeans have preserved 
an account of the great deluge, whiAi, if stripped 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of it8 Polytheism, is almost identioal with that of 
MoseSy preserving in many places the very words of 
the Hebrew text: for, as is well known, the Chaldeaa 
and Hebrew languages have a great similarity, they 
being cognate tongues. 

Colonel IngersoU himself acknowledges the uni- 
yersality of these tradition^, and he is forced to 
acknowledge a common origin f or them, as they give 
*^the same story in each instance." (P. 168.) He 
deserves, certainly, the palm for originality of 
thoughty if not for common sense, when he says: 

The real origin of them was, in his opinion, "an 
effort to account for the san, moön, and stars." 
(P. 168.) 

He is perfectly "assnred that they are all equally 
false." (P. 168.) 

Can a man of sense seriously assert that so many 
different nations could frame so nearly similar narra- 
tives of a universal deluge, with no other common 
data than a knowledge of the existence of sun, moon, 
and Stars? 

Colonel IngersoU says there are two acconnts of 
the deluge, and that according to one, Koah should 
take " two of all beasts, birds, and creeping things 
into the ark/' while according to the other he should 
take "seven of each kind" of clean beasts and all 
birds. (P. 166.) * 

Commentators agree that where it is said ^^two of 
every sort shall go in," the ref erence is to the beasts 
only, and the general rule is given, "that they may 
live," (Gen. vi, 20,) whereas in vii, 2, 3, the special 
rule is given for birds and clean beasts, for food and 
sacrifice, since they were to be used for these par- 
poses af ter the delage. Bat if two and seven were 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


to be taken respectively, why does the Colonel insist 
on counting f ourteen birds and jclean beasts of each 
kind wheu counting the total number of animals in 
the ark? 

He also says that according to the "third verse of 
tbe eighth chapter," the flood only lasted one ]hun- 
dred and fifty days, "while the other account fixes 
the time at three hundred and seventy-seven days." 
(P. 166.) 

How did the Colonel manage to make out three 
hundred and seventy-seven days? 

It must have been leap year to make out three 
hundred and seventy-seven days between Noah's 
entryinto the ark tili he came out. Howcould there 
be a leap year spoken of by Moses, ov^r fourteen 
hundred years before the Julian calendar was estab- 
lished? The Je,wish calendar was entirely dififerent, 
even in the length of the years, f rom either the 
Julian or the Gregorian calendar. Why, Colonel, in 
spite of your boast that you could write a better 
Pentateuch than Moses did, I fear you would have 
botchcd it sadly with your anachronisms. 

Tour assertion is nottrue, that the third verse of 
the eighth chapter says that the flood ended with the 
löOth day. It is said the waters " began to be 
abated after 160 days." This is very different from 
what you assert. Where is tbe contradiction ? How 
do such misrepresentations accord with your pro- 
fessed admiration for "blessed truth?" (P. 30.) 

Tou also lay great stress upon the fact that there 
is mention in Gen. vi, of only one window. 

" Think of a ship larger than the Great Eastem, 
with only one window, and that but 22 inches Square! " 
(P. 144.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


It IQ to be remarked that the Hebrew word bere 
translated toindaw, viz., tsohar^ signifies primarily, 
light, and is nsed nndoubtedly f or a transparent win- 
dow. It refers, tberefore, merely to tbe principal 
transparent window of the ark. There is notbing, 
tberefore, to exclude otber Windows of less impor- 
tance, by means of wbicb botb ligbt and Ventilation 
conld be secured. Cornelius a Lapide. Can we 
tbibk that during tbe one bundred years that Noab 
had to build tbe ark, means of Ventilation and of 
lighting the &rk were neglected ? 

Anotber difficulty raised by the Colonel, is made a 
mountain of: after the rfood God "said in bis heart 
that he would not any more curse the ground for 
man'« sake. For saying tbis tbe Lord gives as a rea- 
son. . . . because ^ the Imagination of man's beart is 
evil from bis youtii.' God destroy^ed man because 
* tbe wickedness of man was great in the earth, and 
because every Imagination of the tboughts of bis 
beart was only evil continually.' And be promised 
for the same reason not to destroy bim again." (P. 

Any cbild of intelligence could have removed the 
Colonel's mountain. God punishes man for bis per- 
sistent evil deeds: but after tbe punishment has been 
inflicted, he is moved by bis mercy to promise that 
be will no more send a general punishment on man- 
kind. He will in future deal with sinners individu- 
ally, and will punish accordingly. He is moved to 
act thus on aecount of man's f railty and proneness 
to evil, " from bis youth." Tbis is well expressed in 
tbe Catholic translation: 

^' For the imagination and thougbt of man's heart 
are prone to evil from tbeir youth.* 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



The Colonel says: 

"For me it is impossible to believe the story of the 
deluge. It seems so cruel, so barbaric, so crude in 
detail, so absurd in all its parts, and so contrary to 
all we know of law, that even credulity itself is 

It is sufficiently vindicated from the Charge of^ 
cruelty, when we know that it is the punish- 
ment of sin. In connection with this the reasons 
given in chapter 9, for the punishments inflicted on 
the Canaanites may be read. We have shown that 
it is neither absurd nor contrary to law. We may 
add the following evidences that it is a fact. 

"On Moel Tryfan, a mountain in North Wales, 
1,390 feet above the present level of the sea, there is 
an immense bed of gravel. This could not have been 
formed by mere disintegration of the soil, because it 
is füll of sea-shells .... both of the shore and the 
deep sea. These shells are heaped pell-mell on the 
gravel, and I believe every geologist admits that this 
is marine gravel. I take it that it is a sound conclu- 
sion that the sea had been up to the top of that 
mountain in very recent times, or that the mountain 
had been down to the level of the sea. 

I draw a second conclusion from this fact, that the 
sea was not a permanent sea. It was not the case 
that the mountain formed the bottom of the ocean 
for many years, because we should then have had de- 
posits with Shells living and dying, as in tlie case of 
the sea terraces described by Mr. Smith, of Jordan- 
hill. The sea has been essentially transitory in its 
Operation. The second of the conditions of the 
deluge is in this way fulfilled. Thirdly, it was tu- 
moltnoos. It has no ma^ks of quiet bedding. Is it 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


probable that the moantains of Wales alone were 1,400 
f eet lower than they are now ? There might be very 
local, very partial submergence of volcanic mouii- 
tains ander the sea. Bat what I have described hap- 
pened not in a volcanic district, and Moel Tryfan is 
not a volcanic moantain. Bat we are not left alto- 
%ether to presamptive evidence apon this sabject. 
We have similar gravels all over the counties of Lan- 
cashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire. 
In Cheshire they are f oand near the town of Maccles- 
field, at 1,200 f eet above the level of the sea, and very 
mach ander the same condition. I think, therefore, 
that there is fair evidence that the sabmergence of 
the land, which, in North Wales amoanted to about 
1,400 feet, extended ove» the whole of the British 
Islands." (Sammarized from Duke of Argyll in Good 

It appears thas that Geological evidences of the 
deluge are not lacking: and many more eqaally strong 
might be given^ 



It is not stated in Holy Scriptare that Hebrew was 
the langaage spoken by Adam and Eve. Many are 
of opinion that this was the case, bat we have not to 
defend this, since it is only an opinion. We are as- 
sared that Adam and Eve had the gift of speech, and 
andoubtedly God was as'able to give them this gift, 
as He was to endow them with other faculties. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


There can be no absurdity in belieying tbat tbey were 
80 endowed. 

Col. Ingersoll says: 

"We know now tbat it requires a great number of 
years to form a language." (P. 170.) 

No doubt it does as languages are nBually formed, 
tbat is to say by men. So also it would take a man 
a great number of years to form a man, or even an 
oyster, if be bad tbe cbemical elements given bim, 
out of wbicb tbese are made, and even after many 
years be would not succeed. We are not to judge 
tbe power of 6od in Creation by tbe Standard of 
man's abilities. From tbe account given in Genesis 
we learn tbat man was created by tbe act of God'a 
will, and it is certain tbat be was from tbe beginning 
given tbe use of speecb. Tou ask, 

"Does anybody believe tbat God directly taugbta 
language to Adam and Eve?" (P. 171.) 

Yes. Sucb is tbe belief of Cbristians, and tbere is 
notbing absurd in tbis belief. Tbe soundest pbilo- 
sopbers bave come to tbe conclusion tbat man would 
need to know language before he could invent lan- 

It is certain tbat wben once man bad attained tbe 
.use of speecb, he could extend it by inventing new 
words for new ideas, or by combining old wordsso as 
to form new ones, for daily experience proves tbat 
tbis is constantly done, and tbus even entirely new 
langnages are constantly 4)eing formed. But could 
man bave invented by bimself tbe first language? 

Rousseau bimself, well known as an Infidel, ac- 
knowledges tlie «liflSculty, even tbe "almost demon- 
strated impossibility tbat language sbould bave been 
originally a human invention." (Encyc. Art. Lan- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Max Müller says: 

** We cannot teil as yet what langaage is. It may 
be a production of nature, a work of human art, or 
a divine gift. But to whatever sph^re it belongs, it 
would seem to stand nnsurpassed — nay, nnequalled in 
it — ^by anything eise. If it be a production of nature, 
it is her last and crowning production, which ehe re- 
served f or man alone. If it be a work of human art, 
it would seem to lift the human artist almost to the 
level of a divine creator. K it be the gift of 6od, 
it is God's greatest gift; for tbrough it God spoke to 
man, and man speaks to God in worship, prayer and 
meditation." (Science of Language, vol. i, p. 3.) 

Surely the testimony of tbis great linguist is more 
to be relied on than Col. IngersoU. The first or the 
third hypothesis of Max Müller is quite according to 
the account given in Genesis. Col. IngersoU insists 
on the second, and by doing so shews that in spite of 
his boasted superiority over Moses in knowledge of the 
science of language, he is in woful ignorance on the 
subject. (See Mistakes of Moses, pp. 170, 175, as 
quoted in this chapter.) 

From all this it f oUows that the Colonel so f ar f rom 
having proved an absurdity in Genesis, has hiraself 
propounded a most improbable theory, which he de- 
sires to Substitute for the historical Statements of 
Moses, which we have already shown to be the work of 
a reliable historian. 

We must bear in mind that Max MüUer's three 
possible explanations of the origin of language em- 
body his views from a purely scientific point of view. 
Language could not have had these three origins. It 
becomes therefore a matter for history to decide 
which of the three is the correct Solution. Moses in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


hiß capacity as a historian settles the matter by dis- 
oardmg the second theory, which Colonel IngersoU 
adopts. We must therefore confine ourselves to one 
or other of the other two, either of which accords 
perf ectly with the Mosaic account. 

The Colonel next asks: 

'' Ho w did the serpent learn the same language as 
Adam and Eve ?" (P. 171.) 

As we have already seen, the serpent here meant is 
the devil. There is no difficulty in conceiving that 
the devil was astute enongh to learn safficient f or his 
purpose of conversing with Eve, in a short time. 
Men have been known to perform feats in language 
fully as wonderful. 

Col. Ingersoll seems to consider that he has found 
a formidable objection against the truth of the Mosaic 
history, in the fact that no account is given of the 
death and burial of Adam or Eve or Noah. (P. 170.) 

When we consider that only ten short chapters of 
Genesis are devoted to the history of eighteen cen- 
turies, it will be quite intelligible why only the main 
facts should be related. In romances in which the 
writer wishes to work upon the reader's feelings, and 
his success depends upon his doing this, he would natu- 
rally dwell upon subjects which would give an oppor- 
tunity for pathetic descriptions, but the Mosaic 
account is a simple record of the main facts which re- 
gard the world's history, in its relation to God. It is, 
therefore, one of the strengest evidences of the truth 
of the record, that the writer confines himself to 
those facts which most concem mankind. Genesis is 
unlike the records of other nations. It is clear, cir- 
cumstantial and connected. It is not interlarded 
with the snperstitions of idolatry, and it does not in- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


vent fabulous thousands, even millions, of years as do^ 
the records of other nations. An impostor would 
have taken the bait and would have invented a fabu- 
lous antiquity for bis nation, as did the Egyptians 
and Cbinese and otbers. ßut no ! Genesis gives a 
piain, unornamented account of facts which perfectly 
coincide with tbe manners of the ancient world as far 
as we know tbem, and with the probabilities as far 
as we can form a judgment on them. Still it must 
not be forgotten that what we have is a record rather 
than a history of the most ancient period. Even if 
it were a history, there would be little room for 
pathetic descriptions. Still less in a mere record of 
the principal facts. If the simplicity of the narrative 
had been marred by such descriptions, no one sooner 
than the Colonel would have pointed this out as a 
proof that Genesis were but a romance. 

In this respect the Colonel resembles the man who 
was condemned to be lashed. The accommodating 
wielder öf the cat-o-nine-tails desired to strike the 
culprit in the way he would be best pleased, and as 
each blow descended, he was told "strikp higher" er 
"strike lower," tili at last the executioner in disgust 
told him he was the hardest man to please he had 
ever had occasion to whip. The Colonel, also, is not 
contented with Moses, whetber the history in the 
Pentateuch be detailed, as when Moses led the Israel- 
ites out of Egypt, or synoptical, as in the Genesis 

The same reasoning applies to the ColonePs State- 
ment that God made no effort to reform the world 
before punishing mankind by means of the deluge. 
He says: 

" Nothing in particular seems to hav0 been done. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Not a Bchool was established. There was no written 
langnage. There was not a bible in the world, The 
scheme of salvation was kept a prof ound secret. The 
five points of Calvinism had not been taaght. Sun- 
day schools had not been opened. In short, nothing 
had been done for the reformation of the World." 
(P. 139.) 

