^
L
LIBR
f
MISTAKES
OP
MODERN INFIDELS
OB
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY,
COMPRISING A COMPLETE REFUTATION OP COLONEL INGERSOLL S
SO-CALLED MISTAKES OF MOSES, AND OP OBJECTIONS
OP YOLTAIUE, PALVE, AND OTHERS
AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.
BY REV. GEORGE R. NORTHGRAVES,
DIOCESE OF LONDON, OCT., CANADA.
God having spoken on divers occasions, and many ways, in
times past, to the fathers by the prophets: last of all, in these
days, hath spoken to us, by His Son. St. Paul to the Hebrews, i, 1, 2.
DETROIT:
FEEE PRESS PRINTING HOUSE.
1886,
Kntered according to Act of Congress in the year 1885,
BY REV. GEORGE R. NORTHGRAVES,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
NOV 1 81953
DEDICATION.
TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND JOHN WALSH, D. D.,
BISHOP OF LONDON, ONT., CANADA
THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY PERMISSION,
AS A TESTIMONY OF THE HIGH ESTEEM, AFFEC
TION AND VENERATION ENTERTAINED
FOR HIM BY
THE AUTHOR.
LETTER OF APPROBATION
FROM THE RIGHT REVEREND JOHN WALSH, D.D ,
BISHOP OF LONDON, ONT., CANADA.
LONDON, Canada, Dec. 29th, 1884.
Rev. G. E. Norihgraves,
REVEEEND AND DEAR SIR:
I am glad to know that you have prepared a work
in reply to Ingersoll s "Mistakes of .Moses," and that
it is now ready for publication.
Judging by your known ability and ripe scholar
ship, I am satisfied that your work will be a thorough
and triumphant refutation of the misleading sophisms
and specious but superficial objections of the infidel
school against the truth of the Christian Religion.
This Religion is the most priceless treasure 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 wounds and corruptions
of the heart. It is our pillar of cloud by day, our
pillar of fire by night protecting us from the enemies
of our salvation and guiding our footsteps through
the desert of life towards the promised land. There
is no dark problem of life which it has not solved,
there are no anxious questionings of the soul for which
6 LEXT-EK OF AITKOBATION.
it has not the most satisfactory answers. Into every
Gethsemane of human grief and agony it has entered
as an angel of consolation. Veronica like, it has wiped
the blood and tears and sweat from the face of suffer
ing humanity. It has cared for the poor, it has fed
the hungry, it has clothed the naked, it has visited
and consoled the sick, it has sanctified and sublimated
human sorrow, it has brought hope and comfort into
the darkness of the dungeon, it has freed the slave,
it has ennobled and dignified labor, in fine, it found the
human race tattered and torn and bleeding by the
way-side of the world and like the good Samaritan it
lias taken it up in its protecting arms, has poured wine
and oil into its wounds and has restored it to health
and strength.
Those therefore who attack the Christian Religion
and strive to weaken its hold on the human intellect
and heart are the worst enemies of man s highest
interests are in fact " hostes humani generis"
Now what do the modern apostles of infidelity pro
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. Can such
husks of swine feed the hungry soul or satisfy the
infinite longings and cravings of the human heart?
Can such things make life tolerable or worth living?
Can they reconcile the poor, the sick and the suffering
to their hard lot ? Can they 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 Providence is to incur
one of the most serious and striking losses which are
LBTTEB OF APPROBATION. 7
involved in a rejection of Christian and ecclesiastical
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 crash 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
security, not for a single moment that the wheels in
some unforeseen movement may not lay hold of him
and tear him asunder that some fall of a hammer may
not smash him to atoms in its descent. The sensa
tion of being abandoned, and at the mercy of some
thing else something which no prayer can reach
is terrible indeed! Such is the world which the
gospel of infidelity and despair would 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 blessed and
sanctified by Christianity which presents to us the
Eternal God as our Father and Protector, Jesus Christ
as our Redeemer and Saviour, which preaches us an
Evangel of immortal hopes, which teaches us that this
life is but the threshold of an immortal life, is but the
passage to an eternal kingdom of happiness, where the
poor shall be made rich, where the weak shall become
strong, where the aged and decrepit shall renew their
youth like the eagle, where the harsh inequalities and
terrible hardships of our temporal state must for ever
cease, where the man of toil shall rest from his labors,
where in fine, " God shall wipe away all tears from
their eyes and death shall be no more, nor mourning,
nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more for the
former things shall have passed away." (Apocalypse,
8 LETTER OF APPROBATION.
xxi, 4.) In view of the momentous issues involved in
the questions raised by the infidel school, in view of
the nearest and dearest interests of individual man
and of society attacked and imperilled by the agents
of unbelief a work like yours which exposes the
sophisms 1 of the aforesaid school, which confutes its
errors which thoroughly refutes and pulverizes its
objections and which triumphantly defends the out
works and the fortress 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 from all who love " the faith once
delivered to the saints."
Wishing you every blessing,
I am, Reverend and dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
JOHN WALSH,
Bishop of London.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Letter of Approbation from Rt. Rev. Bishop Walsh 5
Introduction 11
CHAPTER.
1. Liberty and License. Free- Will. Col. Ingersoll s
Inconsistencies 13
2. Religious and Political Liberty. Col. Ingersoll s
Sneers at the Clergy. Indifferentism 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 56
7. Creation and Providence 61
8. Necessity of Revelation. Insufficiency of Unaided
Reason. Spirituality and Immortality of the Soul, 72
9. Necessity of Revelation, Results of Unaided Rea
son. Degrading Rites of Paganism. Human Sac
rifices. Extermination of the Canaanites 78
10. Necessity of Revelation. Results of Infidelity : 91
11. Mysteries in Religion , 94
12. Possibility of Revelation. Immediate and Mediate
Revelation. Historical Certitude 100
13. Miracles 108
14. Prophecy 115
15. The Fact of Revelation 122
16. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch.
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 Integrity of the Pentateuch. Testi
mony of the Later Scriptures. Pagan Testimony, 145
19. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. Ob
jections of Messrs. Paine 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 Evidence of its Language, continued 175
23. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. Testi
mony of History. Events in Joseph s Life 181
24. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. The
Testimony of History, continued 189
25. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. The
Bondage in Egypt 195
9
10 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER. PAGE
26. Authenticity and Integrity of the Pentateuch. 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
30. Truth of the Pentateuch. Proofs of the Sincerity of
Moses 234
31. Truth of the Pentateuch. Continued 240
32. The Truth of Genesis. Moses not Deceived, nor a
Deceiver. His Sources of Information 246
33. The Truth of Genesis. Testimony of Pagan Tra
ditions 252
34. The New Testament. Its Authenticity and Truth.
Christianity a Divine Religion 260
35. Objections Refuted. Creation. The Firmament.
Heaven 268
36. Objections Refuted. The Creation 275
37. Objections Refuted. The Creation of Plants and
Animals. The Sun Standing Still. Chinese As
tronomy 286
38. Objections Refuted. Astronomy. God not Respon
sible for the Sins and Errors of Men 294
39. 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 308
41. The Sabbath. Account of Creation Consistent.
Origin of Man. Christian Morality 317
42. The Garden of Eden. Immortality of the Soul 329
43. The Fall of Man 336
44. The Deluge. Its Possibility. The Gathering of the
Animals 341
45. Capacity of Noah s Ark. Pagan Traditions of the
Deluge. Colonel Ingersoll s Blum^rs. The Tes
timony of Geology 348
46. The Origin of Language. Babel. Evidences of One
Original Tongue 358
47. Christian vs. Infidel Morality: Polygamy: Divorce:
Free- Love 373
48. Increase of the Israelites in Egypt. The Tribe of
Dan. The Number of First- Born Males 380
49. The Flight from Egypt. The Manna. Refutation
of Miscellaneous Objections. Religious Ceremo
nies 894
50. Miscellaneous Objections Refuted.- Ritual Laws.
Flocks and Herds in the Desert 405
51. Miscellaneous Objections Refuted. Conclusion 415
INTRODUCTION.
THE works of many noted skeptics have of late
years attracted greatly the attention of the public in
America, especially those of Thomas Paine and Col.
Robert Gr. Ingersoll. Many answers to their argu
ments have also been published, some of which are
very able, and others rather feeble. Especially has the
latter writer been already severely handled by such
able polemics as Judge 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 his book " Some Mistakes of
Moses," published in Washington, 1879, which, over
his own signature, he declares to be "the only correct
edition" of this work. I have long been of opinion
that the public are, at present, in need of a hand-book
which will answer the most mischievous of modern
skeptics objections against the TRUTH and INSPIRA
TION of Holy Scripture, and will at the same time
furnish a reliable synopsis of the arguments whereby
these attributes of Scripture can be maintained.
Believers in Christianity who become familiar 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
11
12 INTRODUCTION.
of the arguments by which Infidels uphold their
cause.
It could not be expected that, within the limits of
a small book like this, all the proofs of the Truth of
the Bible should be compressed. Nevertheless, I
hope and believe that enough will be found to con
firm the faith of many readers, and to answer at least
all that Colonel Ingersoll has advanced to impugn 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 sixteen 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 useful to answer the objections of Celsus,
Porphyry, and Julian, the Apostate. When Infidel
objections against 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 sincere
Christians to find that tb<fi objections so pertinaciously
raised by enemies of Religion are capable of being
satisfactorily refuted.
MISTAKES OF MODEM INFIDELS.
CHAPTER I.
LIBERTY AND LICENSE. FREE-WILL. COLONEL
INGERSOLL S INCONSISTENCIES.
COL. INGERSOLL so mixes up the subjects which he
treats, that I find it almost impossible to follow him
chapter by chapter without weakening the 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, though I may have to bring together
portions of his work which are scores of pages apart.
The main object of Mr. Ingersoll s attack on Moses
is professedly to proclaim liberty to Men, liberty to
his Country, to the Clergy, to the Schools, even to the
Politicians. This theme occupies the first four chap
ters of his work, and in a free country such as both he
and I live in, it is certainly a plausible pretext to
present before an audience which must be predisposed
to listen to anything said in favor of that boon which
they have so long and so satisfactorily enjoyed, par
ticularly when its praises are uttered in the choice
language which the Colonel knows so well how to
employ.
But may not the term liberty or freedom be used as a
cloak for license, or immunity from law ? It has often
been so used; and thus when the talented and intrepid
14 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
Madame Roland was led to the scaffold in the name
of Liberty, it is well known how she apostrophized
the Statue of the Goddess of Liberty, near which
the scaffold was erected:
"O Liberty! what comes are committed in thy
name."
We must therefore carefully distinguish between
that desirable liberty which is the birthright of man,
and that license, that freedom from lawful 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 :
1st, if the acts of our 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 our will is not
controlled by an extrinsic force. The members of
our body may be acted upon by such a force so that
the inclination of our will be not obeyed by them,
but the inclination 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 words.
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
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 15
be vain to ^Inact 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 censure, rewards or punishment. These conse
quences of Fatalism and Materialism are repudiated
by all mankind: for every one feels in himself his
freedom of will, and knows when he exercises it.
We are fully conscious that certain acts which we
have done are the result of our choice, and if the re
sult has been beneficial we resolve to act again in the
same way. If the Result has not been according to
our desire, we propose to act differently in future.
Every human being possesses the inward conscious
ness of Free-will. We know by our inward conscious
ness ihstt we exist, thiuk, judge, feel, love, hate, will,
rejoice, and grieve. By the same inward conscious
ness we know that by some power existing in us,
and coming from 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 doubtful, there can be no certitude whatever.
This principle within us possesses, therefore, a true
activity and is the 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. Ingersoll declares
to be so desirable. Yet with strange inconsistency
the Colonel endeavors to excite horror and indigna*-
16 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
9
tion against God for having bequeathea this liberty
to man! He arraigns Almighty God for having con
ferred upon His creatures that liberty concerning
which he himself says " until the clergy are free they
cannot be intellectually honest." (P. 24.)
God made man capable of knowing and serving Him
on earth, or of repudiating and disobeying Him. 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 virtuous are
augmented.
"He that could 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 should 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 who 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 abus.
Hence Col. Ingersoll s interrogatories from page 140
to 143 are as absurd as they are irreverent. I cull
from them the following:
" Of course God knew when he made man, that he
would afterwards regret it. He knew that the people
would grow worse and worse, until destruction would
bfe the only remedy. He knew that he would have
MISTAKES OF MODERN 1NFIDKLS. 17
to kill all except Noah and his family Why did
he fill the world with his 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 that Mr. Ingersoll grossly misrepresents
the case when he asserts that God filled the w r orld
with fiends. God made man sinless, and for a noble
purpose, for an end more sublime than all his other
creatures, angels excepted, and he gave to man, even
after the original fall, all the graces needed to enable
him to persevere in virtue. Man s own perversity
was the cause of his fall.
Such is the Christian theory, which Col. Ingersoll
should have refuted if he desired to overthrow Chris
tianity; but instead of this he sets up a man of straw
of his own manufacture, and he amuses himself by
pulling it to pieces.
The next conundrum which he puts forward so
pompously (page 142), is therefore for himself to
answer:
" What right has a man to charge an infinite being
with wickedness and folly ?"
Surely he who does this is guilty himself of wick
edness and folly, blasphemy and presumption. I
leave to a discerning public to decide whether Mr.
Ingersoll has not left himself open to the charge.
The Christian does not.
We have seen, as a specimen of the Colonel s in
consistencies, that he regards liberty as the basis of
18 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
honesty, yet he arraigns our Creator for having im
parted it to man. A third position which he takes
is irreconcilable with either of the others. He
maintains that God did not create the world. The
universe is the result of the operation of natural
causes.
" The statement that in the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth, I cannot accept. It is
contrary to my reason, and I cannot believe it.
To conceive of matter without force,
or of force without matter, or of a time when neither
existed, or of a being who existed for an eternity
without either, and who out of nothing created both,
7 O 7
is to me utterly impossible." (P. 60.)
It is therefore clear that the Colonel believes only
in the existence of matter, which is the only prin
ciple of force. Our souls, therefore, if we have souls,
are merely organized matter, according to him.
This is stated in another form on page 86, where
he puts the doctrine of Evolution among the demon
strated results of scientific investigation. On page
88 he is somewhat more moderate, as the same doc
trine is merely put forward as the more probable
opinion. On page 57, however, he endeavors to
prove Creation absurd, and on page 85 he declares
that life was evolved from monad up to man during
millions of ages.
What are these monads ? They are supposed to
be the ultimate atoms, the primary constituents of
matter. Following up the Colonel s theory, by their
agglomeration, man must have been evolved. But
have these monads the faculty of choice ? Have
they Free-will ? A mountain of granite has also been
formed from monads, and the ultimate constituents
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 19
of a steam-engine are monads also- Does Colonel
Ingersoll claim intellectual freedom for these ? The
truth 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 his treatise on liberty,
the Colonel appears somewhat as Junius is described
by Byrtyi in his "Vision of Judgment." I make a
slight alteration to suit the application :
"The moment that you had pronounced him one,
Presto! his face is changed, and he was another;
And when that change was hardly well put on,
It varied till I don t think his own mother
(If that he had a mother) would her son
Have known, he shifted so from one 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 till now for fear *
Of doing people harm. . . .
It is my gentle public, lend thine ear!
Tis that what Ingersoll we are wont to call
Was really, truly, nobody at all.
It is evident from the reasons we have given that
the soul of man possesses Free-will. This doctrine is
inculcated by Christianity. It is also taught by
Moses, as will be seen by reading the 30th chapter
of Deuteronomy, and especially by the 19th verse:
" I have set before you life and death, blessing and
cursing; therefore choose life that both you and your
seed may live." In regard to human liberty, then,
Moses is right, and so is Christianity. Col. INGEE-
SOLL and other materialists ABE MISTAKEN.
While treating of the co-existence of moral evil
20 MISTAKES OP MODEEN INFIDELS.
with God s infinite power and wisdom, I have said
this is an impenetrable mystery; nevertheless I have
given a reason why it may be better so. Col. Inger-
soil rejects all mystery:
"I do insist that a statement that cannot possibly
be comprehended by any human being, and that
appears utterly impossible, repugnant to every fact
of experience, and contrary to everything that we
really know, must be rejected by every honest man."
(P. 57.)
This statement is very loose. I will prove here
after, when treating of mysteries in religion, that we
may reasonably expect mysteries when we contem
plate the truths which relate to God. For the present
I need only show the fallacy of the Colonel s reason
ing as applied to the case under consideration. The
existence of sin is a fact. The existence of God is
not denied squarely by Colonel Ingersoll. The co
existence of the two, therefore, 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 apparent, not real.
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 charcoal or lamp-black, she would be
indignant at the assertion, unless she were somewhat
acquainted with chemistry. Indeed, unless she were
very well 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, though scientists
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 21
have discovered that these substances, with proper
ties so opposite, are identical, no one has yet been
able to comprehend how the same atoms or monads
which compose the latter substances can be so
arranged as to produce a diamond.
Here we have a fact which "cannot possibly be
comprehended by any human being," at least in
the present condition of science, and which, in all
probability never will be understood. Yet such a
fact "must be rejected by every honest man," ac
cording to Colonel Ingersoll.
It is evident that there are even in Nature truths
above human understanding. It is therefore bad rea
soning to assert that a doctrine must be rejected
because it is incomprehensible. Indeed, we need only
oppose to this position of Mr. Ingersoll his own con
fession:
"I do not pretend to tell how all these things really
are." (P. 57.)
He is speaking here of the existence of the uni
verse. The existence of the universe is, however, a
fact. He therefore acknowledges that mysteries are
to be believed, in the same breath with which he
repudiates them all.
CHAPTER II
RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL LIBERTY. COLONEL
INGERSOLL S SNEERS AT THE CLERGY.-
INDIFFERENTISM IN RELIGION.
WE have next to consider the nature of the Intel
lectual liberty which Mr. Ingersoll claims. He de
clares he wishes "to free the orthodox clergy."
22 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
(P. 16.) From what? From 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 throwing ridicule upon the be
lief that we are bound to adhere to revealed doctrines
he misrepresents 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 appear to the carnal mind they
must be preached and they must- be believed. If
they were reasonable there would 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 f^eeds 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. 25.)
The clergy must show " the wickedness of philoso
phy, .... the immorality 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. Ifby freedom we are to understand immunity
from all law, certainly freedom is dangerous; yet this
is precisely the freedom which the Colonel demands
throughout his book. If by implicit obedience is
meant obedience to the Supreme Ruler of the Uni-
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 23
verse, such obedience is certainly -safe, and is a duty
resting on mankind.
The misrepresentations of Christian doctrines are
not confirmed by any proofs. They rest on Mr. In-
gersoll s mere assertion. They therefore require no
refutation. I deny that Christianity teaches what is
contrary to reason. I deny that Christianity teaches
that virtue rests on ignorance or that science is im
moral. On the contrary, we are called upon by the
great Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. xii, 1.) to present
to God our "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 I be a father, where is
my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?
saith the Lord of Hosts." (Mai. i, 6.)
I find then that Col. Ingersoll in his book, and in
deed in many of his lectures, 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 duties in the
Bible or otherwise, we are not bound to accept his
revelation.
2. That neither God nor man has a right to punish
those who believe or teach error. (Pp. 32 to 34, 258.)
3. That slavery is essentially wicked, as tolerated
in Scripture. (P. 245.)
4. That Christianity has been the great persecutor
against those who freely expressed their opinions.
The persecuting spirit of Infidelity will be seen from
the 10th chapter of this work.
To the consideration of the rest of these teachings I
will devote the remainder of this chapter.
Mr. Ingersoll says:
24 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
"A belief in one God is claimed to be a dogma of
almost infinite importance, .... for my part I think
it infinitely more important to believe in man. The
ology is a superstition, Humanity a religion." (P.
244.)
"Certainly all cannot be right; and as it would
require a life-time to investigate the claims of these
various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man for
ever simply because he happens to believe the wrong
one." (P. 39.)
"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.)
All kinds of worship " are the offspring of error."
(P. 49.)
Running through the above extracts we find the
following errors:
First, that God cannot change the natural order of
events: that is to say, that miracles are impossible.
Secondly, that want of faith in God ought not to
entail everlasting punishment.
Thirdly, that worship is not due to God.
Fourthly, that Religion is a matter of little or no
importance.
Other errors there are in these passages; but they
need not be pointed out here as they will be dealt
with 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 hurl 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.
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 25
.... Jn the olden time these theological people
who quartered themselves upon the honest and Indus
trious, were called soothsayers, seers, charmers, proph
ets, enchanters, sorcerers, wizards, astrologers and
impostors, but now they are known as clergymen."
(P. 40.)
Whether Christianity or Ingersollism be the selfish
religion, we may judge from the second extract
given above. He here puts forward as a plea for in
difference to religion, the suggestion that there really
will be no punishment for neglect: "It is hardly
fair to damn a man forever simply because he happens
to believe the wrong" religion. There is here no
thought of self, forsooth ! 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 vo
cation. On their return, when questioned why they
had no horses, they answered u 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
ful hunters said : " Oh ! we received information that
a detachment of 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 IngersolFs 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 She 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
2
26 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
so low as the Infidel High-Priests, the New- York
propagandists of Infidelity, whose bare-faced propa-
gandism also of immorality, obliged the United
States government to step in to arrest their proceed
ings. Neither is it seemly on the part of Colonel In-
gersoll to accuse the " theological people" of merce
nary motives, as if this humanitarian gentleman, for
so it seems he would wish to be styled, " quartered 1
not himself uppn many honest and industrious people
when he delivered his lectures, whether at the rate of
$25,000 per annum, or 50 cents a head for admission.
But is the character of the clergy, as Colonel In-
gersoll has painted it, correct ? He describes them
as charmers, impostors, etc., who have taken to 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 known
as the " Truce of God," bv means of which the bar-
./ *
barous character 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 friars
taught patience to the oppressed serfs of Europe by
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 27
their own example of voluntary poverty ? Is it for
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 Indians of North
America ? Were the hospitals and orphan asylums
and schools, instituted and supported mainly by the
unremitting efforts of the clergy in Colonel Ingersoll s
own city of Peoria, as well as in other cities of this
continent, the work of mere sorcerers, enchanters and
impostors seeking only for self-aggrandizement ? On
the title-page of his book, Mr. Ingersoll claims to
be a benefactor of the world on the plea that he is
destroying weeds, thistles, etc. fie acknowledges
that he is sowing no grain. Well, I think the people
of America of good sense would prefer such thistles
as many of the clergy have sown and would let their
professing benefactor go to Heligoland or anywhere
he likes, providing they will never hear from him.
again.
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 for lucre s sake.
If this were so, they made a great mistake in becom
ing clergymen, for usually the clergy receive very
small 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-
28 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
gersolPs insinuations are as slanderous as they are
malicious.
Let us now consider Colonel Ingersoll s position
that Religion is of no importance: that we can
afford to be indifferent whether religion be true or
false.
In the first place it is a question of truth, eternal
truth. Col. Ingersoll himself says:
"Let us dedicate them (our schools) to the science
of eternal truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascer
tain all the facts he can to give us light, to follow
Nature, no matter where she leads," etc. (P. 28.)
The discovery of Truth, then, is a matter of vast
importance. In this the Christian perfectly agrees
with Mr. Ingersoll, who very eloquently expatiates
on the grandeur of this subject. I do not deny, I
acknowledge that the Colonel is really a fluent
speaker and writer, and in some respects a very able
man. He is not, however, a reasoner, at least in his
theological writings. He may be more skilful as a
lawyer.
The Colonel, then, frequently sounds the praises of
science as the means whereby human happiness is to
be attained, because science teaches truth. But in
difference to Religion is indifference to truth. It
therefore betokens weakness of intellect, mental im
becility. Why does the Colonel recommend it ? But
more: Indifference to Religion exposes man to God s
anger. It is an insult offered to God, and surely God
will punish it, as surely as He is just. God must be
the essence of Truth, Infinite Truth. If we refuse
his Revelation, or if we are indifferent to it, we vir
tually accuse God of falsehood. God, from His very
nature, cannot be equally pleased with those who
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 29
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 govern
human actions, combine in adjuring us not to be in
different 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 concern
morality, that is to say our moral relations to God,
our neighbors and ourselves, is quite legitimate: but
jet not intellectual freedom become license, immunity
from the laws of God and man, for then neither God
nor man can tolerate it.
There is, at least, 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.
Ingersoll s religion of " Humanity." The Revelation
of God, when known, will no doubt tell us more
about the right religion of Humanity, than all the
cleverest human Religion-Makers can tell.
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 securing of ever-
30 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
lasting happiness ? Secondly. The trouble 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 facilitate the matter. " Seek ye
the Lord, while He may be found; call upon Him
while He is NEAR. (Is. lv., 6.) If it be possible that
you fail after taking the proper trouble, be sure God
will not hold you guilty for your failure.
CHAPTER III.
PUNISHMENT OF IDOLATRY. EVERLASTING PUN.
ISHMENT.
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. Ingersoll reproaches God
thus :
" This God was not willing that the Jews should
think and investigate for themselves. For heresy the
penalty was death .... Intellectual 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 forms that it be
comes nauseous and it would be shocking to repeat
it as the changes are rung on it. I have already
shown that the intellectual liberty here claimed is the
right to disobey and dishonor God, and that God
cannot tolerate it. The right of God to punish even
internal acts of our soul which are sinful, being con
trary to His law, cannot be denied, as He is the Su
preme Master of the Universe. He has given to us
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 31
indeed Free-will, but tinder the injunction that we
shall use it in subjection to His laws. If we disobey
we must be liable to punishment. The reasonable
ness of this has been already proved. Indeed Mr.
Ingersoll himself has acknowledged that laws are
necessary, and that men have the right to impose
them.
"Laws spring from the instinct of self-preserva
tion .... It is impossible for human beings to exist
together without certain rules of conduct, certain
ideas of the proper or improper, of the right and
wrong, growing out of the relation. Certain rules
must be made and must be enforced. This implies
law trial and punishment." (P. 235.)
Surely it is a subversion of order to give man a
right of controlling his fellow man by law and fear
of punishment, yet to refuse it to God. On the
Colonel s own principle that we must reject what is
incomprehensible, and evidently absurd, every honest
man should reject his conclusions. Indeed man can
not have such a right, unless it comes to him from
God, for on the hypothesis that there is a God, the
whole government of the Universe must be under His
control and we have a perfect right in answering Mr.
Ingersoll to assume God s existence, for he pretends
that his arguments on this subject are valid on this
assumption. He professes with this assumption to
prove Christianity absurd.
But the Colonel lays special stress upon the fact
that God punishes everlastingly. If it is reconcilable
with God s goodness, that He punish at all, there is
no inconsistency with His goodness that punishment
be everlasting. The matter depends altogether on
the enormity of the sin. Now since sin consists in
32 MISTAKES OF MODfiKN INFIDELS
disobeying and turning away from God who is the In
finite Good, its enormity being proportioned to its ob
ject, deserves everlasting punishment; and such pun
ishment must be inflicted, unless it be either freely
pardoned or sufficiently atoned for. Now God can
not be obliged to pardon freely, from the very fact
that such pardon is a free act; nor can man suffi
ciently atone for his sin in the next life, since he is no
longer in the state of probation, and he is therefore
incapable of atoning. There is, therefore, in the
doctrine of everlasting punishment, nothing against
reason.
We may now pass to the question whether man
may punish his fellow man for believing and teaching
error. Certainly from himself as man, no one can
derive any right whatsoever over his fellow man: for
as men merely, they are equal in the possession of a
common humanity, and as individuals they are inde
pendent of each other, as long as there is no encroach
ment made on each other s rights. But if it can be
shown that God has at any time delegated to men
authority to punish, it cannot be doubted that such
men must possess this authority. Thus it is that
legislators claim the right to punish not only such
acts as murder and theft, but also the dissemination
of political opinions supposed to sap the basis of the
constitution of a country. An effort to weaken the
allegiance of subjects to the government of the
country would, especially in critical periods, as in
time of war, even be punished with death. High
treason is amenable to a similar penalty.
To come now to the particular cases spoken of by
Mr. Ingersoll, Christian States, or States called Chris
tian have frequently made laws to punish those who
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 38
have persistently promulgated by overt acts, doc
trines opposed to those generally received: especially
when those overt acts have been subversive of public
morals and detrimental to the public welfare. With
these laws we have no concern here as they have no
connection with our subject. We have to deal with
the laws God 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 wife, 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
what he has done for the Jews; always asking for
sacrifices; 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 beautiful
babe. If I had obeyed the command of God, I
would have killed her For my part I
would never kill my wife, 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 found it advisable to abolish it
from the penal code. There are 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 punishments
on the statute books, in order to control evil-doers
the more effectually. I do not propose to discuss
34 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
which of these opinions is to be preferred. It is suf
ficient that the common sense of mankind agrees
that there are cases when capital punishment may be
inflicted; nay, that there are occasions when it is ex
pedient to inflict it. Now we must remember that
the Mosaic legislation was intended for men who had
Free-will and passions; men prone to all the tempta
tions, and having all the tendency to evil, to which
men are subjected to-day. Even considering the
state of slavery from which they had just emerged)
the gross immorality, idolatry, and barbarism into
which their Egyptian masters were sunken, and
which to a great extent must have corrupted many
of the Israelites on account of the intercommunica
tion of the two nations, stern laws were more needed
for the restraint of the people than they would be
to-day among a people who have been progressing in
refinement and civilization for centuries under the
elevating influence of the Christian religion. Yes, I
say the Christian religion, for to Christianity we owe
the emergence of our ancestors from barbarism.
It maybe said, "this might justify the infliction
of the death penalty upon murderers and thieves, but
not upon idolaters, whose only fault was against
religion." The nature of the Jewish law must be
borne in mind. The form of government of the Jews
was a theocracy. God was their king. Moses was
their governor and judge. Their form of govern
ment differed from that of all other nations, for
" what nation is there upon earth as thy people Israel,
whom God went to redeem for a people to himself,
and to make him a name, and to do for them great
and terrible things?" (2 Kings, vii., 23. Prot. Bible, 2
Samuel.) God expressly declares that he himself
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 35
occupied the kingly office, and when in the old
age of Samuel, the people desired a king, God said
" they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should
not reign over them." (1 Kings viii., 7. Prot Bible,
1 Sam.)
From all this, it follows 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 fell into Idolatry both before and after the
law was promulgated. After all, the law was not
always carried out strictly. Idolatry was frequently
punished with death: sometimes the nation was
allowed by God to be subdued by their enemies on
account 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 "castaway 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 Ingersoll s
harrowing picture had its original a fact. We do not
find proof, that any Israelite was required to make his
" dimpled babe," (Col. Ingersoll has a peculiar affec-
36 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
tion for babes that are dimpled,) motherless, by his
own hand. In fact it does not seem that this was
really required by the law, except under very extraor
dinary circumstances. The nearest relative, even the
husband or the father was required to inform the pro
per authorities upon, not the tempter, but the enticer,
that is the persisting tempter to Idolatry, and if ne
cessary to cast the first stone after he or she had been
legally condemned to execution. The public good
was placed before private affection. It was one of
the cases which will occur from time to time, that he
who is bound to see the law enforced, may have to
enforce it, even when the duty is disagreeable.
We read in Roman History that after the expul
sion of Tarquin the Proud, Junius Brutus the Consul
was required to try a number of young men, who had
formed a conspiracy for the tyrant s restoration,
amongst whom were his own two sons. Few situa
tions could be more affecting and difficult than that
of father and judge. Justice impelled him to con
demn, nature, to spare the children he loved.
Being brought to trial before him, they were con
demned to be beheaded in his presence, while he looked
on with unaltered countenance. It has been beautifully
said: "he ceased to be a father that he might execute
the duties of the consul, and chose to live bereft of
his children rather than to neglect the public punish
ment of crime."
As Col. Ingersoll has informed us that under similar
o
circumstances he would not have fulfilled the public
duty, perhapst he people of Illinois acted wisely in
not accepting his proffered services in the Supreme
Magistracy of their State.
Among the Jews, the extreme case of which we are
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 37
speaking, could not have occurred very frequently;
but when it did occur, I presume it had to be met
with courage.
CHAPTER IV.
SLAVERY.
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 sell him
self to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the ser
vice of bond-servants; but he shall be as a hireling
and a sojourner: he shall work with thee until the
year of the jubilee. And afterwards he shall go out
with his* children, and shall return to his 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 sojourn among you, or that were born
of them in your land, these you shall have for ser
vants: and by right of inheritance shall leave them
to your posterity, and shall possess them forever.