We know that the Pentateuch, even where it gives 
details of an event, makes no pretence of giving all 
the details which occurred. Thus, we know from 
Psalm 76 (Prot. Bible, 77,) that noise of the waters, 
storms, thunderings, lightnings and a trembllng of 
the earth accompanied the drowning of the Egyp- 
tians i^ the Red Sea. Tet of all this we would have 
known nothing from the Pentateuch alone; and in 
the I7th and 18th chapters of Wisdom many par- 
ticulars of the plagues of Egypt are related, as also 
in Josephus, many incidents of the life of Moses, 
which are not to be found in the Pentateuch. Un- 
doubtedly these authors, sacred and profane, had 
other sources of Information concerning these mat- 
ters. How, then, can Col. IngersoU assert so posi- 
tively that there was nothing done for the reformation 
of men bef ore the deluge ? How does he know there 
were no schools ? How does he know there was no 
written language ? Does not the Colonel assert in 
bis lecture on skulls that written language existed 
over four thousand years before the Pentateuch was 
written, as we have shown in chapter 16 ? 

However, it makes little difference whether this 
was the case or not. We may be sure that God, 
whose desire is to "save sinners" (1 Tim. i, 16,) did 
not omit to have penance inculcated on those who 
perished in the deluge before they were so punished. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Even from Ist Peter iii, 19, 20, Mre leam that many 
who had been incredaloas while the ark was belog 
bullt, recelved the glad tldlngs of redemption when 
Christ preached to the spirits in prison. These in- 
claded, undoubtedly, souls who were converted to 
Ood even In the last moment while the waters of the 
deluge were engulphing them; and thus the deluge, 
though a temporal evil, was to them a spiritual 

Whether or not there was any John Calvin before 
the flood, to preach the "five points" is evidently 
nothing to the purpose. The Calvinists, after all, 
form a small proportion of professed Christians; but 
it is certain that the "scheme of salvation" was 
known, f or it was revealed by God to our first parents 
as we read in Genesis iii; and it may have been other- 
wise revealed still moreclearly. We may very fairly 
draw this inference from the passage of St. Peter 
already referred to. 

Again, how does Col. IngersoU know that in the 
interview with Pharaoh, 

" Not one word was said by Moses and Aaron as to 
the wickedness of depriving a human being.of his 
liberty? that not a word was said in favor of lib- 
erty?" (P. 193.) 

The laws of Moses condemned slave-stealing as we 
have shown in chapter 4. Is it not likely, then, that 
Moses and Aaron made nse of argnment against 
Pharaoh, before resorting to the extreme measures 
which alone brought Pharaoh to terms ? In fact 
from Exodus iv, we may naturally inf er that this was 
the case, and it was for this purpose that Aaron was 
appointed to accompany Moses, to use his eloquence 
as the occasion required. (Verse 14.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The Conf usion of tongnes at the Tower of Babel 
is the next subject for Colonel IngersoU's wit. ^e 

*^ Kothing can be more absurd than to account for 
the different languages of the world by saying that 
the original language was confounded at the Tower 

of Babel How coold language be confounded ? 

It could be confounded only/ by the destruction of 
memory.'* (P. IIS.) * 

Yet af ter this Statement he suggests another mode 
by which the conf usion might have been effected, viz: 
by paralysis "of that portion of the brain presiding 
over the organs of articulation, so that they could 
not speak the words although they remembered them 
clearly." (P. 173.) 

Surely sonie people "should have a good memory,'* 
as the Colonel says on page 108. 

He adds, page 175: 

Moses "knew little of the science of language, and 
guessed a great deal more than he investigated." 

The Colonel himself evidently knows still less of 
the " science of language." It does not become him 
to throw stones at Moses on this score. 

Why should it be impossible for God to confound 
language ? The only reason which the Colonel im- 
plies is that his doing so would be a miracle. We' 
have already proved that this is no valid reason 

Others, höwever, have maintained that the very 
great diversity of human languages is irreconcilable 
with the Statement that at any time, still less at so 
late a period as the time of the building of the tower 
of Babel, "the earth was of one tongue and of the 
sarae speech," and Colonel Ingersoll asks, with his 
usual confidence: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^' Is it possible that any ODe now belle ves that the 
whole World would be of one speecb bad tbe language 
not been confounded at Babel?" (P. 174.) 

It is nowhere stated tbat tbere would or would not 
have remained only one language, if the conf usion bad 
not occurred at Babel. The ColonePs query is, tbere- 
fore, altogether beside the question, and it is of no 
consequence wbatsoever how it may be answered. 
Let lA, tberefore, turn to the consideratlon of the 
views of those who maintain that languages cannot 
have bad a common origin. / 

Until late years most philological scholars took it 
f or granted that any resemblance between two lan- 
guages must be aecounted f or by supposing that one 
must be the cbild of the other. Modem philologists, 
however, while not ignoring the filial relationships of 
languages, recognize that numerous languages are 
related to eaeh other as sister tongues derived by 
parallel descent from a common source. 

In the sudden sweeping away of many analogies, 
consequent on the change of views of philologists 
respecting the origin of languages, the probability of 
mankind having bad originally one tongue.seemed at 
first much less than before. This the late Cardinal 
Wiseman so ably points out that I cannot do better 
than quote bis remarks on the subject. 

**Every new discovery only served to incHBase this 
perplezity; and our science must at that time have 
presented to a religious observer the appearance of a 
study daily receding from sound doctrine, and giving 
encouragement to rash speculations and dangerous 
conjecture. But even at that period a ray of light 
was penetrating into the chaos of materials thrown 
together by collectors; and the first great step towards 

Digitized by VjÖOQIC 


a new Organization was even then taken, by tbe divi* 
sion of those mat^rials into distinct homogeneous 
masses into continents, as it were, and oceans; tbe 
stable and.circumscribed, and tbe movable and vary- 
ing Clements, wbereof tbis science is now composed. 

"The affinities wbicb foimerly bad been but 
vaguely seen between languages separated in tbeir 
origin by bistory and geograpby, began now to appear 
definite and certain. It was now foand tbat new and 
most important connections existed among languages 
so as to combine in large provinces or groups tbe 
idioms of nations wbom no otber researeb would 
have sbown to be mutually related.'* (Science and 
Religion, Lecture 1.) 

It is evident tbat if languages are derived f rom a 
common souroe, we sbould find tbe greatest resem- 
blances between tbe f orms of languages in tbeir ear- 
liest stages, and tbis is precisely wbat takes place. 

Bemarkable resemblances bave been discovered 
between tbe Teutonic and Celtic tongnes, Latin 
and Greek, Bussian and otber Slavonian languages, 
and tbe languages of Persia and India, especially as 
tbese languages were spoken over tbree tbousand 
years ago. So striking are tbese resemblances, tbat 
it is now agreed upon tbat tbe ancestors of all tbe 
nations we bave named must have spoken substan- 
tially tbe same tongue. Tbe differences of language 
must bave arisen in great measure from tbe different 
ways in wbicb tbe various f amilies and tribes pro- 
nounced tbe same words as they became scattered 
over tbe different parts of tbe world, and modern 
philology bas discovered tbe corresponding sounds 
wbicb were usually adopted by tbe different nation- 
alities in tbeir endeavors to pronounce tbe same 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


original root-word. (See Max Müller, Science of Lan- 
guage, vol. ii, p. 216 and sequel.) " 

The discoveries of the Sanscrit, tbe ancient lan- 
guage of India, and of Zend, tbe ancient language 
of Persia, have contributed in very great measure to 
make tbese results certain, so tbat now it is f ully con- 
ceded tbat, witb tbe exceptiön of tbe Biscayan and 
Finnisb languages, Hungarian included, all tbe 
tongues of Europe, togetber witb tbose of a large 
part of Asia, bave a common origin. Tbese lan- 
guages bave, on tbis account, been called by tbe gen- 
eral name of Indo-European, or Aryan tongues. 

Anotber class of languages, usually called Semitic, 
quite distinct f rom tbe Aryan, includes Hebrew, Syro- 
Cbaldaic, Arabic and Abyssinian. " Tbese also are ac- 
knowledged to bave a common origin. 

"TbeTuranian languages include Tungusic, Mon- 
golic, Turkic, Finnic and Samoyedic, Tamulic, Tbibe- 
tian, Siamese and Malayic, or tbe Malay and Polyne- 
sian dialects." (Max Müller, ib. vol. i, p. 334.) 

Tbese are Nomad languages, and consequently 
tbe cbanges from tbeir original forms were more 
rapid and complete tban in tbe niore settled oountries 
occupied by tbose wbo spoke tbe Aryan and Semitic 
tongues. Tbere cannot be expected between tongues 
of tbis class sucb resemblanoes as are found in 
tbose already mentioned, nevertbeless, Max Müller 

" Tbese languages sbare Clements in common wbich 
tbey must bave borrowed from tbe same source, and 
tbeir formal coincidences, tbougb of a different cbar- 
acter from tbose of tbe Aryan and Semitic families, 
are sucb tbat it would be impossible to ascribe tbem 
to mere accident." (Ib. vol. i, p. 334.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


As the varions languages become better knoVn, it 
usually results that they are at last resolved into ohe 
or the otber of tbese classes. Thus the primary lan- 
guages of the World are reduced to a very small num- 
ber, and we might very well suspect that these few 
original tongues may have been in turn derived f rom 
one common stock. Max Müller is most positive on 
the possibility of all these distinct classes of lan- 
guages springing from one original. 

" We have examined all possible f orms which lan- 
guage can assume, and we have now to ask, can we 
reconcile with these three distinct forms, the radical, 
the terminational and the inflectional, the admission 
of one common origin of htfman speech ? I ans wer 
decidedly, Yes." (Vol. i, p. 375.) ' 

There are undoubtedly words of simple meaning, 
and primary necessity which run through large num- 
bers of languages of the same class, and often there 
are words which run through not only one class of ^ 
languages but through both the Aryan and Semitic 
tongues. I will give a few examples. 

Thus the numeral six, in Persian shesh, in Sanscrit 
shash, in Latin sex, in German sdchs, in Slavonic 
sehest, in Greek hex, in Zend qowas, is found with but 
slight Variation in the Semitic tongues also: in Öe- 
brew afiesh, in Arabic shet, sheh, in Aramaean sheth, uy 
Ethiopic sesu. 

Seven is in Sanscrit sapta^ in Old German sibun, in 
Gothic siburriy in Latin Septem, in Greek hepta, in 
Zend hapta, while the Semitic tongues have, Hebrew 
sheva, Syriac shebe, Arabic shehjcCt, 

Many other words maybe found in Dwight's Philo- 
logy, Cardinal Wiseman's and' Max Müller's Lee- 
tures, Sir William Jones' Asiatic Researches, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Gtesenius* Hebrew Lexicon. I may cite a few otber 

One is in Sanscrit aikoy in Persian yak, in Pehlevi 
fek, in Hebrew echad, in Arabic achady in Ethiopic 

Mother is in Sanscrit ama, in Biscayan ama^ in 
Hebrew em, in Arabic omma^ in Ethiopic emme. 

Som is in Latin cornu, in Gothic haurns^ in Ger- 
man horn^ in French corney in Greek keraSy in He- 
brew, Arabic and Phöenician keren, in Syriac kamo. 

Now it becomes a question: what number of words 
common to two languages will Warrant the conclu- 
sion that they have a common origin ? 

Cardinal Wiseman (Lecture 2,) quotes Dr. Young 
as giving a mathematical formnla from which he 
draws the conclusion that in the comparison of two 
languages, " the odds would be three to one against 
the agreement of two words: bat if three words ap- 
pear to be identical it would be more than ten to one 
that they must be derived in both cases from some 
parent language or introduced in some other manner; 
six words would give more than seventeen hundred 
chances to one, and eight,near one hundred thousand, 
so that in these cases the evidence would be little 
short of absolute certainty." 

Thus, he adds, in Biscayan " we find, heriai new; 
oray a dog; guchiy little; oguiay bread; otzoa, a woi/j 
and zazpi or shashpiy seven, Now in the ancient 
Egyptian new is beri; a dog, whor; Ifttle, kudchi; 
bread, oik/ a wolf, ounsh; seven, shashf; and if we 
consider these words as sufficiently identical to ad- 
mit of our calculating upon them, the chances will be 
more than a thousand to one that at some very re- 
mote period an Egyptian colony estäblished itself in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


I have not at band tbe data assumed by Dr. 
Young in bis calculations, but we may amve at a 
satisf actory result by tbe method given in tbe note. It 
may be a satisfaction to matbematical readers to find 
tbe calculation in detail. * 

* If we assume the number of primary roots in a language 
to be five hundred, it will be a fair estimate. Hebrew has 
five hundred. Chinese four hundred and fifty. Sanscrit is said 
by grammarian!« to have one thousand seven hundred and six 
roots, but Max Müller reduces the number toAbout five hun- 
dred and thiriy-fivc primary roots. Vol. ii, p. 359. 

Next, let there be 22 radical letters in the langunges com- 
pared, and let the roots contain respcctively 1, 2 and 3 letters 
which are permanent. We shall then readily discover the 
total number of available roots for the formation of the lan- 

In the follpwing calculations the symbol | is used to 

signify the proTluctof the integers 1, 2, 3, etc., to the number 
placed within the symbol. The processes followed are the 
, ordinary algebraical rules for calculating Combinations, Va- 
riations and Permutations. 

1. Roots of one permanent letter, = 22 

Roots with 2 different letters = 2 x 

] J |20 " . 

Roots with 3 different letters = |_3 ~ ^ = 9240 

Bi-literal roots with same letter repeated. = 22 

Tri-literal roots wilh one repeated leUer=22 x 21 x 3= 1848 


Thus 10,000 will be a very moderate estimate of the num- 
ber of available roots, after rejecting «uch as might not be 
8ufflciently euphonious for use. 

2. The total number of languages possible to be formed 

1 10000 [10000 

with 500 primary roots in each will be i^qq 19500 15??= ig.^OO 

This number, consisting of 9501 x 9502 x etc. to 500 factors 
would consist of 1995 figures. Many of the languages, how- 
ever, would differ from each other only in 1, 2, 8 or more 

8. If now we assume one language as fixed, and compare 
with it another, finding that n roots are identical in both we 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


From this it is clear that a very small number of 
identical words, or words that are substantially iden- 
tical, will»8uffice to establish an extreme probabilitj, 
amounting almost to demonstratio!!, that the lan- 
guages so coinciding have a common origin. We may 

may find the number of possible cases in which this may 
n roots being the same in both languages, the number of 

ways in which this may occur in 500 fixed roots = . |5qq__ 

this being the number of ways in which n things may be 
taken at a time out of a total of 500. 

4. In each case of the last paragraph (8), there must re- 
main 10000— n words from which 500— ri must be selected, 
and the number of ways these selections may be made not 

greater than i^qq^j^ \qqqq since some of the coincidences 

will be repeated when these are combined with former re- 
sult, (3). 

5. The selections of the last paragraph (4,) may be applied 
to the 10000— n roots in aa many different ways as there are 
permutations possible of 500— ».things = [500— n. 

6. Thus the total number of cases \n. which n roots may 
be identical iu the two given languages not greater than 
the product of the above tbree results and not greater 

|500 1 10000- n 

\n |500-n |500-n (9500 l525z±i 

If this quantity .in (6) be reduced and divided by the 
ber of possible languages in (2), we shall have the 
Mity oi two languages na ving n roots alike, when not 
ed from a common source. This probability not greater 

[500 jlOOOO-y i 

\n |500— n |10000 

It foUows that if we give to n various values, we can 
late the probability that two languages have a common 
a. If n=l, that is if there be 1 common primnry root, 
probability is not greater than ^ for an independent 
Q, or is at least 19 to 1 in favor of a common origin. 
=2, probability in favor of a common origin > 800 to 1 
= 3, •' " •' " > 47903 toi 

d so the probability increases with great rapidity as the 
3er of coinciding roots increases. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


therefore very f airly draw the conclusion that even 
the Aryan and Semitic tongues were originally one 
langaage. Thas we see that the discoveries of sciänce 
far from weakening theauthority of Holy Writ, tend 
in many respects to confirm it. 

Could we possibly imagine Moses to have made 
merely a bappy hit in stating so positively the original 
unity of langaage, whereas the probabilities then 
must have appeared so strong against it? Or are we 
to suppose that his knowledge of the real science of 
langaage was the truth as revealed to him by Almighty 
God? In spite of Col. Ingersoll's sneers, the latter is 
certainly the most reasonable sapposition, even inde- 
pendently of the positive proof s we have advanced. 



Inpidklity is notoriöas for the incalcation of 
principles which sabvert the morality of nations, as 
morality is nnderstood wherever the light of Chris- 
tianity has shone. It is tme, there are Christians, or 
prof essing Christians^ wbo do not pat into practice the 
sacred and sanctifying principles of Christianity, bat 
in their very neglect they are conscioas of their dis- 
obedience to the law they shoald obey. Christianity 
is not in f aalt becaase so many ref ase to pat her 
precepts into practice. There are devoat soals who 
do so, and this is enoagl^ to show that Christianity is 
a sacoesSy thoagh she does no violence to man's free- 
will by the ase of physioal f orce. Infidelity cannot 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


insist npon these moral precepts, becanse wbere tbere 
is no responsibility to God, there can be no moral 

Col. Ingersoll says in bis lectnre on "Skulls: ** 

"One ounce of restitntion is wortb a miUion of 
repentances anywhere." 

Tbis is empty vaporing, inasmacb as restitntion is 
a part of true reperitance, and a part of a good thing 
cannot be wortb a raillion times the wbole. Christian- 
ity insists npon that practical repentance of the sin- 
ner wbich consbts in a complete conversion to 6od 
with our wbole heart and soul, and wbicb necessarily 
includes tbe observance of Grod's precepts; and resti- 
tntion of ill-gotten goods is part of God's law. Hence 
restitntion is frequently made by Christians, at all 
events by Catholics, as I can speak of such f rom per- 
sonal knowledge. But can Col. IngersolPs Infidelity 
f umisb a motive f or restitution? If there is no God, 
there is no moral law and no distinction between right 
and wrong. Therefore there is no motive for resti- 
tntion, and Cot lugersoll's " ounce of restitution" is 
nowbere. Hence also bis declamation about immoral- 
ity in the Bible is but a bag of wind. (See p. 176.) 
From Christianity the Infidels have learned whatever 
they know about morality. Tho praises of chastity 
are a constant theme of the Old and New Testaments. 
These words of the Apostle St. John are a sample of 
wbat is to be f ound throughout the Bible. 

The ohaste " were purchased from among men, tbe 
first fruit s to God and to the Lamb." (Apocalypse 
xiv, 4. Prot. Bible, Rev.) 

It is not becoming for an Atheist, then, to accuse 
Christianity or the Bible o/ immodesty, as Colonel 
Ingersoll does: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


**If the Bible is not obscene, what book is?*' (P. 

First. The Charge is false. There is not a passage 
in the Bible favoring immodesty. The history of 
Tamar is on page 266 given as an example. Tamar 
was guilty of a grievous sin, in which Juda the chief 
of the family was still more guilty than she. The fact 
is recorded in terms perf ectly modest, and the whole 
narrative relating to Tamar is calculated to show 
the detestation in which 6od holds all crimes against 
chastity. Yet this is Col. IngersoU's excuse f or charg- 
ijig God (of the Bible) with "vulgarity " and "filth." 
There are in the Bible certain other similar events 
recorded. There was a good reason why this should 
be done. The true history of God's people was to be 
written, that God's mercif ul dealings with them should 
be made known, even in their acts of ingratitude and 
disobedience to His law. Besides, their short Comings 
and faults had to be recorded, as well as their virtues, 
as an evidence of the truthf ulness and impartiality of 
the historian, and to inculcate (lumility, as a correct- 
ive of the supercilious pride of ancestry to which 
men are so prone. Such narratives also show us how 
God punishes crime in this world and the next. 

2ndly. Such narratives as are modestly repeated in 
the Bible are usually told by iyfidels with revolting 
indecency. It iU becomes Satan to reprove sin. Juve- 
nal says: "We m^y pardon him that is sound in 
limb for mocking the cripple, the white man that 
makes sport of the black, but who can endure to hear 
without indignation the Gracchi speaking against 
rebels . . . . or Varres abusing rogues ?" (Satire 2, 
against bypocritical phxlosophers. Voltaire, Paine 
and Bennet are examples.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


3dly. It is only from Christian morality tliat infi- 
delscan know the proper relations of modesty to be 
observed between man and woman. It is from Chris- 
tian morals that it is known that polygamy is nnlaw- 
f ul, that marriage must be held sacred and inviolate, 
that it must last for life, and that there are relation- 
ships within which it cannot be contracted. How, 
then, can infidels define the limits within which 
modesty must be observed? Is it not the height of 
presumption for them to say that the Bible sanctions 
immodesty, whereas without the Bible itself they , 
would not know what constitutes that vice ? 

Of course these considerations suffice to show the 
absurdity of Col. IngersolPs indignation agaiiist Po- 
lygamy, of which he says: 

" All the languages of the world are not sufficient 
to express the filth of Polygamy. It makes of man a 
beast, of woman a trembling slave. It destroys the 
lireside, makes virtue an ontcast, takes from human 
Speech its sweetest words and leaves the heart a den 
where crawl and hiss the slimy serpents of most 
loathsome lust. Civilization rests upon the family. 
The good family is the unit of good govemment. 
The virtues grow .... where the one man loves the 
one woman. Lover — ^husband — wif e — mother — ^f ather 
— child — home — without these sacred words the 
World is but a lair, and men and women merely 
beasts." (P. 261.) 

This is almost the only trnth to be found in the 
book named " Mistakes of Moses." The basis of So- 
ciety is the marriage tie which unites one man with 
one woman by a tie which cannot be dissolved but by 
death, and it is Christianity which has given such a 
tie to mankind. Why is the marriage tie sacred and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


inviolate ? Beoause it is the law of God that it should 
be so. And how do we know that such is God's law ? 
Because Christ has so taught. 

" Have ye not read that he who made man f rom the 
beginning made them male and female? And he 
Said: "For this cause shall a man leave father and 
mother and shall cleave 'to his wife (not wives,) and 
they two shall be in one flesh. What therefore God 
hath joined together, let no man put asander .... 
Moses by reason of the hardness of your hearts per- 
mitted you to put away your wives: but from the be- 
ginning it was not so. And Isay to you that whoso- 
ever shall put away his wife, except it be for fomi- 
cation, and shall marry another committeth adul- 
tery,' " etc. (St. Matt, xix, 4 to 9.) 

Take away G^d's revelation, and how will you show 
that m^n may not have as many wives as the Grand 
Turk ? In appealing to the Christian sentiment whioh 
pervades the United States and Canada against Po- 
lygamy, you are stealing Christian arguments under 
the pretence that they are your property. Tou are 
inconsistent in using such arguments while rejecting 
Christianity. You cannot produce from all the rep- 
ertories of infidels a solid argument against Po- 
lygamy. Tou seem to be conscious of this, so you do 
not^even make the attempt. All the inconveniences 
you have enumerated as the result of Polygamy may 
be its outcome just because the nations where it is 
practiced have not a perf ect code of morality. You 
attack the Bible as teaching Polygamy. We have 
Seen from the words of Christ that Christianity f orbids 
it. It forbids divorce also. Divorce was allowed, 
not inculcated, under the Mosaic law, " because of the 
hardness of men's hearts." The same may he said of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Polygamy, to some extent. Polygamy is nowhere 
inculcated in the Old Testament, bat as Abraham 
and Jacob were holy man, it is inf erred that God per- 
mitted Polygamy sometimes at least. Polygamy is 
certainly now forbidden by Divine law, but the leg- 
islator can repeal or suspend his lawis. The reasons 
for the prohibition of Polygamy are the peace of the 
family, and the proper education of the children 
which parents are bound to secure. But God can free 
parents from this Obligation, and Cä.n provide for the 
family peace and the education of the children by otber 
means f ully as efficient as monogamy provides. God 
is the master of nature. He can therefore provide 
for the Order of nature as He wilL Polygamy, there- 
fore, was not an evil, as far as He may have sanc- 
tioned it; and when He did (probably) sanction it in 
a very fefw caaes, it was undoubtedly done for special 
and good reasons. 

And what is really the teaching of Infidelity re- 
garding marriage ? It is well known that in America 
and France, Infidels generally teach that Marriage is 
a slavery, and that Love must be free. The Oneida 
Community is one of the fruits of their theory.. 
Judge Black appropriately says in his "Reply to 

" This is the gospel of dirt. I don't say that Mr. 
IngersoU swallows it whole. He believes, or at least 
he practices the Christian doctrine on the subjects 
of marriage, patemity and property, not because he 
is bound by the Divine commandment, bat because 
he feels like it. Others, rejecting as he does the 
* golden metißwand of the law,* have an equal right 
to take their own feelings as the measure of right- 
eousness. So one set of Atheists curses marriage, and 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


another blackgua^^s Polygamy, and they are both 
right if there be no God above all, and over all." 

I need only add, as a testimony to the Infidel 
theory of marriage, an eztract from Eugene Sue's 
views on this subject. They are the words of his 
paragon of perfection in his absurd, but too much 
read " Wandering Jew." 

"But this love must yet be consecrated; and in the 
eyes of the world .... marriage is the only conse- 
cration, and marriage enchains one's whole life. 
.... Yes, one's whole life ! and yet who can an- 
swer f or the sentiments of a whole life? .... There- 
fore, to accept indissoluble ties/is it not to commit 
an act of selfish and impious f olly ? . . . . We ought 
to pledge ourselves, not .... always to belong to 
one another .... f or no one can take such a pledge 

without falsehood or folly We ought not to 

accept indissoluble bonds for .... were our love 
to cease, why should we wear chains that would then 
be a horrible tyranny ?" (Adrienne de Cardoville to 
Prince Djalma.) 