But oppress not your brethren the children of Israel
by might."
"If the hand of a stranger or a sojourner grow
strong among you, and thy brother being impover
ished sell himself to him or to any of his race, after
the sale he may be redeemed." Any of his brethren
38 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
shall 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 before that year, the master shall be re-imbursed
according to the period of redemption.
A further 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. W ith 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 family, his bond
age shall be made perpetual and his ear shall be
bored with an awl as a mark thereof.
Fathers cannot sell 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 sell 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. xxi.)
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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 39
from God. The Christian view of slavery is the de
velopment of the Jewish view, with due regard to
the different circumstances of the human race at the
time of Moses, and during the Christian era. Under
Christianity, St. Paul tells u
"Be not held again under the yoke of bondage."
(Gal. 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 God, 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: there is neither
bond nor free, . t .... for you are all one in Christ
Jesus." (Gal. iii, 28.)
" But Christ is all in all." (Coll. 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 words 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 overcome of the
40 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
same also he is the slave The dog is returned
to his own vomit; and the sow that was washed to
her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter n, 1, 18 to 22.)
That is to say, under pretence 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
grace they devote themselves to corruption and are
its slaves, as the sow wallowing in the mire, etc.
(f Wast thou called, being a bondman ? care not
for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
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 (Eph. 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, w 7 hile slave-trading or the ab
duction of freemen into slavery is as unjust as any
other species of robbery. Slave-holding may possi
bly be lawful, for example, when a man, condemned
.....**
MISTAKES OF MODERN LNFIDELS. 41
to death accepts slavery as a lesser evil, or when a
man sells his liberty for some benefit which he could
not otherwise obtain. Hence the Apostle, while not
justifying the slavery which existed so generally at
that time does not make a general condemnation
against it. He contents himself with commanding
masters to deal kindly with their slaves.
"Masters . . . forbear threatenings. Knowing
that the Lord both of them (slaves and servants) and
of you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons
with Him." (Eph. vi., 9.)
" Masters, do to your servants that which is just
and equal: knowing that you also have a master in
heaven." (Coll. iv., 1.)
Hence also when the slave Onesimus, having robbed
his master Philemon, was converted to Christianity,
the same Apostle sent him back.
"Not now as a servant, but .... a most dear
brother." (Philemon, verse 16.)
" Trusting in thy obedience, I have written to thee;
knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say."
(21.)
In the face of all this Col. Ingersoil says:
" The New Testament is more decidedly in favor
of human slavery than the old." (P. 249.)
If this be so then the Old Testament slavery must
be a very moderate one. We have seen that the
New Testament rather regulates the manner in which
slaves should be treated, than justifies the tenure by
which slaves were held, or the laws by which they
were governed. It is true, the Abolition party in
the United States would go much further, and to
their prejudices Col. Ingersoil appeals against Chris
tianity. In one respect the above extracts of the
42 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
New Testament are not necessarily opposed to the
views of moderate Abolitionists, for it nowhere
speaks of slavery as an expedient institution. At all
events, 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
fying the form of slavery laid down in the Old Tes
tament, makes no effort to prove slavery evil, under
all circumstances. We are to take this for granted
on his word. He gays:
"Do you believe that the loving Father, of us all,
turned the dimpled arms of babes into manacles of
iron ?" 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 permitted; also their whipping without cause.
"Were the stealers and whippers of babes and
women the justified children 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 survived a
day or two, the presumption 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, because 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 ill usage
was not to be delivered back to him, and he to whom
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 43
the slave fled was commanded not to oppress him.
This does not look like the brutal slave system which
obtained in other countries, and which even flourished
in modern times. Against the brutal slavery which
reduces man to the level of the beast, I believe every
true Christian would protest. For such slavery as
this there is no warrant in Holy Scripture.
On reading carefully 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 for wages,
except when he sold his labor to his master, in which
case his bondage, similar in kind, was extended till
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 adorning 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
says:
* The heathen are not spoken of as human beings.
Their 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
44 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Ingersoll misstates the case when he says that the
heathen had no rights; for it is clear from the words
of the law above quoted that heathen slaves were
treated just as Hebrews in bondage, with the single
exception that their bondage might be perpetual,
unless they became Hebrews by adoption.
God, the Supreme Master of all, the possessor of
all goods, the controller of all our destinies, gave to
the Hebrews this extended power of dominion over
the stranger nations, as a penalty which he had the
undoubted right to inflict on account of their crimes.
Let us now compare the slavery which existed
among heathen nations with that permitted among
the Jews. Cotemporaneously with the promulgation
of the Mosaic law there was slavery in Egypt, and
the monuments which are extant to this day attest
the cruelty with which slaves were treated. The
treatment of the Israelites, who were in fact guests
and immigrants by invitation, unjustly enslaved, is a
specimen of heathen slavery. Pharaoh "set over
them masters of the works to afflict them with
burdens."
"And the Egyptians hated the children of Israel
and afflicted them and mocked them."
"And they made their life bitter with hard works."
(Exod. i.) ^ . m
At last the order was given by Pharaoh that all
the male children of the Israelites should be cast into
the river, that they might not increase too fast.
Truly the slavery usual among heathen nations
was an intolerable tyranny. As it existed among the
Greeks, Romans, and other nations, it was no better
than we have described. The slave-trade was a regu
lar business, authorized by the laws. There was no
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS 45
restriction on the master s power to put his slaves to
death, 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
whatsoever.
Christianity could not abolish slavery all at once,
but even before its establishment as the religion of
the state, its influence was felt as a civilizer, and the
condition of the slaves was ameliorated. The doc
trine of St. Paul could not but bear fruit. Under
the influence of that doctrine the Christian could not
regard his bondsman as a slave, but as "a dear
brother." (Philemon, 16.)
When the church became free, her efforts were at
once directed towards rendering the condition of the
slaves tolerable, and freeing them by degrees. Slave
holders who put their slaves to death without a war
rant from 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
46 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
slaves. In 585 the Council of Matisco decreed that
the property of the church 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 aiming 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
MISTAKES OF MODEEN INFIDELS. 47
powerful intellects. Homer tells us in the Odyssey,
B. 17, that slaves possess from Jupiter only half the
mind. Plato approves of this doctrine (Dialog. 8 on
laws), and Aristotle expressly undertakes to prove
by a lengthy argument that " some men are born for
liberty, as others are for slavery ; a slavery which is
not only useful to the slaves themselves, but more
over just." (Polit., ch. 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 Mosaic law
was the preparation of man for Christ s advent. If,
therefore, slavery was permitted at all, it was because
the existing state of society required that to some
extent the surrounding nations should be held under
the influence of fear, as they themselves by fear en
deavored to extend their sway into the countries
which surrounded them.
Before leaving the important subject of Liberty, it
it may be well to give a summary of the propositions
which I have proved, and which I am satisfied, can
not be refuted. 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
Free-will.
3. That Col. Ingersoll s materialism destroys Free
will and therefore all liberty, though he inconsistently
claims at the same time liberty of thought.
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.
48 MISTAKES OP MODEJiN INFIDELS.
5. That the existence of Free-will justifies the pun
ishment of the wicked.
6. That Col. Ingersoll is wrong in making God the
cause of evil.
7. That intellectual liberty is, indeed, given to man,
but that it must be controlled by the laws and teach
ing of God.
8. That it is no valid objection to a doctrine that
man cannot understand it.
9. That Col. Ingersoll 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 unbelief and
Idolatry were just, especially as Judaism was a The
ocracy.
12. That Col. Ingersoll maligns the Clergy.
13. That Christianity is not the persecuting system
which Col. Ingersoll represents it to be.
14. That Christianity, by its influence, ameliorated
the condition of slaves and gradually emancipated
them.
15. That the mitigated slavery permitted under the
Mosaic law was strictly just, though it was not in
tended to be the normal condition of men, arising as
it did from the peculiar circumstances of the period.
CHAPTER V.
EXISTENCE OF GOD.
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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 49
denied the existence of spirits, Berkeley denied that
of bodies, while Pyrrbo professed to doubt everything,
even his own existence. The very fact of doubting
our own existence proves that we exist; for he who
exists not cannot doubt. Our own existence is there
fore a truth so firmly rooted in our consciousness 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 God. 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 from
responsibility to a higher Power. They deny it, be
cause they wish there were no God to whom they
would have to render an account. Hence the Prophet
David says:
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."
(Ps. xiii, 1 ; Prot. Bible, Ps. xiv.)
He hath said so in his heart, his affections, his will,
not in his understanding.
Thomas Paine fully admits in his "Age of Reason"
that he believes in God, and that reason conclusively
leads to this belief. Col. Ingersoll does not positively
deny the existence of God, nor positively affirm it,
though in some of his works he endeavors to weaken
the force of the reasoning by which this truth is
3
50 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
established. In the book now before me, he pro
fesses only to attack the God of the Bible.
On page 136 he adds:
" When I speak of God, I mean the being described
by Moses : the Jehovah of the Jews. There may be
for 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 conscious
of our own being, and of other beings, like and un
like ourselves. From this truth we institute the fol
lowing :
METAPHYSICAL PROOF.
1. Some being exists. This being must be either
created or uncreated. If it be uncreated, there exists
an uncreated being.
If it be created, there must also exist an uncreated
being ; for 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 uncreated. Thus we must
either reach an uncreated being, or we must say there
is an infinite created series without a Creator, which
is an absurdity.
It follows then that there is an uncreated being ex
isting, not from any exterior cause, but by necessity
of its nature: that is there exists " a necessary being,
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 51
dependent on none, though all things existing depend
upon it." This being is God.
We may therefore, for the purposes of this chapter,
define God to be " The Supreme and Self -Existing
Being upon whom the universe depends. *
Atheists endeavor to weaken the force of this rea
soning by asserting that in the eternity of the past
there must have been an infinite series of causes.
Colonel Ingersoll practically makes the same asser
tion:
" It appears reasonable to me, that force has ex
isted from eternity. Force cannot, as it appears to
me, exist apart from matter. Force in its nature is
forever active, and without matter it could not act,
and so I think matter must have existed forever. To
conceive of matter without force, or of force without
matter, or of a time when neither existed, or of a be
ing who existed from eternity without either and who,
out of nothing created both, is to me, utterly impos
sible." (P. 60.)
" It has been demonstrated that force is eternal."
(P. TV.)
" If anything can be found without a pedigree of
natural antecedents, it will be then time enough to
talk about the fiat of creation. There must have
been a time when plants and animals did not exist up
on this globe. The question, and only question is
whether they were naturally produced." ( P. 88.)
All this supposes the existence of a number of pro
genitors actually infinite, made up of units. Now
before the addition of the last unit, it must have been
infinite or finite. If it were infinite it could not be
increased : but it is in fact increased by the addition
of the last unit: it is therefore finite. The addition
52 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
of unity to a finite number cannot make it infinite:
therefore the existence of a number actually infinite
is absurd.
2. Colonel Ingersoll likewise supposes the universe to
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 perfection. Now if the
monads are a reality, they are finite beings, changea
ble, being acted upon by extrinsic forces which gov
ern them. Therefore they must be 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
collection of contingent beings must equally depend
upon a first or necessary being as its cause.
MISTAKES OF MODERN JLtfFIDJELS. 53
PHYSICAL PROOF.
The existence of a supreme intelligent being ruling
all things, is proved by the admirable order existing
in the universe.
Proof. The being who adopts sure and fitting
means to attain ends which are evidently designed, is
intelligent.
But the Supreme Cause from whom the universe
proceeds has adopted such means :
Therefore the Supreme Cause from whom the uni.
verse proceeds, is Intelligent.
The evidences of the adoption of fitting means to
attain the ends designed by the Supreme Cause of the
universe, are to be seen everywhere in nature, in the
anatomy of man, in the construction of every organ
of sense, the eye, the ear, etc., in the whole organiza
tion of the human body. It would occupy too much
space to enumerate in detail here the facts which
evidence design. They are acknowledged by all,
and may be found in works which explain the con
struction of the human body, and even the bodies of
animals, even the most insignificant of which in every
part of their frame, give testimony to the wonderful
Intelligence which must 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 beautiful palace, a dwelling-house, a watch, a
steam-engine, a well-written book, evidence genius
and intellect in those who have produced them, how
much more do the works of God bear witness to His
Supreme Intelligence ! The most noble works of
54 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
art are miserable abortions in comparison with the
wonderful works of God.
When further we bear in mind that this earth with
all that it contains, is but a speck in the universe, and
that throughout the universe these wonders are re
peated, we may exclaim:
"The heavens show forth the glory of God, and
the firmament declare th 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
America.
"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
grandfather, 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
Reason.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 55
MORAL PROOF.
The universal consent of mankind in recognizing
the existence of a God is an irrefragable proof of His
existence.
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 doubtfully: "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 from 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
tribes, 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 succeeding generations, but any assigned
56 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
*
causes which might explain the introduction of such
belief by the gradual influence of human passions,
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 behest 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.
: CHAPTER VI.
REFUTATION OF OBJECTIONS AGAINST GOD S
EXISTENCE.
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 acknowledging God, it in reality rejects
Him. Pantheism makes God consist of all existing
beings: that is to say, all existing beings are 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 his 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 57
attributes 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 or virtually: that is either in a greater de
gree or 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
substance: thus we may say John is Peter: I am New
ton, and Newton is Leibnitz. 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 impiety, takes from us all re
sponsibility for our actions, inasmuch as our acts all
become the necessary manifestatious of God s attri
butes.
We have proved that God is a real being, uncreated,
necessary and self-existent. The necessity of exist
ence implies absence of limit. God is therefore in
finite in all perfection. He is One, Eternal, Unchange
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
58 MISTAKES OP MODERN 1 INTIDELS.
not in the work at present under consideration. This
argument is thus 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 which 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. Ingersoll 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
says:
"And as all phenomena are, by savage and barbaric
man accounted for as the action of intelligent beings
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 59
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 useful. 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 utter a prayer, to count beads, to abstain
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 sought, 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 of
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 Ingersoll 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 concerned. When, however,
ignorance exists in regard to a duty, it becomes cul
pable, unless it is excused by the fact 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
60 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
when his Maker is the subject of his gross and in
decent jokes, his Maker to whom he must owe his
being and all that he possesses, all that he enjoys, his
ingratitude becomes blasphemy. It is difficult to
believe that in such a case as that of Mr. Ingersoll,
the ignorance can be invincible and excusable. I
hope indeed that a merciful God will lead him to
better courses, but I cannot help thinking that his
present ignorance of God is inexcusable.
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 for the universal prevalence of the
supposed error by the influence 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 usually
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 time. It cannot explain a universal fact.
Ignorance was not universal, and even if it were it
would be diminished as men became more skilful and
learned. 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 God. The belief is founded deep in the
reason and nature of man. This is the only solution
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS, 61
which can be given for its universality. This proves
that it must have its origin in our creation, and that
it comes from the Creator Himself. This is the view
which 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 favor of the
gods, and which does not endeavor to avert evil by
religious forms, 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 conclusiveness of all other proofs of God s exist-
ence, acknowledged that on this ground alone, the
universality of the belief, it ought to be recognized
as demonstrated.
Colonel Ingersoll s remarks on the non-necessity of
worship will be treated in Chapter 49.
CHAPTER VII.
CREATION AND PROVIDENCE.
We already proved in Chapter 5, that the universe
was created by God. Of course, atheists endeavor
to account for its existence without Divine interven
tion.
Epicurus, Democritus and others held that atoms
of matter floating in infinite space coming in contact
with each other by chance or law formed by degrees
62 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the world and all its surroundings, including sun,
moon, planets and stars. Democritus wrote about
the year 440 or 430 B. C. He did not attribute to
chance, but to law, the formation 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 God, the
Fountain of all force, the Creator of the order which
exists in the universe. The material, however, 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 God or the gods.
Thomas Paine and Colonel Ingersoll both seem to
have adopted the views of Epicurus: Mr. Paine
adopted it in part only; but Colonel Ingersoll seems
to have swallowed it holus-bolus.
We have already quoted (Chapter 5,) 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 tells that man has been evolved
through countless epochs, from the lower forms."
(P. 95.)
"The Moner is said to be the simplest form of animal
life that has yet been found. 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 63
organic structure through all the forms of life to man
himself." (P. 96.)
Let us see how this atomic system will stand the
test of reason.
It is related of the renowned philosopher, Father
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 frequent but
fruitless.
On one occasion Father Kircher had made the pur
chase of a magnificent globe of the heavens, and was
examining it when his friend entered his 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
having made a similar globe for his own use. Father
Kircher answered :
" It was not manufactured. It was made by the
concurrence of atoms."
"But," replied his friend, " atoms never concur to
make a beautiful piece of mechanism like this. Cease
joking and tell me seriously who was the maker, as I
would wish to have one made like it."
" Seriously," said Father Kircher, "it had no maker.
It is so beautiful 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 beautiful piece of workmanship like this, perfectly
64 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
turned, the stars and constellations so well delineated
and the brass work so complete."
" Well," replied Father Kircher, " if you cannot
conceive of a piece of work like this made without
a skilful mechanic, how can you so pertinaciously
maintain that the universe, of which this is but a poor
and inadequate representation was made by the action
of blind forces and laws? Are there not more
wonders in the single blade of grass than in this
globe?" *
The transformation of the butterfly from the egg
to the caterpillar form, and from the caterpillar to
the butterfly, its varied organic structure in each case,
and its ability to propagate its own species, the
adaptation of the leaves on which it feeds to the time
when the caterpillar appears are wonders inimitable
by human art. Must not all this be the work of an
intelligent cause ?
Whatever may have been the effect of this appeal
on Father Kircher s friend, surely it should have pro
duced conviction. A celebrated divine aptly asked :
" What is more foolish than the assertion that the
world was made by chance or blind force, whereas all
the skill of art could not produce an oyster ? :
In fine, the disposition of the various parts of the
universe, and of the atomic elements which compose
it, is such that all take their own office, and such a
connexion is found between them that they seek a
common end, to which they are brought without dis
turbance.
This might be illustrated by innumerable exam
ples. The law of gravitation keeps in their places
the sun and stars, causes the earth and planets, both
primary and secondary, to revolve in their wonderful
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 65
orbits without confusion, and so admirably is this
law balanced, that another law would result, in a
comparatively short time, in the complete subversion
of the whole system. This fact alone implies the
operation of an Intelligent Cause, not only for the
production of the material, but also for the existence
of the law itself.
We do not, and need not, deny the existence of
ultimate indivisible atoms of matter. Many observed
facts appear to demonstrate their existence. But
each elementary substance is proved to have its own
peculiar atoms with special qualities, and these quali
ties are such that from one such substance another
cannot be formed, as far as we are aware; while the
atoms of these different substances combine to form
the vast variety of compounds which are found in
existence, and which are also evidently calculated to
meet the end which an Intelligent Designer had in
view. The atoms themselves must be the work of
the same Intelligent First Cause.
In the details of Creation the same common end is
found. We cannot point to any object which has
not properties contributing to the safety or comfort
of the earth s occupants. Instances of this may be
found in works on Chemistry, Natural Philosophy,
etc. All this denotes that the First Cause has
arranged all things intelligently and with an end
in view.
The same is to be said of plants and animals.
Their organization is complete for the purpose of
their growth from a seed or embryo. The materials
necessary for their life are within their reach. They
possess the means of gathering what is necessary for
their subsistence, and, moreover, they produce the
66 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
very germs which, after they are dead, people the
earth with the same kinds of beings as before. We
judge that a watch or a locomotive must have had a
maker. It could not have been formed by the con
currence of atoms by chance or law. What would
we think of a watch or a locomotive which, by an
arrangement of saws and files and hammers and
lathes, automatically produced germs which, placed
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 obstacle pre
vents a cause from obtaining its natural effect, or
which turns an object from its natural course. The
order of nature is regular, and cannot arise from any
but an Intelligent Cause. The theories of such ma
terialists as Democritus, Epicurus, Spinosa and
Colonel Ingersoll are therefore absurd. Not only
was the Universe fashioned by God, but the matter
of which it is formed was created. This will be fur
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 governs the incomprehensible
WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight
can discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at
calling such stories the word of God." (Age of
Reason.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 67
Colonel Ingersoll 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 worshipped. So also
whenever miracles are related in the Bible, he refutes
only by ridiculing them.
Thus he attacks the miracle by which the sun stood
still in the heavens at the command of Joshua, x, 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 there 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 confusion of tongues, the ten plagues of Egypt,
the passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous
events by which God s power and goodness were
manifested 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
68 MISTAKES OF MODEKX INFIDELS.
Ingersoll are pleased to consider unworthy of God
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 for their
disobediences, but still God did not abandon them.
They were punished by being condemned to wander
in the desert for 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 500 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 God 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 food, 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 Railroad, is
that a reason why he could not pass through Penn
sylvania? Col. Ingersoll maintains that the five
books of Moses were not written till " 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
following law?
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 69
" Six years thou shalt sow thy ground, and shalt
gather the corn 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 YIELD THE
FRUITS OF THREE YEARS. And the eighth 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
forgery would have been patent to all. The obser
vance of the Sabbatical year is frequently 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 examine philosophically this theory
that God cannot interfere with man, especially when
the matter on which He is supposed to intervene,
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
appears to such men as Messrs. Paine and Ingersoll
to be beneath His notice.
We have proved already God s Immensity and
Omnipotence, and Mr. Paine acknowledges it. Must
we not then admit that God knows as much about
our acts in detail as He does about the more important
fact of our existence or of the existence and motions
of the solar system ?
He declares that God governs and directs the in
comprehensible whole. How can this be if He rule
not also its most minute parts ? At what stage of
incubation do human acts begin to be worthy of God s
notice ?
The truth is, God knows all things, the small
equally with the great. He can do all things, and He
is equally great, whether " stretching out the heavens
like a pavilion, or bringing forth the blade of grass
for cattle." He is equally wonderful whether meas
uring out its clothing to the sparrow, or ordering
the sun and moon to cause the seasons and tides, and
the succession of day and night. The philosophy of
Messrs. Paine and Ingersoll was exploded when Plato
1900 years ago refuted Democritus and Epicurus,
even before the birth of the last named. It would
seem that the philosophers of the skeptical school
think that God has no time to spare to think of mat
ters which affect His creation. What must be their
idea of Infinite knowledge ?
The historical portions of the Bible, such as the
history of Samson, ridiculed by Mr. Paine, the his
tories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and other portions
of Holy Scripture ridiculed by Col. Ingersoll, far
from being useless or absurd, are full of illustrations
of the life of Christ on earth, of mystic allegories
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 71
which prous readers have discovered in them, and of
evidences of God s Providence in detail. They are
therefore calculated to make men both wiser and bet
ter; and indeed the lesson they inculcate would be
sufficiently valuable if we learned from them nothing
more than that God s Providence watches over man
kind in all our actions.
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 perfection which has been com
municated to it. But the creature cannot preserve it
self by its own nature, for then there would be in the
creature the quality of self -existence which belongs
ouly to the Creator or First Cause. The continued
action of the Creator is therefore necessary for 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 moon.
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 infer that God s Providence
over creation is constant.
72 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER VIII.
NECESSITY OF REVELATION. INSUFFICIENCY OF
UNAIDED REASON. SPIRITUALITY AND
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.
God being such as we have described him in chap
ters 5 and 6, it ought to be unnecessary to enquire,
do we need more light concerning Him, than Reason
affords? Or is Revelation useful or necessary that
we may know how we are to worship Him, or as, Col.
Ingersoll asserts, is there no need to worship Him at
all? : ,,: . . .
Even with all the help afforded by Revelation, a
reasonable man would naturally say, "on 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 from God." (P.
238.)
Let us now see what he says of the necessity of
Revelation.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 73
" It is not easy to account for an infinite God mak
ing people so low in the scale of intellect as to re
quire a revelation. (P. 41.)
On this point Thos. Paine agrees with Mr. Inger-
soll; but Paine gives a semblance of argument for his
position which the latter does not. He says:
" It is only by the use of reason that man can dis
cover God. Take away that reason, and he would be
incapable of understanding anything. How then is it
that these people (Christians) reject reason? r Age
of Reason. (P. 26.) N. Y. edition.
" It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and
conceptions of a word of God can unite .... And
this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary
for man to know of God." ibid.
In fact, Deists all agree that we are to believe only
in "Natural Religion."
It is proper to remark here that both Mr. Paine and
Col. Ingersoll (P. 53,) misrepresent Christians in stat
ing that we " reject reason." Revelation presupposes
Reason. Beasts have no Revelation, because they
have no reason; but reason has its proper use. Rea
son judges truth which lies within its scope, but be
yond the field of truth which reason can reach, there
lies a vast expanse which unaided reason can never
know. Here then is a field in which, even according
to Mr. Paine s admission, Revelation has ample scope;
for he virtually admits, that a proper sphere of Rev
elation is that body of Truth which we did not know
before, for he says :
; The person to whom a Revelation is made did
not know it before." Age of Reason.
Mr. Paine acknowledges the Immortality of the
soul, or at least declares his conviction of its proba-
4
74 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
bility and says that it is his hope. Col. Ingersoll,
Tyndall and D. M. Benuet 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, since on it depends what we must do for God,
our neighbor and ourselves : also whether or not we
are to expect a happy or miserable everlasting future.
Yet Mr. Paine, with the 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.
"Thou art: directing, guiding all, thou art:
Direct iny understanding, then, to thee.
Control my spirit. Guide my wandering heart.
Though but an atom midst immensity,
Still I am something fashioned by thy hand.
I hold a middle rank twixt heaven and earth;
On the last verge of mortal being stand,
Close to the realms where angels have their birth,
Just on the 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
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 75
Revelation from God, they must always be in doubt
upon this subject.
Cicero says:
" No one would ever offer himself to die for his
country, without great hope of immortality
I cannot explain how it is that there is in our minds
a certain presentiment of future ages." ( Qucest. Tus-
culance.)
"It is for a God to say which of these opinions is
true. For us, we are not in a condition to determine
even which is most probable."
Socrates says:
" The clear knowledge of these things is impossi
ble in this life, or at least extremely difficult. The
wise man ought therefore to hold what seems to him
most probable, until he have a more sure light, or un
til the word of God Himself will serve as a guide."
Plato, Aristotle and Plutarch are of the same opin
ion and say that Immortality, Creation and the Provi
dence of God are ancient traditions of the human
race which deserve the greatest deference.
Thus these great Philosophers from Reason alone
came to the conclusion that we need Revelation.
Many are of opinion that by Reason this truth is
demonstrable, but even if this be the case, Reason
would never have discovered the demonstration were
it not guided by Revelation, and Mr. Paine would
never have guessed its truth.
The Binomial Theorem of Newton, and Taylor s
Theorem have been demonstrated in other ways than
their first discoverers employed, and there is many a
man who can now demonstrate them, who would
never have discovered them.
Modern deists boast very loudly about Ci Natural
76 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Religion " and Col. Ingersoll about the " Religion of
Humanity," but they would know nothing of either
the Religion of Nature or of that of Humanity if
Christianity had not been beforehand to teach its
principles to them. Its good features are borrowed
from Christianity. Natural Religion or the so-called
Religion of Humanity is like ^Esop s jackdaw,
dressed in peacock s feathers. Strip it of its feathers,
it will be a jackdaw still. Yet Mr. Paine says, with
his usual coarseness :
"Of all the systems of Religion that ever were in
vented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty,
more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason
and more contradictory in itself than this thing called
Christianity." (Age of Reason, part 2.)
Mr. Ingersoll also reviles Christianity. In order to
do so he misrepresents the clergy as sordid. We
have already shown this. The doctrines of Christian
ity he represents as debasing, and be pretends that she
inculcates ignorance, opposes the diffusion of knowl
edge, and encourages hypocrisy. These statements?
mere false assertions without attempt at proof, are of
no weight. I will, however, confront them with the
admissions of well-known infidels. Voltaire says:
" It remains for us to consider the happy effects
of this light of the Gospel, not only in increasing but
in producing the happiness of mankind, and in being
the consolation of the human race. Those who have
combatted religion must at least acknowledge that it
announces truths which will secure happiness to man
kind. Her practice is established on kindness and
beneficence. One God adored from heart and mouth,
and all duties fulfilled, make of the world a temple
and of all men brothers."
MISTAKES OF MODKBN INFIDELS. 77
Frederick of Prussia says:
"If the Gospel contained only this precept: Do
not to others what you would not wish them to do to
you, we would be forced to acknowledge that these
few words comprise all morality."
Christianity, not Deism, nor Atheism, has been able
to substitute a reverence for morality for the barbar
ous manners of Paganism. Christianity alone has
saved multitudes of children abandoned by unnatural
parents, has built houses of refuge to succor travellers
on the mountains of perpetual snow, has rescued cap
tives by heroic acts of self-denial, has organized
bands of angels of mercy to relieve sufferers in the
pest-houses, and has illuminated man by instructing
him in a morality which reason alone never could
have discovered.
She alone has given courage to her disciples to lay
clown their lives by millions in testimony to the
truth. She teaches fully and without uncertain
sound our duties to God. She alone can give us tangi
ble proof of God s intense love for mankind, mani
fested in our Redemption: she alone can give to the
dying the consolation of a certain hope, pointing to
our crucified Saviour as its pledge.
An oath is the foundation of jurisprudence. Chris
tianity alone makes it sacred and inviolable. Mar
riage, elevated to be a sacred rite, raises woman to
her proper sphere, while under Deism and Polythe
ism she is as degraded as in Utah and Turkey.
78 MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER IX.
NECESSITY OF REVELATION. RESULTS OF UN
AIDED REASON. DEGRADING RITES OF PA
GANISM. HUMAN SACRIFICES. EXTER
MINATION OF THE CANAANITES.
Let us now consider the necessity of Revelation
from another standpoint. Let us look at the moral
results of unaided Reason.
Man existed on earth, at all events, for four thou
sand years before Christ. Rationalists say that he
must have existed hundreds of thousands of years.
We may for our present purpose allow them all the
time they ask. During this period what progress
did reason make in inculcating religion and morality?
Even Deists acknowledge that if we except the pre
cept, " Remember 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 absurd. We find in all these
records of the past, philosophies and dreams, and
efforts stained with tears, of great and tender souls,
who tried to pierce the mystery of life and death, to
answer the eternal questions of the Whence and
Whither." (Preface, p. ix.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 79
" Thousands of years before Moses was born, the
Egyptians had a code of laws The Egyp
tian code was far better than the Mosaic." (P. 235.)
" Long before the Jewish savages assembled at the
foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, 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 " tills the world with
bigotry, hypocrisy and fear." (P. 43.)
There is much 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 detail 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,
Chaldaaa, 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. Ingersoll maintains (p. 126) that in process of
time, man progressed in religion, as in everything
else, it is clear to any one who is at all acquainted
with the real history of the matter, that their beliefs
degenerated as time moved on. Thus Pere Coeur-
doux, a French Jesuit, of whom Max MtUler says
80 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS,
" to this modest missionary, " belongs the 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. But the truths which are found in this
book are only scattered there like grains of gold in a
heap of sand." (Max Mtiller, " Science of Language,"
vol. 1, p. 177.)
Thus at first the Hindoos admitted one Supreme
Being. Nevertheless, in the Vedic 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 husk from rice. In honor of Siva, the
adorers 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 the car itself is covered
with indecent emblems. Prostitution forms a part
of the religious ceremony on this occasion. Widows
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 81
are burned on the death of their husbands, as a sacri
fice to the god Ram. Suicide is a most meritorious
act, deserving immediate admission to heaven. In
fanticide is practiced as a sacrifice to Gunga. (Re
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, four 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 accord with
Colonel Ingersoll s assertion that man progresses by
the aid of reason, in religious matters? Lucian, a
heathen of the second century, writes: "You may
enter into one of their most magnificent temples,
adorned with gold an! 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
tell 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 XV, 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 ?
82 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Here Ibis, decked with well-gorged serpents: 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 scaly 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 thoroughly in deco
rating the tombs of the dead, which is the Colonel s
beau ideal of religious worship. (P. 277.) This is
proved by the existence of the pyramids, erected in
memory of their princes; and, in proportion to their
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 much worse than those of the
Romans themselves.
Such, then, are the religions that Colonel Ingersoll
considers so much superior to the Religion of the
Bible.
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
nations.