Another instance of the sacredness of marriage 
from the Infidel point of view is to be found in the 
«Truth-Seeker" of December 13th, 1884. TJnder 
the caption, " Liberal Divorce Laws," the editor re- 
joices over the fact that the Italian ministry have 
recommended a law authorizing divorce. He adds: 

" This is about as common sense a law as legisla- 
tors are in the habit of conceiving." 

Such are the doctrines on marriage which Infidelity 
would Substitute for the Christian teaching. TJnder 
such regulations, what is to become of Col. Ingersoll's 
" good f amily, the unit of good government ?" What 
is to become of "husband, wife, mother, father, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ohild, home, without whioh woris the world is but 
a lair, and men and women merely beasts ?" Once 
let sach teachings prevail, imprudent marriageB, con- 
cubinages rather, will be the rule: ander the expecta- 
tion of future divorce, there will be no restraint ou 
family bickerings and adulteries, families united by 
the ties of affinity, will be irreconcilably separated 
in enmity and hate, property will become more tban 
ever a source of discord, and will be dissipated to no 
good purpose, children will be made orphans, while 
their parents still live; society will be disorganized, 
and its very foundations shaken. 

Are the women' of America prepared to throw 
aside Christian indissoluble marriage, for Polygamy, 
Divorce, and Free Love ? If so, let them accept Col. 
Ingersoll's advice, and become Infidels. 



CoLONEL Ingersoll takes more than usual pains to 
prove that from the entry of Jacob and bis family, 
70 souls, into Egypt tili their departure out of Egypt, 
two hundred and fifteen years only elapsed. It is a 
question of the Interpretation of the fortieth verse of 
Exodus xii: 

" And the abode of the children of Israel that they 
made in Egypt, was four hnndred and thirty years." 

From the call of Abraham to the entry of the 
Israel ites, two hnndred and fifteen years elapsed. 
Hence if this is tobe counted as part of the time named 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


in Ex. xii, 40, the sojoum of the Israelites from the 
entry of Jacob tili the Exodus will be reduced to two 
handred and fifteen years. Some commentators 
maintain tbat the period was four hundred and 
thirty years, others say it was only two hundred and 
fifteen. It is a question of Interpretation. The 
weight of authority seems to be largely in f avor of 
the shorter period, two hundred and fifteen years, 
and (St. Paul in GaL iii, 17 ) seems also to assert this 
view. This agrees also with the Septuagint and 
Samaritan versions of .Genesis. 

Of course, since it is CoL Ingersoll's wish to show 
the impossibility of the increase of the Israelites dur- 
ing that period, to the extent mentioned in Holy 
Scripture, he wishes to make the time as short as 
possible. The longer period of four handred and 
thirty years^ would present no difficulty whatsoever. 
I have no hesitation in allowing the shorter period, 
which is usually taken to be correct. 

The Colonel says: 

" There were seventy souls when they went down 
into Egypt, and they reraained two hundred and 
fifteen years, and at the end of that time they had 
increased to about three million." (P. 186.) 

He res^sons that as there were six hundred thousand 
men of war, there must have been a population of at 
least three million. With immigration, the " United 
States doubled every twenty-five years," from 1776 
to 1876. The same rate of increase among the He- 
brews would give in two hupdred and fifteen years, 
thirty-five thousand, eight hundred and forty people 
at most: He adds "if no deaths occurred." (P. 187.) 

Why is this addition made? Are not deaths already 
taken into acoount when the comparsion is made with 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the increase in tbe United States? Were there no 
deaths in the United States during the one hundred 
years between 17V6 and 1876? Tbis is evidently 
added f rom the suspicion that there is a satisfactory an- 
Bwer to his difficulty, and so there is. Novertheless 
the Colonel's course is dishonest. He wishes to make 
his difficulty as formidable as possible, even at the 
expense of trutb. 

The Colonel draws the conclusion: 

"Every sensible man khows that tbis (tbe scriptu- 
ral) aecount is not, and cannot be true. We know 
that seventy people could not iricrease to three million 
in two hundred and iifteen years." (P. 187.) 

The three million are estimated as the population 
on tbe assumption that there must have been at least 
five times as many persons as there were men of war. 

"In every State in tbis Union there will be to each 
voter, five other persons at least; and we all know 
that there are always more voters tban men of war." 
(P. 185.) 

Tbis loose way of making Statistical Statements is 
very unsatisfactory. Among tbe voters there are 
many who reside in neigbboring countries, and many 
naturalized Citizens, while there are many residents 
who have not become naturalized. A good deal 
depends also on tbe State of tbe laws at any particu- 
lar period, who are tbe " men of war." Then you do 
not give tbe figures for any one State. Now the 
number of the Israelites in each tribe is very definitely 
stated, as far as the censns was made. 

"And tbe whole number of tbe children of Israel 
by their houses and f amilies, f rom t wenty years old and 
upward, that were able to go to war, were 603,550 
men." (Num. i, 45, 46.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The Levites were not numbered with these. (Verse 

Here then is a clear Statement that there were 603,550 
men over twenty years of age, descendants of eleven 
sons of Jacob, and able to go to war. This includes 
all who were liable to military duty. We shall see 
soon that it is not necessary to speculate on the total 
population of the Israelites in order to meet Colonel 
IngersolPs argument. However we may follow his 
line of argument and find its result. 

The exact proportion between the men of twenty 
years of age and upwards, and the rest of the popula- 
tion can be very nearly ascertained. The census of the 
United States for 1880gives a total white population 
of 43,402,970, of whom there were 10,498,717 males 
between twenty and sixty years of age. The propor- 
tion 10,498,717 : 43,402,970:: 603,550 gives 2,495,149, 
to which if w^ add 50,000 for the Levites we shall 
have 2^545,149 for the population of the Israelites. 
Now, when we consider that they were blessed espe- 
cially by God to have the population increase, we 
may well suppose that the grown up population was 
larger, so that we may reasonably allow that the 
"men of war" were one fourth of the population, 
for they " increased abundantly, and multiplied, and 
waxed exceeding mighty, and the land was iilled 
with them." (Ex. i, 7, 9, 20.) 

There must, under such circumstances, have been a 
larger proportion than usual, who survived to ma- 
ture age. We may, therefore, fairly estimate the 
population of the Israelites to have been 2,414,200, 
outside of the tribe of Levi, instead of 3,000,000; and 
probably 2,000,000 would be still nearer the truth. 
This is Bishop Colenso's estimate, who has issued 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


several books with an obje^t similar to that of tbe 

How many ancestors of tbese entered into Egypt 
witb Jacob? Excluding Levi and bis sons, and 
even Jacob and bis wives, sixty-seven are named. 
To tbese we must add tbe wives of tbose wbo 
were married, according to Gen. xlvi, 26. Tbese 
wives were at least fonrteen in nnmber, probably 
more, since tbe same cbapter speaks of tbirteen 
wbo are married, besides tbe Canaanitisb wife of Si- 
meon. Hence we baye at least eigbty-one ancestors 
of tbe nambered Israelites, instead of aeventy, as 
stated by tbe Colonel. In wbat lengtb of time must 
tbese double tbeir nuniber in orderte reacb 2,414,200 
in two bundred and fifteen years ? A few days over 
fourteen years, five and a half montbs. In fact, if 
we suppose tbe time needed for donbling to be 
fourteen years four montbs, we sbäll bave tbe popu- 
lation doubled just fifteen times in succession. 
Eigbty-one multiplied by two, fifteen times sacces- 
sively, gives 2,654,208. It is true, tbe doubling of a 
population in fourteen years, five and a balf montbs 
is a rapid increase, still it is neitber impossible nor, 
under favorable circumstances, improbable. Tbe like 
bas often occurred in tbe past, and will probably 
occur again. If tbese f acts bad been related in pro- 
fane history, they would bave been readily aocepted, 
as indeed similar f acts bave been unquestioned. Every 
one is aware that population is very fluctuating in its 
rate of increase, and under favorable citcnmstances it 
is f requently very rapid. Bullet relates in " Reponses 
Critiques *' that an Island in tbe South Sea " first oc- 
cupied by a few sbipwrecked Englisb in 1589, and 
discovered by a Dutch vessel in 1667 was peopled 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


after eighty; years by twelve tboasand souls, all the 
descendants of f our mothers." (See Card. Wiseman's 
Science and Religion, Lect. 4.) 

These doubled tbeir population in less than every 
seyen years and seven montbs. Tbis is mucb moVe 
rapid tban tbe increase of tbe Israelites in Egypt. 

It will be seen f rem tbe answer wbicb I will give to 
Bisbop Colenso's objeotion specially directed against 
tbe account of tbe increase of tbe tribe of Dan, tbat 
very large f amilies are not required in order to eflEect 
avery great increase,, in a wonderfully sbort space of 
time. It is qaite safficient ibat tbe circumstances bc 
favorable to tbe lives of cbildren, and tbat mamages 
be not delayed to a late period of life, to render tbe 
actual incfease of a people almost incredible, even 
witb ordinary families. Still a few large families 
will accelerate tbe increase very mucb. New tbe fa- 
vorable circumstances existed witb tbe Israelites in 
Egypt, since tbey were specially blessed by God to 
maltiply and fill tbe land. 

Very frequently sucb large families occur, and ac- 
counts of tbem are to be seen in tbe public Journals. 
Tbus a "Mr. Lemay Deloame, at bis deatb in 1849* 
bad a posterity of two bundred and twenty-five cbil- 
dren and gränd-cbildren .... and ontbemonument 
of Rev. Dr. Hon'eywood, Dean of Lincoln, is tbe f ol- 
lowing inscription: 


Thrbb hukdred ajstd sixty-sbvbn pkrsons 
That Mary, the wifb of Robert Honbywood, Esq., 


(Pettigrew's Öhronicles of the Tombs; also Prof. Hirscb- 
felder's reply to C!olenso.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


It is tberefore olear that this f avorite objection of 
infidels is f utile. Many more proofs migbt be ad- 
duoed, but every one is aware tbat sucb large fami- 
lies f requently ooour, and most of my readers will be 
able to recall instanoes wbicb bave oome within tbeir 
own Observation. 

Bisbop OolensOy and otbers bef ore bim brougbt tbe 
same objection, bat applied it also, as baving special 
f oroe, to tbe tribe of Dan. Only one son of Dan, 
Husbim, is spoken of in Genesis, yet * in tbe censns 
recorded in Numbers i, it is said be had sixty-two 
tbousand seyen bundred descendants of twenty years 
of age and upwards. Tbis increase is mucb greater 
tban tbat of tbe rest of Israel Bisbop Colenso main- 
tains tbat as tbe exodus was said to be in tbe fourth 
generation of tbe sojourn in Egypt: 

^^ Dan's one son, and eacb of bis sons and grand- 
sons mast have bad aboat eighty cbildren of both 
sexes." (Bp. C. on Pentateuch, p. 168.) 

Everyone acqaainted witb tbe prooess of Compu- 
ting Compound Interest, knows tbat a sligbt increase 
in the rate per cent, makes a wonderful difference in 
the amount after a considerable number of years. 
Precisely the same principle operates bere. A sligbt 
increase in the average family in the tribe of Dan 
would make a wonderful difference in the pro- 
portion of that tribe to the rest of Israel in tbe 
course of two hundred and fifteen years. We 
have Seen that a doubling of Israel every fourteen 
years, five and a half months would more tban pro- 
duce the population of Israel in two bundred and 
fifteen years: so the doubling of tbe tribe of Dan 
every twelve years eight months would produce 
more of a population thau is attributed to the tribe 
in the census of Numbers i. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


We may arrive at a similar result in another way. 
Let US suppose tbat in the family of Husbim there 
arejfcmr sons, viz.: one born every second year, com- 
mencing witb tbe tbird year of the sojoum in Egypt. 

Kexty let eacb of Husbim's sons bave the same 
nnmber of sons, four; tbe first in eacb family being 
born wben tbe fatber^is 22 years old, and let tbe 
same rule continue tili tbe time of tbe Exodus. On 
' tbis very reasonable bypotbesis, we sball bave the 
result given in the Appendix to thia chapter. 

Prom tbe Appendix it will be seen tbat on this 
assumption tbe family of Husbim would increase 
much more than is stated in tbe book of Numbers. 

The number of men between twenty and fifty 
years of age would be 98,615, which is 85,915 more 
than tbe number given by Moses. 

It foUows, then, tbat tbe increase of tbe Israelites 
in Egypt is neitber impossible nor improbable, as 
Bishop Colenso and Colonel Ingersoll pretend; and 
since the increase of tbe tribe of Dan is so readily 
acconnted for, wbicb is much greater in proportion 
ihan tbe rest of Israel, of . course there remains no 
difficulty whatever in accounting for tbe rapid in- 
crease of tbe whole nation. Tbe assumption of three 
sons in eacb family of the fifty sons and grandsons of 
Jacob, (excluding Levi and bis sons,) would give 
824,000 men between twenty and fifty years of age 
at tbe time of tbe censns. This would leave a mar- 
gin of 220,450 for deaths. 