The Carthaginians and Phoenicians offered human
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 83
sacrifices to Moloch or Saturn. Children were burned
in a furnace of fire, or placed on the hands of a brass
statue of the god, from which they fell 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, reduced 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 families 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 Ingersoll, fol
lowing Paine and Voltaire, brings against the Penta
teuch.
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
concludes:
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
selves."
There is not one word of their being delivered to
the "brutal lusts of soldiers and priests." Knowing
the strict law against such crimes, it is the height of
84 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
impudence for Colonel Ingersoll to make such an
assertion. He must rely very much on the stupidity
of his 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 Madianites ? 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 warfare.
2. The utter extermination of this nation, and of
the Canaanites and others was not the usual mode of
warfare of the Jews. The extermination of these
nations was therefore a transient fact, 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 against 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 executors of
his law. When Colonel Ingersoll undertook the com-
o
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.
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 85
The killing of the children was different. They
were innocent of the crimes of their parents; but
after all God is the Arbiter of life and death. We
must 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 true, man cannot have the right
of inflicting the death penalty without sufficient cause
of guilt, but God has that right; and He cannot be
accused 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 Him 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 return to our review of the morals of
Pagan nations.
86 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
The 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 Gods were immoral
beyond description.
One fact 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
Ingersoll 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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 87
Human beings, that is children and slaves, the only
persons whom a master could devote, were dedicated
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 condemned to death for
their abominable crimes, as in the case of the Madian-
ites and Canaanites. This penal vow is pronounced
against the people of Jericho in Jos. vi, 17, 18; against
idolatrous Israelites in Ex. xxxii, and Deut. xiii. An
other example is in Judges xxi, 5. The Jews under
stood their own laws, and such is the meaning they
give these words. (Jews Letters to Voltaire, p. 362.)
But Mr. Ingersoll 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 his hand and take a sheep instead." (P. 183.)
Surely the quoting of a passage where God did not
allow a human sacrifice, is a strange way of proving
that human sacrifices are to be offered!
God tried Abraham s faith and found it complete.
Abraham recognized God as the Master of Life, and
was ready to obey; but God, who delights not in
such sacrifices, stayed his hand. Thus He taught to
Abraham, His horror for such sacrifices. (Gen. xxii,
12.)
Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary says:
"Jephtha devoted his daughter as a whole burnt-
offering " in consequence of a vow he made "to sac
rifice the first person who should go out of his house
to wish him joy of his victory."
In this Voltaire is followed by the whole host of
infidels.
Let us look into the text and see whether this be
88 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the case. It is found in the eleventh chapter of the
Book of Judges.
During the wars of the Ammonites against Israel,
Jephtha was calj^ed on b^L the Israelites to be their
prince and iudr
"
After a victor. . -<ffreery a decisive battle was to
be fought near Ai-oeV. aiid Jephtna made a vow:
" If thou wilt deliver the children of Amrnon into
my hands, whatsoever coinethTorth from the doors of
my house 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 Jepntha makes refers us to the law
in Leviticus xxvii, whereby a person vowed to God
must under certain circumstances be redeemed, or
under other circumstances be dedicated to serve the
temple; but a clean animal which could be sacrificed
was to be thus offered up. He gained the victory, and
on his return Jephtha 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 h^st promised . . . .
Grant me only this that I may go about the moun
tains for two months, to bewail my virginity, 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 ancestral line from which the
Messias should spring. (Duclot, Bible Vindicated
iii, 425.)
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 89
Her request 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 learned commentators have
interpreted that the maiden was offered really as a
burnt-offering; but these commentators for the most
part admit that Jephtha mistook his obligation, aris
ing from 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 abhorreth, offering their sons and
daughters, and burning them with fire. 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, NEITHER CAME IT INTO MY
MIND, ETC." (Jer. xix, 3, etc.)
" And they sacrificed their sons and daughters to
devils. And they shed innocent blood; the blood of
90 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
their sons and daughters which they sacrificed to the
idols of Chanaan, and the land was polluted with
blood, 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 sacrifices 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. Ingersoll, God did not command human
sacrifice. This abomination was left 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 Revelation. Then
came on earth our Redeemer, and He sent His mes
sengers of peace to spread throughout 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 contradic.
tions. The modern philosophers are in as wof ul con
fusion as the ancient. Spinosa, Bailly, Hegel, Darwin,
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 91
etc., have no surer basis than the Epicureans, Pyth
agoreans, Platonists, Pyrrhonists, etc. They have no
unity. They cannot speak with authority to teach.
They have no motive to offer, of rewards and pun
ishments to those who accept or reject their teach
ing. Indeed, Revelation is sadly needed, if we want
even the "Religion of Humanity."
CHAPTER X.
NECESSITY OF REVELATION. RESULTS OF
INFIDELITY.
" 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 finished yet.
In 1792, a noble, Christian country, France, was
ruled by Atheists and Deists. The kind-hearted king,
and soon after his widowed queen were cruelly be
headed. Christianity was formally deposed, and
with sacrilegious rites, the worship of Reason 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, but for 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-
92 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
ous, and indeed of many of the vicious votaries of In
fidelity. All was done under the name of Liberty
and Humanity. Crowds of citizens who had fought
for this new order of things, were accused of 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 150,000 were executed. Thomas
Paine was himself a sufferer, and was undoubtedly
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 signify
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 under Infidel rule. Infidelity
removes all responsibility to God, and this responsi
bility gone, the natural consequence is that men ren
der an account only to their own passions.
The Commune of Paris of 1871 was a repetition
of the reign of terror. It was another exemplifica
tion of the rule of Atheism. Its results were not so
disastrous as those of the first Reign of Terror, be
cause its rule was shorter. France, taught by the
events of 1792 and succeeding years, rose in her
might and crushed the serpent in its infancy; but it
lived long enough to exhibit its spirit.
In the face of these facts, Colonel Ingersoll has
the effrontery to assert that Christianity is of perse
cuting spirit:
" Christianity cannot live in peace with any other
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 98
form of faith." . . . Christianity has "wet with
blood the sword He (Christ) came to bring."
(Pp. 7, 8.)
With these assertions I dealt already in chapter 3.
It may be that a few Atheists or Deists would not
gr
be as wicked as their principles, but let a nation be
indoctrinated with such principles, and the result
must be the same as occurred in France Without
Religion, man becomes a wild beast.
Thomas Paine, dishonestly enough, attributes 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.
Voltaire and Frederic of Prussia I quoted before.
De 1 Ambert says:
"I attribute irreligion to the desire to have no curb
to the passions, to the vanity of not thinking like
the multitude, rather than to sophistical illusions.
When passions and vanity cease, faith returns."
J. J. Rousseau says:
" Christianity renders men just, moderate, lovers
of peace, benefactors of society." (Lettr. de la
Montagne, 1. 4.)
Similarly, Montaigue, Fontenelle, Byron, Bayle,
and Maupertius have expressed themselves.
Besides the doctrines we have already referred to,
Reason alone cannot give us positive information on
such questions as these:
How is God to be honored and worshipped?
What is man s ultimate end? How may sin be
expiated ?
Colonel Ingersoll says we are bound by no creed
(p. 28); but we have only his word for this. We
94 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
need to be enlightened by Revelation. He maintains
that God cannot demand our worship. We have
refuted this in chapter 2. He also holds that there
is no forgiveness for us if we oifend Natural Law.
He is for inexorable justice. To decide such matters
we need the teaching of Revelation.
CHAPTER XL
MYSTERIES IN RELIGION.
AT this stage we are confronted with a difficulty
against Revelation, which is most resolutely urged
by all Rationalists, and it seems proper to remove it
before proceeding further. Rationalists maintain
that all mysteries in Religion should be rejected;
that is to say, all doctrines which we cannot fully
understand.
In chapter 1, I gave some reasons why a mystery
is not to be rejected merely because it is such.
Colonel Ingersoll says:
" We are told we have 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 be addressed
to his 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 clergy are obliged " to despise reason." (P. 20.)
MISTAKES OF MODEEN INFIDELS. 95
They induce "all to desert the standard of reason."
(P. 213.)
They teach "the wickedness of philosophy, the
immorality of science." (P. 19.)
" The Church has said: Believe and obey. If 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 dai*e to assert plainly. This he does, as we
have seen, when he suggests that there is no God.
He hopes thus to evade responsibility for propagating
doctrines which he knows to be dangerous and disas
trous in their results. He evidently thinks that he
will thus make it more difficult to refute 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 asserts that the Church savs, " 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. Ingersoll s assertion, he evidently
wishes to convey 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 says:
" The clergy must preach foolish dogmas." (P. 25.)
Here he commits himself to a positive statement.
96 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
He attempts no proof, we must take his w.ord 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
enough to deny his unproved assertions; but as I
wish further to prove Revelation, I will refute the
conclusion which he evidently intends his readers to
draw from his assertions. For this purpose I will
cite from T. Paine s " Age of Reason his views on
this subject. Paine, with all his faults,, unlike Col-
Ingersoll, has the courage of his convictions. My
answer to Mr. Paine will refute what Mr. Ingersoll
intends to convey. Mr. Paine says:
" Mystery cannot be applied to the moral truths of
Religion."
" Mystery is the antagonist of Truth, and Religion
cannot have any connection with Mystery." Age of
Reason.
In Nature, which is man s own sphere, 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 fact, 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, which is no other
than putting seed into the ground. We know, there
fore, as much as is necessary for us to know, and that
part of the operation which we do not know, and
which we could not perform, the Creator takes upon
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
himself and performs for us. We are better off than
if we had been let into the secret and left to do it for
ourselves." Ibid.
Thus Mr. Paine s own acknowledgment disproves
his position in regard to Mysteries in Religion; for
the same reasoning applies precisely to Religious
truth. In Nature which is man s own sphere, we are
so enveloped in Mysteries that Mr. Paine says
" everything we behold is a mystery to us." Our
existence, the vegetable and animal worlds, the in
fluence of our soul on our body, the circulation of
our blood, the action of Gravity in the Universe,
Chemistry,, Natural History, all are mysteries which
we cannot penetrate. Electricity, that wonderful
agent, many of whose uses we know, and of which
we can avail ourselves, is so mysterious a power that
we cannot tell its nature. The greatest scientists can
only theorize and speculate upon it. Thus in a mat
ter which pertains specially to man, that is to say in
the works of nature, we are in a world of mystery.
Is it to be supposed that in the sphere which belongs
to God we can understand everything ? that there
must be nothing mysterious or incomprehensible to
us? God would not be God: He would not be infin
ite in His immensity and knowledge if we could un
derstand all that relates to Him. It is, therefore,
preposterous for Mr. Paine to assert that there must
be no mysteries in Religion. God is infinite. He
knows truth which we cannot understand. Our high
est wisdom is to acknowledge that the number of
truths unknown to us is infinite. If God reveals
such it is reasonable for us to believe and unreason
able to reject them. In fact we owe to God the
homage of our whole being, of our understanding, as
98 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
of all our other faculties; and the only way in which
we can pay Him that homage, is to believe on His
unerring word all that He has revealed, however in
comprehensible it may be to us.
Reason and Revelation unite in attesting "how
incomprehensible are His judgments and how un
searchable His ways." Rom. xi, 33.
Mysteries in Religion are not against Reason: they
are above Reason. It is therefore useless and absurd
to attempt to penetrate and understand them by our
weak powers of Reason. We may, however, use our
Reason to know that God has revealed them; and
also to understand what is meant when a mystery is
proposed for our belief. Any further than this we
cannot go, and it is not reasonable to require that we
should understand it fully before believing it. We
do not require to understand all about the mysteries
of nature before we believe. We accept them on the
word of those who have to some extent penetrated
them, or who have discovered that the facts exist.
V
The testimony of God is greater than that of men.
We are therefore bound to receive His testimony,
even though we do not understand the truths He
reveals.
It is from this evident that Col. Ingersoll speaks
nonsense when he savs:
V
" It does not seem possible that in order to under
stand a message from 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 understand 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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS 99
" How can any man accept as a revelation from
God that which is unreasonable to him ? : Ibid.
We are not required to accept that which is unrea
sonable, that is to say against reason, but we are re
quired to accept that which is above reason, if God
reveals it. We know that God is Truth itself, and
that He can neither deceive nor be deceived. We
are therefore safe 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. Ingersoll also, while endeavoring to make his
readers believe that mystery " must be rejected by
every honest man " admits that there must be mys
tery in the act of Creation, for he says " I do not pre
tend to tell how all these things really are." (P. 60.)
Why then does he constantly ask, when Mysteries 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
it.
100 MISTAKES OF MODEKN" INFIDELS,
CHAPTER XII.
POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION. IMMEDIATE AND
MEDIATE REVELATION. HISTORICAL
CERTITUDE.
THOMAS PAINE makes a distinction of two kinds of
Revelation which we may conceive: Immediate Re
velation is that which God reveals directly to any
man: Mediate 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
Revelation.
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.
O
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,
O *
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 welfare
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 101
to know. There is therefore no obstacle to Reve
lation in the nature of the truth to be revealed to us.
There is no other source from which an obstacle
can arise to the possibility of Revelation 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 follows
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
ate 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
mighty to make such a communication if he pleases.
But admitting for the sake of a case that something
has been revealed to a certain person and not revealed
to any other, it is Revelation to that person only. When
he tells 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 Revelation Mr. Paine
denies. Ho says:
" It appears that Thomas did not believe the Re-
102 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
surrection, and as he would not believe without
having ocular and manual demonstration, so neither
will I, 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 else.
Thomas, when he demanded ocular demonstration,
had already the testimony of witnesses who were not
deceived, and were not deceivers. This was suffi
cient to justify belief. When miraculous events are
related, it is not advisable to be too credulous, 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 becomes a
folly. Thomas appears to have been too incredulous:
hence he is rebuked:
"Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast
believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and
have believed." (St. John xx, 20.)
If something useful to man were revealed, is it not
clear that by Mr. Paine s incredulity, himself, not God
the Revealer, would, by his refusal of belief be the
sufferer and loser. More wisely would we try to as
certain whether or not the Revelation be real. There
may be among the truths revealed, some that will be
of great benefit to us. There may be duties to be
fulfilled compliance with which will bring its own
reward.
Mr. Paine seems totally to mistake our relations
with God. He seems to consider it an act of conde
scension and kindness to God to accept Revelation :
so he dictates to God the terms of acceptance with as
much cool consciousness of superiority as the Em-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 103
peror Napoleon I. exhibited toward the Austrian
Plenipotentiary at Campo-Formio, when the Austrian
did not accept the conditions of peace which the Em
peror offered. Napoleon threw upon the pavement a
precious 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: "Unless you give me ocu
lar and manual demonstration, neither will I believe,"
is equally the outcome of presumptuous pride.
Col. Ingersoll holds the same doctrine as Mr. Paine,
and with equal presumption dictates to God the terms
on which he will accept his teaching:
" God cannot make a Revelation 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."
(P. 60.)
The absurdity of requiring God to adduce a series
of arguments, and to listen to the Colonel s quibbles
and to refute them has been shown in the last chapter.
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 illustrated
than by the example of Nabuchodonosor (or Nebuch
adnezzar.) This King received from God a fore
warning 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
104 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
down from heaven : to thee, O King Nabuchodonosor
it is said, thy 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 fulfilled.
The king s "body was wet with the dew of heaven,
till 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; nevertheless 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 Revelation
on the mere plea that it was not made directly to
ourselves ? 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. Free
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. Ingersoll
among these prophets!
It cannot be denied that God could so enlighten all
men; but it is more consistent with His general course
to teach Religion as we are taught natural truth. Es
pecially inconsistent is it for one who, like Mr. Paine,
eays that the book of Nature is the only Revelation,
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 105
to require that God should 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? Much we
may learn by study, much by the teaching of others;
and some by these means become more learned than
others. Children acquire knowledge by degrees. For
the purpose of teaching them, schools are established
and competent teachers selected. The knowledge of
Religious 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.
Revelation consists of truths and precepts, the
truths comprising doctrines and events. Laws con
sist of precepts, but they also frequently enumerate
facts, and they are always essentially connected with
the facts of history on which their force depends.
Now, according to Mr. Paine s and Col. Ingersoll 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 one 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 us, indi
vidually, very little satisfaction. The President ap
proves the laws after 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 copies
and that is all; but they must be obeyed all the same.
106 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Mr. Paine had some experience as a legislator, and I
presume he would say that enough had been done for
their promulgation. He therefore demands from God
the fulfillment of conditions which he would not have
dreamed of requiring from the inferior ruler of an
earthly State.
Mr. Paine and Colonel Ingersoll seem to imagine
that God s arrangements would have been much im
proved if they had been consulted about them.
Another person was of the same opinion, an Atheist
who had been discussing with a Christian companion
about the Existence and Providence of God.
The two, in their travels, were obliged to rest for
the night under an oak tree, near which spread out a
pumpkin vine from which grew a number of very
large pumpkins. The Atheist said:
"Now there is satisfactory evidence that Nature or
God did not arrange the world as wisely as it might
have been ordered. You see that magnificent oak
tree, yet what a miserable fruit it produces ! an insig
nificant acorn ! but on the grovelling vine that grows
along the ground, you find large and beautiful pump
kins. If I had been consulted, I would have had the
pumpkin grow on the oak, and the acorn on the
pumpkin vine."
The Christian argued that the evidences of wisdom
are innumerable in Creation, and that undoubtedly
there must be a wise end in view in the arrangement
of the growth -of the oak and the pumpkin even
though we cannot see it at first glance.
The two lay down to rest after their discussion
and fell asleep; but during the night the Atheist was
suddenly awakened by a painful sensation, caused by
the fall of an acorn upon his nose. The Christian
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 107
was awakened also by the Atheist s cry of pain. On
ascertaining the cause, he addressed the Atheist:
" You may be well satisfied that it was an acorn
and not a pumpkin that fell upon you, for if you had
had your way it would have been a pumpkin that
would have fallen upon you, and your head would
have been broken."
So Messrs. Paine and Ingersoll would scarcely have
made the world and the laws by which it operates,
any better fitted for man if they had been consulted
about their construction. If God had followed the
course they insist upon as necessary to make the ac
ceptance of Revelation obligatory, miracles would
need to be multiplied, and Mr. Paine would say as he
has said already, that these were "tricks unworthy
of God ; " and Colonel Ingersoll would say as he says
on page 59, that the Revelation must be a " lie ; " for
"Truth does not need the assistance of miracle."
They would be as far from believing as they ever
were.
The question of the possibility and obligation of
Mediate Revelation depends upon this: Can we be
certain of events which we have not ourselves wit
nessed? Undoubtedly we can; and it is only thus
that we know of the existence of cities and countries
we have never seen: for example, it is only by such
certitude that most people know of the existence of
London, Paris, Rome, Constantinople, etc., or of such
events as the Franco-Prussian, Russo-Turkish and
Napoleonic wars.
Euler, the celebrated mathematician, explains that
there are three kinds of certitude: Intellectual, Sen
sible and Historical, which by other writers are called
Metaphysical, Physical and Moral. Intellectual cer-
108 MISTAKES OF MODERN" INFIDELS.
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 they could
not deceive even if they would, the fact must be ad
mitted. If there exists such testimony that a Revo-
9
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
possible.
But besides the ordinary motives for 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.
CHAPTER XIII.
MIRACLES.
" MIRACLES are impossible. It is absurd to sup
pose that any power can change the laws of Nature."
So say nearly all Rationalists, whether Atheists, Pan
theists or Deists. Of course Messrs. Paine and Inger-
soll follow in the wake of their coryphcei.
Mr. Paine considers miracles as mere " tricks." Col.
Ingersoll 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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 109
" A fact never went into partnership with a miracle.
Truth does not need the assistance of a miracle."
(P. 59.)
If there is anv 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 that the world is filled 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,
Christ ans, Jews, Pagans and Mahometans:
"Every religion has for its foundation a misconcep
tion of the cause of phenomena." (P. 48.)
Colonel Ingersoll claims to be a "philosopher." If
such nonsense and inconsistency be the result of his
philosophy, the sooner 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 you give, 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 Reason.
A miracle maybe defined: a sensible and extraor
dinary effect exceeding the usual order of Providence
and the laics of Nature.
The possibility of miracles, I thus prove. The In-
110 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
finite power of God can do whatever involves no con
tradiction. But a miracle involves no contradiction:
therefore 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 effects exceeding
the effects of ordinary Natural laws. Even it is pos
sible for Him to suspend or change the Natural law,
for 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 possible to God.
In fact, the government of the world by God is not
the mere government 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 from
the universal law of nature, properly speaking. When
He created the universe and established the ordinary
laws which govern 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
miracles.
Thus it has been said, "the laws of Nature are
God s own decrees, and they must therefore be un
changeable."
I answer to this that these laws are indeed decrees
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. Ill
of God, but these decrees of God include the provis
ion that 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, miracles are necessary to estab
lish the authority of him who claims to be the mes
senger of God.
Thus, when Moses appeared before Pharaoh, Pha
raoh knew nothing of the God of the Israelites; for he
said:
" Who is the Lord that I should hear his voice 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 his accred
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
cultivation as to produce magnificent flowers, so that
it is hard to believe 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
powerful than God.
Next we come to the consideration of the force of
miracles as a testimony to the divine authority of
Revelation.
Miracles are superior to the ordinary operations of
112 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the laws of Nature. Now as these laws of Nature
are the effects of God s will, the surpassing of these
laws must also be the effect of His will. Therefore
only God Himself, or some one acting by His authority
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 enacted 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 preternatural 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
miraculous.
It is true we do not know all the powers of nature,
so 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 life, 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
Rationalists deny a miracle in such cases? Thus
when a philosopher proved to a certain audience that
MISTAKES OF MODEEN INFIDELS. 113
motion is impossible, one present walked to the plat
form and said: "by walking, I prove that motion is
possible." Similarly, when such facts happen as
those which I have 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 before 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 his mission by such wondrous
works, that the Israelites were obliged to acknowledge
him, 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 penned the following:
" Can God work miracles ? Can he derogate from
laws which he has established ? This question seri
ously treated would be impious, if it were not ab
surd Who has ever denied that God can
work miracles?"
114 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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 Celsus, Julian, and other ancient ad
versaries of the Christian Religion, who, being un
able to contradict or deny the authenticity of Christ s
miracles, found 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 Ingersoll hesitate before pro
claiming that they are " impossible, puerile and fool
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 his followers did not in
crease, whereas Christ s disciples were faithful even
to death. He therefore asked Barras advice. The
blunt warrior answered reflectingly: " Well, I do not
wonder at it. I think, however, I can give you good
advice on the subject."
"Have yourself killed on a Friday, bui ied on Sat-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. Z15
urday, and on Sunday morning try your best to rise
again. If you succeed, I assure you, you will not
have to complain of want of devoted followers."
The advice of Barras was not followed, and Theo-
philanthropism is dead; but Christianity lives.
CHAPTER XIV.
PROPHECY.
A Prophecy is the sure manifestation of a future
event which could not be foreseen by 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
science. 3. The prediction should be determinate, so
that it may not be accommodated to any event that
may occur.
The Possibility of Prophecy follows from God s
knowledge of all things. Being Infinite in Perfec
tion, He cannot acquire new knowledge. All things
past, present and future must therefore 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 irrefragable proof of Divine Reve
lation; for God alone can foresee the contingent
future; therefore 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 it is sometimes objected that Prophecy
is the result merely of a vivid imagination, or of
116 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
extra natural sagacity, and that therefore no certain
argument for the divinity of Revelation can 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 fulfillment, 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 following may be here
pointed out.
We read in Deuteronomy xxvin, 45, etc.
" And all these curses shall come upon thee, and
shall pursue and overtake thee till thou perish: be-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 117
cause thou heardest not the voice of the Lord, thy
God, and didst not keep his commandments and cere
monies which he commanded thee.
" And they shall be as signs and wonders on thee
and on thy seed forever.
" Thou shalt serve thy enemy whom the Lord will
send upon thee, in hunger and thirst and nakedness,
and in want of all things; and he shall put an iron
yoke upon thy neck, till he consume thee.
"The Lord will bring upon thee a nation from afar,
and from the uttermost ends of the earth, like an
eagle that flieth swiftly: whose tongue thou canst not
understand:
" A most insolent nation, that will show no regard
to the ancient, nor have pity on the infant,
" And will devour the fruit of thy cattle, and the
fruits of thy land: until thou be destroyed, and will
leave thee no wheat, nor wine, nor oil, nor herds of
oxen, nor flocks of sheep; until he destroy thee,
" And consume thee in all thy cities, and the strong
and high walls be brought down, wherein thou
trustedst in all thy land.
" Thou shalt be besieged within the gates in all thy
land, which the Lord thy God will give thee."
The fulfillment of all this is well known to have
occurred in the crimes with which our Blessed Lord
reproaches the Scribes and Pharisees, and especially in
the crimes committed in persecuting to death the
Saviour of the world and His followers.
These crimes are enumerated in the New Testa
ment and even by the Jewish High-priest Josephus.
Thus we read in St. Matt, xxiii, 2, etc., the fol
lowing description of these Scribes and Pharisees
given by Christ Himself:
118 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
" The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the
chair of Moses.
" All, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you,
observe and do, but according 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 suffer not to enter. (Verse 13.)
" Wo to you . . . hypocrites . . . you devour the
houses of widows, making long prayers: therefore
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 faith. 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 full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Verse
28.)
" 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.
(35.) . .
" 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
children, as the hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings, and thou wouldst not? (37.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 119
" Behold your house shall be left to you desolate.
(38.)
"All the chief priests and ancients of the people
held a council against Jesus to put him to death,
(xxvii, 1.)
"They all say: Let him be crucified. The gov
ernor said to them: Why what evil hath he done ?
But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be
crucified." (Yerse 23.)
We see by all this, not only the fulfillment of the
phophecy of Moses, but also that Christ Himself made
prophecies concerning the same matter, which were
fulfilled within a very short time. The prophecies of
Christ, proving Christianity divine, also prove the
divinity of the Mosaic Religion, which is an essential
part of Christianity.
But the fearful punishments to be inflicted upon
the Jews for 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. This came to pass
when the war with the Romans began. A few ex
tracts from Josephus will show how the prophecy of
Moses was literally fulfilled.
" Then came Vespasian .... and commanded them
to kill the 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." Ib.
" 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 themselves down the precipices ....
but the anger of the Romans appeared not to be so
120 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
extravagant as was the madness of those who were
captured, for while the Romans slew but four thou-
sand,the number who threw themselves down were
five thousand." (Book 4, i, 10.)
" God had blinded the minds (of the Jews) for the
transgressions they had been guilty of .... a famine
also was creeping upon them .... a great many had
died already for want of necessaries." Book 5, viii, 2.
Josephus himself, within hearing of the Jews ex
horted them to surrender, because on account of their
crimes they were punished by God:
"Nay, the temple itself, this divine place is pol
luted by the hands of those of our country." ix, 4.
" The famine was too hard for all other passions
.... children seized the very morsels 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
creatures 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 fulfillment of the prophecy
" thou shalt eat the fruit of thy womb, and the flesh
of thy sons and daughters . . . .in the distress and
extremity wherewith thy enemy shall oppress thee."
Deut., xxviii, 53. See Josephus, Book 6, iii, 3, 4.
Again we learn 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
down."
This was fulfilled by the total destruction of the
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 121
of the temple, though Titus himself desired to save
it. Josephus, Book 6, etc.
The number of captives is stated to have been
97,000, and the number slain 1,100,000. ix, 3.
The walls were then so completely demolished that
no trace of a city was left. Book 7, i.
In chapter 19, it will be seen that Moses foretold
the period when the Israelites would demand a king,
and gave laws which should be observed on such oc
casion. He foretold also the possession of the prom
ised land.
In Deut. xviii, 15, 18, the coming of Christ is prom
ised, and a command given to hear Him, and in Gen.
xlix, 10, the very period of Christ s advent is foretold
for it is there promised that the royal line will remain
in the house of Juda till Christ s coming.
Numerous other prophecies literally fulfilled might
besides be quoted. I will merely indicate a few pas
sages. The sufferings of the Jews are further de
scribed in Deut. xxviii, 68; Jerem. xliv, 7; Osee
(Hosea) viii, 13; ix, 3; xi, 3 to 7.
The visit of Christ to the second temple is foretold
in Mai. iii, 1; Aggeus (Haggai) ii, 4 to 10. Thus it
is shown that the coming of the Christ or Messias is
an event of the past, since this temple was utterly
destroyed.
The prophecy of Daniel, ix, 21 to 27 relates that
within 70 hebdomades, or weeks (of years) from the
going forth of the word to build up Jerusalem again,
Christ the Prince shall appear. This is the very
period which elapsed between these two great events,
as nearly as Chronology has been able to fix these
dates. These hebdomades are interpreted to mean
each, seven years, because such is the meaning of the
122 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
word mother parts of Holy Scripture; besides which
it could not be supposed that the events described
should occur within 490 days.
CHAPTER XV,
THE FACT OP REVELATION.
We have proved that Divine Revelation is possible,
and that it is necessary for man in his present condi
tion, to enable him to know and to fulfill his moral
duties. We have, further, pointed out that there are
certain characters and marks by means of which we
can know true Revelation and distinguish it from the
spurious article. It is now proper that we should
apply these characters and marks for the discovery of
the truth.
Is Revelation a delusion ? Has God, Infinitely,
Good and Merciful, being wanting to man in his great
need, or has He supplied us with that supernatural
help which we so much require? It is a question of
fact which must be solved by an appeal to historical
monuments, and to testimony.
Christians maintain that such a Revelation has
been given. Jews as well as Christians maintain that
to the Jewish nation, God revealed Himself, and that
Moses, in the first place, recorded this Revelation,
and that in the writings of Moses consisting of five
books, known as the Pentateuch, we find this record.
The Revelation given through the hands of Moses
was supplemented by the later historical and prophet
ical books, which with the Pentateuch constitute the
Old Testament. Thus far Jews and Christians
agree.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 123
But Judaism was to be further supplemented by
the advent of a Messias, a prophet of whom Moses
speaks:
" The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet
of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me, him
thou shalt hear .... And the Lord said to me: ....
I will raise them up a prophet out of the midst
of their brethren like to thee: and I will put my
words in his mouth, and he shall speak all that I shall
command him. And he that will not hear his words,
which he shall speak in my name, I will be the re
venger. Deut. xviii, 15, 19. The old law was known
only to the Jews, but through this prophet, the Mes
sias, the light of Revelation was to be spread among
the nations:
" Behold I have given him for a witness to the peo
ple, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles. Be
hold, thou shalt call a nation, which thou knewest
not; and the nations that knew not thee shall run to
thee, because of the Lord thy God, and for the holy
One of Israel, for he hath glorified thee. : Is. Iv, 4, 5.
These prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, and the
Christian believes that His Apostles and immediate
disciples have handed down His teachings in the
New Testament.
As it is our intention to answer Colonel IngersolPs
assaults against Moses, and as the five books of Moses
constitute the first part of Revealed Religion, we will
begin the proof of the fact of Revelation with this
part of Holy Scripture. I will show: first, the
Authenticity of the Pentateuch; secondly, its His
torical Truth; thirdly, the Divinity of the Mosaic
Religion.
MISTAKES OF MODERN IJSFIDKLS.
CHAPTER XVI.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION. ANTIQ
UITY OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE.
INFIDELS attack very fiercely the authenticity and
integrity of the Pentateuch. By authenticity we
mean that it belongs to the period of, and that it was
written by the author whose work it claims to be.
By integrity of a book we mean that it is, substan
tially, at least, the same work as that composed by
the author.
Colonel Ingersoll says, point-blank:
"The Pentateuch 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.) ; .
He does not deny that the Hebrews may have been
enslaved, and that many plagues afflicted the Egyp
tians, as the locusts and flies, the death of many of
their cattle, the visit of a pestilence to their country,
etc., but he asserts that all this was superstitiously
attributed to God, that the history of the events and
their superstitious belief were handed down "from
father to son simply by tradition." He adds:
" By the time a written language had been pro
duced thousands of additions had been made, and
numberless details invented; so that we have not only
an account of the plagues suffered by the Egyptians,
but the whole woven into a connected story, contain
ing the threats made by Moses and Aaron, the mira
cles wrought by them, the promises of Pharaoh, and
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 125
finally the release of the Hebrews, as a result of the
marvellous things performed in their behalf by
Jehovah." (Pp. 208, 209.)
Again :
"As a matter of fact, it seems to be well settled
that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and
that they were not written until he had been dust
and ashes for hundreds of years." (P. 46.)
It thus appears that the Colonel asserts:
First, that the Pentateuch was written only " sev
eral hundred years after the time of Moses."
Secondly, that it is a compilation from the legends
that were handed down by tradition among the Jews.
Thirdly, that the miracles related in it are false
and superstitious.
Fourthly, that this unauthenticity is a well settled
fact.
These do not represent all the opinions of Infidels
regarding the authenticity of the Pentateuch. Col
onel Ingersoll concedes the existence of Moses; for
he says that he was " dust and ashes for hundreds of
years r when the Pentateuch was written. Voltaire,
in his Encyclopedia, denies the very existence of
Moses. A tract (No. 108) published by D. M. Ben-
net in his collection, presumptuously asserts that the
Pentateuch could not have been written before the
reign of Josias, about 625 B. C., and that it was
unknown " until a priest named Hilkiah said that he
found the book of the law in the house of the Lord."
In proof of this he cites 4 Kings xxii, 8, and 2 Para-
lipomenon xxxiv, 14. (Protestant Bible, 2 Kings, 2
Chronicles.) He adds that it was burned a few years
afterwards, and " was never recovered." The same
writer (Preston) states that "none of the (present)
126 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
books were heard of previous to the translation of
the Septuagint." 280 B. C.
Another tract from the same collection by A. L.
Rawson says that "there has been presented clearly
and unmistakably a startling array of facts which ar
gue the conclusion that the Hebrew language was
simply a creation of the Rabbis, and was never a liv
ing language in use by any people." No. 104.
Again :
" The Hebrew language was an artificial structure
framed by scholars in the priesthood for the private
use of the Church."
"All these writings were written during the
time of the Maccabees and the Herods .... in
Greek." ibid. i. e. 170 B. C.
A squab-pie cannot be made of more discordant
materials, than he has to swallow who would be an
Infidel or Agnostic of the nineteenth century. The
desire for truth is professedly the motive of Infidel
teachings, yet the above doctrines, irreconcilable witli
the known facts of history and with each other are
given as the pabulum on which so-called "Truth-
seekers" are fed. How could the 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, what need had Ptolemy Philadelphus to get
interpreters to translate it from Hebrew into that
language ? In fact not only does Josephus, who had
ample means of information on a fact comparatively
recent, testify that the Septuagint translation was
made in Ptolemy s reign, but Philo and Aristobulus
attest the same, of whom Aristobulus flourished be
fore the time the Maccabees. Aristseus, also, who
was an intimate friend of the King, and who took
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 127
part in the transaction, gives a detailed account of it.
Josephus, Ant. xii, 2. In the face of all this it is certainly
a piece of cool effrontery for these Infidels, be they
Atheists or Deists, to tell us that there were no such
books till the time of the Maccabees, or that there
was no Hebrew language, or as Colonel Ingersoll sug
gests that there was no Hebrew copy from which the
translation was made. In fact the Colonel manifests
the most blind ignorance of this whole history on
which he dogmatizes so positively, for he states that
the Septuagint was translated after 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
duced.
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
manesque, and just as these children would testify to
the existence of their mother 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 satisfaction of all linguists the
former existence of Hebrew as a spoken language.
128 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
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, Aramaean
(Chaldee,) and Himyaritic, besides the Sinaitic in
scriptions and the monuments of Assyria. To these
must be added the Phoenician, which has handed
down its monuments which have 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 familiar.
Let us take a few cases to illustrate how philolo
gists can draw inferences 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 changes of forms
already in existence.
Thus the French adverbial termination ment added
to adjectives to form adverbs, has an origin, yet this
termination is not in Latin. Fort, strong, is clearly
from the Latin fortis, but whence comes fortement in
Latin fortiter, strongly f We find in Latin such
forms as "bona mente" "in good faith," "forti
mente" "with strong will," in "alia mente" equiva
lent to " altera niente" otherwise, or with other inten
tion. It is now easy to see how the French got into
the custom of using the words bonnement, fortement,
autrement, and of applying the termination to other
cases, as figurement, figuratively, librement, freely,
etc. Italians and Spaniards, both use the termination
mente in the same sense. Who cannot see that these
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 129
all bespeak their common parent, Latin ? Who can
not see that the French vingt, the Spanish veinte, and
the Italian venti are all derived from their common
parent, the Latin viginti twenty ? In precisely the
same way could philologists infer the existence of the
Hebrew parent, from its derivative tongues which
exist to-day. See Max Mtiller, Science of Language.
Besides all this, the Phoenician letters are, with three
or four exceptions, identical with those used in Old
Hebrew.
To all this we may add, that in the earliest Greek,
there are words which are evidently of Hebrew or
Phoenician origin. This is the case, especially, when
the articles were imported from the East. Thus we
have nether, Greek nitron, nitre ; kinnamon, Greek
kinnamomon, cinnamon; mor y Greek myrrha, myrrh;
shushan, Greek souson, a lily; gamal, Greek came-
los, a camel; nevel, or nabal, Greek nabla, a lyre ;
kinnor, Greek kmyra, a harp ; with many others.
See Prof. Hirschfelder s Biblical Commentary, p.
xxxvi.
Now we come to a discovery of Colonel Ingersoll
which is on a par with that of Mr. Kawson, and which
would be as deserving of Infidel recognition, only for
the fact that the wonderful discovery was made by
Voltaire before him. It is that the Hebrews had no
written language till long after the time of Moses.
See the passage quoted above from pp. 208, 209.
This makes clear also what Colonel Ingersoll states
on page 49, which would be otherwise obscure:
" Many systems of religion must have existed many
ages before the art of writing was discovered, and
must have passed through many changes before the
stories, miracles, prophecies, and mistakes became
130 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
fixed and petrified in written words. After that,
change was possible only by giving new meanings to
old words, etc., and in this way Christians of to-day
are trying to harmonize the Mosaic account of crea-
V V_?
tion with the theories and discoveries of modern
science.
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, thousands of years before Moses was born.
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 satisfy the
peculiar superstitions of his own people." (P. 51.)
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 curious 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 "science" in the Bible, and that "it was pro
duced by ignorance" and "believed and defended
by " ignorance also. (P. 242.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 131
Of co.urse the Colonel s blunders are the product 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. IngersolPs lectures!
Elsewhere, in his lecture on skulls, the Colonel as
serts that the Hindoo Vedas were icritten 4,000 years
before the Pentateuch; and on page 165 he says:
" An account of a general deluge was discovered by
George Smith, translated from another account that
was written two thousand years before Christ." He
adds:
This account is " without doubt much older than
the one given by Moses." (P. 165.)
All this before written lansrua^e was invented!
O O
Surely, Colonel, you must have "been asleep when
you wrote all this. I fear you would have made a
sorry work if you had written the Pentateuch, which
you say you could have done so much better than
Moses.
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
Learning. It could scarcely have received such
names unless it had some celebrity for 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 turn are derived from the Phoenician or He
brew: Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth. Further back we
cannot trace them; for in Hebrew these names all
have a meaning, and in the old Hebrew, the letters
132 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
bore a certain resemblance to the objects designated.
Aleph is an ox; Beth, a house; Gimel, a camel, etc.
Here, then, we have the Alphabet traced to its source.
If it was in turn derived from the Egyptian hiero
glyphics, as some suppose, 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. INGEKSOLL 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 following passages of Scrip
ture to prove that they were unknown previous to the
time of King Josias:
"Helcias, the high priest, said 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
said;
" 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 hand of Moses," that is to say it was the original
written by Moses himself.
" Helcias the priest found the book of the law of
the Lord, by the hand of Moses." 2 Paralipomenon
xxxiv., 14. (Prot. Bible, 2 Chron.) This is further
confirmed by what we read in Deuteronomy xxxi., 9,
24.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 133
" 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."
" Therefore 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 justifica
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 religious
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 Ki.), and
even the impious Achab is restrained by it, so as to
go through a form of law when committing an in
justice. (3 Ki. xxi, 3, 4, 9, 10. Prot. Bible, 1 Ki.)
In the reign of Osee, the prophets constantly recalled
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
134 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
all the conduct 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 ;
Pi-ot. Bible, 2 Chron: 2 Kings.)
If it be objected that I am here appealing to the
Bible as evidence, I reply :
1st. 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 records of the nation, and are attested
as such. They have, therefore, independently of
their inspired force, all the force of historical monu
ments, and more: they have the force of authentic
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
before 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
filled 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
MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS. 135
-
decisively that the law was the same which the Jew
ish people had been accustomed to reverence, but
which during the troubled times through which the
nation had passed had been partly forgotten, 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 false 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.
CHAPTER XVII.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. TESTIMONY OF THE LATER
SACRED WRITERS.
THE 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 incur considerable ex-
136 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
pense to obtain the translation. The king then, by
the advice of Aristseus, who 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 further 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 tell us to-day
that these nations have a history too. The law must
necessarily 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 137
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 convenient letter
which Esdras (Ezra) introduced, and they still retain
the old characters, which were used from the earliest
period.
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, whichever 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
sels, the cherubim, the stone tables of the law, etc., were
all evidences of the same. Thus we have traced the
Pentateuch to nearly seven hundred years earlier than
the date allowed by Col. Ingersoll and Mr. Preston, and
138 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
over eight hundred years earlier than Mr. Rawson
allows. But it must have been already hundreds of
years old, as the numerous monuments and feasts still
kept sufficiently attested: and as the separation of the
ten tribes occurred only four hundred and seventy-
seven years after the death of Moses, we are already
brought to within a short time of the date of Moses
himself.
The books of Samuel and Kings and Paralipomenon
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 learn 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
compilations.
The fact 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 venerated as their sacred
records by the Jewish people of the time, and they
enter upon details of government and con duct of the
Jews that none but those who were familiar 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 not to be expected that
foreigners would take so deep an interest in the Jew-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 139
ish domestic affairs as the Jews themselves, yet in
pagan monuments remarkable confirmations of many
principal facts are to be found.
Thus, in 3 Kings iii, 1 (Prot. Bible, 1 Kings), we
have an account of Solomon s marriage with the
daughter of the King of Egypt; and an extant frag
ment of Eupolemus relates that friendship existed
between the two kings, so much so that there was
friendly intercourse between them by letter, and that
Solomon, by letter, acknowledged the 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, according 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
Ingersoll 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 that the Egyptians learned these things
imperfectly by means of their inter-communication
with the Jews. Similarly were communications held
with Phoanicia, 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 answer, 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
much wondered at if there were in these countries
140 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
some traces of primitive religious truth, but they
were only traces, as they have reached us.
The records of Tyre fully confirm these 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 Carthage.
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 much inter
course.
Menander, the Ephesian, relates the same circum
stances in great detail.
These facts are in perfect accord 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 wonderfully with the
Scripture history. All these testimonies may be read
in Josephus "against Apion," Book i, 20.
Hermippus, Theophrastus, Herodotus, Cherilus,
Aristotle, Agatharicides, all mention various customs
of the Jews; from which it is seen that they were
strict in the observance of the Mosaic 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,
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 141
though 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 elder 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-
bee, are the. largest ever used for building.
Arista3us describes the fountains of the temple in
detail, and calls them " a marvel of hydraulics."
Mr. de Saulcy recognizes perfectly in the ruins
now visible, the works which Solomon constructed
over the valley of Millo. The first indication of the
special 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
father-in-law being dead, Jeroboam should look to the
new dynasty for protection against Solomon.
This Shishak invaded Jerusalem in the fifth 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
142 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
historians until Champollion s discoveries, and Infidels
of the last century, ridiculed the Bible in this point
as inconsistent with history. But at Karnak, Shishak
is represented as holding by the hair a crowd of cap
tives whom he is in the act of destroying. Another
group is beside this with their hands tied, amongst
whom is one with a decidedly Jewish face, bearing
a shield with the inscription Jeoud/iameZek, the King
of Juda. See Kosellini and Champollion. The latter
adds that this Shishak is undoubtedly the Sesonchis
of Manetho. This discovery is a remarkable proof
that the Jewish records contained in the Kings and
Chronicles are authentic and correct records, written
at the period when the events occurred.
The monumental history of Assyria gives similar
testimony. Tiglath-Peleser, Shalmaneser, Sargon,
Sennacherib and Esarhaddon carried their arms into
Palestine, according to the Bible. All these kings
are named on the tablets discovered in Assyria, and
the 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 comparing
them with the Bible. Thus the total loss of Sennach
erib s army when 185,000 men were dead in the morn
ing is not recorded by the Assyrians, whose national
pride did not permit them to transmit the memory
of their great humiliations, but even this fact is cor
roborated by Herodotus. The invasion itself is, how
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 which precede the reign of Asshur-idanni-
pal are without monuments. The monuments which
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS 143
have been discovered in connection with Assyrian
history since that period, are recognized by Messrs.
Layard, Rawlinson 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 persons
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
ture of oriental monarchical magnificence of the per
iod. The lions around Solomon s throne, ( 3 Kings,
x; 19, 20,) are the same emblems that covered the
walls of Ningveh. The spear and shield and helmet
and battering-ram, were all war-like instruments in
common use. Moveable towers, such as described 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: Khitti=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
144 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
in Holy Writ, on which Mr. Layard s "Nineveh and
its Remains " may be consulted.
Numerous other instances might be adduced to
show the accuracy of details in the books under con
sideration, but we need only add that the main facts
recorded in Scripture undeniably accord with known
history : such as the rise and fall of the Assyrian,
Babylonian and Persian Empires, the springing up
of Greece as a nation, the rise of the Roman Empire
and the diffusion of Phoenician and Greek civilization.
All this shows that the Jewish records are a faithful
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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 145
CHAPTER XVIII.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. TESTIMONY OF THE LATER
SCRIPTURES. PAGAN TESTIMONY.
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 instanced ; and it must be remembered
that they are from the public records of the nation,
both civil and religious: records more sacred, and as
carefully preserved as the archives of any nation of
to-day.
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.) " Remember the word which Moses, the ser
vant of the Lord, commanded you."
(viii, 30 to 35.) " 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 had commanded."
7
146 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
(11,15.) "As the Lord had commanded Moses,
his servant, so did Moses command Josue," etc.
We find in Judges :
(Hi, 4.) "And he left them, that he might try
Israel by them, whether they would hear the com
mandments of the Lord, which he had commanded
their fathers by the hand 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.) "It is the
Lord who made Moses and Aaron, and brought our
fathers out of the land of Egypt."
" And the Lord sent Moses and Aaron, and brought
your fathers out of Egypt: and made them dwell in
this place."
(ii, 6.) " The Lord killeth and maketh alive." This
is quoted from Deut. xxxii, 39.
(vi, 6.) " Why did you harden your hearts, as
Egypt and Pharaoh hardened their hearts ?" Quoted
from Ex. iv, 21, etc.
(2 Kings xi, 4, Prot. Bible, 2 Saml.) She was
purified from her uncleanness." This is in accordance
with Lev. xv, 18.
(xii, 6.) " He shall restore the ewe fourfold." This
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 his in
heritance."
This is to fulfill the law. (Deut. xxv, 7.)
See also verse 10, 11; and in verse 12, reference is
made to Gen. xxxviii, 29.
In 1, 2 Paralipomenon or Chronicles.
(1 Chron. vi, 49.) " But Aaron and his sons offered
burnt-offerings, etc., according to all that Moses the
servant of God had commanded."
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 147
(xv, 15.) " And the sons of Levi took the ark of
God, as Moses had commanded."
It will be here seen, and throughout Kings and
Chronicles, 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 monuments mentioned in the
next quotation:
(xxi, 29.) "But the tabernacle 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
Gabaon."
(2 Chron. i, 3.) " He went .... to the high place
of Gabaon where was the tabernacle of the Lord
which Moses the servant of God made in the wilder
ness.
In v, 10, another important 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, from which I have cited a
few out of many passages, but also all the books of
the Old Testament, constantly refer to the Mosaic
writings 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
148 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the Koran, the Vedas, the sacred and political frag
ments of Egypt and China must acknowledge that
there is for all these no such evidence as for the Pen
tateuch. Caesar 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 doubt, as works of these
authors, but not the Pentateuch, which is proved by
authorities 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 and 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 hand, the most ancient writers of every nation
recognized this fact more or less fully.
Of the Egyptians, Manetho, their oldest historian,
states from 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 strong confirmation of the authority 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 149
says, was born in Heliopolis the same as On (Gen.
xli, 45,) the city of the Sun. His name was Osar-
siph, which he changed to Moses. He forbade the
worship of the Egyptian Gods, and established many
customs which were opposite to those of the Egyp
tians and even killed the animals which the Egyptians
held sacred.
Diodorus of Sicily says that " The Jew Moses pre
tended to have received from the God Jahal (cor
rupted from Jehovah) the laws which he gave to his
nation." Nicholaus of Damascus 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 multitude, he left Egypt
to fix himself in Judea, as he detested the profane
customs 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 frequently speaks of Moses as a prophet of
God.
Who doubts of the existence of a Confucius, a Zo
roaster, a Lycurgus, a Solon, a Numa, a Mahomet ?
Yet the existence of Moses and his authorship of the
Pentateuch are proved by testimonies much more
worthy of credit, much more numerous and universal
than those which attest the life and actions of these
celebrities.
The books of the Old Testament, and especially the
Pentateuch contain the laws, the doctrines, the moral
ity of the Jewish people, their genealogies and their
title-deeds. The kings and priests were obliged to
make themselves familiar with them. They were read
frequently to the people. Many copies of them were
150 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
preserved with the greatest care among them, and
history attests that such was their respect for the sa
cred volume, that every letter was regarded as so
sacred, that no alteration was tolerated in the most
minute particulars. Every circumstance combines to
prove that they must be authentic.
- CHAPTER XIX.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. OBJECTIONS OF MESSRS. PAINE
AND INGERSOLL REFUTED.
Let us now see on what grounds do infidels main
tain that the Pentateuch is spurious.
A few very few passages are found which, they
say, must evidently have been written by a later hand,
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 hand, the substantial
accuracy and authenticity of the work would 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 chapter 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.
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 151
In either case the authenticity of the work itself,
in substance, cannot be impugned.
It is not, however, claimed, either by the book it
self, or by the Christian Church that Moses wrote this
chapter. In fact, the sixth verse of the chapter
seems to imply that at all events the fifth and follow
ing verses were added after Moses death:
"No man hath known of his sepulchre until this
present day."
Josephus is, however, of the opinion that Moses
himself wrote the account of his death " through fear
that the people should venture to say that because of
his extraordinary virtue he went to God." Antiq.
Book iv, 48.
This is the opinion of Josephus, individually, and
Philo embraces the same view ; but this is not neces
sarily the opinion we must entertain. It is usually
believed among Christians that this part of Deuter
onomy is the supplement by another. Thus Col.
Ingersoll s witticism is harmless, though it was in
tended to be conclusive against the authenticity of
the Pentateuch. He says (pp. 265 to 268,) in an ele
gant sentence of nearly six 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
funeral."
Among the other objections which are brought
against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, on the
plea that certain passages must have been written at
a later period, we find the following in Col. Inger-
solPs book :
152 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
"In the 30th chapter of Exodus (verse 13,) we are
told that .... each one 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. Ingersoll 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. Ingersoll evidently blunders here by following
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. Ingersoll tells 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
fact 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
used over 400 years before the time of Moses, in Gen-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 153
.
esis xxiii, 15, 16, xxiv. 22. Such are the pujiy 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
Pentateuch.
Mr. Thomas Paine, however, finds some difficulties
of similar character, which it may be well to refute
here. The pages are from the New York edition of
"Age of Reason," 1878.
Mr. Paine says:
" I mean not to go out of the Bible for 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 for 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 unauthen-
ticity:
"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 till
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.)
154 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
He then refers to Judges xviii, 27, 29. " They (the
Danites) came unto Laish .... and burned the city
with fire, and they built a city .... and they called
the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan,
their father, howbeit the name of the city was Laish
at the first." (P. 70.)
Certainly, if the Dan to which Abraham pursued
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 would occupy the site of Laish, and call it Dan,
or else subsequent 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 account to
be rejected as spurious. There are in Josephus, Taci
tus, Virgil, Homer, passages which some suppose to
be interpolated accidentally or intentionally, but no
one dreams of rejecting their whole work on this
account. 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 ? But considering that Moses is through
out conscious that the Israelites will possess the ter
ritory of the Chanaanites, it is not at all unlikely
that he could foresee that the spot would be called
Dan.
However, there is another answer to this. Mr.
Paine assumes that the Dan spoken of in Genesis is
the same place as the Dan mentioned in Judges. This
supposition is entirely gratuitous, and therefore his
whole argument falls to the ground.
In fact St. Jerome, a perfect scholar in Hebrew,
who wrote fifteen hundred years ago, tells us that the
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 155
Dan of Genesis xiv., and the Dan of Judges xviii.,
are two different places, in all probability.
The river Jordan is certainly JOK-DAN, and it means
the river Dan: and though the Hebrew syllable Jor
differs from the spelling of Jor a river, as applied to
the Nile, it has the same meaning. Jordan is there
fore the river Dan, and it had this name before 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. (Gen. xiii., 11,
12.) Why then, should not the Dan mentioned in
Gen. xiv., 14, be some locality in the neighborhood
of the Jordan, or the Jor-Dan itself. This is perhaps
the most probable view to be taken of the narrative:
for we 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 Canaan, which
was altogether in a different direction from the coun
try of the four kings.
This opinion is further favored by the fact that
there was a town Dannah (Jos. xv., 49,) 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 after Dan before 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.,
31 :
" And these are the kings that reigned in Edom
before there reigned a king over the children of
Israel."
On this Mr. Paine says:
156 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
These words <c could only have been written after
the first king began to reign over them; and conse
quently the book of Genesis, so far from having been
written by Moses, could not have been written till
the time of Saul at least." (P. 71.)
He then points out that the writer of Chronicles i,
43, uses the same words through several verses.
He infers that Genesis is not so old as Chronicles.
(R 72.) ; ;
He does not attempt to explain how the Chronicles
have managed to quote 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 50,000,000 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 assembled with
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 157
the tribes of Israel." ISTow, since Moses is called a
king, cannot it be that the expression " these are the
kings that reigned in Edom before there reigned a
king over the children of Israel," means " these are
the kings of Edom before my rule began in Israel ? "
"Whichever view we take 01 this matter the authen
ticity remains intact.
Mr. Paine s next objection is not against the au
thenticity of the Pentateuch, but against the charac
ter of Moses, who is accused 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 authenticity is
founded on Ex. xvi, 34.
" The children of Israel did eat manna until they
came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until
they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan."
Mr. Paine says:
"Moses could not write this account, "because the
account 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. 74.)
REFUTATION. Moses reached Mount Pisgah " over
against Jericho." (Deut. xxxiv, 1.) This mountain
was therefore on the borders of Canaan. Pisgah was
in Moab, " a land inhabited." Moses was therefore
with the Israelites when they reached " a land inhab
ited" on "the borders of the land of Canaan." The
account, therefore, does not extend beyond the life
and time of Moses, and there was no difficulty about
his writing Exodus up to the date of the arrival of
the Israelites at that spot. It is indicative of a bad
cause to have recourse to such petty special pleading.
158 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
Mr. Paine himself acknowledges virtually that this
last objection, as well as the next, is worthless, for 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.
75.) He adds, however:
"It is nevertheless very presumable and corrobor
ating evidence, and is better than the best evidence
on the contrary side."
Mr. Paine seems to forget that he has undertaken
to prove the non-authenticity of the Pentateuch. We
have given positive evidence of its authenticity and
will in the next chapter give more. His indirect and
un-positive proofs are therefore of no weight. How
ever, let us see what he has to say that requires this
apologetic introduction. He quotes Deut. 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 Arnmon?
Nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits
the breadth of it after the cubit of a man."
He adds:
"A cubit is 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 is, for such is frequently
the Bible method of affirming a thing. But it could
not be Moses that said this, because he could know
nothing about Rabbah, nor of what was in it. Rab
bah was not a city belonging to this giant king, nor
MISTAKES OF HODEKN INFIDELS. 159
was it one of the cities that Moses took. The knowl
edge, therefore, that this bed was at Rabbah, and of
O*7
the particulars of its dimensions must be referred 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 positively stated, in
regard to the existence of giants 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 army 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 general wisdom,, especially if, as Infidels
maintain, his writings are merely human: why then
160 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
might he not have known even by human means
something about Og s domestic arrangements ? Is
not information sometimes 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
Revelation, or special information given him by
Almighty God. But after all, there could not have
been very much 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
Israelites no favors, war was not waged against them.
Intercourse, therefore, could not have been difficult
between the two nations, especially as Rabbath 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 fails 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 for 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 fact 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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 161
I have answered all the arguments on this subject
which have been advanced by Mr. Paine and Col. In-
gersoll. The next chapter will be devoted to the
further evidence that the Pentateuch is the work of
Moses.
CHAPTER XX.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. PROOF FROM JEWISH FESTIVALS.
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.
If all our books were burned, the annual celebra
tion of the fourth of July by the people of the
United States would tell of a remarkable occurrence
in the life of the nation. It would tell 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
162 MISTAKES OF MODERN" INFIDELS.
1885, is there anyone who is not reminded that these
dates are intended to inform us that so many years
have elapsed, with perhaps a slight error in the num
ber, since that same Saviour appeared on earth?
The feasts 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 annual observance affords the strong
est possible chain of evidence to the truth of the
events thus 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 feast 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
Josephus, 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 from 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 for its observance. Could such a
festival and with such memories have been established
if the Pentateuch were a spurious work, first known
170 or 280 years before Christ? You might as easily
persuade the American people that the Declaration of
Independence never occurred.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 163
In fact it was in remembrance of these transactions
that the month Nisan or Abib was made the begin
ning of the year, as we read in Exodus xii: the year
beginning before that with the month Tishri, corres
ponding with our September and October. This is
evident from Ex. xxiii, 16, xxxiv, 22. Hence the
manner in which 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 precisely in
memory of the Passover. (Ex. xii, 1.)
It is a remarkable fact that down to the close of
the fifth century of the Christian era, and probably
to a later period, the Egyptians observed the vernal
equinox with mourning for a great calamity, on
account of which 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-born 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 10th of Tishri, and commanded in
Lev. xxiii, the feast of tents or tabernacles 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, in 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 Sabbatical year
164 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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 sixth 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 following
from Josephus 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
for 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 favor.
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;
for it is related that Jaddus, the high-priest, in conse
quence of a vision from God, went forth in his
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: U 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-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 165
horted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over
the sea thither, for that he would conduct 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, after the time of Christ, as we
learn from Josephus, B. xv, 9; xx, 2.
CHAPTER XXI.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. INTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF ITS
LANGUAGE.
BESIDES the extrinsic proofs of authenticity which
we have already given, the Pentateuch affords many
intrinsic evidences of the same point.
To ascertain by intrinsic evidence whether a given
work is authentic or not, we examine whether it is
such a work as agrees with the circumstances under
which the author writes. 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
life and history of the Israelites and Egyptians and
other nations with whom he came into contact as jus
tify us to attribute the work to Moses ?
Is he as familiar with the geography of the country
166 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
as we would have reason to expect from the leader of
the Israelites at that time ?
If the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, or at
least by some one living very close to the time
of Moses, we would naturally expect that in all
these respects it would vary much from what might
be expected from Moses. In fact none but a cotem-
porary could so write as to conform with what Moses
would be likely to write under 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 him
self, and should be acquainted with the geography of
the countries described, as none could 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, since it would be promul
gated by his authority.
If, then, we can show that these three questions are
to be answered affirmatively, it will follow that the
Pentateuch is authentic.
First, then, let us see whether the language is such
as we might expect Moses to write.
For 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
lics, but 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 167
the New Testament canon was formed, though the
Jews of Alexandria received them. They were there
fore translated from the Greek. Even Protestants
acknowledge that they are historical monuments,
though they refuse 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 found 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 Cbaldee
there are dialectic varieties, according to the period
to which it belongs.
This is what happens in all languages to this day.
Horace tells that it has always been, and always will
be the case " that new words will be coined with
the stamp of the present day " (Ars Poetica):
Ut silvae, f oliis pronos mutantis in annos,
Prima cadunt ; ita verborum vetus intent aetas,
Et juvenum ritu florent modo natavigentque."
168 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
" As the earliest leaves of the forest fall, while its
foliage changes with progressing years, so do old
words perish, and by the usage of rising generations,
new ones take their place and flourish."
Thus by phonetic decay, the English word Lord
has been derived from the Anglo-Saxon hlaf-ord, i. e.,
bread origin, for hlaf is bread, and ord is origin : and
lady is from hlaf-dige, from hlaf, bread or loaf and
dige from dugan, to serve. Thus Lord and Lady
signify originally the bread-winner and the bread-
server. (Max Mtiller, 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 returned to the same tribe in 10 years,
the language was so changed that the dictionary was
antiquated and useless." (Max Miiller, ib.)
Hebrew, being fixed by the respect paid to the sa
cred books, did not change very much from the date
of the giving of the law on Mount Sinai 1491 B. C.,
to the Babylonish captivity, 605 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
following books of the Bible.
A genuine book bears about it the impress of 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-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 169
sible to imitate the characteristics of the period of
any of the books of former days, and much more was
it impossible to imitate those of the most ancient
times. We must bear in mind that literature was con.
fined to a much narrower sphere when printing was
unknown, and when books were therefore necessarily
scarce. Besides, the forger would have to know per
fectly the history of the nations of which he treated,
when it was impossible for him to obtain accurate
information. He would need to know the geography
of countries which he had not visited, and the man
ners and customs of people concerning whom he
could have no sure information; for they were dust
centuries before 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
son, on all these points, with monuments of ancient
days which have lain buried in the bosom of the
earth for centuries, nay even for thousands of years.
This contingency, it is impossible he should have
foreseen, and if he had foreseen it, it is a contingency
for which no imposter would ever dream of provid
ing.
I intend, principally, to show here that the Penta
teuch possesses these characteristics; but while doing
so, many proofs will occur to show that the other books
of the Old Testament possess them also.
The Chaldaic parts of the Old Testament refer to
matters which relate to Babylon. This may be seen
by referring to them. The portions are Jer. x, 11.
Dan. ii, 4 to the end of vii. Esdras iv, 8 to vi, 18,
and vii, 12 to 26.
How natural was it for Jeremias to furnish those
Jews who were just carried into captivity, with an
8
170 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
answer to the Babylonians in their own tongue, when
the latter would endeavor to persuade them to for-
sake the true God ?
" Thus then shall you say to them : the Gods that
have not made heaven and earth, let them perish
from the earth, and from among 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
pointed 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 learned, 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
riod.
The time of the closing of the Jewish canon is
placed by Josephus in the reign of Artaxerxes, king
of Persia, i. e., about 435 B. C., and he counts the
prophecy of Daniel with the other books, and we
have already seen that he states that it was shown to
Alexander the Great in 334 B. C. and he adds, when
speaking of the canon: "during so many ages as have
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS 171
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 Jews, 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, or 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
Jeremias.
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
172 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
and more modern forms; and when we reach the Pen
tateuch the evidences of the greatest antiquity be
come very positive.
Thus, with the extension of commercial intercourse
with foreign countries, it is natural to expect that
foreign 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
rich silk of that name, originally made at Damascus.
Mandolin and boomerang are words borrowed from
the countries where the things 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
Bible. .
In 3 Kings x, 22 (Prot. Bible 1 Ki.), we have men.
tion of "ivory, apes and peacocks," brought from
Tharshish: "shen-fiabim ve-kopim ve-thukiyim,^
where the words habim, Jcopim, thukiyim are Sans
crit or Hindoo words, with the Hebrew plural ending.
In Sanscrit, ibhas is an elephant, Icapi 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 Aghil (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, purple, 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* ragavan. Wilson s Sanscrit Dictionary.
MISTAKES OF MODEEX INFIDELS 173
In the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Ruth such
words are very rarely found, though aloes are men
tioned in Num. xxiv, 6, and in iv, 13 we find arga-
man, purple, and in many places in Exodus, where it
is ordered for ritual purposes.
In 2 Par. ii, 7, Algum wood is spoken of as algu-
mim. In 3 Kings x, 11, 12; 2 Par. ix, 10, 11, (Prot.
Bible 1 Kings, 2 Chron.) almugim is used.
Persian words are also found; thus, achashtranim,
mules, from Persic estar or Sanscrit acwatara, Esther
viii, 10. The usual Hebrew name for a mule is
phered used 19 times, the first occasion 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 intercourse with
foreign 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
Chron.)