I Said above tbat if a similar f act to tbe increase of 
tbe Israelites bad been related in profane bistory it , 
would bave been accepted witbout difficulty or ques- 
tion. Since writing tbose words, and wbile I was in 
tbe very act of writing tbis argument of wbicb they 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

388 mista.b:ibs of xodbbn inpidbls. 

form a part, I notioed a decided confirmation of my 
whole Statement. It is to be found in tbe Infidel 
organ, tbe " Trutb-Seeker,** of New York, in an edi- 
torial commentaiy on " The Plenary Councii " of tbe 
Catbolic Cbarcby in Session at Baltimore. Tbe editor 

" Tbe wonderf ul expansion of tbe Cburcb's power 
tbrougb increase by Immigration and tbe birtb rate, 
has made tbe Bomisb Organization bold and arrogant 
In fifty years it bas developed from balf a miUion of 
believers to nearly eigbt millions. *' (Truth Seeker, 
29tb November, 1884.) 

Here is a Statement wbicb was being read by tbon-. 
sands of Infidels in tbe United States and Canada 
wbile I was writing on tbis very subject, and proba- 
bly by Col. Ingersoll bimself. Witb what senti- 
ments did they read tbat Statement ? Di4 tbey say 
witb tbe Colone!, " Every one knows tbat tbis is not 
and cannot be true?" Certainly not. Tbey swal- 
lowed it holus'bolusy because tbeir organ asserted it, 
and indeed it is very neartheexact truth, and is ratber 
ander tban over tbe correct estimate. Yet tbis in- 
crease in tbe Catbolic body is much greater tban tbe 
increase of tbe Israelites in Egypt. It exceeds even 
tbe increase of tbe tribe of Dan, wbicb, aocording to 
Bisbop Colenso, would require 80 cbildren in every 
f amily ! According to tbe " Trutb Seeker" State- 
ment, tbe Catbolics doubled every 12 years six montbs, 
wbile tbe tribe of Dan required 12 years eigbt 
montbs to double. Yet tbere are not 80 cbildren in 
eacb Catbolic f amily. 

I know tbat it will be answered, " but tbere was a 
large Catbolic Immigration during tbat period.'' 

I bave not overlooked tbis f aot in wbat I bave said. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


I appeal to the ezperienoe of every resident of every 
State in jbbe Union for an answer to this question: 

Did Catholic immigration in anjr yetr since 1834 
eqnal one-third^ or even one-fourth of the natural 
increase by births ? 

The answer to this will certainly be, No. Then I 
inf er that if the f anulies of the tribe of Dan were 
one-fourth larger than those of the Catholics of the 
United States, their increase would have been mach 
larger than it is stated by Moses to have been. 
Wbere, then, is the impossibility ? It exists only in' 
thebrains of the Infidel objectors. 

'' And Moses reckoned up • . . . the first-bom of 
the children of Israel; and the males by their names, 
from one month and npward, were 22,273." Numb. 
iii, 42, 43. 

On this the Colonel reasons: 

^^ It is reasonable to snppose that there were about 
as many first-bom f emales. This would make 44,546 
first-bom children. Now there must have been about 
as many mothers as there were first-bom children. 
If there were only about 45,000 mothers, and 3,000,000 
of people, the mothers must have had on an average 
about 66 children apiece." (P. 187.) 

We have already seen that 3,000,000 is a grossly 
exaggerated population. If the population were 
2,000,000, the disproportion of 'the first-born would 
be very greatly reduced. Now there are several cir- 
cumstances which contributed to diminish the number 
of first-bom males. 

First. Those under one month were not enumer- 

Seoondly. When Pharaoh issued bis decree for the 
death of the male children, the destruction must have 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


fallen more heavily on the first-born than npon other 
male children. There is no means of estimating tbe 
number wbo»perisbed in tbis way. 

Tbirdly. It is well known tbat motbera frequently 
lose tbe first cbild in birtb, and yet bave large fami- 
lies afterwards. Tbus the total number of males 
wonld be increased, while tbe number of first-born 
would remain stationary. 

Fourthly. Wbere polygamy was allowed, there 
would be children by several mothers, yet only by one 
f ather. In such cases there was only one male reck- 
oned as first-born. Thus Reuben was the first-born of 
Jacob. (Gen.xlix,3.) Gideon hadseventysonsbymany 
wives. (Judg. vüi, 30.) Yet he had but one "first- 
born,'' Jether. (verse 20.) David had many sons by 
many wives. (2 Kings iii, 2, 5. Prot. Bible, 2 Sam.) 
Tet he had only one " first-born," Ammon. (verse 2.) 
The first-born had rights of primogeniture which 
were very important. It was, therefore, necessary 
tbat the law should define the first-born accurately, 
and tbis is done, Deut, xxi, 15, 11. 

Fifthly. The first-born, being the oldest, would 
of ten be the first to die. 

Taking all these circumstances together, it was to 
be expected that the number x>f first-born should be 
much smaller than the number of f amilies, and as the 
Israelites "multiplied exceedingly," the f amilies were 
large. It is therefore a proof of the genuineness of 
the books of Moses, that in such incidental matters 
bis Statements accord with all .the circumstances of 
the case. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 





Shawing the probable increase of the famüy of HufHvm (son of 

Dan,) during the sqjoum in Egypt, (See explanation 



lit Genera- 



























M Gen. 







— • 


























— • 













































































Digitized by VjOOQIC 


The Bons bom in the f ollowing years would be between 50 
and 20 years old at the Üme of the Exodus. 

Yearof Sonsborn. 
Sojoarn. MhGen. 















































Totais of each 
































65049 17911 

Thus the number belonging to each generation, who at the 
time of the Exodus would be between 20 and 50 years of age, 
would be: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Of the 6th Generation, 7 

*' " 7th '* 15648 

" '• 8th " 65049 

" " 9th " 17911 

Total, 98615 

This leaves a margin of nearQr 86,000 for deaths. 


In tlie above Chart, tlie assumed four sons of Hushim are 
placed under the first generation, in the years of the sojourn 
wherein they are respectively supposed to have been born, 
viz. : 3, 6, 7, 9. These four sons would have, in the second 
generation, sixteen sons, the first of whom would be born in 
the year 25, two would be born in the year 27, three in 29, 
four in 31, etc. Thus the numbers of the second generation 
are deduced f rom tbose of the first, by taking successively one 
term of the first, then two, then three, then four, after which 
at each step a term at the beginning is dropped; also a new 
term is taken in, as long as there is one to take in, until the 
end is reached. 

The numbers of the third generation are derived f rom those 
of the second. precisely as those of the second are found from 
the first; so that first one term of the second is taken, then 
two terms, then three, then four, continuously; and at each 
Step a new term is added, whenever a term is dropped, until 
there are no more new terms to add. 

Each succeeding generation is derived from the previous 
one in the same manner. Then only those terms which fall 
after the year 145, down to the year 195, are added together. 
because these terms represent the men who would be between 
the ages of 50 and 20 years when the census of the Israelites 
was taken, Kum. i. Thus we see that the assuniption of four 
sons in each family of the tribe would give, under the condi- 
tions assumed in the text of the chapter, 98,615 men between 
20 and 50 years of age in the tribe of Dan, at the time of the 
census. This is 35,915 more than the number given by Moses. 
There is theref ore an ample margin for deaths. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




XJndbb the caption " The Flight," Colonel Inger- 
soU briogs forward a great number of objections. 
Every circumstance which is at all miracalousy and 
which is related in the Bible, is a sabject for bis ridi- 
cule. Once for all, we musi say we proved in chap 
ter 13 the possibility of miracles. We ehowed that 
miracles are the means by which God attests Revela- 
tion. An objection which takes it for granted that 
miracles are absurd, is therefore of no weight what- 
soever, It is sufficient that, as f acts, they be attested 
by a witness who was not deceived himself, and who 
was no impostor. Such a witness we proved Moses 
to be. (See chapters 30, 31.) 

Hence the sneering manner in which the Colonel 
refers to the burning bush, and the change of Moses' 
rod into a serpent, is of no avail against our positive 
proofs of the authenticity and truth of the Mosaic 
narrative. (See "Mistakes of Moses," page 188.) 
Hence, also, there is no argument in speaking thus of 
the destruction of Pharaoh and bis host in the Red 

'^It hardly looks reasonable that God would take 
the wheels off the chariots. How did he do it? 
Did he pull out the Knch-pins, or did he just take 
them off by main force ? (P. 213.) 

An authentic and true history attests that it was 
done. There is certainly no impossibility for Infinite 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Power to effect this. If the fact was done, it ft not 
necessary for us to know the precise manner in which 
it was done, and it is folly to ask the question 

God sent manna to f eed the Israelites in the desert. 
They needed food, and as they ^ere under God's 
special protection, He supplied food mi;-aculou8ly. 
Surely it is not surprising that there should be certain 
iniracalous circumstances connected with it. (Ex. 
xvi.) Thus it melted away in the sun; nevertheless 
\ve learn from Num. xi, 8, that it could be cooked. 
The amount gathered was "measured by the measure 
of a gomor, neither had he more that gathered 
more, nor did he find less that had provided less." 
(Ex. xvi, 18.) Other circumstances equally miracu- 
lous were connected with it. 

Is it a ref utation to say '' it wonld be a magnifi- 
Cent substance with which to make a currency — 
shrinking and swelling according to the great laws 
of supply and demand?" (P. 215.) 

TheColonel adds that there are two accounts which 
disagree and are therefore nnreasonable, and he says 
they are " grossly absurd and infinitely impossible.'* 

God himself gives to Moses the ans wer to the Col- 
onel's difl3culties: 

**Is the band of the Lord unable? Thou shalt 
presently see whether my word shall come to pass or 
no." (Num. xi, 23.) 

This manna was first fumished to the Israelites in 
the month succeeding their departure from Egypt 
(Ex. xvi, 1 :) that is to say, in the first year of their 
abode in the desert. From Numbers xi, we learn 
that about a year later the people murmured for 
meat. God sent qoails to supply their want. From 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Noi^bers i, 1, it may be seen that tliis book com- 
moDoes with the second year of the stay in the des- 
ert. The accoant of the manna and of ttie qaaiU 
given in Exodus regards, theref ore, quite a different 
event from that which is recorded in Nnmbers, and 
there can be no contradiction between them. 

The Colonel further objects that the request of 
the people f or a change of f ood was a very reason- 
able one, which shoold not have been panished so 
severely. (P. 211.) . 

The occasion of these animadversions is the State- 
ment that on accoant of the munnurs of the people, 
^'speaking against God and Moses .... the I^rd 
sent among them fiery serpents,^hich bit and killed 
many of them." (Num. xxi, 5. 6.) 

It was the covenant of God with His people that 
he woold shew '* mercy unto tbousands to them that 
love me and keep my commandments/' bat that 
when they were disobedient he woald inflict panish- 
menty even ^^ visiting the iniqaity of the fathers apon 
the children." (Ex. xx, 6, 6.) Even when in His jus- 
tice He inflicts punishment, His mercy is always 

"The Lord God is merciful and gracious, patient 
and of mach compassion and true, who keepest 
mercy unto thousands, who takest away iniqaity and 
wickedness and sins, and no man of himself is inno- 
cent '• bef ore him. (Ex. xxxiv, 7.) 

Wehave already shown that, as God is the Supreme 
Arbiter of life and death, there can be no injustice 
ito the manner in which he may inflict any penalty 
even the penalty of death. (See chaps. 9, 27.) On 
the occasion of his sending the fiery serpents, he pun- 
ished not the mere demand f or a change of diet» bat 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the speaking against Himself and Moses. His anthor- 
ity over them required a pablic vindication. How- 
ever, when they had been safficiently pnnished, he 
Bupplied a remedy by ordering Moses to erect *^a 
brazen serpent .... that whosoever . • . • being 
bitten shonld look npon it shoold be healed." (Nom. 
xxi, 8, 9.) 

In Ex. xxiii, 28 and Deut, vii, 20, we are told tbat 
Gk>d will send homets to drive away the nations whose 
possessions Grod had determined to transfer to the 
Israelites. We are also informed in Deut, xzix, 5, 
and in 2 Esdras iz, 21 (Nehemiah) that the '^ gannents 
of the Israelites were not wom out, nor the shoes of 
their feet consumed with age.'' In Num. v, 14, etc., 
the method of punishment of the unf aithf al wif e is 
indicated, and Qod promises, in a miracnloos manner 
to manifest her innocence or gnilt. 

What 6od promises he is able to f olfiL CoL Inger- 
soll's ridicnle cannot lessen the power of God, and 
the fact that he dictatorially prononnces all these 
events absurd, cannot impede God's Providence over 
the affairs of men. (See pp. 219, 222, 223.) We have 
already snfficiently proved God's power of working 
miracles. We need not repeat the proof s. We need 
only add to what we have said already, that many of 
the miraculous events ref erred to in this chapter do 
not require miraculous intervention in all their details. 
Gk>d could make use of the ordinary course of nature 
to Effect much, but when miraculous intervention was 
necessary, it was not wanting. 

The same answer is applicable to many other f acts 
grouped together in the last chapter of Colonel Inger- 
soll's work, and broadly denied. The Colonel denies 
them merely because they are miracles. Such are: 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


^^ Enoch walked with 6od and was seen no more, be- 
caase God took him." (Gen. v. 23.) 

"The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha 
brimstone and fire from the Lord, out of beaven." 
(xix, 24.) 

" Lot's wif e looking behind her was tumed into a 
Statue of salt." (Verse 26.) 