Satraps, achashdarphitn, are spoken of in 1 Esdras
(Ezra) viii, 35; Dan. iii, 2, 3, 28; vi, 1, 2, 4, 7; Esther
^ _ j. *
111, 12* viii, 9; ix, 3
Pecha a governor, from the Persian pas h aic, a noble,
puchten to care for, or Sanscrit paksha 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; Ezech. xxiii,
174 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
6, 23; Esther viii, 9; ix, 3; Aggeus (Haggai) i. 1, 14;
ii, 2, 21; Mai. i, 8; Dan. iii, 2, 3, 28; vi, 7.
Bag, food, and pathbag, the king s food are used,
the former in Ezech. xxv, 7, the latter in Daniel i, 5,
8, 13, 15, 16; xi, 26.
Pethigil, a fine cloak is used in Isaias iii, 24.
Pithgam a decree is used in Esther i, 20; Eccli. viii,
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 Targums use
pithgam for a word, and in other respects differ even
from the latest books of the Bible. Parthmim, nobles
is also a Persian word. Dan. i, 3, etc.
From all that we have said it follows that the books
of the Bible are all older than the Targums, and in
deed as regards Esdras and Nehemias, as their 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
must date from near the beginning of the Babylonian
Captivity.
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 wonderful ac
curacy the events which they describe, they must be
long respectively to the periods to which they refer.
Thus we arrive at an incontrovertible proof of their
authenticity.
The other prophetic books for similar reasons,
evinced by their language and by their descriptions of
passing events, sufficiently demonstrate that they also
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 175
/
belong to the periods to which they are ascribed, 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 Kings. 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
sic evidences of authenticity would be very greatly
accumulated. I have, however given proofs enough
to establish the dates of the principal historical books
of the Old Testament, and of some of the prophecies,
1 will therefore proceed in the next chapter to show
the intrinsic proofs thaj; the Pentateuch is above all
the others in antiquity.
CHAPTER XXII.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. INTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF ITS
LANGUAGE CONTINUED.
I have next to show that the language of Moses
betokens an earlier 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 Medinah, a province, occurs in the Old
176 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
Testament 36 times: yet its first occurrence is in 3
Kings xx, 14. (Prot. Bible 1 Kings.) It is a Persic
word and was introduced about king Solomon s time,
or soon after, into the language.
Nebel a musical 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
strings."
The tabernacle which Moses erected was a very fine
structure, and was built with the voluntary offerings
which the Israelites supplied from the spoils of the
Egyptians, which they brought with them on their
departure from bondage. Ex. xxxv; xxxvi, 3, etc.
The Hebrew words by which this tabernacle was
named tvere OJiel and Mishkan.
But in Kings i, 9 (1 Samuel,) we find a new word
applied to this tabernacle for the first time, Ilikal,
the temple; 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 under
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 following examples
further:
Malsad, the summit of a mountain, occurring thirty-
three times in the Old Testament, is first used in
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 177
Judges vi, 2. Nagid, a leader, used forty times,
occurs first in 1 Kings ix, 16 (Prot. Bible, 1 Samuel.)
Nathaby a path, 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 Nlsan, Zif y Sivan, Tammuz, Ab, Elul,
Tishri or Etlianim, JBul t Kisleu, Tebeth, Shebat, and
Adar, 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 ISTisan is called
Ablb at an earlier period: but Abib means "the new
corn" and is a purely Hebrew word, while the other
names are borrowed from the Chaldeans. Hence the
first month was naturally called Ablb, the month of
new corn, before names were really given to the
other months. Until the Chaldean names were
adopted, the months were known as First, Second,
etc. This, then, is another important change of
language during or about Solomon s reign.
Now what forger, writing the books of Moses,
Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, in the reign of Josias, or
at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia, would have
succeeded in giving to them these characteristics of
antiquity ?
But I must further show that the Pentateuch 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
178 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
the very 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 testimony the language of the books themselves
will give on this subject.
In the later Hebrew, hua signifies he; hia, she, as
pronounced by those who do not use the Masoretic
points. These two words are, of course, exceedingly
frequent 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 hua, outsitle 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
Gesenius.)
Naar, 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 formerly 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 179
word, which afterwards became developed into the
two words to signify boy and girl respectively.
The Pentateuch uses the word tsachak, to laugh,
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 his design to destroy at one bold stroke
many enemies of his nation. The word in Ezechiel
appears to have similar force. The more recent verb
is sachak.
There is also a contraction she or sha for the rela
tive pronoun asher, who, which. This contraction
belongs to the more recent Hebrew, and is first found
in Judges.
Thus we have established fully a gradation in the
Hebrew 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 Judicial, 3, the
period of Samuel, 4, the period of Solomon, 5, the
Babylonian 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
tory of the times to confirm it. lam therefore 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
180 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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 from 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 supJi in Exodus ii, 3, 5, are both Egyptian words.
Achu is anything 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
rush, reed. Lexicon of Gesenius.
Suph is translated in the English bibles respec
tively, sedges, -flags. Though transposed as to its
letters from the Egyptian phous, philologists agree
tha*t there is no way of accounting for it otherwise
than as of Egyptian origin.
Lashon, a tongue; Yam, the sea; Saris, a eunuch,
or officer; Ephah, a measure of grain; Shesh, fine
linen; are all acknowledged to be of Egyptian origin.
These words are found respectively in Genesis x, 5;
Gen. xiv, 3; Gen. xxxvii, 36; Ex. xvi, 36; Ex. xxvi, 1.
lor, a river, is of constant occurrence. 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, ior refers to the Nile. See Ex.
xvii, 5; and afterwards this use continued as part of
the Hebrew language. Is. xix, 7. No one but one
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 181
who had lived in Egypt could have dreamed of call
ing the Nile the 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 much mistaken.
CHAPTER XXIII.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. EVENTS
IN JOSEPH S LIFE.
I already proved in chapter 17 that the historical
parts of the later books of the Old Testament agree
wonderfully with the history of the nations 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, w T hich 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 from the Old and New Testaments will
show the spirit in which Jews and Christians unite in
this testimony.
" Only take courage and be careful to observe all
things that are written in the book of the law of
182 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Moses: and turn not aside from them, neither to the
right hand nor to the left." Jos. xxiii, 6.
"There was no king before him like unto him (Jo-
sias) that returned to the Lord with all his heart and
with all his soul and with all his strength, according
to all the law of Moses." (4 Ki. xxiii, 25; Prot. Bible
2 Kings-)
" And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
(Jesus) expounded to them in all the Scriptures the
things that were concerning him." (St. Luke xxiv,
27.) . ., . . / .. < ..."
"And he said to them: These are the words which
I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all
things must needs be fulfilled which are written in
the laws of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the
Psalms, concerning me." (Verse 44.)
Thus also, as a historian, Josephus attests:
"But now as to our forefathers (the 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
prophets, and that these records have been written
all along down to our own times with the utmost ac
curacy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it,
our history will be so written hereafter "
" For our forefathers did not only appoint the best
of those priests, and those that attended upon the
divine worship, for that design, from the beginning^
but made provision that the stock of the priests should
continue unmixed and pure." (Against Apion, book
1st.)
I have already mentioned that Celsus, Porphyry
and Julian did not dispute, but took for granted the
authenticity of the Pentateuch. Josephus also quotes
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 183
against Apion the testimony of Manetho, th extant,
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 (under Moses, as he says elsewhere,) in the
reign of Tethmosis, 393 years before Danaus fled to
Argos. Lysimachus says it was under 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
tateuch, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. What
record is more likely to give the true 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 genuine char
acter of the Pentateuch.
With the history of Joseph we may very properly
begin our examination of the accuracy 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. Ingersoll tells us there was no
writing then, and therefore Moses could not. write,
but the monuments of Egypt tell a different story.
There can be no doubt that in the archives of the
nation records were kept, and that the priests of
184 MISTAKES OF MODERtf INFIDELS.
Heliopolis were also well able to give to Moses much
information, besides what he would learn from the
traditions of his own kindred and countrymen.
The grandfather of Moses was one of the seventy
who came into Egypt white Joseph occupied the posi
tion of Pharaoh s chief officer. Certainly there could
be no difficulty about his hearing from his father
those few particulars which he relates of that period,
in which his grandfather took a prominent and active
part. Besides, the evidence that the Israelites had
their records to which he had access, is clear from
the fact that their genealogies were faithfully kept,
and those genealogies are handed down to this day in
Genesis xlvi, and Num. i, iii.
Moses had therefore all the facility for writing his
history that any zealous historian possesses, who
needs only to write a short account of a compara
tively recent event, an event in which his own grand
father was a participator.
There are other events in Joseph s history which
touch on the manners and customs and history of the
Egyptians. Let us see how they accord with the
testimony of such history of the time as is within 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 within the scope of a historian; but when he
MISTAKES OF MODEliJST INFIDELS. 185
.
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,
he ceases to be a historian.
Thus when he merely names a series of kings whose
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 Ha, 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 them 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 his kings have undoubtedly
existed, for their monuments have survived to the
present day, but in all probability many were mere
myths. Probably Manetho copied the lists correctly
from the Egyptian sacred books, etc., but in their
national pride, to show a fabulous antiquity, many of
186 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
the records were imaginary. Manetho is not wilfully
a falsifier, but his sources of information were fre
quently unreliable.
The illustrious Champollion was the discoverer of
the method of reading the Egyptian hieroglyphics,
and his method has been fully demonstrated. He
declares:
"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 affords nothing against the sacred traditions, 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 accords, 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 his brothers. This could not have
occurred 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,) who, being of Egyptian race, would
not acknowledge Joseph the official of the usurping
kings, and therefore reduced the Hebrews to slavery.
The captivity lasted during the eighteenth dynasty,
and it was under Rameses Y, called Amenophis, at
the commencement of the fifteenth century (B. C.,)
that Moses delivered the Hebrews. This occurred
during the youth of Sesostris, who succeeded imme
diately his father, and made his conquests in Asia,
MISTAKES OP atODEHN INFIDELS. 187
while Moses and Israel wandered in the desert for
forty years. This is the reason why the sacred books
cannot be expected to speak of this great conqueror.
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 maliciously asserted that Egyptian studies
tend to change our belief in the historical documents
furnished 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."
Rosselini, also well known as an Egyptian scholar,
states in his "Monuments of Egypt," that such parts
of the early history of Egypt as go beyond the limits
prescribed in Genesis, are unworthy of credit; and all
Egyptian archeologists agree that there is much ob
scurity 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
Pentateuch.
Besides all this, we find that Joseph was, in the first
place, sold to some Ismaelite merchants of Madian,
"on their way from Galaad, with their camels carrying
spices, balm and myrrh to Egypt." (Gen, xxxvi., 25.)
188 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
This indicates a large commerce in the articles
mentioned, and it strikes us, at first, as extraordinary
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 even 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 the Pharaohs, and the amount of
spices used for embalming purposes, must have been
enormous.
Madian, situated on the eastern branch of the Red
Sea, was the high road from Canaan and Arabia, the
two great emporiums of balm and myrrh, and it was
celebrated for its camels. " Their camels also were
innumerable as the sand that lieth on the sea 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 frequently
held as slaves in Egypt. On the tomb of Imai, a
prince of Suphis, three hundred years before the time
of Joseph, Canaanite men and women are depicted as
posturers, tumblers and jugglers exhibiting before the
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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 189
CHAPTER XXIV.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY
CONTINUED.
WE have seen, in the preceding chapter, four cir
cumstances of the history of Joseph confirmed by
profane history. Other instances of this agreement
are still to be found. The Madianites sell Joseph
to Potiphar, an officer: in later times a eunuch
(Saris,) 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, Srs or
srsh. Israel in Egypt.
The name Potiphar, in Coptic Ptaphre, means be
longing to the Sun. This Potiphar may or may not
have been the same who is named in Genesis, 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: Chartom, Gen.
xli, 8, Asaph, Daniel, i, 20, Chakim, 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 called. Hence we
190 MISTAKES OF MODERN LNF1DELS.
find that whenever Moses speaks of the magicians of
Egypt he uses this word, chartom. This implies his
complete knowledge of Egyptian customs. See Gen.
xli, 8, 24; Ex. xi, 22; viii, 7, 18; ix, 11.
In the relation of Joseph s interpretation of Pha
raoh s dreams, Gen. xli, the magicians and wise men
who failed in interpreting it are spoken of under the
names chartomim and chakamim.
In the same chapter it is related that when Joseph
was brought from prison "he shaved himself and
changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh."
Mr. Tripard in his "Moses" remarks on this that
"owing to the reputation of the young Hebrew, for
his ability in interpretation .... he would, most
probably, be presented in the Sacerdotal costume,
that is to say in the costume of official Seers."
Herodotus states (Book ii, 36), " in other countries
the priests wear their hair; in Egypt they shave.
They wear garments of irreproachable whiteness, and
every three days they shave their hair entirely,
through respect to the Sanctity of the Gods whose
ministers they are."
Another expression in the first verse of Gen. xli, is
worthy of notice. After Potiphar s name, it is added
that he was an Egyptian. This would, at first sight,
seem to be an unnecessary piece of information re
garding a high official of the Court of Egypt; yet
three times in the same chapter he is described by
this name. Now in the present case, as we are aware
that the shepherd kings, Canaanites, were reigning,
and that Canaanites, as well as Egyptians held high
offices, it became important for the descendants of
Joseph to know that the progenitor of their tribe was
not a bond-slave in the house of one of the doomed
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 191
race 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
tateuch.
On the Egyptian monuments a great famine is
attested to have taken place, of which we have a
more detailed account in Genesis xli, xlii. This
occurred 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 his 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 should be the case, it would be difficult to
surmise if it were not told us in Genesis xli, how his
two dreams which Joseph interpreted, were the occa
sion of saving the country from the dire consequences
which the famine would otherwise have entailed
upon it.
This famine extended to Canaan, and obliged ten
of Jacob s sons to go into Egypt to buy corn, leaving
at home Benjamin, Joseph s full brother.
I need not dwell upon the affecting scene which
occurred when Joseph beheld his 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 his
royal state; but though they are recognized by Jo-
192 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
sepb, they do not recognize him. Joseph spoke
roughly to them 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 cautious in the reception
of Canaanites coming in, even under the pretext of
buying corn. 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,
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 193
/
anarchy, and wars. All this was changed by the
measures of Joseph. During the years of plenty
the king bought up the superfluous corn, and sold it
again during the years of famine for the cattle and
lands of the inhabitants. Then the lands were given
back to the people to till, on condition that one-fifth
of the proceeds should belong to the king. (Gen. xlvii.)
The land of the priests, however, was not bought
up, " for the priests had a portion assigned to them
of Pharaoh." (Verse 22.)
In the preceding periods the great works of Egypt
were executed by the nobles, and the Pharaohs left
few memorials of their existence, save the pyramids
in which they were buried; but in succeeding ages
the nobles have no monuments of any consequence.
This fully accords with the Scriptural account.
Diodorus Siculus confirms this testimony of Scrip
ture and monumental history. He visited Egypt
about 20 years before the birth of Christ, and he de
clares that the king s right at about that time was
one-third of the produce, but that it had been com
muted by the king receiving one-third of the land.
(History i, 73.)
The history of Joseph is so universally known that
it would be useless to introduce it here. Suffice it to
say, that when his brethren returned to Egypt a
second time, with Benjamin, Joseph made himself
known, and directed them to return home, and to
bring their father 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 number of " 70 souls."
The directions which Joseph gave his father and
brethren on their arrival in Egypt has often appeared
strange to readers of the Bible. He says:
9
194 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
" My brethren, and my father s house, that were in
the land of Canaan, are come to me, and the men are
shepherds."
" 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 expect his father 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 found 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 his 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 whose family were of the same
occupation.
An impostor writing hundreds of years after Moses
could never have dreamed of inserting such a circum
stance into his 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 195
who have been 36 centuries in their tombs has been
recovered, and this testimony authenticates the Mo
saic record.
CHAPTER XXV.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. --THE BONDAGE IN EGYPT.
AFTER the death of Jacob and his sons, the Israel
ites "grew exceedingly strong and filled the land."
(Ex. i, 7.)
" In the meantime there arose a new king over
Egypt that knew not Joseph."
"And he said to his people, Behold the people of
the children of Israel are numerous, and stronger than
we."
" Come, let us wisely oppress them, lest they mul
tiply, and if any war shall rise against us, join with
our enemies, and having overcome us, depart out of
the land."
"Therefore he set over them masters of the works
to afflict them with burdens, and they built for Pha
raoh cities of tabernacles, Pithom and Rameses."
"And the Egyptians hated the children of Israel,
and afflicted them, and mocked them." (Exod. i.)
Concerning the exact date of these events there is
some uncertainty. It is generally acknowledged that
the Exodus of the children of Israel occurred about
1491 B. C. Assuming this as correct, or very nearly
so, we would have the date of the decree for the de
struction of the male Hebrew children, 1571 B. C.,
and the king who knew not Joseph would be reign-
196 MISTAKES OF MODEttN INFIDELS,
ing at that date. This brings us necessarily into the
18th or 19th dynasty of Egyptian history.
There is a great deal of difference of opinion be
tween learned Egyptiologists as to the exact dates
when the monarchs of the 18th and 19th dynasties
reigned. I do not pretend to settle these differences,
but there are some facts which are acknowledged as
demonstrated by the testimony of the monuments.
We have already shown how aptly the history of
Joseph fits the reigns of some of the shepherd kings,
during whose reigns Joseph must have flourished.
We shall now see how the monumental testimony fits
the history of Moses.
" A king arose that knew not Joseph." We have
seen how this fact is confirmed by the expulsion of
the Shepherd dynasty. A king succeeds to the throne
who would naturally be hostile to the Canaanites,
who would be supposed to be favorable to the
Canaanite dynasty. The Israelites are therefore ill-
treated and reduced to slavery. Even an attempt is
made to exterminate the nation in a short time by a
decree for the destruction of the male children.
The cruelty with which slaves were treated is often
depicted on the monuments of Egypt. The huge
stones which are found in the walls of the temples
and their quadrangular precincts, and those which
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 the unhappy delinquent with most cruel scourg-
ings. This accords exactly with the description given
in Ex. i: "Come, let us wisely oppress them," and
"he set over them masters of the works to afflict
them with burdens."
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 197
When the Israelites were thus reduced to slavery
an immense number of men were at once added to
the usual number employed on the public 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 forced labor of
his 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 his name,
the forced labor of his own subjects. Sesostris would
also have been held in detestation if he had done the
same. The fact that he was always venerated con
firms what Diodorus states.
With the immense number of workmen added to
the usual workmen, it is to be expected that the
monuments 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 familiar with Egypt and its past
history.
Diodorus and Herodotus both visited Egypt, and
many of the things they repeat are fabulous. 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 facts.
198 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
What then is the testimony of the monuments in
regard to the accession of so many workmen? The
entire number must have been about 300,000 or
400,000 at least.
There is a short period in the monumental history
of Egypt which in the grandeur and number of its
public works excels the ages of all the Pharaohs that
came before and after it. This period is the begin
ning of the nineteenth dynasty. Seti II. reigned
probably about thirty years. "He erected the
great temple of Osiris, at Abydos, and built the
famous hall of columns in the palace of Karnak."
His warlike exploits are represented by an immense
series of magnificent sculptures. Harnesses II. suc
ceeded him and reigned at least 66 or 67 years.
Harnesses was the 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 mound and every ruin is marked with his
name. 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 Harnesses him
self.
Since Champollion s day, learned Egyptiologists
have come to the conclusion that the accounts 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 for the silence of Moses concerning
Sesostris. It is now generally believed that Harnesses
II. was the Sesostris of the Greeks (American Cyclo
paedia, Art. Egypt,) and the silence of Moses is suifi-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 199
/
ciently accounted for by the fact that he belongs to
the period previous to where the detailed history in
Exodus begins. 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 facts, without aiming at effect,
and without having in view the future discovery and
almost miraculous deciphering of the hieroglyphics,
must be the authentic record of what took place in
the reigns of Ramesses-Sesostris and his successors.
The land of Goshen was undoubtedly the Eastern
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: "Thussaith
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
200 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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 from the water.
Pharaoh s daughter "called his name Moses (in
Hebrew Moshehj) and she said, because I drew him
out of the water." (Ex. ii, 10.)
In Egyptian mo is water, uses, to deliver, according
to Josephus, and the name is derived from these
words, signifying "saved from the water."
When it is borne 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 Vedas 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
teuch, 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
thetical, 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
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 201
that we cannot look to them for much confirmatory-
evidence, except as they testify to a common tradi
tion.
We have, therefore, under the circumstances, all
the historical evidence we could expect for the genu
ineness of the Pentateuch. More, however, will be
given in the next chapter.
CHAPTER XXVI.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. THE TEN PLAGUES OF EGYPT.
OUR 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 xii.
Moses had fled to Madian at the age of forty years,
because Pharaoh souo-ht to kill him on account of his
o
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
his mission, he was empowered by Almighty God to
work miracles. By these miracles the Hebrews were
convinced of the truth of his mission, and Moses was
enabled to go to Pharaoh as the ambassador of God
and the representative of the Israelites.
In the presence of Pharaoh, to prove his divine
mission Moses commanded Aaron to cast his rod upon
the ground, and it was turned into a serpent. The
Egyptian magicians did likewise and their rods were
202 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
turned into serpents also, but Aaron s rod devoured
their rods.
Pharaoh refused to give the Hebrews the permis
sion they demanded to go to the desert to offer sacri
fice to God. He oppressed them more than before.
As a further sign, by will of God, the first plague
came upon Egypt:
1st. The waters of the river were turned into
blood. The magicians imitated this miracle also, and
Pharaoh did not yield.
2. The second plague was then brought on: frogs
came from the waters and covered the land. The
magicians imitated this also and brought a few frogs
likewise. Pharaoh promised to accede to Moses re
quest, if the frogs would be removed, but on the re
moval of the frogs, he broke his promise.
3. The third plague was of Jcinnim in Hebrew.
By this word the modern Hebrews, followed by the
Protestant version, understand lice. The Septua-
gint, the Vulgate and Philo, followed by the Catholic
English translator understand sciniphs, gnats. These
the magicians could not produce, and they acknowl
edged that the finger of God was there.
4. The fourth plague was of flies swarming into all
the houses. Pharaoh again promised to grant the
demands of the Israelites, but broke his faith when
the plague was removed.
5. The fifth was a murrain on the beasts in the field
so that they died. Still Pharaoh was unmoved.
6. The sixth was of boils on men and beasts. Still
Pharaoh remained obdurate.
7. The seventh plague was a storm of thunder and
lightning and hail, such " as never before was seen in
the whole land of Egypt since that nation was
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 203
founded." (ix, 23, 24.) The Egyptians were warned
to remain themselves and to put their cattle under
cover, for all found 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 corn were
lateward and were not injured. Pharaoh made simi
lar promises to those he had formerly made, and
broke them in like manner.
8. The eighth was of locusts which eat up every
thing that was green. Pharoah promised as before
but again violated his 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
mission.
10. Lastly God ordered Moses to threaten the
Egyptians witn the death of the first-born 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 inform us that
after the death of Harnesses, Mernephtha I. succeeded
to the throne, leaving his son Seti II. concealed in
Ethiopia on account of the troubles of the Kingdom.
Seti II. was then 5 years of age. Two usurping kings
reigned before Seti came to the throne. American
Cyc. Art. Egypt.
In one of these reigns the return of Moses must
have taken place, and in any case the Egyptian law
204 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
relieved him from proscription on the death of the
monarch who had proscribed him.
The easy access of Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh
can only be accounted for by the fact that Moses was
the adopted son of a Pharaoh s daughter, and that
Aaron was elevated to noble degree on account of
the high position of Moses. We see in all this the
perfect consistency of the sacred with profane his
tory.
The Egyptian magicians by their jugglery are able
to imitate Moses by throwing their rods upon the
ground, on which they are also changed into serpents.
God undoubtedly permitted the magicians to imitate
this miracle in order to make manifest his superior
power: and probably even all the power of the devil
was exerted in their aid.
The act of Moses and Aaron was a true miracle,
but the devil cannot work real miracles. It was there
fore a delusion, and we know that the jugglers of
Egypt have surprising powers of deception in their
serpent charming to this day. Lane s Modern Egyp
tians. Moses refers to these powers of jugglery,
adding " by their enchantments "
" They dally with the crested worm,
They stroke his azure neck, or they receive
The lambent homage of his arrowy tongue."
In this again the knowledge of Egyptian manners
displayed by the author of the Pentateuch is com
plete.
The same is to be said of the change of water into
blood, and of the production of frogs. The magi
produced these marvels by their jugglery, most pro
bably by such prestigiation as jugglers usually em-
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 205
ploy, or possibly by diabolical intervention. Of
course they only produced a small quantity of blood
and a few frogs: In this respect they did not equal
Moses who changed the water of the whole river into
blood, and produced frogs to swarm over the land and
to corrupt it with their dead bodies. By chemical
means, the appearance of blood is readily imitated;
and the Egyptians were acquainted with Chemistry
at a very early period.
The change of water into blood punished the
Egyptians in the sorest of spots; for on the river they
depended entirely for the irrigation of the country,
and for drinking purposes. Rain does not fall at all
except very seldom about Alexandria and Rosetta.
This is another evidence of Moses intimate knowl
edge of the 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 entirely new
plagues. Thus also the knowledge of the w r riter of
the Pentateuch with the condition of Egypt is the
more manifest.
The murrain on the cattle is simply a very griev
ous plague : in Hebrew, deberJcabel mod. This pesti
lence is well known in Egypt, as it occurs when the
annual overflow of the Nile exceeds twenty-seven
feet. (Chambers Encyclopaedia, Nile.)
206 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
The next plague was of boils and blains. This
blain was a burning ulcer. In Deut. xxviii, 27, the
"ulcer of Egypt 5 is spoken of as peculiar to the
country: in Hebrew shichin. This ulcer of Egypt is
a kind of black leprosy or elephantiasis. (Lexicon of
Gesenius.) Again, the knowledge of Egypt is mani
fested in both passages of the Pentateuch.
Up 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
fell as large as hens eggs. Olaus the Great, B. i, 22,
states that in Scandinavia, hail fell the size of a man s
head. Even in warm countries, dreadful hailstorms
sometimes occur. Commodore Porter describes a
dreadful 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 therefore Moses insinuates here their com
paratively modern origin. In ix, 18, he uses almost
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-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 207
tion of the name of locusts invading the country was
calculated 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 the
anger of the Gods .... even their touch destroy
ing much, and their bite consuming everything." (xi,
29.)
The plague of darkness followed, " horrible dark
ness in all the land of Egypt for three days," and "so
thick that it may be felt." (Ex. ix.) When dense
clouds fill the air, saturated with heavy mist, it may
surely be said that the clouds are palpable. They are
really sensible to the touch. This is precisely what
to be felt means. Under such circumstances, there
fore, it could be said, the darkness could be felt. But
some who have been in Egypt for years tell us of an
other source of this darkness. The author of " Israel
in Egypt" says:
" No one who has been in Egypt to experience it,
will doubt for a moment the agency whereby Jeho
vah wrought. The plague of darkness was a sand
storm. It is impossible for words to describe this
fearful visitation more accurately than the passage
before us."
" During the whole season of the prevalence of this
wind (hamseen in the middle of April,) the atmos
phere is excessively dry, and loaded with the fine par
ticles of the sand of the Sahara, to the great discom
fort of the inhabitants of Egypt. But occasionally
the west wind suddenly freshens to a perfect hurri
cane, and sweeping before it the light sands of the
desert, precipitates them in columns and drifts upon
the Valley of the Nile. The sufferings of man and
beast during these dreadful storms, in ordinary years,
208 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
baffle description. They who are overtaken by them,
wrap their faces in their mantles, and 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, though brief ones, the sun is obscured, and
the darkness is total while the heavy drifts pass the
sun s disc. 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, producing ophthalmia; so that
men see not one another. 1
"We speak from 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 felt." Yet
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 information was most
accurate, or who had himself been an eye-witness to
it ? Moses, then, exhibits familiar 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 ?
MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS. 209
The fact 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 felt.
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 felt?"
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
tional language 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 4/his en
lightened 19th century."
"Well; would you have Moses talk to them in a
language which was not to be invented till three
thousand three hundred years after his time? r
"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 from what it means in
the modern conventional language; if for instance
210 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the word darkness meant the atmosphere itself in
the condition which would make it impossible for
us to see, would it not be scientifically correct to say
that such darkness as we have described could be
felt?" r~ *-
I think that even Colonel Ingersoll would be
obliged to answer " yes " to this question.
Well such was exactly the case in which Moses
stood. The language he spoke, and every other lan
guage in the world understood this when they spoke
of darkness, and under such circumstances his lan
guage was perfectly correct.
The Colonel s assertion that a bottle of Egyptian
darkness was exhibited in Rome is a fraud. Perhaps
some mountebank of the Ingersoll 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-born is not mentioned on the Egyptian mon
uments. The Egyptians were too proud to record
their national disasters. But in chapter 20 I 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 wonderfully 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.
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 211
It is -true, the circumstances I have pointed out
regarding the first nine plagues are true of Egypt at
any time and could 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 fully.
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE TEN PLAGUES OF EGYPT. REFUTATION OF
OBJECTIONS.
As Colonel Ingersoll takes occasion, in the twenty-
second chapter of his book, to draw certain objections
against the truth of the Pentateuch, from 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
all the male children.
The Colonel is not accurate here. He should state
a case properly. I hope he does not thus bungle his
cases when he pleads before the bench. Surely he
did not do so in the " Star Route " cases.
All the male children were not destroyed. Orders
were given that they should be destroyed, but the
orders were not obeyed. (Ex. i, 17.)
If the male children had been all destroyed, there
would have been no nation to leave Egypt forty
years after.
Is this statement made in order to make out another
inconsistency in the Bible ? This would seem to be
212 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
the case, for so able a lawyer would scarcely make so
gross a blunder unintentionally.
The Colonel continues:
" If the account given is true, the Egyptians were
the most cruel, heartless, and infamous people of
which history gives any record."
Probably he wishes us to infer from this that the
history could 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 throw
children into the Nile as a sacrifice. They could, as
a rule a 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 fact
that the mid wives 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-
soll 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."
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 213
The Colonel puts his case thus:
" Suppose we wished to make a treaty with a bar
barous nation, and the President should employ a
sleight-of-hand performer as envoy extraordinary,
and instruct him that when he came into the presence
of the savage monarch, he should cast down an
umbrella or a walking stick, which would change
into a lizard or a turtle: what would we think?
Would we not regard such a performance as beneath
the dignity even of a President ? And what would
be our feelings if the savage king sent for his sorcer
ers and had them perform the same feat ? If such
things would appear puerile and foolish in the Presi
dent of a great Republic, what shall be said when
they were resorted to by the Creator of all worlds ? "
(P. 194.)
Miracles being possible to God, it was quite fitting
that He should confer on Moses the power of per
forming them; for we can imagine no other way by
which the power of God, and the authority of His
ambassadors can be so well attested. Col. Ingersoll
calls this sleight-of-hand. He blasphemously calls
God, when working miracles, " a prestigiator, magi
cian or sorcerer." These terms imply deceit. Now
with God there is no deceit. The miracles of Moses
were therefore real. There was no deceit about
them. The occasion was one which undoubtedly
called for the exhibition of God s power over created
things; for a Revelation was to be made to man
through Moses, Revelation which we have already
proved to be necessary for human welfare. Miracles
were the means whereby that Revelation was to be
attested, and therefore Moses was empowered to work
them.
214 MISTAKKS OF MODJiKN INFIDELS. .
It was necessary that the Jewish people should be
impressed with the conviction that Moses had received
his authority from God. It is the conviction of the
human race that the claimant to authority to promul
gate a new Revelation should prove his claim by
works surpassing the powers of Nature, that is by
miracles.
We have seen in chapter 12 that both Mr. Paine
and Col. Ingersoll demand from God a multiplication
of miracles in case of Revelation, since they require
direct Revelation to each individual.
God has not seen fit to make His Revelation after
the fashion these gentlemen require of Him, nor has
He seen fit to work exactly the miracles they demand.
He is surely as wise as they are, and we may feel
satisfied with the way He has chosen 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 pronounced 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 God
wrought through Moses small and contemptible. (P.
194.) Let us examine whether this be the case.
The Egyptians adored serpents. How appropri
ately then did God show the nothingness of this
Egyptian deity by proving his control over serpents
as over all creation? God made the God of the
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 215
Egyptians the means of overthrowing their supersti
tion; for the serpents brought out by Moses devoured
the serpents produced 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 creation, who could make all creatures obey
his commands.
" You shall know that I am the Lord your God."
(Ex. vi, 7.)
" The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord."
(vii, 5.)
The Colonel tells 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) with their enchantments" (vii, 22; viii,
The Hebrew ken, so, or in like manner, expresses
resemblance, not identity. Besides in each case God
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 feats 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-
216 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
store the Nile to purity, and to drive away the frogs.
This they could not do, and they could not even im
itate the other wonders of Moses. They were forced
to acknowledge that Moses wrought by the power of
God, thus confessing that they did not. "This is the
finger of God." \iii, 18.
It is true, the President of the United States or the
Ruler of any great Kingdom would act beneath his
dignity if he required his ambassadors to exhibit
juggling tricks as his 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 his State, his armies and his navies to com
mand due respect; but Moses appeared before Pha
raoh and even before his own countrvmen without all
*
these. They had a right to demand from him proofs
of his 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 him, 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 .... hath appeared to thee." Verse 5.
In case of their unbelief, he is empowered to work
a second miracle, and God adds:
"If they will not believe thee .... nor hear the
voice of the former sign, they will believe the word
of the latter sign, but if they will not even believe
these two signs, nor hear thy voice: take of the
river water and pour it out upon the dry land, and
and whatsoever thou drawest out of the river shall
be turned into blood." 7, 8.
MISTAKES OF MODEEX INFIDELS. 217
/
That Pharaoh also demanded signs is evident from
vii, 9.
"When Pharaoh shall say to you, Shew signs: thus
thou shalt say to Aaron: Take thy rod and cast it
down before Pharaoh, and it shall be turned into a
serpent."
I already quoted in chapter 13 the testimony of
Jean Jacques Rousseau on miracles. Let us now hear
Voltaire speak:
"Miracles were necessary to the nascent Church;
they are not so for the Church once established. God
being among men should act as God. Miracles are
for him ordinary actions. The master of nature must
always be above nature."
There remains now very little requiring an answer
in Col. Ingersoll s 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 of 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 turned into
blood." Ex. vii, 17.
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 filled
10
218 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
i
their vessels from the river. Streams, ponds and
pools also are said to have been turned into blood,
but these formed part of the river system. It is no
where said that the water which had previously been
in the houses, or that that found in the wells 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 journey into
the wilderness to make sacrifices to their God ? :
Yes, Colonel. Religious liberty, the liberty to
serve the true God is a precious treasure. You would
find millions 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 for
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 (Elohim) 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:
"All the cattle of Egypt died; that is to say all
the horses, all the asses, all the camels, all the oxen
and all the sheep." (P. 199.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 219
After this " boils broke forth with blains upon man
and upon beast throughout the land." (P. 199.)
You add that:
" These boils with blains broke out upon cattle that
were already 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 fell upon the cattle in the fields.
"Behold my hand shall be upon thy fields; and a
very grievous murrain upon thy horses and asses and
camels 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 r and similar expressions are often
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 skilful, in all these branches of
knowledge to put on such an appearance of antiquity:
but truly, now, you are making him a stupid blun
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
says:
" 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-
I
220 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
cause man had enslaved his brother ? .... Where
can words be found bitter enough to describe a God
who would kill wives and babes because husbands
and fathers had failed to keep his lay?" (P. 205.)
I need only refer the reader to chapter 9
for the answer to this. We may add here: God is
the Supreme Arbiter of life and death. He may and
does doom all to die. There is no escape. We are
liable to die by accident or the malice of others; and
if we escape these, still we must die by natural decay.
God must not be accused for this. After all, physi
cal evil is no real evil; and for mankind all will be
rectified in the future life. The just who suffer here
will gain their compensating reward, and the wicked
who prosper will meet their merited punishment.
"But this everyone is sure of that worshippeth
thee, that his life if it be under trial, shall be crowned:
and if it be under tribulation it shall be delivered;
and if it be under correction, it shall be allowed to
come to thy mercy. For thou art not delighted in
our 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
waters into blood, covering the country with frogs,
etc would not accomplish his object, and
that all these plagues would have no effect whatever
upon the Egyptian King." (P. 207.)
Certainly God knew that the first plagues would
not produce a permanent effect on Pharaoh:
"For I know their thoughts and what they are
about to do this day." (Deut. xxxi, 21.)
However, He has left man free-will; and Pharaoh
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 221
in the exercise of his free-will was hardened. There
fore God did not lessen his punishment, and the pun
ishment of his nation, which also took part in the op
pression of Israel. (See also, on this subject, chap
ters 1 and 38.)
Next, the Colonel says:
" Is it not altogether more reasonable to say that
the Jewish people, being in slavery, accounted for the
misfortunes and calamities, suffered by the Egyptians,
by saying that they were the judgments of God ?"
(Pp. 207, 208.)
No; for God has revealed that He inflicted them,
and He confirmed His Revelation by miracles. It is
more reasonable to believe God than to frame fanci
ful theories, and believe them in preference.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. TESTIMONY OF HISTORY,
CONCLUDED.
There are still some points of Egyptian history and
manners which from the references in the Pentateuch
demonstrate the writer s familiarity with the country.
The next evidences of this to which I shall call at
tention is the answer of Moses to Pharaoh in the fol
lowing passage:
" Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said to them:
Go and sacrifice to your God in this land. And Moses
said: It cannot be so, or we shall sacrifice the abomi
nations of the Egyptians Now if we kill
those things which the Egyptians worship in their
presence they will stone us." (Ex. viii, 26.)
222 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
It is evident that the writer of this knew that the
Egyptians worshipped sheep and oxen, lambs, cows,
etc., which were the chief sacrifices offered by the
Jews. He knew that the Jewish sacrifices were sac
rilegious 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 perfect accord with all this. The monuments
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 left the true God.
The worship of Baal was in later days their besetting
sin. When they were settled in Judea, surrounded
as they were by nations that adored Baals and Asta-
roth (Baalim and Astaroth) and Moloch, they never
dreamed of setting up a calf for worship for over
five hundred 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
Mount Sinai, when they forgot 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 familiar with all the events as
they occurred.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 223
I have said, for over five hundred years calf-
worship was not thought of. I might say for fifteen
hundred years, for the only exception was when Jero
boam set up two calves, one in Dan, the other irx
Bethel, for adoration; but he also learned 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 subject will be taken
from Num. xi, 5. The Israelites murmured when
they were tired of manna. They longed for "the fish
and meat, the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and
garlic of Egypt."
Fish and meat are the staple food of all countries
where they can be had. It is therefore 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 much longed for.
Now, it is a fact attested by travellers that these
very vegetables are to this day highly prized in
Egypt. Cucumbers, melons, and onions are among
the leading productions of the country, and they
grow in great perfection there, being far 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. Cucumbers, Onions,
etc.)
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 Canaan they
224 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
returned and reported it to be "flowing with milk
and honey," and that its fruits, specimens of which
they brought, were of great excellence: 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 our own sight as grass
hoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Num.
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 feet 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 those details, which at
first sight would throw discredit on his story. Did
giants ever exist of the immense proportions de
scribed ? The traditions of every country kept the
memory of such men. Are these traditions entirely
MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS. 225
baseless^ or are they founded on facts which have
been considerably magnified and distorted by the
vagueness of the traditions ? There is certainly
strong evidence that the latter is the case. Persons
and families of great size have from time to time
appeared in many countries; Barnum exhibits such
men to-day, and the ruins of Baalbek attest that in
very ancient days there must have been a race of
enormous men: that indeed "there were giants in
those days" when the edifices of Baalbek were
built.
Baalbek is thirty-six miles northwest of Damascus.
The greater temple stood upon an artificial platform
between twenty and thirty feet high, and extended
one thousand feet from east to west. The peristyle
is elevated on a platform fifty feet above the sur
rounding country, and on the western side there are
three immense stones whose united length is one
hundred and ninety feet, the largest being sixty-four
feet long, their average height thirteen feet, their
thickness still greater. Am. C*c. Baalbek.
These stones if no heavier than limestone would
each exceed nine hundred tons in weight. Modern
science has constructed no engines which could
bring from the quarry a quarter of a mile distant?
and raise them to their present position. A late
traveller, Chester Glass, Esq., a leading Barrister, late
of London, now of Winnepeg, Canada, states in his
book of travels, that when standing in the presence
of these gigantic blocks, he was strongly impressed
with the truth of the Scriptural record, " there were
giants in those days." Thus does modern science
vindicate the Bible.
The record proves by this statement that the writer
226 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
was familiar with the history of the days of which
he wrote.
To conclude our proof from history, we must not
omit the inscriptions found engraved on Mount
Sinai, and along the adjacent valley. In the year
530 A. D. Cosmas, an Egyptian Christian had occa
sion to travel from Alexandria to Thibet, through the
Sinaitic deserts. With his varied knowledge he was
able to assist in deciphering certain characters which
he beheld in great numbers on the Sinaitic rocks.
He says:
" On the rocks of Sinai, at the different stations of
the Hebrews we encounter rocks covered with
inscriptions in Hebrew characters. I passed through
these places and testify to the fact. Some Jews
who accompanied us read the inscriptions and trans
lated them for us. 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-Mokatteb y
Djebel MoTcatteb, Written Valley, 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
character 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 ex
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 followed by the Israelites on leaving Egypt."
MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS. 227
.
One of these inscriptions attests the passage of the
Israelites through the Red 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 foot 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
for certain, but 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
monuments of Egypt, they will throw great light
upon the history of Israel. Even what is already
known of them serves to confirm what is related of
it in the Pentateuch. Darras Unabridged History
of Church, vol. i, p. 701.
The testimony of history to the authenticity of the
Pentateuch is cumulative. The larger the number of
coincidences, the more convincing is the evidence
that the writer must have been intimately acquainted
with the facts he relates. If he had not been so he
would have blundered hopelessly in his narration, as
did Herodotus and Diodorus, and he would frequently
have said things irreconcilable with facts now known
by other means. The fact that he has not thus gone
astray is conclusive evidence that the Pentateuch
was written in the time of Moses, and by Moses, or
by his authority. Col. Ingersoll and Mr. Paine are
mistaken.
228 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER XXIX.
AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE PENTA
TEUCH. THE TESTIMONY OF GEOGRAPHY,
WE have next to see what testimony the science
of Geography affords to the authenticity of the Pen
tateuch.
1. Let us turn to Exodus vii, 19; viii, 6.
". . . . Stretch out thine hand upon the waters
of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and
upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water,
that they may become blood." Ex. vii, 19.
". . . . Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod
over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds,
and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt."
Ex. viii, 5.
In these two passages for rivers, Moses wrote iorim,
the plural of ior, river, which, as we explained in
chapter 22, is used for the Nile. Aaron, then, is com
manded to stretch his hand over the Niles. The Nile
is the only river in the world that for 1,500 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 facts 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 Niles, that is at the only part of the
river where such a term could be used.
MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS. 229
2. The Israelites, reduced to slavery " built for Pha
raoh cities of tabernacles, Pithom and Ramesses."
(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 the period when a king of
that name was reigning, or even if it were not exactly
the case that a Ramesses were reigning, Seti I.
whose reign was between those of Ramesses I. and
Ramesses II., being the Son of one Ramesses, and the
father 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-
Sesostris.
3. The cities of Pithom and Ramesses are named
on the Egyptian monuments only af ter the period we
have indicated. This is another proof of the geo
graphical 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
selves claimed on the strength of their traditions to
be the oldest settlement in Phoenicia, dating from
about 2750 B. C.
Now if, as Col. Ingersoll 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.
Yet 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-
230 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
fore the time of Samuel we find in Scripture only one
mention of Tyre, viz: in Josh, xix, 29. Tyre is then
called "the strong city." Sidon is spoken of five
times in Joshua, and three times in the Pentateuch,
without counting the passages where Sidon the father
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 rio^ht here also.
o
5. 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 city."
Nineveh, the great capital of Assyria, had 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 he knew 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 overcame the Persians near it,
but his historians were not aware of its existence.
Lucian savs 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 of the whole Old Testament ?
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 231
6. Again, the city of Calah is spoken of as a city
distinct from Nineveh. The monumental records
show that Calah, the ruins of which are also now
known, was the capital for a long time.
7. Of Resen, history tells 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 Matsor,
Lower Egypt. The Egyptians called the country
Metouro and Kam, 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 Kerne. This correspondence is a further
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 but little
or no change the list would be swelled to vast pro
portions, but as many of these names are of places
near Palestine, which therefore would be familiar
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=& palm
tree,) Sabai, (so called by Strabo in Greek,) Akir,
Lydia, the Lybians, Philistaea, (so called by Strabo),
etc. Thus is proved the thorough knowledge of the
writer of the Pentateuch, with facts he relates.
10. The tenth chapter of Genesis contains the ori
gin of Nations. The names of Noah s sons and
232 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
grandsons need not be repeated here. Suffice it to
say, that these descendants of the Patriarch dis
persed themselves through the various parts of the
world then within reach, and the countries to which
they went have retained even to this day the very
names of many of Noah s children, or grand-children,
as recorded in this chapter: and the tradition of a
tripartite division of the world between the descend
ants of the three sons of Noah, is found interwoven
in the history of all Eastern nations. The annals of
Phoenicia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, pertain to
the individual nation, but in this record of Moses
the whole world finds its earliest history. We cannot-
identify the descendants of every one named, but the
leading divisions are seen at a glance. They may be
found in Darras Unabridged Church History., i, 336
to 345 ; or abridged in Eadie s Biblical Cyclopaedia^
Nations, Origin of.
Thus the Egyptians acknowledge tho origin of
their nation which is given in the Bible, when they
name themselves from Mizraim. The Ethiopians are
called Cush. The Medes, Thracians, lonians, and the
natives of Elis acknowledge by their names their
descent from Madai, Thiras, Javan, Elishah. The
Assyrians, Aramaeans, Lydians and Elamites by their
very names proclaim their parentage in Assur, Aram,
Lud and Elam.
There are estimated to be about 4,000 names of
persons and places in the Bible: yet of all these, it
has never been shown that there is a single person
named who is fabulous, or a locality misplaced,
whereas on the contrary, for the most part, both per
sons and places have been perfectly identified both
by history and geography.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 233
There can be no more decisive evidence of any fact
than the evidence that the writer of the Pentateuch
had access to authentic records of the past, as well as
familiarity with the events that were passing at the
periods of which it treats, and that none but Moses,
or some one writing by his authority, could be in a
position to write it. All this I have shown,
First. By its existence from 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.
Secondly. By the authenticated records of the
nation which 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. Ingersoll, Paine and others, upon its authority.
Chap. 19.
Fifthly. By the monuments and feasts of the Jews,
which constitute a lasting testimony to the genuine
ness of the books on which they are founded. Chap.
20.
Sixthly. By the antiquity of the language in which
the books arc written. Chaps. 21, 22.
Seventhly. By its agreement with the history of
the times. Chaps. 23, 24, 25, 26, 28.
t Eighthly. By the perfect knowledge displayed in
them of the geography of the places described. Chap.
29.
Any one of these proofs would in itself be satis
factory: but combined their evidence is irresistible
and overwhelming.
234 MISTAKES OF MODERN" INFIDELS.
CHAPTEE XXX.
TRUTH OF THE PENTATEUCH. PROOFS OF THE
SINCERITY OF MOSES.
THE Pentateuch has been proved to be the work
of Moses. The next question we have to consider is:
Did he write the truth, or was he an impostor, trying,
for some purpose, to pass upon the Israelites a tissue
of lies ? We maintain that the Pentateuch is histor
ically true.
The testimony of a witness must be received as
true if he be not himself deceived and he be not a
deceiver.
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 infant 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 forget, and
he would readily be informed 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 familiar with them, even by ordinary
human means. He was, therefore, not deceived in
respect to them. The succeeding events of the Pen-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 235
tateuch were events public, obvious to his senses and
to those of his whole nation. If his own senses had
deceived him, an impossible supposition, he would
have been undeceived by the universal testimony of
those who surrounded him. Only a confirmed mad
man could have been deceived concerning such facts.
This Moses was not. His writings, his learning, his
admirable doctrine, his laws, his skilful leadership of
his nation under immense difficulties, prove him to be
a man of very great prudence and wisdom. This
even infidels admit. If, therefore, the Pentateuch be
false, Moses must have been an impostor.
It cannot be supposed that the Hebrews conspire^
with Moses to pass a fraudulent history upon pos
terity. A nation never desires to concoct a fraud
which is to them perfectly useless, and which indeed
would hold them up to future generations in an odious
light. Many might indeed be willing to allow them
selves to be represented as having received special
favors from God, but even then there would be many
who would not endure the palpable falsehood: but
when the question is unnecessarily to perpetuate a
fraud which represents them as a perverse and un
grateful people, the deceit would be at once unani
mously repudiated.
Now there are many facts in the Pentateuch which
are disgraceful to the nation: such is their incon
stancy while Moses was on Mount Sinai communing
with God. They could not persevere for forty days
in God s service, but they fell into most gross idola
try, setting up a golden calf of their own make and
offering up their homage to it with absurd ceremo
nies; and even Aaron, the brother of Moses, was
induced to assist in their delinquency. (Ex. xxxii.)
236 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
Thus, also, their many shortcomings brought upon
them so strong a reproach from God as this:
"The Lord had said unto Moses: Say unto the
children of Israel, Ye are a stiff-necked people: I will
come up into the midst of thee in a moment and con
sume thee." (xxxiii, 5.)
So also in Exod. xxxiv, 9, Moses thus prays to
God:
"O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us;
for it is a stiff-necked people."
We find, besides, a mutiny among the people
headed by two hundred and fifty princes of the assem
bly, recorded in Num. xvi; and at a later period a
very general delinquency, when a vast number fell
into idolatry and other gross crimes, on account of
which they were punished by terrible marks of God s
indignation. We need not specify other occasions of
their fall, justifying the name by which they were
called, a stiff-necked people.
One additional fact may be named which, though
mentioned in Genesis, would be of itself a reason
why the Hebrews would not have conspired with
Moses in concocting and preserving a false record.
Respect for one s ancestry is a common feeling
among men. Especially is this the case when the
ancestors are not very distant from us. Now the
twelve sons of Jacob were the ancestors of every
Israelite; and as ancestors they were not remote. As
ancestors they were held in great veneration. They
brought the bones of Joseph with them from Egypt
in veneration of his memory and in obedience to his
last will. Now it is quite inconceivable that any
nation imbued with such sentiments should permit
the history of Joseph and his brothers to be handed
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 23 7
down to posterity as it is recorded in Genesis xxxvii,
unless they were perfectly conscious of its truth: for
these ancestors of all the tribes, except Joseph, Ben
jamin, and Reuben, are represented as plotting
together for the perpetration of one of the most
heartless acts ever committed by men. Would the
other tribes have consented to have their ancestors
thus blackened, while those of the three tribes, and
especially Joseph and Reuben, were elevated above
them all ? Yes, even above the tribe of Judah, which
was promised to be the royal tribe, and that of Levi,
which was already the ruling and priestly tribe, when
the Pentateuch was written.
After this read the last of words of Jacob, full of
sorrowful and prophetic reproaches, some to be ful
filled in regard to many of the tribes, and this time
even the tribes of Reuben and Benjamin do n,ot
escape the scathing. See Genesis xlix.
The Pentateuch, therefore, is not the result of a
conspiracy between Moses and his people. Was it
the deceit, then, of Moses himself? According to the
rules of fair criticism a historical writer, especially an
eye-witness is to be supposed sincere, unless there are
positive reasons for calling his sincerity to doubt. In
the case of Moses no such reasons can be given. On
the contrary he possesses all the characteristics of
sincerity which the most fastidious critic can require.
The first thing that strikes us when we read the
Pentateuch is the sublimity and holiness of the doc
trines therein taught.
In the first words of Genesis we have the authori
tative declaration of the world s origin : " In the begin
ning God created heaven and earth." Matter then is
not eternal. It is God s creation. The world is not
238 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
made by chance 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 entirely upon Him.
The idea 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. Pagan philosophy never attained it. Its systems
always rest on the first existence of a chaotic mass,
which the divine power organized. But whence 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 have seen in chapter 7, Col.
Ingersoll cannot solve it either.
Moses, on the other hand, lets us at once into the
secrets of the Eternal, and teaches this most sublime
truth. Yet the Colonel has the hardihood to say that
"Moses received from the Egyptians the principal
parts of his narrative, (of Creation,) making such
changes and additions as were necessary to satisfy the
peculiar superstitions of his own people." (P. 51.)
He further explains this by saying that "if some
man should assert that he had received from God the
theories of evolution, etc." and we should find that
" he had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we
certainly would account for his having these theories
in a natural way." (P. 51.)
The differences between the two cases are that,
1. The Egyptian Cosmogony is evidently not the
original of the Mosaic. The only so-called Egyptian
work which could even in a remote degree be com
pared with the Mosaic record are the Hermetic books
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 239
which are acknowledged by learned men to be in
great part at least spurious. Wherever Hermes Tris-
megistus resembles the Mosaic record he falls into
absurdities. See Champollion s "Ancient Egypt."
Darras unabridged Church History vol. i, (P. 125.)
Instead of Moses copying, Hermes copied Moses,
and failing to copy truly, his mistakes are absurd.
2. Mizraim the father of the Egyptians was one
of those who dispersed themselves after the building
of the tower of Babel, 587 years before the birth of
Moses. The fathers of the human race at that period
certainly knew the traditions handed to them by Noah
(still alive) and his sons. Is it wonderful, then, that
the pagan nations retained some notion, derived from
the common ancestors of mankind, of Creation, God,
Providence, the Immortality of the soul, etc. ? It is
thus that we find traces of religion among those
people.
But we have seen how men, in spite of human rea
son, degenerated in their belief, and corrupted it so
that the original creed of mankind can scarcely be re
cognized. That this degeneration took place we proved
in chapter 9. This is fully confirmed by the testimony
of Sacred Scripture.
" A father being afflicted .... made to himself
the image of his son .... and him who then had
died as a man, he began now to worship as a god,
and appointed him rites and sacrifices Then in
process of time .... this error was kept as a law,
and statues were worshipped by the commandments
of tyrants." (Wis. xiv, 16.)
" And the multitude of men carried away by the
beauty of the work took him now for a god that but
a little before was honored as a man." (Verse 20.)
240 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
" When they knew God they have not glorified him
.... and they changed the glory of the incorrupti
ble God into the likeness of the image of a corrupti
ble man, and of birds and of four footed beasts and
of creeping things." (Rom. i, 23.)
It is the climax of impertinence and dishonesty to
say that the religion of the Bible was borrowed from
the absurdities and impieties of Egypt.
CHAPTER XXXI.
TRUTH OF THE PENTATEUCH. CONTINUED.
1. The doctrines, then, of one only God, the Crea
tor of all things, of God s Providence, Holiness, Jus
tice, Mercy, 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 earnest
belief 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
falsehoods as the Pentateuch must be if its miracles
be untrue ? Take out the miracles and the Penta
teuch will be a record without a meaning.
MISTAKES OF MODBBN INT1DELS. 241
/
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 own country and
religion, and to keep them distinct from the idola
trous nations that surrounded them. Their laws of
health are so conducive to this end that in countries
which have been visited by plagues, the Jews, fol
lowing the Mosaic Law strictly, have escaped harm
on many occasions.
"A contagious distemper raged in Palestine and
the neighborhood; tho wise precautions of our legis-
tor prevented its communication and our fathers thus
.... kept off this scourge." (Jews Letters to
Voltaire, p. 345.)
" In this (Hebrew) legislation there were none of
those hereditary professions .... those blemishing
distinctions of castes established among the Egyptians
and Brahmins; none of those contempts of one order
for the other, which caused seditions for a long time
in Rome. Everything recalled to the minds of the He
brews that original equality and those fraternal feel
ings with which their common descent from one stock
d>
ought to inspire them."
" Where can laws be found which require the ten
der care of the Jewish law-giver for the orphan, the
widow, the poor and all the distressed ?
"Almost all ancient governments abandoned ....
slaves .... to the lust and brutality of their masters."
" Our laws did not give to masters these tyrannical
powers. They watched over the lives and modesty
of slaves. Our fathers, for 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.)
11
242 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
Can we suppose that a legislator so prudent, so
zealous for justice and mercy 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
self-aggrandizement.
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 wo.uld 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 strange feats 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 us
look at the deeds of Moses in this light. It is not
denied by infidels that the ordinary or non-miraculous
events described may be true. Thus we have seen
that Mr. Ingersoll 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.
.
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 243
Moses proclaims miraculous facts the falsehood of
which would be known to his people as soon as they
were proclaimed, unless they were absolutely true;
and he would have been at once confronted by wit
nesses innumerable who would have refuted them.
It was only on the strength of his miracles that he
obtained authority among his people. If these had
been false they would have been palpable falsehoods,
and they would not have obtained his authority for
him. Such facts as the turning of the waters of the
Nile into blood, the frogs overrunning the whole
country, the sciniphs and flies annoying the whole
country in so extraordinary a manner, the murrain,
the boils and blains on men and beasts, and finally
the death of the first-born, were so public, so obvious
to all that an impostor would not have dared to relate
them as a proof of his divine mission, to the very
people who had been witnesses that they had not
occurred.
5. Col. Ingersoll maintains, (p. 207) that it is more
reasonable to say that the Jews " accounted for the
misfortunes and calamities suffered by the Egyptians,
by saying that they were the judgments of God."
This is, on -the contrary, quite unreasonable. Such
calamities do not occur at the command of man, in
the ordinary course of nature; but in the account
which Moses wrote for the Jews they are described
as occurring at his command. This is an essential
point of the history, and as his command was public,
every one knew whether or not the command was
given. It is also recorded of eight out of the ten
plagues that they were positively foretold. It is not
said whether or not any such warning was given of
the other two, the plague of boils with blains, and
244 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the plague of darkness: but these two, as well as
the others came only at the command of Moses. So
certain is it that these plagues were miracles, 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 warned to keep their cattle under cover, and the
plague injured only those who heeded not the warn
ing.
The same is to be said of the passage of the Israel
ites through the Red Sea. When Moses holding in
his hand his rod stretched it over the Red Sea, the
waters divided so that the Israelites passed through,
and when the Egyptians following were in the bed
of the sea, with the waters on each side as a wall,
Moses again stretched his rod over the sea, the Egyp
tians were overwhelmed by the return 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 supply of manna which
falling from heaven (the sky) six days of each week,
kept the nation supplied with food 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 befell
Nadab and Abihu who were consumed by "fire from
the Lord" because they "offered strange fire before
the Lord: " (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 followers, because of their mutiny
against Moses and Aaron, (Num. xvi,) besides many
Other facts equally above nature.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 245
Of all these works, Moses testifies "the Lord hath
sent me to do all these works; for I have 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 facts, Moses could not have de
ceived the Hebrews, even if he had wished to do so,
and the single fact that they received 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:
"Your eyes have seen all the great works of the
Lord which he hath done." (Deut. xi, V.)
Again: "You have seen all the things that the
Lord did before you in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh,
and to all his servants, and to his whole land."
" The great temptations which thy eyes have seen,
those mighty signs and wonders." (Deut. xix, 2, 3.)
7. These miracles are not attested by Moses alone.
Joshua speaks of the passage through the Red Sea as
a matter well known even to foreign nations. Thus
Rahab of Jericho tells the Hebrew spies:
" We have heard that the Lord dried up the water
of the Red Sea at your 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 Lord 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."
(Josh, viii.)
246 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
Why should he be so particular, now that Moses
was dead, and his power need not be feared, unless
both he and the nation KNEW by the miracles of
Moses which they had witnessed that the latter exer
cised authority from 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 doctrine.
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE TRUTH OF GENESIS. MOSES NOT DECEIVED,
NOR A DECEIVER. HIS SOURCES OF
INFORMATION.
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 building 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 chron
ology, the Tower of Babel was built in the year of
the world 1800, or 2204 B. C. Abraham was born
1996 B. C., and died 1821 B. C. The Israelites en
tered Egypt 1708 B. C. Joseph died 1635 B. C.
1. Moses was not deceived in regard to the facts
related in Genesis; for we have already seen that the
Hebrews preserved carefully their genealogies, and
undoubtedly the principal facts of the history of their
ancestors, at all events as far back as Abraham; for
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 247
they expected that the promises made by God to
Abraham would be fulfilled in their nation. Thus
the covenant made by God with Abraham is fre
quently referred to in the later books, as to a fact
which is well known to the Hebrews. (See Ex. ii, 24,
vi, 3, 8.)
Thus also Moses appeals to God to preserve Israel:
" Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, thy ser
vants to whom thou sworest by thy own self saying:
I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven; and
this whole land that I have spoken of, I will give to
your seed, and you shall possess it for ever." (Ex.
xxxii, 13.)
2. There were also means of knowing many of the
events related, for example, the history of Joseph,
from Egyptian annals, records and monuments; for
we have evidence, even to-day, that the Egyptians
were very careful to keep such records. There must
have been very many extant then which have perished
since.
3. Even from the Creation of the world to Abra
ham, as well as from Abraham to Moses, there were
means of knowing the truth, of which Moses could
make use, viz., oral tradition, written records, histori
cal songs, monuments, and above all, Revelation
from God.
Now, though 2473 years had passed from the Crea
tion to the birth of Moses, the number of generations
was but small, on account of the long lives of the
first men. Thus Adam was 300 years living with
Mathusala, and Mathusala 600 years with Noah, and
therefore he must have conversed with Noah s family,
and have handed down the tradition of Creation.
Sem saw Isaac, Isaac saw Levi, and Levi lived a
248 MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS.
long time with Amram the father of Moses. Thus,
as far as the perpetuation of traditions was concerned,
Moses was, at most, in the sixth generation after
Adam. We cannot say, therefore, that a man like
Moses, a historian, skillful in the science of the day,
could have been deceived as to the facts which are
related of the early history of mankind. The facts
he relates are just the salient points of history, just
such facts as could be transmitted easily from gen
eration to generation. The details of the ages and
genealogies given in Genesis prove that he had to
direct him, records which could be relied on, and be
sides, the long time that one generation lived with
the next gave ample opportunity for each generation
to acquaint the next succeeding, of all the things
which Moses records. If, therefore, the Mosaic his
tory of the period be spurious it must be that Moses
was a deceiver, not that he was deceived.
4. In the next place we find that it was tho custom
in those early days, to record the principal facts of
history in song so that they would not be forgotten
from generation to generation. The song of Moses
which sets forth, in the thirty- second chapter of Deu
teronomy, the mercies of God to his people and his
vengeance on their oppressors was written for this
purpose by command of God. (Deut. xxxi, 19, 21.)
We have, for a similar purpose, the song of Moses
in Ex. xv. This song was sung by Mary the sister of
Moses, with a choir of the Hebrew women.
From Genesis xxxi, 27, we learn that this was no
new custom, but that it prevailed in the days of
Jacob, for it is spoken of as a common practice then.
5. It has been proved in chapter 15 that writing
was used before the time of Moses. We cannot tell
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 249
/
when writing was first used. There is, therefore, no
difficulty in supposing that Moses received informa
tion from written records.
6. We have besides examples of the custom of
erecting memorial altars, as did Noah, Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob in many places. (See Gen. viii, 20; xii, 7;
xxvi, 25; etc.)
Wells were named on account of events which oc
curred near them, and the tradition of the events was
kept up in connection with them. (Gen. xvi, 14; xxiv,
62; xxv, 11; xxi, 31. Compare also the Hebrew in
Deut. x, 6, and Num. xxx, 31: JBeeroth Bene-Jaakan,
the wells of the sons of Jaakan, etc.)
Stones were also erected as monuments to mark the
locality where special events had occurred. (Gen.
xxviii, 18, etc.) The knowledge of the events was
transmitted in connection with such memorials also.
7. In fine, whatever might be lacking of other
means, Moses had Revelation from God. The miracles
of Exodus prove this. From God, therefore, he
could well have the history of Creation, and all the
other facts which he records down to the call of
Abraham; and even after, if it were needed. Thus
Moses had more than all the means which historians
usually have of ascertaining the truth concerning
those past ages.
MOSES, THEN, WAS NOT DECEIVED.