This " Statue of salt " is not necessarily the common 
table salt. In Psalm cvi, 34 (Prot. Bible cvii) and in 
Jeremias xvii, 6 the Hebrew word Mdac\ salt is 
used for barrenness or a salt land. The term is also 
applied to natron, bitumen, volcanic stones, or to min- 
erals of appearance similar to salt, somewhat as it is 
used also in English. Josephus says: 

"Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of salt; fori 
bave seen it and it remains at this day." 

Clement of Rome, a contemporary of Josephus 
attests also that it was then existing, and Irenseus a 
Century later attests that it was then also extant. 

The locality is difficult of access, at the southern- 
most point of the sea of Sodom, in the wild and dan- 
gerous deserts of Arabia. It is on this account diffi- 
cult to ascertain whether or not it still exists. The 
accounts given by modern travellers are discordant. 
We may be well satisfied, however, with the truth of 
the Mosaic record, the record of a faithful witrress^ 
who wrote what he knew to be true. God's appear- 
ance to Moses in the burning bush and the brazen 
serpent whose sight healed the bite of the fiery ser- 
pents are also miraculous events. (Ex. iii, Num. xxi, 
9.) So also are the account of Jacob's wrestling with 
an angel, (Gen. xxii,) the intercourse of Abraham, 
Jacob and Lot with God and bis angels, (xix; xxii; 
xxxii,) the blossoming of Aaron's rod, and its bring- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ing f orth almonds, (Num. xvii, 8,) and similar events. 
These circUmstances are not to be ref uted by mere 
ridicnle or denial. They are well attested occarrences, 
and have all the force of historic facta related by cred- 
ible witnessßs. 

In the case of the trial of a wife f or infidelity to 
her marriage vows, Col. IngersoU maintains that the 
promise of God to manifest the guilt or innocence of 
the aceased, '^has been the foundajbion of all appeals 
to God by corsned, battle, water, fire, and lastly by 
the judicial oath." These must all be equally super- 
stitious in his estimation. The judicial oath is an 
appeal to the faith of the person who takes the 
oath, and is certainly not superstitious. The or- 
deals of battle, water and fire essentially differ 
from the mode of trial recorded in Num. v. God 
makes an express promise that he will intervene by 
making guilt manifest, under circumstances in which 
the ordinary laws of nature could not produce the 
same effect. It is evident that in tbis case only the 
guilty could suffer. In the ordeal by water, a supposed 
witch with her limbs so tied that she could not use 
them, was thrown into the water. If she sank, she 
was adjudged innocent, if she floated, she was con- 
sidered guilty and was bumed. Here she suffered 
whether she was innocent or guilty. There is no re- 
semblance between the two cases. Besides, there is no 
recorded promise of God to intervene in the case of 
ordeal by water, but there was such a promise in the 
trial of jealousy. No reasoning, then, can justify 
the ordeal of water, by means of the trial of jealousy, 
and the ordeals of battle, fire, etc., are in the same 
Position as that of water. 

The drinking of the water of jealousy was a syra- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


bolical ceremony, whioh had its efficaoy f rom Gk>d*8 
promise. The Colonel objects to all religious cere- 
monies. On this plea he objects to the composition 
of incense f or exolasive use in Divine Worship. He 
objects to the saored ointment employed in the con- 
secration of priests, (p. 225,) and to the other cere- 
monies nsed on the same occasion. (P. 226.) He ridi- 
cnles the commandment of God that special vestments 
should be devoted to the use of priests, made after a 
particalar form, and also to the use of certain articles, 
as a tabernacle, tongs, snnffers and dishes in the Ser- 
vice of Qod. (P. 226.) To this head also must we 
bring his objection against the ceremonies used by 
Abraham in offering sacrifice, (p. 182,) and against 
sacrifice in general. (P. 268.) All areincluded ander 
the general name of " Superstition." (P. 26.) 

Of course there is no means of convincing one who 
denies, or ref uses to believe, the existence of God, and 
that religious ceremonies are usef ul in the worship of 
God. We must begin with such a one by proving 
that there is a God, whom we are bound to serve and 
worship. I have done this by means of a synoptical 
proof. I must here assume that there is a God, and 
that we must adore Him. The Utility of ceremonies 
in religion foUows as a necessary consequence. 

Have men the need of manifesting their thoughts 
and äff ections by outward signs ? Certainly the whole 
Constitution of society proves that they have. Pros- 
tration is a recognized mark of respect and Submis- 
sion. The offering of a gift is an acknowledgment 
of gratitude. A discourse makes a more profound 
impression when it is.delivered with suitable gestures. 
The use of ezterior signs is rooted in the very nature 
of man. They are necessary for the preservation of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


good will among men, and they theref ore oonstitute 
the very essenoe of etiquette. 

This being the case in the social order, ceremonies 
are necessary in the moral order also to make man 
religious. Hence in the moral order, sacrifioes were 
offered by all nations, as offerings to the Gods in 
acknowledgment of their Supreme Dominion, The 
same ceremony of saorifice was retained by the Jews 
in the worship of the true Qod f or the same pnrpose. 
It was not a rite borrowed f rom Paganism. It was 
from the beginning recognized as the principal act of 
Religion, and as such was used by Cain and Abel, 
and af ter th j deluge by Noab. The Pagans theref ore 
retained it by the tradition derived from the original 
Revelation made by God to man. The Jews had it 
from the same source, confirmed by the new Revela- 
tion made by God through Moses. 

The same reasons hold f or the Institution of other 
ceremonies than sacrifice. They have a usef ul effect 
in making manmore devout, becanse man is impressed 
through his senses, in spite of all the efforts of so- 
called Philosophers to throw off their influence, be- 
canse this influence is part of human nature. 

The Jewish ceremonial laws were intended to keep 
the Jews firm in their belief in one God, the Creator 
and Conservator of the universe, the Master of Nature, 
and also to remind them that He was their Legislator, 
the Father of civil sooiety, the arbiter of all nature 
who would reward them f or doing good, and punish 
them for doing ill. Many of the rites were also in- 
tended to separate the Jews from other nations, and 
thus preserve them from idolatry. Some ceremonies 
were also appointed in memory of the marks of Gk>d's 
special protection. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Thtts incense was regarded as the symbol of prayer. 
The ascent of its perfume upward, signified the effi- 
cacy of holy prayer ascending to God; and therefore 
the Royal Prophet prays: 

" Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight.** 
(Ps. cxl, 2. Prot. Bible, Ps. cxli.) 

011 is strengthening and nourishing. Hence the 
abnndance of com, wine, and oil implies constantly 
in Holy Scripture the abnndance of all good things. 
(See Deut, xxviii, 61; xviii, 4, etc.) Oil was therefore 
appropriately used in the' consecration of priests, to 
signify that they as the depositories of God's au- 
thority, strengthened and nonrished the people by 
teaching them sound doctrine. Hence also to secure 
respect f or these sacred Symbols, the people were f or- 
bidden to nse for profane porposes the particular in- 
cense and oil which were intended for use only in 
God's worship. Disobedience to this law was a crime, 
and was punished accordingly, because of the disre- 
spect involved in despising God*s law. 

Special vestments or garments were prescribed for 
the priests ^ remarkable for glory and beauty " (Ex. 
xxviii, 40,) to make the public worship of God im- 
pressive, and to signify the authority of the priest 
oflSciating in God's name. The different parts of these 
vestments were all calculated to recall some truth re- 
vealed, or some mystery of Gtod's mercy to his people. 

I need not enter into details of the mystical mean- 
ing of each ceremony employed in the old law. Suf- 
fice it to say that there was such a meaning for every 
ceremony, and the Jews were well instructed on this 
point. There could be no superstition in the use of 
such ceremonies, for they were also well instructed in 
the faot that ceremonial worship is of no avail with- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


out the homage of the heart and soul. How could 
there be ßuperstition in the use of ceremonies which 
were prescribed precisely to prevent the people from 
becoming victims of superstition ? I will merely sug- 
gest the symbolical meaning of some ceremonies used 
in the consecration of priests, to which Col. IngersoU 
takes special exception. 

The hands of the priest were anointed to signify 
the richness of divine grace, which, through the sacri- 
fices he offered was conferred on the people. The 
priests placed their hands on the buUock's head to 
signify that the bullock became the victim bearing 
the sins of the people. The slaying of the bullock 
was the offering made to God in atonement for sin, 
and in acknowledgment of God's Supreme Dominion 
over all creatures. The fat, and the caul, and the 
kidneys were burned on the altar as a sign that our 
passions are to be restrained and mortified. The 
blood of the victim was poured about the altar to 
signify that God received it as an oflEering of atone- 
ment for sin. The handö and feet and ears of the 
priests consecrated, were touched with the victim's 
blood to signify that each of these members of the 
priest was consecrated to God to gain grace for the 
people by prayer and sacrifice. ( Comeliics a Lapide 
on Exodus xxix.) 

Similar symbolical significations will be found in 
the sacrifice of Abraham, and the waters of jealousy. 

In the sacrifice of Abraham, the cutting asunder 
of the victims denotes the afllictions his posterity, 
the Hebrews, must endure. The birds that hovered 
round the dead bodies signify the enemies with whom 
the Israelites had to contend, but whose power was 
broken by God's Providenoe, as Abraham droveaway 
the birds. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


**And when the sun was sei there arose a dark 
mist, and there appeared a smoking fumace, and a 
lamp of fire passing between those divisions." Gren. 
XV, 17. 

It shows a great anxiety on Col. IngersoII's part to 
make out a case when he casts riilicale on Abraham's 
dream or vision. This was not a part of the cere- 
mony performed by Abraham. However, from the 
fact tbat the vision is recorded we raay infer that it 
came from God f or Abraham's instruotion, and that 
its symbolism was revealed to him. 

The Septuagint records that this was a vision: 
ekstasis, verse 12. The smoking fumace implied the 
hardshipsof the Egyptian bondage, as in Deut, iv, 20. 
The lamp of fire sigriifies the power of God, as in 
Hebrews, xii, 29. 

It was the custom when a solemn compact was 
made, to pass between the divided parts of the vic- 
tim sacrificed and the contracting parties invoked 
upon themselves a similar death if they violated 
their contract. This custom is referred to in Jere- 
mias xxiv, 18. 

In the trial for jealousy, God constituted himself 

the judge, in order to excite horror for the crime of 

. conjugal infidelity. This is another proof of the in- 

justice of Colonel IngersoII's charge against the Sa- 

cred Scripture that it favors obscenity. 

It is quite unnecessary to enter into a defence of 
the use of a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers, and dishes in 
the ceremonial of the Jews. Everybody can see at a 
glance that these were articles needed for the deco- 
rum and cleanliness of public worship from the very 
nature of it as we have described it. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 




Similar to the objections against the oeremonies 
mentioned in the last ohapter, are Col. Ingersoll's re- 
marks on the treatment of those afflioted with lep- 

The Colonel represents the leper's treatment as a 
mere empty form, nnder pretence of cnring the dis- 
ease. (P. 236.) 

The priest was not anthorized to eure the leprosy. 
He was only to prononnce the eure eomplete. The 
medieal treatment was finished bef ore he was brought 
to the priest. Hence the ColonePs aeoount of the 
oase is a total misrepresentation. This is evident 
from the 3d verse of the 14th ehapter of Leviticus, 
the ehapter ref erred to by the Colonel. 

" When he (the priest) shall find that.the leprosy 
is eleansed, he shall eommand him that is to be puri- 
fied to offer f or himself two living sparrows," etc. 

The uncleanness here spoken of, from which the 
leper was cleansed was the legal uncleanness whioh 
was imposed partly f or the Separation of the leper 
from the people to prevent the contagion from s{jread- 
ing, and partly because the leprosy was regarded as a 
Symbol of sin, the leprosy of the soul. Tfie running 
water over which the birds that were offered were 
killed was more fit than stagnant or Standing water, 
because of its purity, to symbolize purification. For 
a similar reason the earthen vessel was used. This is 
the answer to the Coloners questions: ** Why should 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


thebirdbekilledinanear^A^nvessel? • • • Whyover 
running water ?** (P. 236.) 

AU the Jewish ceremonies had their mystical mean- 
ing. Of some, this meaning was not at once evideot, 
nevertheless each rite formed part of a grand whole 
which taken altogether made a magnificent cere- 
monial well calcalated to impress the beholder with 
that awe and reverence which he ought to f eel when 
brought more immediately into the Divine presence, by 
his participating in the rites which had been instituted 
as part of Divine Worship; and it became more im- 
pressive still as the symbolical meaning attached to 
each rite became known. The some remarks apply 
to the ceremonial of the Catholic Charch to-day. 

The following from "Jews* letters to Voltaire,^ 
will appropriately olose my remarks on the Jewish 

"Our ritual laws, then, which you look upon as 
whimsical, did not spring from caprice. They were 
positive laws, bat yet foanded in reason, and each 
had a particalar motive^althoagh the distance of so 
many ages preveüts as from knowing them alL" 

"Bat to these particalar motives a general one 
mast be added, which alone woald be safficient to 
jastify the wisdom of these extraordinary institations. 
They all tended to one common end worthy of a 
great legislator. This was to insare the daration of 
his people, and the parity of their worship against' 
all the revolations of time. For this parpose it was 
necessary to attach the Hebrews very strongly to 
their religion, and this he did most effectually by 
the multitade of observances which he laid on them« 
For as the aathor of the Spirit of Laws judicionsly 
says, ^A religion which is loaded with many rites 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


attaches men more strongly than one that has f ewer. 
The tbings which we are continually doing become 
vefy dear to us. * Hence,' he observes, * the tenacious 
obstinacy of the Jews.' This is a consideration truly 
philosophical which Moses had before him, and we 
are mach surprised that a man of your sagacity did 
not catch it." (P. 188.) 