8. Neither was Moses a deceiver. This we have
already proved in regard to the later books of the
Pentateuch. Since he has all the characteristics of
sincerity in writing them, he cannot be supposed to
have laid them aside in order to concoct a fictitious
Genesis. We have proved that it is against his real
character and divine mission to suppose that he was a
250 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
deceiver. These reasons are equally valid as regards
Genesis. (See chapters 30 and 31.)
9. An impostor would not have invented such facts
as are related in Genesis, for their incongruity would
have been detected by his nation, who still held in
their minds the traditions of the past concerning
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
furnished facilities for the refutation of his history.
Besides, we cannot suppose that God would perform
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 before his own time, which would be about
850 B. C. The siege of Troy, concerning which he
writes chiefly, occurred about, the year 1184 B. C.
Critics agree that, with wonderful 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 strictly 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 find
the state 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIiJELS. 251
/
once informed of the arrival of the stranger. (Gen.
xii.) The same happens 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 interior 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 earliest ages.
Thus at the siege of Troy we find a King of Mycenae
a King of the Myrmidones, a King of the Locri, a
King of Ithaca, etc. Thus, also, Abraham with three
hundred and eighteen followers, 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 life, 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 the greatest respect to honored guests.
(Gen. 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 to any much greater extent
than would naturally have been transmitted through
through the family of Noah from antediluvian times.
Thus the building of the tower of Babel, recorded
in Genesis xi, and of the cities " Babel, Erech, Accad,
252 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
and Calnah .... and Nineveh .... Rehoboth and
Calah," etc., shows some progress in architecture, an
art which would naturally be one of the first to which
the necessities of man would call his attention at a
very early date.
If such evidences of the truth of Homer s pictures
of ancient times demonstrate the accuracy of his
sources of information, why should they not be a
proof also that Moses drew his knowledge of early
times from accurate sources ?
11. The traditions of nations confirm in many par
ticulars the account given by Moses. The proof of
this in detail we leave to the next chapter.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
THE TRUTH OF GENESIS. TESTIMONY OF PAGAN
TRADITIONS.
IN the traditions of various nations the main facts
mentioned by Moses in Genesis are preserved more
or less distinctly. Thus we find testimonies to the
great chaos which existed before God brought the
earth to its present form, the earth being covered
with water, the spirit of God vivifying all things,
darkness covering the face of the deep, the formation
of man from clay, the original innocence and fall of
man, the history of Adam and Eve, and of the
temptation by the serpent. The Hindoo books relat
ing this history even give the names of our first
parents as they are given in Genesis. We find also
testimonies to the long lives of the first men, the
building of the tower of Babel, the flood, etc.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 253
-
We already quoted from Colonel Ingersoll the
statement that the Egyptian account of Creation
bears strong resemblance to the Mosaic, so that he
maintains that Moses borrowed his account from them.
See chapters 22, 23. Yet he states that the same
account substantially was found 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 one another? Surely separated as they were
from one another, and having very little, if any inter
course with each other, the Colonel s 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 common source must be that
account which existed before 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 they have not copied faithfully,
they are disfigured by errors which do not occur 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.
254 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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-Ra is described as the
Supreme principle, uncreated and invisible, distinct
from matter, the Creator of all things. Plutarch
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 xi, that the
sacerdotal hymns thus address Isis:
"By thee seeds are produced, grow and arrive at
maturity: 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 Eusebius: "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
Isis."
These notions of Manetho are evidently derived
partly from the Greeks and introduced into Egyptian
mythology.
In the discourses of Thoth, as found in Hermes
Trismegistus, the doctrine of Creation is found:
The judgment of M. Champollion 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
Hermes :
" There are seven agents which contain in circles
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 255
/
the material world, and their action is named des
tiny."
" 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 elements."
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. The 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
tradition 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 coun
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 followed by a festival.
Nowhere else 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
256 MISTAKES OF MODEKJNT IJSFIDELS.
likely. Hence he puts the creation of heaven first
to include sun, moon, planets and stars, and light.
Water is, according to him, created before the earth,
and the earth itself is created a considerable time
after the whole immense universe, and it takes much
longer time. All this to avoid the apparent difficul
ties of Genesis.
Zoroaster also has a notion of the Trinity.
Among the Hindoos the most ancient sacred book
is said to be the book of Manou. Colonel Ingersoll
would make the Hindoo books older than the Penta
teuch, but M. G. Panthier, a learned Sanscrit scholar,
declares that it cannot be older than 1300 years B. C.
According to this book, Manou is supremely pow
erful. He is alone the first born of beings, knowing
all truth.
The visible universe was in darkness incomprehen
sible and indistinct until the self-existing Great-Power
rendered it visible, dissipating darkness.
The Supreme Spirit resolved to make all creatures
from his own substance, and produced 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
produced heaven, the earth, the atmosphere, the
regions of light and the abyss of water.
About 200 years B. C. the Hindoos brought out a
new Cosmogony, that of Buddha. This is chiefly re
markable for its difficulties and absurdities.
This system is also founded on the belief in one
God Supreme served by hierarchies of Spirits.
The Phoenician Cosmogony is said to have been
written by Sanchoniathon, who flourished about the
time of the Trojan war, 1184 B. C.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 257
/
Yoltaire pretended that the account in Genesis was
borrowed from the Phoenicians, but there is no resem
blance whatever between the two: if we except that
there is but one Supreme God according to Sanchoni-
athon: but that God is the Sun. However, as the
Phoenician writer, whose existence even is doubtful,
is certainly not so ancient as Moses, therefore Moses i
could not have copied from him.
The Chaldean Cosmogony is known through frag
ments of Berosus, some few of which have been pre
served by Eusebius, who obtained them from Poly-
histor.
Berosus lived about 260 B. C. He teaches a prim
eval chaos. Bel made heaven and earth, formed
man s body from clay, but his soul from the divine
essence. f
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 texts of
all these systems in Darras Church History, vol. 1,
c. 2.
The formation of man from clay is found 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 Rig- Veda 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 tell of a food of the gods, ambrosia, the
eating of which transmits immortality.
Among the Buddhists, the God Buddha discovers
258 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
truth and finds his doctrine under the tree of knowl
edge. (Mr. Schcebel, Buddha and Buddhism. Annals
of Christian Phil., 4 series, vol. 15.)
According to the Persian Zend-Avesta, Meschia
and Meschiane were seduced by Ahriman (the Evil
Spirit,) under the form of an adder who presented to
them deceitful fruits. (Vol. 2.)
The Japanese traditions represent the fall of man
under figure of a tree around which a dreadful ser
pent is coiled. Noel s Japanese Cosmogony.
The Mongols say that on the soil where our first
parents lived, the plant schima grew abundantly,
white and sweet like sugar. Its aspect seduced man
to eat of it and all things were consumed. (A. Nich
olas, Phil. Studies, vol. 2.)
Mexican monuments previous 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 serpent 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 them.
Popular 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 foun
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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 259
first chapters of Genesis present to us, if not in detail,
at least in substance, the primitive traditions of the
Semitic race."
The accord of traditions might be largely extended
on this subject, but we have above those which are
most clear and decisive. Among the different na
tions of Asia a primitive paradise is believed, adorned
with such circumstances as accord with the lastes of
the divers nations. In Thibet degraded spirits tempt
men to sin. In Greenland, our 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, under whose
reign came the deluge.
Sanchoniathon gives ten generations from the father
of the human race, down to the present race of
mortals.
The Hindoos count ten successive ages or avatars
down to Manou the Eastern 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 chapter
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 mankind.
260 MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. ITS AUTHENTICITY AND
TRUTH. CHRISTIANITY A DIVINE RELIGION.
THE proofs of the authenticity, integrity and truth
of the books of the New Testament are even stronger
than those we have advanced for the Pentateuch. It
would, however, swell this book 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 intention to answer all Col. Ingersoll s 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 s
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 therefore an easy matter, comparatively, to prove
that they were not deceived in regard to the facts
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. In every
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 261
respect, therefore, the historical proofs 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 authors, to whom they are attributed
to this day. Even infidels acknowledge that since
the third century, this has been the case: but the per
suasion 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, Poly carp, a disciple of St.
John, martyred about A. D., 164, Irenseus, 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 Irengeus, a Clement of
Rome, whose name is found as a dear friend of St.
Paul, recorded in Philippians iv, 3, a Justin Martyr,
wbo wrote about 140 A. D., Hippolytus A. D. 190,
Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom in Rome, A. D.
109, who also thus unites the testimony of the East
and West. The list of witnesses might be multiplied
to a very great extent. These, however, will suffice
to show that the books of the New Testament are cer
tified as authentic by a constant and universal tradi
tion. The heretical sects, the Ebionites, Marcionists,
262 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Montanists, Gnostics, etc., cut off from the early
Church, give the same testimony: to say nothing of
the innumerable witnesses who give no uncertain
sound from the beginning of the fourth 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 learn
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 sufficiently
evidenced by the large number of copies which were
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 care 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 263
/
indeed when Diocletian ordered all copies to be de
livered up to him, very many men and women pre
ferred 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 been silent if any serious alterations had been
made to the text.
Add to this that there has been a constant series
of Christian writers who quoted largely from the
New Testament. If there had been any corruption
of the text it would be necessary also to corrupt in a
corresponding way all the sermons and homilies,
commentaries and quotations of these Christian
fathers, as well as the original itself: and some of
them have quoted the text so copiously, that if the
New Testament were actually lost, it could be almost
entirely reconstructed from a few of them only.
We have already shown that the writers of the
New Testament were not deceived. Neither were
they deceivers. It would be absurd to attribute to a
few obscure, poor and illiterate men, whose morals
were so pure that no vice could be attributed to them
by such enemies as Celsus, Porphyry and Julian, the
design of converting mankind to their doctrines by
fraud.
They have all the characteristics of sincerity. They
do not aim at rhetorical effect or philosophical soph
istry. They state facts simply, without appeal to
passion: as when recording the ignominious death of
their Master they say, " There they crucified him."
Their own faults and cowardice they ingenuously
confess, their ambitious bickerings, their incredulity
frequently reproved by Christ.
264 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
The facts they relate are in most cases public and
of great importance where they are said to have oc
curred. Particularly is this true of the miracles
which are related. They do not utter reproaches
against those who persecuted them, they make no
complaints of injuries received. They relate the time,
the places and persons who were concerned 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, proconsuls, governors, and
high priests under 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
postors 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 fact all suffered death in testimony of their
sincerity, except St. John, 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 his teaching.
The perfection 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
ceived.
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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 265
deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, the crippled begin 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 must expect 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 else but the notoriety of the
miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles could
have induced them to become believers? Certainly,
then, the Apostles were not deceivers nor were they
deceived regarding the Gospel history which they at
test.
In conclusion: as the principal facts mentioned in
the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are
miracles, we have the divine attestation that Christ
and his Apostles established a divine Religion, and
therefore CHRISTIANITY is DIVINE.
In many respects the evidences of Christianity ex
cel those of Judaism. Christ s character surpasses
that of Moses. The morals of Christianity bring us
nearer to God, because they are more perfect. 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
12
266 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
are more numerous and splendid than those of Moses.
The miracles of Moses are confined chiefly to himself,
whereas 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 act of the will. They are more
universal in their character being wrought on creat
ures of every kind and on the dead as well as the liv
ing. Their consequences are more momentous as they
have resulted in the conversion of a vast proportion
of mankind.
Against the Authenticity and historical, truth of
the New Testament we often meet the objection
made that the genealogy of Christ as given in the
first chapter of St. Matthew s gospel in quite differ
ent from that given by St. Luke, chapter iii: so that
in fact none of the ancestors of Joseph as given by
St. Matthew are the same with his ancestors as given
by St. Luke.
This objection is also made by Col. Ingersoll, though
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 fourth
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
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 267
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 daughter with an inheri
tance should be wife to one of the family of her father s
tribe. For this reason the daughters of Zelophedad
married their father 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
grandfather to both Joseph and Mary. The genealogy
of Joseph was therefore 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
mon.
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 I answer
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
v-/
Bible, "of Heli." However, bv his marriage with
v o
Mary, Joseph was adopted into the family of Heli,
being his son-in-law.
The facts might have occurred in another way, and
some 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
ren to the dead brother.
268 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Thus Heli died, and his wife married Jacob.
Joseph was born of this marriage, and was therefore
by law the son of Heli, and by nature the son of Jacob.
Jacob and Heli were brothers by the same mother
but by different fathers, viz. Mathan and Mathat.
Hence there are two genealogies. Either genealogy
was the genealogy of Christ, since, as we have already
explained, Mary and Joseph were first cousins.
CHAPTER XXXV.
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. CREATION. THE FIRMA
MENT. HEAVEN.
HAVING proved the truth of Revelation, and the
Divinity of the Jewish and Christian Religions, it is
now proper to examine those of Colonel Ingersoll s
objections against our 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 that the Colonel starts out with
a most egregious blunder, which is carried through
his treatise on Creation.
" The Creation of the world commenced, according
to the Bible, on Monday morning, about 5,883 years
ago." (P. 55.)
Thus, of course, on Monday the Colonel places the
Creation of light, on Tuesday was made the firma
ment and the division of the waters below from the
waters above, etc. (Gen. i. See pages 61, 63, etc.)
Naturally it follows that he makes Saturday the sixth
day of Creation, and Sunday the day of the appointed
rest. (Pp. 87, 101.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 269
/
Now, to use the Colonel s own expression (p. 99,)
"if we know anything we know that" the Jewish
day begins at even, and ends the next even. Dark
ness preceded light, according to the first chapter of
Genesis, and the keeping of the day thus 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 Friday 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. 56.)
" It is impossible for 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 7 that matter is cre
ated. Matter is finite. Whatever is finite is contin
gent. Whatever is contingent is the effect of an
extrinsic cause. The effect 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-
270 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
tingent being, a reasonable being can conceive of pos
sible matter becoming actual by the operation of In
finite Power. If you cannot conceive this, you are
not a reasonable being.
There is no question of nothing being regarded "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 because
ordinary human speech uses this form of expression
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 1 is a judgment expressed in words,
and not a mere idea.
Next you assert that before Creation, "An Infinite
Intelligence" was "wasting an eternity doing
nothing. (P. 57.)
God in all eternity acts in the exercise of his Infi
nite Perfections. It is, therefore, not true that he is
doing nothing, or wasting eternity. 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 perfections. They are but the external mani
festation of his glory and power. You say:
" I do not pretend to tell how all these things really
are." (P. 57.)
What right have you, then, to ask that others
should explain the mysteries of the Infinite, which
you here virtually acknowledge and declare to be
inexplicable ?
MISTAKES OP MODEEN INFIDELS. 271
/
The next assertions, that the account of Creation
is imaginative, and that miracles are lies, we dealt
with in chapters 13 and 27.
We are next told that the writer of Genesis " be
lieved that darkness was a thing, an entity, etc." We
have shown in chapter 26 that Moses spoke of dark
ness in the current language of the day, and not in
the newly invented but useful language of Natural
Philosophy. He could do this and still be perfectly
correct. By darkness Moses meant the atmosphere
itself in such a condition that light could not reach
one who had the faculty of vision.
The Colonel has nothing more to say about the
work of the first day of Creation.
On the second day, " God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament
from the waters which were above the firmament."
(Gen. i, 7.)
On this text the Colonel says:
" What did the writer mean by the word firma
ment ? Theologians now tell us that he meant an ex
panse. This will not do. How could an expanse
divide the waters from the waters so that the waters
above the expanse would not fall into and mingle
with the waters below the expanse ? The truth is
that Moses regarded the firmament as a solid affair.
It was where God lived and where water was kept.
.... They supposed that some angel could with a
lever raise a gate and let out the quantity of moisture
desired." (P. 63.)
This he illustrates further, by showing that "the
world was drowned when the windows of heaven
were opened," (Gen. vii, 11,) and that in the dream
of Jacob the top of a ladder " reached to heaven."
(xxviii, 12.)
272 MISTAKES OP MODEKN INFIDELS.
He goes on to say that God lived on the floor of
this firmament, "surrounded by his sons," and that
"Moses knew nothing about the laws of evapora
tion."
" He did not know that the sun wooed with amor
ous kisses the waves of the sea, and that they, clad
in glorified mist, rising to meet their lover, were, by
disappointment, changed to tears, and fell as rain."
(P. 64.) , ;- -
Let us analyze this after the Colonel s own fashion.
" Colonel Ingersoll is evidently of the opinion that
the sun and the water are reasonable beings, moved
by their passions. The sun is actually in love, and
the water meets with disappointment ! Again: He
is a believer in enchantment; for the water, from
being at first a disappointed lover, in human form, of
course (see pages 93, 94), according to his anthropo
morphic principles, is metamorphosed into tears !
Evidently he knows " nothing of the laws of evapora
tion." , ;,.
The Colonel would be likely to answer if we would
analyze his sentences in this manner:
"You know nothing of the usages of language,
or you would recognize that I have made use of a
figure of speech."
In the same way may we answer his commentary
on the firmament and the windows of heaven.
The opening of the windows of heaven is evidently
a figurative expression for the falling of a large
quantity of rain. The ladder whose top reached to
heaven is a dream or vision, and the passage of the
angels up and down the ladder signifies that the
angels minister to God, and execute on earth His will
towards men. All this is expressly stated to be a
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 273
/
dream, though it is a symbol of what happens in
reality. It is dishonest to represent it as literally
true.
As regards the firmament, the word is indeed de
rived from the Latin word which signifies a support
or prop, but is Colonel Ingersoll ignorant of the fact
that, as it is used to express the sky, the original
meaning is modified to make the word express its new
signification ? There is absolutely nothing in the
Bible to justify Colonel IngersolPs fanfaronade on
this subject.
Equally futile is the ColonePs conclusion:
" The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away
with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the
Ascension of our Lord and the Assumption of his
mother infinitely 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 frozen
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 a whirlwind. " (Pp. 65, 66.)
It is the belief of all Christians that there is a
place in the universe where God manifests himself to
the blessed by a visible display of his 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 his promise, as we know he is able
to fulfil 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 home for God and a res-
274 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDBLS..
ervoir of water from which rain is made to fall as it
is required. The words of Elihu in Job xxxvii, 18,
have been quoted as having this meaning, but God
expressly repudiates Elihu s whole speech in xxxviii,
2 : " Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in un
skilful words ? "
On the third day God said:
"Let the waters that are under the heaven be
gathered together in one place; and let the 3ry land
appear." (Gen. i^ 9.)
Colonel Ingersoll says:
" The writer of this did not have any conception of
the real form of the earth. He could not have known
anything of the attraction of gravitation. He must
have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that it
required considerable force and power to induce the
water to leave the mountains and collect in the val
leys. Just as soon as the water was forced to run
down hill the dry land appeared," etc.
It is not necessary to insert the poetic ornaments,
the mantles of green, the laughing trees, the trem
bling hands of Dawn, etc. These add nothing to the
argument.
The Rev. Father Lambert has dealt so well with
the Colonel s assertion that " water always runs down
hill," that I need only, on this subject, give a sum
mary of his remarks.
Water has to get up hill before it can run down.
Water rises as vapor or steam. More water rises in
the vegetable world through capillary tubes, in a day,
than falls at Niagara in a year. The earth being a
spheroid, not a sphere, the Equator is thirteen miles
higher than the Poles of the Earth, and all rivers
running towards the equator run up hill, not down.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 275
Col. Ingersoll, then, shows that it is himself who
has " no conception of the shape of the earth." Our
Philosopher evidently knows but little of Natural
Philosophy.
In what way is the statement of Moses contradic
tory of the law of gravitation ? Col. Ingersoll does
not enlighten us on this subject, so we may rest content
that Col. Ingersoll is mistaken. There is nothing
contrary to gravitation, either in, the gathering to
gether of waters, or in the appearance of dry land.
To this day waters gather into our rivers, lakes and
seas, and dry land appears always when a flood sub
sides, yet we never hear that the laws of gravitation
are disturbed thereby.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. THE CREATION.
THE next objection against the truth of Genesis is
derived from discoveries in Geology, Astronomy, etc.
Col. Ingersoll says:
The Bible is " false and mistaken in its astronomy,
geology, geography, history and philosophy." (P.
243.)
" A few years ago Science endeavored to show that
it was not inconsistent with the Bible. The tables
have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring
to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with sci
ence." (P. 242.)
The Colonel does not specify wherein these dis
crepancies consist. On Astronomy he contents him
self with asking a number of questions regarding the
276 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
extent of Moses knowledge on this subject. All this
has nothing whatever to do with the question, Is the
Bible false in its Astronomy? Thus he asks:
" Can we believe that the inspired writer had any
idea of the size of the Sun ? . . . . Did he know that
the sun was (is?) 860,000 miles in diameter? Did he
know that the volume of the earth is less than one-
millionth of that of the sun ? . . . . Did he know of
the 104 planets? .... Did he know any thing about
Saturn, his rings and his eight moons ? " etc. (Pp.
72, 73.)
The Bible is not a handbook of Astronomy. Its ob
ject is to teach Morality and the way to serve God.
All this can be attained without the knowledge in
sisted on by Col. Ingersoll, though it is possible that
Moses knew as much about Astronomy as does Col.
Ingersoll. This, however, makes not a particle of
difference as to the truth of the Pentateuch. No
matter, then, even if it were true what the Colonel
says:
" Moses supposed the Sun to be about three or four
feet in diameter, and the moon about half that size."
Of this we need only say that the Colonel knows
nothing about the extent of Moses knowledge. His
assertion then is simply a piece of impertinence.
As the Colonel does not tell exactly the Geological
difficulty, we must look for it elsewhere. As stated
by Huxley in his "Lectures on Evolution," by Fur-
niss in his "Anonymous Hypothesis of Creation/
and a host of Infidels besides, the difficulty is that:
" The narration of Moses on the formation of the
earth is irreconcilable with true science, and especi
ally with Geology."
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 277
Does Genesis affirm that the earth was created just
five days before the creation of man ?
Prof. Huxley says that he will abstain from giving
any opinion on this question. " It is not my business
to say what the Hebrew text contains and what it
does not." (Theory of Evolution: Chickering Hall,
1877.) ,
He says, however, amid " laughter and applause,"
that if we give any other interpretation to the words of
Genesis than that it does make this statement, that " a
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
interpretations."
The meaning of all this is unmistakable. Prof.
Huxley, Col. Ingersoll, and other Infidels assert that
the Mosaic record is refuted by Geology.
I maintain, then, that the discoveries of Geology
do not clash with the words of Genesis. We read,
first:
"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. The plants, fishes and beasts embedded in
many strata of rocks, which must have been formed
by degrees betoken that the earth dates back into
most remote antiquity. 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
278 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the second event is closely allied with the first in the
matter of time. The Hebrew particle ve, and, does
not imply immediate sequence. Thus in Chapters vi,
xi, xxiv, beginning with the same particle, there is
no immediate sequence. A very great time may
therefore 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, before Geology
was dreamed of as a science, Ste. 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, so 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 Universe, and 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
amount of animal and vegetable life, and undoubt
edly Geology seems to require that an immense period
of time must have elapsed. There are evidences that
the earth passed through many great revolutions and
successive acts 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 of 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 animal life. Geology
MISTAKES OF MODEIIN INFIDELS. 2*79
demonstrates that these successive Creations are the
work of God, for only God could produce these living
organisms, different from each other in every geolo
gical epoch. Geology demonstrates that the Natural
laws were the same in every epoch, as they are now.
If animals and plants were the mere result of natural
causes like crystallization, operating on inert atoms,
animal and vegetable life would have been in those
remote ages, the same or nearly the same as it is to
day. If the evolution theory, so favored now by in
fidels, were true, we would behold the gradual change
from one form of life to another till the present stage
were reached. But this is not the case. Before 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 and 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,
says:
"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 his 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 reconciliation have
been adopted by men of learning, but perhaps this
method has the greatest sanction of authority and
280 MISTAKES OF MODEKJST IJSTFIDELS.
evidence in its favor. The late learned and illustrious
Cardinal Wiseman also favors this view in his " Sci
ence and Revealed Religion." Lecture 5.
"The Scriptural narrative, subjected to the examin
ation of the most different pursuits, defies their power
therein to discover any error, forms in the aggregate
of various examples, a strong positive proof of its
unassailable veracity. Thus, here, had the Scripture
allowed no interval between creation and organiza
tion, but declared that they were simultaneous or
closely consecutive acts, we should, perhaps have
stood perplexed in the reconciliation between its
assertions and modern discoveries. But when, instead
of this, it leaves an undecided interval between the
two, nay, more, informs us that there was a state of
confusion and conflict, of waste and darkness, and a
want of a proper basin for the sea, which thus would
cover first one part of the earth and then another;
we may truly say, that the geologist reads in those
few lines the history of the earth, such as his monu
ments have recorded it a series of disruptions, eleva
tions and dislocations; sudden inroads of the un
chained element, entombing successive generations of
amphibious animals, etc., .... and the earth re
mained in that state of sullen and gloomy prostra
tion, from which it was recalled by the reproduction
of light, and the subsequent work of the six days*
creation."
But 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 fourth day, the sun, moon and
stars ? Geology, we are told, teaches us decisively
that light existed, and Astronomy proves that the
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 281
*
sun and planets existed as far 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 must also have existed during that
period.
I answer by calling attention to the change in the
Sacred Writer s language. .
The change is quite perceptible in Hebrew, and is v
well marked in the English translation. In the He
brew, bara is created: hasah is made. Sara, created,
is used in the account of creation, where there is a
new being brought into existence. From Gen. i, 1,
to ii, 4, creation is mentioned seven times. God
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^
" And God created man to his own image; to the
image of God he created him : male and female he
created them."
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
substance already existing, he does* not create, he
makes : hasah. Hasah, to make, may be used for
creating, but not bara, to create, for making. Hasah,
therefore, does not necessarily imply creating from
nothing. 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 light on
the first day. It is "Be light, and light was." It is
not said that he created the firmament on the second
282 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
day, but: " firmament be .... and God made
(hasah) the firmament."
Hence it is quite possible that light and the firma
ment, and the sun, moon and stars had existed from
the time when God created heaven and earth; but
that now they are fashioned, made, or, to use Car
dinal Wiseman s term, organized and reproduced so
as to be fit for man s use, for whose dwelling place
God is now preparing the world.
Thus there is absolutely no contradiction between
Genesis and Geology, and there is no distortion of
the words of the sacred text. Thus, also, all the diffi
culties disappear which are brought against the text
by Professor Huxley, Col. Ingersoll, Mr. James Fur-
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 reconciliation have been maintained by able schol
ars; and if any one of them accounts for the wording of
the Mosaic narrative, without being contrary to the
proved conclusions of Geology, then the Geological
objection is of no weight whatever. Now, it is well
known that Geology is still very largely speculative
as a science, and in some things so is Astronomy.
True, in both sciences much has been demonstrated
in late years which has confirmed theories that pre
ceded demonstration; but also, many theories which
were before almost universally held by those versed
in these sciences, have since been exploded, and are
now as universally rejected.
In proof of this, I may instance the corpuscular
theory of light, of which Sir Isaac Newton was the
author. The great name of Newton was almost suffi-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 283
y
cient of itself to cause a theory of Natural Philos
ophy to be accepted without dispute; but when such
a theory was supported by arguments and facts such
as he was able to adduce in its favor, it seemed pre
sumptuous to entertain any other opinion than that
which he advanced. Nevertheless, the rival theory of
undulations has at last almost driven Sir Isaac New
ton s corpuscular theory from the field; and the more
it has been studied, the stronger 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 has afforded
ampler scope for ideal theories, and brittle, though
brilliant systems, constructed for the most conflicting
purposes."
" From the time of Buff on, 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 theories hostile
to Scripture history, not one of them has stood till
now, or deserves to be recorded." (Lecture 5, Science
and Religion.)
2. Some have reconciled Genesis with Geology by
affirming that the rocks discovered by geology with
fossils in them were created as they are, with all the
apparent evidences of antiquity. This is certainly
possible, and it would be difficult to refute it. The
power of God to create the world so must be ad
mitted.
Still it must be acknowledged that this opinion is
opposed to the known analogies of nature. If, for
284 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
instance, we find a fossil animal, whose teeth arc
worn as they would be by eating, or if we find a
fossil animal, with a smaller fossil animal in its crop,
as if the latter had been eaten by the former, are we
not inevitably led to the conclusion that these ani
mals have lived, 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 difficult to prove
absolutely that it is false.
3. Another theory is that the fossils brought to
light by geology were deposited by the deluge. To
this also there are many objections which are, proba
bly, insuperable. Can we suppose that numerous
strata thousands of feet thick, have been deposited
in regular 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 favored 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 is no
need of departing from the ordinary acceptation of
the term "day 1 as a period of 24 hours. It is on
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 285
/
this last hypothesis that I will answer the remaining
objections of Col. Ingersoll and others against the
Mosaic narrative.
I must not omit to mention two other systems of
it
reconciliation, either of which, if accepted, would
seem to reconcile the Mosaic narrative with the dis
coveries of modern research.
5. Some suppose that Moses is shown the work of
Creation in a vision, and that by direction of God he
describes the vision as it would appear to one behold
ing it from the earth. In this case an absolute
accordance with facts 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
stitute a liturgical hymn in which the praises of God
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 anyone of them
can be defended, the whole attack of Infidelity against
this portion of the Pentateuch will be repelled.
286 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. THE CREATION OF
PLANTS AND ANIMALS. THE SUN STAND
ING STILL. CHINESE ASTRONOMY.
THE first section of the preceding chapter shows
us how we may answer nearly all the remaining ob
jections against the Mosaic Cosmogony. Thus Col.
Ingersoll says:
" Moses says that God said on the third day, Let
the earth bring forth grass, etc And the
earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed
was in itself after his kind; and God saw that it was
good, and the evening and morning were the third
day. " ;_ " v
"There was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect
with painted wings sought the honey of the flowers;
not a single living breathing thing upon the earth.
Plenty of grass, etc but not a mouth in all the
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,
690 ; .
" There is in Nature an even balance forever kept
between the total amounts of animal and vegetable
life. In her wonderful 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.
Under the caption, " Friday " on pages 84, 85, we
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 287
have the same thought repeated, with the addition
that:
" Not a scientist of high standing will say that in
his judgment the earth was covered with fruit-bear
ing trees before the moners, the ancestors, it may be
of the human race, felt in Laurentian seas the first
throb of life."
If the book of Genesis is to be impugned, let us
have positive proofs against it. We have given posi
tive proofs of its truth, may bes cannot be accepted
as demonstration against it.
Why the balance should be maintained between
plants and animals, if there is no Supreme Intelli
gence directing all, we are not informed. If Nature
is but the operation of blind forces, as Col. Ingersoll
maintains, the above is simply nonsense; and if Nature
is the Supreme Intelligent Being that directs all
things, then Nature must be God.
In any case, whether blind force, or an Infinite and
Free God directs all things, there is no reason why
plants at least should not be created independently
of animals. Hence Col. Ingersoll gives no reason.
We are to accept his word as the infallible dictum
which must 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 question. We take the days of Genesis to
be natural days.
The next objection is founded on Joshua x, 13: "So
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted
not to go down about a whole day."
288 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
In connection with this the Colonel also objects to
the miracle recorded in Isaias xxviii^ 8. A Jewish
King, Ezechias, " was sick, * and .God to convince
him that he would ultimately 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 it be
turned back. Thereupon Isaias the prophet cried
unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees
backward by which it had gone down in the dial of
Achaz. " See also 4 Kings xx, 1, 11. (Prot. Bible, 2
Kings.)
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 absurd
story than this about the stopping of the sun and
moon; and yet nothing so excites the malice of the
orthodox preacher as to call its truth in question."
The miracle regarding King Ezechias he considers
more wonderful still, and of course equally or more
absurd. (P. 78.)
We might ask how the latter can be more wonder
ful or absurd, if it be impossible to conceive any
thing more absurd than the former ? We suppose,
however, that Col. Ingersoll is to be allowed to con
tradict himself with impunity. If not, then the " Mis
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-
MISTAKES OF MOPEBN INFIDELS. 289
/
fore Col. Ingersoll has no reason for calling these
events absurd.
He says: "If he (Joshua) had known that the
earth turned upon its axis 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.)
ANSWER. 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 powerful in one case as in the other.
He says: "Some endeavor to account for the
phenomenon by natural causes."
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 made 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 suppose that the motion of the earth on its
axis 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, because they are attested by truth-
13
290 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
ful historians. Our only source 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 either
way there is no absurdity, because God s power is in
finite.