It appears that Moses knew more of successf ul leg- 
islation than did Voltaire or Col. IngersoU. 

The next objection we have to encounter is the 
difficulty the Israeliten must have experienced in the 
desert of Sinai. 

*'Where were these people going? They were 
going to the desert of Sinai compared with which 
Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava tom 
by etorm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at 
by a Gorgon and changed instantly to stone. Such 
was the desert of SinaL All of the civilized nations 
of the world could not feed and^ support three mil- 
lions of people on the desert of Sinai f or forty years. ^ 
It would cost more than one hundred thousand mil- 
lions of dollars and would bankrupt Christendonu 
They had their flocks and herds, and the sheep were 
so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed at one time 
more than one hundred and fifty thousand first-bom 
lambs. How were these flocks supported? What 
did they eat ? There was no grass, no f orests. . . . 
To support these flocks millions of acres of pasture 
would have been required." (Pp. 210, 211.) 

Why this objection is raised, it is hard to say. We 
can understand that the Colonel should object to the 
possibility of the manna being f urnished by God, f or 
he denies all miracles, but as we have proved that 
Gk>d can perform miracles, and as it is attested that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the laraelities were supplied with manna by a miracle, 
there is no need of bankrupting Christianity by oall- 
ing npon it to f omish the Hebrews with food. Qod 
supplied it. 

BattheColonel says "it did not rainbaled hay *' for 
the flocks and herds. Where did you leam that the 
flooks were so very numerous? There is no such 
Statement in the Bible as that over one hnndred and 
fif ty thousand first-born lambs were sacrificed at one 
time. In Numl^ers ix, it is stated that sacrifice was 
oflfered, but there is no ref erence to the extent of the 
herds and flocks. It is natural to suppose that due 
attention would be paid to the extent of their flocks, 
and that the sacrifices would be in proportion to the 
ability of the people to make them. This would in 
the present case make them the more economicaL 

It is certain that the Israelites had flocks with them: 
but there is no reason to suppose that they were so 
extensive that they* could not be attended to, or that 
there were not sufficient pasture for them. Moses 
had spent forty years in Madian, in the neighborhood 
of Sinai, feeding the flocks of his father-in-law, 
Jethro, (Ex. iii, 1,) so that he knew perfecüy the 
resources of the country, and he certainly would not 
have permitted the Israelites to bring their herds 
and flocks if there were no food to be obtained for 
them; and neither Moses, nor any one of a later 
period, acquainted with the region, as the writer of 
the Pentateuch evidently was, (see chap. 29,) would 
have introduced into his history, even if it were a 
fiotion, circumstances which were incredible. 

Through the Sinaitic territory Vegetation exists to 
this day. There are shrubs and trees in the Valleys, 
and moisture is supplied by Springs of rain, so that 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ihere are places lovely in their verdure and fruitf ul- 
nessy amid the prevailing solitade and desolatlon: 
though the country is only inhabited by nomad 
tribes. The Sinaitic peninsnla was^ in the time of 
Moses, inhabited by Amalekites, Midianites, and 
other pastoral tribes, depending entirely on their 
flocks for Bubsistence. Certainiy, then, there must 
have been a sufficiency of pasture. The sweeping 
away of nnmerous forests by fire has contribated to 
make the land more sterile, and the many centnries 
that have passed since any care was bestowed upon it 
have lef t it to thQ mercy of the drifting sands and 
the violence of winter torrents. The. same causes 
which have tumed Palestine into a bleak desert, 
thongh it was a land **flowing with milk and honey," 
have operated to make the Sinaitic desert more bleak 
and desolate than it was originally. At all events, 
'^he that tumed the rock into a standing water, the 
flint into a f onntain of waters " (Ps. cxiii, 8. l^rot. 
Bible, cxiv,) could also have caused grass to spring 
from the earth. The manna was accompanied with 
dew. That dew nndonbtedly contribated very mnch 
towards fertilizing the earth. (Num. xi, 9.) 

Colonel IngersoU makes a serious mistake when 
he says the Pasohal lamb must be the first-bom. 
The command is that it should be ** a lamb without 
blemish, a male of one year." (Ex. xii, 6.) 

Another misrepresentation is made on page 227: 
" God commanded the Jews when they were upon 
the desert of Sinai to plant trees, telling them they 
must not eat any of the fruit of such trees until after 
the fourth year. Trees could not have been planted 
in that desert, and if they bad been they could not 
have lived." 


Digitized by VjOOQIC 


These direotions were given f or the time ^^ When 
yon shall be come into the (promieed) land:" that 
is into Palestine, not f or while they were in the desert. 
(Lev. xix, 23.) 

Then the Colonel asks: 

*^ Why did 6od teil Moses while in the desert to 
make cartains of fine linen? Where could he have 
obtained his flax ? There was no land npon which it 
conld have been produced. Whj did he teil him to 
make things of gold and silver and precioos stones 
when they could not have been in possession of these 
things ? There is bnt one answer, and that is, the 
Pentatench was written hundreds of years after the 
Jews had settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of 
years after Moses was dust and ashes." (P. 228.) 

There is another and a more solid answer. Does 
Colonel Ingersoll forget that '^the children of Israel 
asked of the Egyptians vessels of silver and gold, and 
very muoh raiment; and • • • • that they lent nnto 
them, and they stripped the Egyptians"? (Ex. xii, 
86, 86: xi, 2, 8.) 

The Israelites, tbereforcfj had abundance of these 
things with them. They received but what was dne 
to them f or unrequited labor. 

The Colonel says: 

" When the Jews were upon the desert it was com- 
manded that every mother should bring as a sin offer- 
ing a couple of doves to the priests, and the priests 
were compelled to eat these doves in the most holy 

place There were three million people, and 

only three priests, Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar. . . . 
There would be at least three hundred births a day. 
Certainly we are not expected to believe that these 
three priests devoured six hundred pigeons every 
twenty-fohr bours." (P. 230.) 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


This sacrifice and other offerings, like the rite of 
circamcision, were instituted for the permanent rule 
of the Je WS, but in the desert these rites were sus- 
pended, Like the rite of circumcision, they were not 
practised until they reached the promised land. Thus 
circumcision, even, was not practised. (Josh. v, 6.) 
Neither were the ceremonies of the feast of taber- 
nacles, as prescribed in Lev. xxiii, 39, 44. In fact 
these ceremonies were impossible in the desert. As 
to the priests eating the doves " in the holy place," 
this is a pure fabrication of the Colonel, or rather of 
other infidels bef ore bim. The law of purification is 
given in Lev. xii. • The doves "were delivered tothe 
priest," (verses 6, 8), but there is not a word of the 
priest being obliged to eat them, either in the holy 
place or elsewhere. 

"Why should a mother ask pardon of God for 
having been a mother ? Why should that be consid- 
ered a crime in Exodus which is commanded in 
Genesis? .... These laws should be regarded 
simply as the mistakesof savages." (Pp. 230, 231.) 

You ref er us for this to the twelfth chapter of 
Leviticus. Haye you not a made a sad blunder, 
Colonel? Leviticus is not Exodus. 

You have also quite mistaken the meaning of the 
law of Purification. There is no crime attributed to 
the mother for being a mother, nor was the law ever 
so regarded by the Jews. The law of purification 
imposed merely a legal uncleanness, founded on 
physiological grounds, and the small offering was 
required f rom the mother as an acknowledgment of 
God's supreme dominion over all his creatures and of 
our total dependenoe on bim. 

Ton say *^I cannot believe that Moses had in his 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


hands a ooaple of tables of stone upon wbich Gk>d 
had written the ten commandmentSy and that wben 
he saw the golden calf, and the dancing, tjiat he 
dashed the tables to the earth and broke them to 
pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a 
golden calf y barnt it, ground it to powder and madethe 
people drink it with water as related in the thirty- 
second chapter of Exodus.*' (P. 232.) 

Yonr refasal to believe does not make the history 
impossible or incredible. We have proved that it 
is related by a trathf nl historian, and yonr nnreason- 
able incredolity ^ill not render it antruthfol or 

Voltaire asserted that ^Hhe most leamed chemistry 
could not reduce gold into potable powder." You 
probably intend the public to believe that this is the 
case. I cannot otherwise account f or your Suggestion 
that there is an absurdity in the Statement. , 

The chemist Mr. Stahl, and others, give a method 
whereby gold can be reduced to a " hepar," which, 
taken in water, is of ** disagreeable taste, very like 
that of brimstone powder." His method is: 

" Melt in a crucible three parts of salt of tartar and 
two parts of saltpetre. Throw in one part of gold 
and it will dissolve perfectly." 

This hepar in water being of disagreeable taste, 
w;o^ld be an appropriate means of punishing the idol- 
aters. Learned chemists have also shown that natrofiy 
a nüneral found near the Nile, produces a like effect. 

The Colonel next states that there is "another 
account of the giving of the ten commandnients " in 
Exodus, nineteenth and twentieth chapters. (P. 282.) 
He adds: "Both accounts cannot be true." 

This so-called '^other account" is merely the be- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


ginning of the historj of which Exodus xxxii is tbe 
conclusion. This is evident frorn Ex. xxxi, 18. 

" Whei^ the Lord had ended these words in Mount 
Sinai, he gave to Moses two stone tables of testimony 
written with the finger ot Glod." The command- 
ments were first spoken orally by God, as related in 
Exodus xix, XX : then other ordinances were given, 
after which occurred the events related in cbapters 
xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv. 

There is evidently no contradiction here. 

The Colonel next accuses God of "cruelty and 
injustice for inflicting penalties for the violation" of 
his laws, before the laws were published. (P. 233.) 

The laws were published (Ex. xixj xx,) and after- 
wards they were violated. (Ex, xxxii.) Then the 
punishment was inflicted. The Colonel has therefore 
invented a grievance where there was none. 

Independently of this, the whole tenor of the his- 
tory shows that the Hebrews had their laws even be- 
fore the ßevelation made through Moses. This is 
evident from Genesis xxxviii: so that" punishment 
might even have been inflicted under their earlier 

The Colonel expresses greät sympathy with the 
Jews inasmuch as God was cruel to them, and that 
he was "always promising but never performing." 
(Pp. 237 to 239.) He also says that God did not keep 
His promises made to Abraham. "He solemnly 
promised to give him a great country, including all 
the land between the river of Egypt and the Eu- 
phrates, but he did not." (F. 183.) 

God's promise to Abraham was expressly made to 
be f ulfilled in his posterity, and in them it was strictly 
fnlfilled. "That day God made a covenant with 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


Abram saying: To thy bbkd will I give this land 
from the river of Egypt even to the great river 
Euphrates." (Genesis xv, 18.) The promises to the 
Israelites were made to the nation, and were f alfiUed 
to the nation. His promise, "I am the Lord who will 
bring you from the work-prison of the Egyptians, 
and will deliver you from bondage etc.," (Ex. vL 6,) 
was f ulfilled to the then existing generation» besides 
other promises made. The promise to lead them into 
the land of Ganaan was f ulfilled only to the next gene- 
ration, but this was because the former generation did 
not f ulfil their part of the covenant. The promises 
were f ulfilled faithfully as they were made. The 
promises which were conditional were f ulfilled when 
the conditions were observed. It is a misrepresent- 
ation therefore to say that God broke his promises. 

We are told that *'In the world of soience, Jehoyah 
was superseded by CopemicuSi Galileo and Kepler.** 
(P. 242.) 

None more strenuously than the three great astro- 
nomers named would repudiate the thought of "super- 
seding Jehovah." They were all believers in God and 
His Revelation. 

" All that God told Moses, admitting the entire ac- 
count to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the 
discoveries of Des Cartes, La Place and Humboldt* 
In matters of f act the bible had ceased to be regarded 
as a Standard. Science had succeeded in breaking 
the chains of theology." (P. 242.) 

Armjoer. As Natural Science has f or its objeot the 
knowledge of nature, of which God is the author, 
Science is cer^iainly good, and Christianity has not a 
word to say against it. But the truths which Natural 
Science reveals to us f orms but part of the great body 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


of tratk requisite for us to know. The most import- 
ant scienoe is the science which relates to 6od and to 
cur salvation. The science of the things which re- 
late to Qod, or Theology, concerns our everlasting wel- 
fare, whereas all others concern only this world. 
Natural science can, therefore, never supersede Theo- 
logy. One trath cannot be opposed to another. 
Mathematics cannot ref ute historical trath. Neither 
oan Natnral Science ref ate Theology. 



In the last ohapter of the so-called' ^'Mistakes of 
Moses," the aathor groups together a large number of 
objections, mere assertions withoat a particle of 
proof . Sarely CoL IngersoU is the one whose apothegm 
is " Believe and obey: if you reason, you will be ex- 
dnded from the philosopher's paradise." Compare 
''Mistiges of Moses.'' (P. 53.) 

Many of the objections of that ohapter have been 
answered in the coorse of this work. We may now 
prooeed to oonsider the others. 

It is first asaerted that many doctrines of the Pen- 
tateaoh were taaght among the heathens. (P. 262.) 
We already proved conclasively that this woald not 
in the least lower the authority of the Pentateuch. 
It would only show that Pagans preserved parts of 
the original teachings of 6od to man : while the Penta- 
teuch alone preserves these doctrines in tbeir entirety. 



3eside8 among Pagan nations sach doctrines are bat 
as grains of gold in a mountaiii of dross. 

The superiority of Natural ScieDoe over religion is 
next insisted on. (P. 263.) 

We all know that Natural Science has notbing to 
do with Morality. We have already sbown in chap- 
ter that it has failed wofally in teaching Morality 
to man. 

The Superiority of Poetic writers is the ColonePs 
next theme. (P. 264.) 

Are the works of Shakespeare, Burns, Byron, Goe- 
the, Schiller, etc. to become the only moral teachers 
of mankind? Surely but one ans wer can be given by 
the good sense of the Community: an indignant nega- 

He nextenumer^tes evil doctrines which he declares 
are taught in the Bible. (Pp. 264, 265.) We have 
already proyed that he is a slanderer. (Chapter 47.) 

He objects that the Bible teaches that the sons of 
6od married the daughters of men. 

It is a Hebrew idiom to qualify that which isstrong 
greatand excellent as of 6od. Thus Psalms lxxix,'ll: 
Prot. Bible Psalms Ixxx: ^Cedars of Ood; that is the 
highcst cedars: Lexicon of Oesenins JEL' Cornelias a 
Lapide on Gen. vi, 2, 4. Hence itis the general opin- 
ion of theologians that the sons of Seth, of peculiar 
virtue are here meant and that they married tbe 
daughters of Cain. 

" The origin of the rainbow is a f oolish f anoy ** 
according to the. Colonel. (P. 265.) 

Has the rainbow, then, no origin? Is there no 
cause for this grand phenomenon? 

Perbaps, however, ypu mean to say that the Bible 
gives ah absurd origin for the rainbow. A writer 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


wkose boast it is that you ^^ooald write a better 
book'' than Moses did, should be able to teil what 
you mean. (See Lecture on Skulls.) 

God says: "I will set my bow in the clouds, and 
it shall be the sign of a covenant between me and 
between the earth." (Gen. ix, 13.) 

We mast remember that this passage is a transla- 
tion from another langaage. The translator gives 
the sense, retaining as far as possible the original 
Idiom. If a difficulty appears in translation, it will 
freqaently be dissipated if we. Interpret it by means 
of the original. We find that one of the meanings 
of nathan is to constitate, and if this sense be given 
to the Word here, we find a beautif ul meaning given 
to the whole passage; God constüutes His bow, to be 
a sign of the covenant between Hirn änd man. It 
had existed previously, bat it is now made the sign 
of His peace with the human race. Col. IngersoU's 
commentary (p. 164) is, therefore, as absurd as it is 
ridiculous: ^^Did God put it in the cloud siniply to 
keep his agreement in His memory ? " 

We are next told: "Methusaleh did not live 969 

The great age of the antediluvian patriarehs is 
attested by a reliable witness, as we have proved in 
cbapter 30. Col. IngersoU surely has no more reli- 
able source of Information. There is, therefore, no 
credit to be given to his assertion. The long ages of 
the patriarphs and their ten generations, precisely, 
are attested also by the Egyptian, Phoenician, Chal- 
dean and Greek traditions. Undoubtedly, also by 
the Hebrews the same tradition was held bef ore the 
time of Moses. There is, therefore, sufficient evi- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


dence of tbe bistorioal fact, and Colonel IngersoU's 
denial of it is of no weight. 

The Colonel objects to belief in Pbaraob's dreams. 
He does not give a Single reason to sbow tbat God 
may not by means of a dream send knowledge of an 
event. Dreams are not usually to be credited; but 
wben Gk>d wishes to make a Bevelation by this 
meanSy He will nndoubtedly also sapply means by 
wbich it will be certainly known that the Bevelation 
is f rom Him. 

He objects tbat '^ widows were commanded to spit 
in the f aces of their brothers-in-law." (Num. xxvi, 9.) 

Wben we consider that this was only done wben 
the brother-in-law ref ased to give the widow her just 
dne in aecordance with the law, it will be acknowl- 
edged that the panishment was not excessive. 

Some of the Jews, however, maintain that " in the 
face ^ merely means " in the presence " of the brother-^ 

The next difficalty is that in Lev. xi, 6, the bare is 
pronounced anclean, '* becaase it cheweth the cud." 

Zoology as a science was not studied in the time of 
Moses as it is J^o-day, and tbe scientific Classification 
of animals was not made. Hence the words of Moses 
'4t cheweth the cad," mahaleh gerah mast be taken 
in the sense in wbich they were used inr Winary con- 
versation, not in the modern scientific sense. A cer- 
tain moscalar motion wbich is habitaal with bares 
was commonly considered as tbe chewing of the cud, 
and was so named, and f or this reason it is said that 
the bare *^ cheweth the cad." 

There are, however, some Natoralists who assert 
still that the bare is a cud-chewing animaL Valmont 
de Bomare in bis "Dictionary of Natural History," 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


says so positively. This author would scarcely have 
made so positive an assertion if there were not some 
good reasons for so believing. Howeyer, it mast be 
conf essed that this is not the opinion of Naturalists 

The Colonel says there ** are no f our-f ooted birds.'* 
(P. 268.) 

In Leviticas xi, 20, we read: 

" Of things that fly, whatsoever goeth upon f onr 
f eet shall be abominable to you." Call them birds if 
you will: the original has things that fly. 

The wings of the bat are f ormed by a membrane 
stretehed on the fingers and arms or f ore-f eet of the 
bat: so that the bat corresponds perfectly to the un- 
clean animal described in Leviticas. So universal a 
genius as Col. IngersoU should have thonght of this« 
The colugo and the flying phalanger may likewise be 
inclnded under the description given in Leviticus. 

We are next told "one who frightens savages with 
loud noises is unworthy the love ©f civilized men." 

I would say, f righten off the savages the best way 
you can. 

Many of the remaining objections are mere distor* 
tions of the text. To evade detection in this, the 
Colonel takes care to give no references. This will 
not avail him. He says that aceording to the Penta- 
teuch, "God was afraid of wild beasts." (F. 267.) 

There is certainly no such Statement in the Penta- 
teuch. God declares that he will not drive out the 
Canaanite f rom the promised land immediately, " lest 
the beasts multiply against thee" (Ex. xxiii, 20,) but 
there is nothing like what Col. IngersoU asserts. How 
could it be that Gk>d should be afraid of the beasts, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


whereas he says, ''All the beasts of the woods are 
mine." (Ps. xlix, 10; Prot. Bible, Ps. 1.) 

The Colonel says: "If God objected to dwarfs, 
people with flat noses, and too many fingers, he ought 
not to have created such f olks. . . . physical deform- 
ity is a crime.** (P. 269.) 

There is no reproach against deformed persona in 
the Bible; but for the greater outward reverence in 
the divine worship, those whose deformities are very 
marked are not admitted to the priesthood. (Lev. 
xxi, 20.) 

He says: Qod "objected to the raising of horses." 

This is anothev falsification. God merely lays 
down the law tbat when, at some f uture time, there 
shall be a king in Israel, ''he shall not multiply 
horsesto himself " to take a pride^herein, and to push 
his kingdom by unjust conquest. (Deut, xvii, 16.) 

We are told that God " was kept f rom killjng the 
Jews by the fear that the Egjptians would laugh at 

This is a gloss for which tbere is no foundation. 
It is God's will to be moved by prayer. The true 
reason for this we can only conjecture. It seems to 
be because our earnestness of desire is commensurate 
with the earnestness of our supplications. At all 
events, Moses prays for his people, and averts Gpd's 
Indignation. Moses uses in his prayer the language 
that if " God should kill in his anger so great a mul- 
titude, the Egyptians will say, ' He could not bring 
the people into the land for which he had swora: 
therefore did He kill them in the wilderness.'" 
(Num. xiv, 16, 16.) 

God yields to the prayer of Moses, and modifies the 
pnnishment which the people had firought upon them- 

Dlgitized by VjOOQIC 


selves by their stiff-neckedness. It is not stated that 
he was moved especially by the motive that Moses 
had put forward. This is a pure invention of Col. 

The assertion that Ood ^'wants the blood of doves 
and lambs" and "the smell of burning flesh," is a 
mere play upon words. We already explained in 
what way God is plcased with sacrifice. It is be- 
cause it is the outward expression of our belief that 
God is the Master of allthings, and that wearetotally 
dcpendent on Hirn. HE does aot need that we should 
make this acknowledgment, but we need God, and 
therefore WE need to acknowledge his Snpreme Do- 

The Colonel next finds fault with God for believ- 
ing " in witches, wizards, spooks and devils.** The 
** spooks "^are a fabrication of the ColoneL Undoubt- 
edly the Scripture does insist upon the existence of, 
spiritSy and this is qnite conformable with reason. 
The devils are spirits whohaveabused their free-will, 
and have therefore brought upon themselves deserved 
punishment. Once we admit the existence of these 
evil spirits, there is certainly no absurdity in beliey- 
ing that there are persons who have oommunication 
with them. Col. Ingersoll has not attempted to 
prove that it is absurd. Christians, however, do not 
believe in witches, wizards, spooks and devils. To 
believe in them is to accept their doctrines, and to 
put one's trust in thenL Christians believe that they 
exist, but it is reserved to infidels to believe in them. 
It seems to be part of the mission of the infidel organ 
of America, the THuh-Seeker^ to propagate belief in 
witches and wizards, (spiritoal mediums,) and in 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


To answer CoL IngersoU bas not been my main ob- 
jeot in this work. It was my chief ahn to f omisb to 
the general reader some piain yet conclasive reasons 
for bis belief in Bevelation, and especially in Cbris- 
tianity. In establishing Christianity, it oame natu- 
rally into my plan tbat I shoald answer sacb objec- 
tions as are usaally made against the Holy Scrip- 
tures. In doing this I have made free nse of the 
works of Voltaire, Paine and other infidels: and as 
Col. IngersoU has of late years made himself con- 
spicuous in the United States and Canada by bis at- 
tacks apon the Christian Religion, I have thougbt it 
advisable to answer especially tbat one amongst bis 
works which, I believe, bas bad the greatest circula- 
tion. I coald not, of coorse, qaote bis entire book in 
a limited work like the present, but I have taken 
especial care to State bis arguments in their fall f orce, 
and, in nearly every qase, in bis own words. Some- 
times I have been obliged to condense, bat in doing 
so I have taken care not to pat f orward bis argaments 
in a weaker form than tbat in whiob they are put f or- 
ward by himself. 

I flatter myself tbat I have answered all bis objeo- 
tions in sach a way tbat their f allacy is evident. If I 
have failed in anything the def ect is in my advocacy, 
and not in the caase I have sustained. 

Notwithstanding the ColonePs gross attacks apon 
the Christian clergy, I have endeavored to treat my 
adversary with all courtesy. My desire was to re- 
fate bis reasoning witbout personalities against the 

The Holy Scriptures, comprising as they do ffis- 
tory, Jurisprudence, Propheoy, Dogma and Morals, 
have many points of contact with the Sciences. If 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


they were tbe work of impostors, writing, as infidels 
pretend, hnndreds of years af ter the dates to which 
they Claim to belong, there would be palpable intrin- 
Bio evidenoes of tbe f raad. They would not be able 
to stand the rigid scrutiny to wbicb they have been 
subjected: but they endure every test witbout scath. 
There are, of ooarse, otber objeetions against the 
Saored ScriptoreSy besides those which have been an- 
swered here, bat we may assore oarselves that if we 
are unablc to ref ate them, when we hear them pro- 
posedy it is because we are not aware of all the cir- 
oümstanoes relating to the sabject. Sometimes the 
difficalty we experience may arise from inadequate 
knowledge of the original language in which they 
were written, sometimes from oar not knowing saffi- 
ciently the history of the period to which they relate, 
sometimes from erroneous notions of morals or doc- 
trine -which we may have acquired, or from some 
similar cause. Our inability to answer such objeetions 
should not be allowed to weaken our faith; for we 
have sufficient evidence to convince us that the Holy 
Scriptures contain the doctrine which Gk)d Himself 
has delivered to man. In studying the sciences we 
are ready to accept the observations of men of 
leaming and experience. We must not hesitate, 
therefore, to accept with implicit confidence ihe 
Word of 6od who cannot deceive nor be deoeived. 
" We know that his testimony is true:" and "If we 
receive the testimony of men, the testimony of Gk>d 
is greaten" (1 Jno. v. 9.) 

In conclusion, I desire to express my thankfuh^ess 
to f riends who have given me access to their libraries, 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


or otherwise encoaraged me to the writing of this 
work. Especially I return thanks to the Rev. P. Cor- 
coran, P. P., of Parkhill, Ont., {qt valuable sugges- 
tions and other encoaragement given to me daring 
its progress. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 

Digitizedby Google "ß