It is useless to object that the stoppage of the
earth s rotary motion would have produced an im
mense amount of heat. The miracle may not have
been effected in that way. At all events, God under
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 defeat another." (P.
77.)
The miracle in the case of Ezechias is said to be " a
useless display of power." (P. 79.)
ANSWER. Is it then for man to fix the limits with
in which God s wisdom and power are to operate ?
The Israelites were fighting a defensive battle. The
Gibeonites were the allies of Joshua, and on this ac
count five kings joined in league to annihilate them.
Joshua could not but regard the confederation as un
just, and even God s honor was interested in the pre
servation of the allies of his chosen people, as the al
liance of the Israelites with them had been ratified
by the high-priest of God in his name. God, there
fore, to manifest to the Canaanites his greatness,
wrought this miracle. If the victory had been at-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 291
/ *
tained solely by the sword of Israel, it would have
been attributed to the superior valor of the nation.
As it was, the vanity of the Canaanite Gods was
shown by the superior power of the God of Israel.
In the case of Ezechias, we must bear in mind that
the Jewish kingdom was under 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 favor when the kings and people
were faithful 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 surprise, that
God should by an extraordinary sign from heaven
show his approval of the king s conduct? He ex
tended his life for fifteen years, and ratified His prom
ise to this effect, certainly by an astonishing mani
festation 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 not yet 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 full health for three days, when
he would be able to go to the temple, (xx, 5, 8.)
Besides fifteen years were to be added to his life.
292 MISTAKES OF MOOERN INFIDELS.
The miracle was God s testimony that these promises
would be fulfilled.
The treatment of this subject 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 his " Bible explained, * puts the diffi
culty 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
culty.
" 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 ceased to turn 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 revolution of the
earth on its axis which causes the sun, apparently., 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 differently. 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 Uni
verse.
These consequences follow 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
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
/
all these motions of the sun, and the influence that
each motion had on the effect which was visible.
There was no other course possible if he were bound
to speak in modern scientific language. Joshua had
common sense enough 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 relatively, not absol
utely / for we do not know the absolute motion of
any celestial orb. Why then should Joshua be re
quired to speak of absolute motion ? Why should he
alone of all men be compelled at the beck of modern
Infidels, to speak a language which no mortal would
understand ?
Col. Ingersoll s next difliculty is.
"The view of Moses (that the heavenly bodies
were as nothing compared with the earth) was ac
quiesced in by the Jewish people and by the Christian
world."
Considering that Moses says absolutely nothing
about the relative sizes of the earth and the heavenly
bodies, the Colonel s assertion is simply arrant non
sense. He adds:
"The ancient Chinese knew not only the motions
of the planets, 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
hundred and fifty-seven years before Christ, and they
294 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
assert that the emperors before Yao go back to three
million two hundred and seventy-six thousand years
before Christ. Now it is well known that the annals
of Confucius did not exist till five hundred years
before Christ: for this was the time when Confucius
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
related by Col. Ingersoll as if they were gospel truths.
Klaproth 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.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
OBJECTIONS REFUTED. ASTRONOMY. GOD NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SINS AND ERRORS
OF MEN.
THE 10th chapter of Col. Ingersoll s book treats of
the stars. Here again he asks a number of questions
which have no reference to the truth or falsity of
Revelation.
" 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-eth
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 295
/
Hakkokabim" also the stars: four words, at most,
if we divide the above into its distinct parts. These
four 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 thousand six hundred and eighty-eight
times larger than our own? r etc. (P. 81.)
" It may be replied that it was not the intention of
God to teach geology and astronomy. Then 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
us that the sun, moon and stars, and all things, are
His work.
In chapter 37 we have answered the Colonel s on
slaught, 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 furnished 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 teaches Religious truth is more essential to
Salvation than is merely Scientific truth.
296 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
For the third time the Colonel asks, on page 87,
whether it is possible that plants, etc., should have
existed before animals. 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 following extraordinary theory
propounded by the Colonel:
"If (the Bible) was inspired, of course God
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 God: 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 Ingersoll
might have suspected 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 foreknowledge. God s
foreknowledge does not force man s actions. The
power remains in man to act otherwise, though God
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 297
foresees his action, or rather sees how he will act.
God s prescience does not destroy liberty; it sup
poses liberty in man. The foreknowledge of God
far from destroying liberty, assures it: for God fore
sees that wa, 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 foresight 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 fail, 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 turned to ill use, though he foresees that
they will be so turned.
Colonel Ingersoll 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.
;f Because I knew that thou art stubborn, and thy
neck is an iron sinew, and thy forehead 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 Ingersoll s vagaries are another proof of
the necessity of the divine light of Revelation to
298 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
preserve us from becoming the victims of such fool
ish fancies as he propounds.
But, it will be said, many who err, do so not ma
liciously but through weakness of understanding.
God is at least accountable for their errors.
I answer that God in His wisdom has formed and
carried out a great plan. In the carrying out of
this plan, some individuals may endure certain hard
ships; nevertheless the plan itself is beneficial. 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
CJ
proper submission to His will. Thus, in the case in
point, the errors which are made in the interpretation
of God s Revelation are not attributed as sins to
those who fall into them through ignorance, unless
their ignorance be culpable. Errors concerning the
antiquity, shape, and size of the world do not affect
morality. Errors concerning 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 follow the directions
of this guide, evil effects will not follow: that is,
moral evil: for merely physical evils and misfortunes
are not evils properly so called.
Very frequently also what we consider evils, in a
physical sense, turn to the general good. Col. Inger-
soil himself acknowledges this when he says in his
"Lecture on Skulls ":
" If man s eyes had not failed, 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."
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 299
Thus the wisdom of God in his disposition of all
things, and especially in the giving of Revelation, is
completely vindicated. Errors of malice are to be
attributed only to those who have by their own fault
fallen into them, while errors of inculpable weakness,
are not really sins which cast any blot upon the per
fection of God s work.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
COLONEL INGERSOLL S ANTHROPOMORPHISM.
ANTIQUITY OF MAN. KING CEPHREN S
DATE. THE CAVE-MEN.
COLONEL Ingersoll, like the Mormons, is an Anthro-
pomorphist. That is, he declares that God must have
a human form: of course, he leaves it to be under
stood that this is subject to the condition, " if there
be a God at all." The reasoning by which he arrives
at this conclusion is a curiosity.
First, he maintains that Moses represents God as
having human form. He says:
"Moses, while he speaks of man as having been
made in the image of God, never speaks of God ex
cept as having the form of a man."
" The God of Moses was a God with hands, with
feet, with the organs of speech. A God of passion,
of hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance, a
God who made mistakes: in other words, an immense
and powerful man." (Pp. 92, 93.)
It is humiliating to the intelligence of the 19th
century, that a so-called philosopher, reared under
Christian tutelage, should give utterance to such an
opinion, whereas a Pagan poet, Ovid, understood
300 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
better in what sense man is said to be created after
God s own image:
" Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius altse,
Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in. coetera posset :
Natus homo est." Metam. i, 4.
i
" A more sacred animal, and more capable of deep
thought, was still wanting, which could rule over the
rest of creation: then man was made."
It is, therefore, in his power of ruling, in his intel
lect, in his soul, that man is like to God: not as Col.
Ingersoll says: in his " physical image." (P. 92.)
Tacitus, also a Pagan, knows more of the Jewish
belief than does Colonel Ingersoll.
C7
" The Jews conceive in mind only, of one only God,
supreme and eternal, neither changeable nor perish
able." Hist. 1. i, 5.
If the Colonel had opened the little Catholic Cate
chism, he would have found that Man is created after
God s image " in his soul," and that Man s soul is
like to God, in being a " spirit and immortal, and
capable of knowing and loving God."
That the Jews believed God to be a Spirit is clear
from these and other passages of Holy Writ:
" Keep, therefore, your souls carefully. You saw
not any similitude in the day that the Lord God spoke
to you in Horeb, from the midst of the fire. Lest,
perhaps, being deceived, you might make you a
graven similitude or image of male or female: The
similitude of any beast, etc., and being deceived by
error thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy
God created for the service of all the nations that are
under the heaven." Deut. iv, 15, 19.
" Shall a man be hid in secret places, and I not see
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 301
him? saitii 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." Num.
xxiii, 19.
The Jews, then, did not consider God merely as a
powerful man.
This gross idea belongs to Colonel Ingersoll well,
not to Colonel Ingersoll precisely, for he has borrowed
it from the half Pagan sources of exploded heresies;
but surely it is a poor commentary on Rational Re
ligion that it has substituted for the Eternal, Immut
able, Infinite, Self-existing, Omnipotent, Spiritual
Being adored by Christians and Jews, a huge and
powerful Man. The worst Paganisms of India,
Egypt, and Africa have scarcely gone lower. The
Colonel says, as his own opinion :
" It is impossible for a man to conceive of a per
sonal God, other than as a being having the human
form." (P. 94.)
On the contrary, it is impossible to conceive of
God, a being infinitely perfect, eternal, self -existing,
and necessary, except as a Spirit, a being above the
whole material Creation, 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 tell HOW
all these things (Creation) really are? (P. 57.)
302 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
How, then, can he have the effrontery to ask,
"How did God create man?"
We know that God created man. It is not neces
sary we should know exactly how he did it.
The Colonel next makes it a great wonder that
since the flood up to 1879, the Mosaic account makes
only 4,227 years. "Since that event all the ancient
kingdoms of the earth were founded, and their in
habitants passed through all the stages of savage,
nomadic, barbaric, and semi-civilized life: through
the epochs of stone, bronze, and iron; established
commerce, cultivated the arts, built cities, filled them
with palaces and temples, invented writing, produced
a literature, and slowly fell to shapeless ruin. 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: 1 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 had to begin by being savages ! What ?
Were the eight parents of the human race, Noah and
his 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 Eve had
been savages, which does not seem to have been the
case. Weil, 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 cities," etc.,
since.
Well, did not Noah know something about the
arts, when he built his ship 547 feet long by 91 in
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 303
breadth? Remember, you have put forward pomp
ously your intention of finding inconsistencies in the
Mosaic record. If the inconsistency is only in your
own brain, you will fail egregiously in your under
taking. It does not appear, then, that ISToah s descend
ants were quite so backward incivilization as you
would have us believe. And had they not some skill
in architecture when they built Babel, Nineveh, and
other cities mentioned in Genesis x, 10, etc.?
"They had to pass through the epochs of Stone,
Bronze, and Iron."
Are these epochs then so very distinct ? Geikie s
Geological Text Book tells us:
"In many European countries where metal has
been known for many centuries, there are districts
where stone implements are still employed, or where
they were in use till quite recently. It is obvious
also that, as there are still barbarous tribes unac
quainted with the fabrication 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, therefore, 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
learning little better than sciolists."
The Colonel s remarks on the antiquity of the Negro
race will be treated of in their proper place, chapter
304 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
40. Let us now see what lie has to say of king
Cephren.
"If we know anything, we know that magnificent
statues were made in Egypt four thousand years be
fore our era that is to say, six thousand years ago.
There was at the World s Exposition, in the Egyp
tian department, a statue of king Cephren, known to
have been chiselled more than six thousand years ago.
In other words, if the Mosaic account must be be
lieved, this statue 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 found 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 food 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 borne in mind that the
usually accepted 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 which is not
known with certainty. Hence the overthrow of the
generally received chronology would not affect the
veracity of the Pentateuch, unless the discrepancy
were very great indeed. It would only overthrow
the received chronology. However, let us examine
the matter of King Cephren.
When did king Cephren reign? It is conceded
that when Abraham came into Egypt it was during
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 305
/
the twelfth dynasty of Egypt. Cephren or Khafren
was the builder of the second Pyramid, and he be
longed to the fourth dynasty of Manetho. Now, of
all the periods of Egyptian history, there is none
more fanciful and uncertain than this intervening
period between the fourth and twelfth dynasties.
Colonel Ingersoll makes Cephren s statue to have
been carved more than 4121 years B.C.
Manetho is the only ancient authority who gives
anything approaching the Colonel s figures. Now,
according to Manetho we find the following:
From first year of Menes to Manetho, . . . 3,555 years.
Year of Manetho, B. C., 350
First year of Menes, B. C., 3,905
First year of Menes to fifth dynasty, . . . 1,034 years.
First year of fifth dynasty B. C 2,871
Allow for reigns of last two kings of fourth
dynasty, say, 40 years.
Estimated 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 Colonel s talk about King
Cephren s statue being older than the world, is, there
fore, nonsense.
The above figures may be found in the American
Cyclopaedia, art. Egypt, with the exception of 1,034,
which number will be found from Chambers Cyclo
paedia, and 40 years allowance for two kings. The
sum 1,034 is thus made up:
Duration of 1st dynasty 250 years.
2d " 300 "
3d " 200 "
4th 284
Total, 1034 "
306 MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS.
But are Manetho s dates reliable in this instance ?
A papyrus in the Turin museum belonging to the
period of the 19th dynasty records that between the
6th and 12th dynasties twenty-three kings reigned in
stead of eighty-six as stated by Manetho: while the
monuments only record six kings instead of six dyn
asties, covering a period of nearly one thousand
years. This last fact would certainly bring the
period eight hundred years at least, nearer to the
birth of Christ, which would give about 2111 B. C.
as the date of Cephren s death.
Sir John Herschell and Professor Piazzi Smith en
deavored to ascertain, astronomically, the age of the
Pyramid of Cheops, which is before the age of Ce-
phren, and thus they fixed the date between 2171 and
2123 B. C., and Sir Charles Lyell says "the exact date
of these (Egyptian temples, obelisks, pyramids, etc.,)
after they have been studied with so much patience
and sagacity for centuries, remains uncertain and
obscure." Let us further bear in mind Mr. Cham-
pollion s deliberate judgment that not one of all
these monuments dates further back than 2200 B. C.,
and we may judge of the value of Col. IngersolPs
pretended knowledge on this subject. It is a sham.
Are such uncertainties to be taken as a refutation
of the proved records of Holy Writ ?
IsText, as regards the finding of human implements
such as the stone hatchets and flint arrows of pre-his-
toric man, mixed with the bones of animals in caves,
we must again remember that the term pre-historic
does not necessarily mean that the men thus described
existed before any history was written. The historic
and the pre-historic ages necessarily run into one
another, as do the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. The
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 307
same period may have been historic in Egypt and pre
historic in England, Germany 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 University, says:
"A satisfactory chronological classification of the
deposits containing the first relics of man is perhaps
unattainable, for these deposits occur in detached
areas with no means of determining their physical
sequences." (P. 904.)
These deposits may sometimes have been formed
of the bones of animals, as hyenas, that made their
homes in the caves: in which case it is not likely that
men were dwelling there at the same time. The
bones of the carnivora must 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 food, but there is no proof in all this
that man is of higher antiquity than is stated in the
book of Genesis.
308 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER XL.
EVOLUTION. FABULOUS CHRONOLOGY. ANTIQ
UITY OF MAN. SAVAGERY AND
CIVILIZATION.
COL. INGERSOLL maintains that the antiquity of
man on earth is to be measured by "millions of
years." Here is his theory:
"One can hardly compute in his imagination the
time necessary for man to emerge from the barbarous
state, naked and helpless, surrounded by animals far
more powerful 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 fact we have seen already that he makes man to
V
have progressed gradually from monad to moner,
from moner to higher stages of life, a tadpole, for
example, then a monkey, till at last he emerged a
man: and now we find that he comes out first a sav
age, till 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 mankind
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 God. Are we to
accept in the face of this a purely imaginative theory,
advanced on speculation, without proof of any kind ?
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 309
for even the most ardent and learned of the evolu
tionists concede that Evolution is no more than a
theory; and it is a theory invented apparently for the
purpose of getting rid of the necessity of acknowl
edging God s existence. It is based, not on fact 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 which a group of animals
having all the characters exhibited by species in na
ture, has ever been originated by selection, whether
natural or artificial." (Lay Sermons, 12.)
2. Nature herself or rather the God of nature has
placed an obstacle to the production of new species.
Animals of the same species, male and female produce
offspring 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. Ingersoll boasts of the discoveries of man.
"The brave prow of discovery has visited every sea;
the traveller has pressed with weary feet the soil of
every clime." (P. 122.)
He might have added that man has penetrated the
recesses of the earth, he has examined critically the
traces of life 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 presenjb existing, or
that ever existed. The Gorilla, the Chimpanzee, the
310 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Orang-Outang all differ essentially from man in all
physical features, to say nothing of his soul, which is
created after God s image and likeness. Professor
Huxley 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
(Man) and Troglodytes." (Man s Place in Nature.)
4. Lastly: If the theory of Evolution were true,
the varieties of living creatures would be fortuitous,
and there would be no plan, no order in nature, for
plan and order cannot spring from mere accident or
chance.
But there is order; and Col. Ingersoll himself ad
mits this, for we have seen that he insists on the
necessity of order and plan in his argument against
the Mosaic account of Creation. It is true that when
he argues for the existence of animals simultaneously
with that of plants (pp. 69, 85, 87,) he reasons on a
false assumption, as far as Creation is concerned,
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
till 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
future. All history begins at a period after the time
indicated by^Moses for the beginning of our race,
anything earlier being mere fables, as we have shown
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 311
in the cases of Egypt and China. (Chapters 37 and
39.)
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 regular 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 facts contained in the Biblical nar
rative. The history of the deluge, and of the ark by
which Noah was saved, and his account 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 fabulous antiquity of man is " a repre
sentation upon Egyptian granite made more than three
thousand years ago," wherein " the negro is as black,
his lips as full, 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 always gro
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.
312 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Charles Darwin will not be suspected of partiality
to the Christian cause, yet in his " Descent of Man,"
he says, " Mr. Pouchet was far from finding recogni
zable representations of the dozen or more nations
which some authors belieye they can recognize. Even
some of the most strongly marked races cannot be
identified with that degree of unanimity 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 they
are in the same social condition that they occupied
three thousand years ago: but it is fully established
that under the influence of changes of climate, soil,
education and mode of life, the physical forms of
races change, and sometimes very rapidly.
The Turks of Europe 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 differ widely from their Eastern Mongol
brethren.
Many other examples of like import might be
given, but I have said enough 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 monarchy.
To the Hindoos, modern infidels have also assigned
a stupendous antiquity, an existence of four million
three hundred and twenty thousand years being
claimed in some of their books. Bailly, in his History
of Ancient Astronomy, states that they were, in his
opinion, a fully established nation three thousand five
hundred and fifty-three years before Christ, and that
the Brahmins had astronomical tables five or six
thousand years old.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 313
Mr. Bentley travelled in India purposely in order to
ascertain the truth of the Hindoo claims to great an
tiquity, and found that the earliest astronomical data
so much relied on by Bailly could not mark an earlier
period than 1528 B. C. (Historical View of Hindoo
Astronomy.)
Infidels have also pretended that the history of
Christ was borrowed from that of Krishna, who in
Hindoo legends is represented as an Incarnation of
the Divinity, at whose birth spirits sung hymns of
praise, while shepherds surrounded his cradle. The
tyrant Cansa 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 Yamouna.
He afterwards lived in obscurity, then commenced a
public life, preached a perfect doctrine and protected
the poor, but was finally nailed to a tree, and before
dying foretold the evils which would take place in
the wicked age of the world thirty-six years after his
death. (Paulinus, u The Brahman System; Rome,
1802.",
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 authenticity of the life of Christ
was not allowed to weigh anything in the scale 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 literature, and on his expression of this opinion
modern infidels laid great stress, as if it proved that
14
314 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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 fortunate enough to find the
Horoscope of Krishna which gives the position of the
planets at his birth. By astronomical calculation, he
found that the planets could occupy the positions
thereon depicted, only on the seventh of August, A.
D., 600.
The coincidence of the life of Krishna with events
recorded 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 was concocted by
the Brahmans for the express purpose of preventing
the people from embracing Christianity.
In other countries there is still less difficultv than
V
with those we have enumerated. All history is of
comparatively modern date, though, from its very be
ginning it is evident that some species 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 truths might be added.
There are proofs that a civilization existed in former
times over the whole continent of North America.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 315
There have been found works of art which betoken
a high state of civilization, but we all know that this
high state of civilization had disappeared, so that on
the discovery of America the continent was almost
entirely peopled by savages. On this fact Mr. Mott
point s 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
becomes of the idea that savage life in general is an
example of arrested progress and not an example of
retrogression?" (Mivart s Lessons.)
Of course I do not mean to deny that man in many
cases has progressed. 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
they have degenerated into savagery, it is unreason
able to assume, as if it were a demonstrated fact, that
man s life 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 his
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-
316 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
lation. In different countries the ordinary increase
of population varies very much. In England it has
been much more rapid than in France during the
present century. Thus the population of France
was in 1801, 27,349,003, according to official statis
tics. In 1861 it had increased to 37,382,225. (Cham
bers Cyclopaedia.) The exponential equation, where
by the number of years required to double the
population will be found, is^ therefore:
(37382225\ "SIT _ o
V2734 9003V *
The value of m = 133.08, = the number of years
required to double the population 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 his 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 during
this period, we must solve this equation:
n
(1,400. OOP. 000\ 4232 = 2.
V. 6
n is found to be * 152.24. That is, since the
deluge the population of the earth doubled every
152 A 7 ears > verv nearly: a very reasonable result.
If the Infidel theory were correct, a much longer
time must have been required to double the popula
tion. Mathematical calculation, therefore, renders
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 317
/
the Infidel theory of man s indefinite occupation of
the earth very unlikely, while it renders highly prob
able the Scriptural account that the beginning is to
be dated from very nearly the time indicated by
Moses.
CHAPTER XLI.
THE SABBATH. ACCOUNT OF CREATION CON
SISTENT. ORIGIN OF MAN. CHRISTIAN
MORALITY.
GOD "blessed the Seventh day, and sanctified it:
because in it he had rested from all His work which
God created and made." (Gen. ii, 3.)
St. Augustine explains these words: " 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. Therefore, when the Lord says
* My Father worketh even till now (St. John v, 1 7),
he shows a perseverance of his work by which he
governs and regulates all things Wherefore
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."
(Sententiae, num. 277.)
It is thus seen how futile are Colonel Ingersoll s
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.)
318 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
There is an account of God s work " even till now."
He rests in the sense that He has ceased from the
great work recorded in the first chapter of Genesis,
Moses speaks according to human intelligence.
The Colonel says next:
lr If they (theologians) take the ground that the
days were periods of twenty-four hours, then Geology
will force them to throw away the whole account.
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 chapter 36 that geology does not
force us to give up the Mosaic Cosmogony. How
the Colonel can infer 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 man 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 Him for our indebtedness to Him in 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 perfumed 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 God more particularly on it, and by abstaining
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 319
V
from servile work, the ordinary secular occupation of
men.
" Why should that day be filled with gloom instead
Of joy?" (P. 104.)
There is no reason for being gloomy, and there is
no precept of the kind. It should be a pleasure to
serve God. " Christ s yoke is sweet and his burden
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 governed by his passions, and restrained
only by the fear of force which others can bring to
bear upon 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 tbe fourth finger, then going to the second,
then to the fifth, then to the third, and ending with
the thumb ? "
" The Jews were very careful of these nail parings.
They who threw them 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 burning
souls in water, .... and " if a Jew on a journey
was overtaken by the sacred day .... he must sit
down and there remain until the day was gone. If
he fell in the dirt he was compelled to stay until the
day was done." (Pp. 105, 106.)
320 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
All this is not in the Bible. Col. Ingersoll will
gain no credit for honesty by his attempt to make
the public believe that these things are to be found
in the Pentateuch. If any Jews observe such rules,
Moses is not responsible for them. They are not
"mistakes of Moses." In the time of Christ, even,
Our Lord condemned the numerous superstitions
which the Pharisees had engrafted on the law.
" You have made void the commandment of God
for your tradition .... and in vain do they wor
ship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of
men." St. Matthew xv, 6, 9.
The Apostles " understood that .... they should
beware . . . . of the doctrine of the Pharisees and
Sadducees." xvi, 12.
Unnecessary labor was forbidden; and of course
the performance of unnecessary labor was punished
by the law. The law, of course, endured as long as
it was the will of God that such should be the case.
But God appeared on earth and left the law of the
New Testament. The same authority that appointed
freely the Saturday to be kept holy could reverse the
law: and this Christ did. (Col. ii, 16.) The Christian
church therefore appointed the Sunday to take the
position of the Sabbath under the New Law. Thus
we see where Christians got the right " to labor on the
day " which God " sanctified, and to keep as sacred J:
a day which previously to the establishment of the
Christian law, was devoted to labor.
Col. Ingersoll makes of this a mountain of a diffi
culty. He says " if any day is to be kept holy " Sat
urday is the day, " and not the Sunday of the Chris
tian." The mountain becomes but a mole-hill when
it is examined. (Mistakes of Moses, pp. 106, 107.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 321
The Colonel adds: "the Christian Sabbath or the
* Lord s day was legally established by the murderer
Constantine, because on that day Christ was supposed
to have risen from the dead." (P. 106.)
The Colonel is astray in his history. The day was
established long before Constantine s time. Eusebius,
the cotemporary of Constantine says.
"The Logos (Christ) by the new convenant tran
slated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to
the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true
rest, the saving LorcVs day, the first day of the week,
etc."
St. Athanasius gives similar testimony, so also do
Sts. Barnabas, Ignatius and Justin Martyr, who flour
ished two centuries before Constantine.
Constantine is called by Col. Ingersoll "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 have been proved
against him. Be the crime of Constantine as great
as Colonel Ingersoll 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 accounts of the Creation in Genesis
. . . . These accounts are materially different, and
both cannot be true." (P. 108.)
The first account begins with Genesis i, 1, and ends
with Genesis ii, 3. " The second account begins with
the fourth verse of the second chapter." (P. 108.)
There is no contradiction between these so called
different accounts. Two men may describe the same
322 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
event without mentioning precisely the same circum
stances, yet both accounts may be perfectly true.
The two accounts in Genesis are both true. They
do not contradict each other in the least.
The Colonel says:
"In the second account man was made before the
beasts and fowls. If this is true, the first account is
false." (P. 112.)
Answer: but this is not true. The so-called second
account does not give, nor profess 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 soul, and adding that the garden in Eden
was placed under his care. Then the beasts were
brought to him to be named. Previously to this
episode we are told that God formed beasts and fowl;
but there was no necessity here for preserving the
order of Creation between man and beasts, for this
order had been already narrated a few lines previous
ly. We were already informed in detail that the
fowl were formed on the fifth day, the beasts, and
finally man on the sixth day. Hence also the follow
ing assertions are unfounded 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 tell
us upon what kind of food Adam subsisted during
these immense periods?" (P. 112.)
MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELu. 323
As Adam was created on the sixth day, after both
fowls and beasts and plants, there was no difficulty
about his getting food. "The millions of years"
difficulty we disposed of in chapter 36. Eve was
created on the sixth day after Adam.
The Colonel next says that to furnish " 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 quotes:
"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the
fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but
for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him."
(P. 113.)
There is no statement here that can be even
plausibly distorted into meaning that God "tried to
induce Adam to take a beast for a helpmeet." We
are told that God brought the beasts " to Adam to see
what he would call them," and not for him to choose
a helpmeet from among them. The Colonel asks :
" Unless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet
for Adam, why did he cause the animals to pass
before him ? "
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
context. Colonel Ingersoll s pathetic thanksgiving
is out of place:
"Let us 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
324 MISTAKES OF MODEEN INFIDELS.
exactly from the lowest form of beasts, moners
yclept, that Freethinkers are descended? (P. 96.)
From the " Moners : must you not trace your ances
try through the Gorilla 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 that " among all the animals . . . .
there was not a helpmeet for 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
o
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 fact that this was done
we already proved in chapters 6 and 7.
We have next the supposed cross-examination of
two applicants for admission into heaven. The first
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 325
was an infidel. He loved his family, paid his debts,
but did not belong to any church, for churches were
" too narrow " for him. He did not believe that the
wicked are punished for ever, nor did he believe that
God created Eve as described in the Bible.
"Away with him to hell." (P. 118.) Well: this
infidel refuses to believe what God has taught. There
is a positive act of rebellion against God. Can a
natural love for wife and children be an offset for
high treason against God s Supreme Authority ?
Would it be a sufficient excuse for high treason
against the State? Surely not. Now it must be
remembered that there is no sin where there is not
wilfulness. We have therefore one who wilfully
refuses to honor God by acknowledging His veracity,
and to pay to Him the homage of his understanding.
Can such a one be guiltless ?
The Colonel says, however, that belief is not vol
untary :
" For my part, I cannot admit that belief is a vol
untary thing. It seems to me that evidence, even in
spite of ourselves, will have its weight, and that,
whatever our wish -may be, we are compelled to stand
with fairness by the scales, and give the exact result."
(P. 42.)
Does it not sometimes happen that fraudulent
weights and balances are used? We read that the
invader Brennus, by means of such weights, endeav
ored once to impose upon the Romans, and that when
the latter remonstrated he threw his sword and belt
into the scale, saying that " it is the lot of the van
quished to suffer."
Man has liberty to use his intellect or not. The
will moves the intellect as far as the exercise of the
326 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
intellect is concerned, and therefore that exercise of
the intellect is voluntary. Thus we may refuse to
examine the motives of credibility of Religion. Our
refusal is voluntary. Unbelief is the consequence of
this refusal, therefore such unbelief is voluntary.
Regularly, therefore, Unbelief in God s Revelation
is criminal, and sinful. If, however, the case should
occur that the means of knowing God s Revelation
are not within reach, there will be no sin, because
God obliges no one to an impossibility.
The Colonel s second example is the cross-examin
ation of a Bank Cashier, a member of a "Young
Men s Christian Association " who stole from his bank
a hundred thousand dollars and deserted his wife and
family, committing other crimes also; but because he
believed with "all his heart" the Scriptural history
of Eve 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
lieving 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 after
his conversion, 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 327
another from the New, which will prove what I have
stated.
" But if the just man turn himself away from his
justice, and do iniquity etc., shall he live? All his
justice which he had done shall not be remembered
.... and in his sin .... he shall die." (Ez. xviii,
24.)
"Not every one that saith to me Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth
the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall en
ter into the kingdom of heaven." (St. Matthew vii,
21.)
The Colonel -accuses the clergy of slandering him.
He deals in generalities. He does not state what the
slanders are. I have taken care in this book not to
deal in any personalities, even: but I cannot but call
attention to the fact that I have proved the Colonel
guilty of falsehood in many parts of his book besides
this. I may therefore fairly quote his own words
against himself, with some necessary verbal changes:
" There is no logic in slander; and falsehood, in the
long run defeats itself. People who profess loudly
the Religion of Humanity should at least tell the truth
about their friends." (See page vi, Preface to Mis
takes of Moses.)
The next objection which we find is:
" It is said that from Mount Sinai God gave, amid
thunderings and lightnings, ten commandments for
the guidance of mankind: and yet among them is not
found Thou shalt believe the Bible. " (P. 120.)
And what of that? Is it anywhere claimed that
the ten commandments contain explicitly all our
obligations? The ten commandments are an admir
able summary of the law, and contain implicitly all
328 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
our duties, yet there are other commandments which
are not found explicitly 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 assert that murder is
lawful, because it is not explicitly forbidden in the
still shorter summary found in St. Matthew s Gospel,
xxii, 37, 39. It is implicitly forbidden in the com
mand:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (St.
Matthew xxii, 39.)
Surely the cause which must resort to subterfuges
so weak, must itself be very feeble.
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 God. He must be heartily sorry for 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 restitution for his
theft, to repair the injury done to his family and
neighbor, as far as possible, " otherwise his sin would
not be forgiven." (Cath. Catechism.) Is there any re
semblance between the true state of the case and Col
onel Ingersoll s representation of it?
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 329
CHAPTER XLII.
THE GARDEN OF EDEK IMMORTALITY OF THE
SOUL.
The Colonel is very keen at finding inconsistencies.
In Genesis i, 28, we are told that:
" God blessed them, (Adam and Eve,) saying, In
crease and multiply and replenish the earth and sub
due it. "
In Genesis ii, 15, the Colonel tells us:
Man " is not told to subdue the earth, but 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 difficulty in
the determining of the four rivers of the garden of
Eden. The Colonel takes care to make the most of
this difficulty. He says:
" There was issuing from this garden a river that
was parted into four 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 fourth, the Euphrates. Where are
these four rivers now? The brave prow of discovery
has visited every sea; the traveller has pressed with
weary feet the soil of every clime; and yet there has
been found no place from which four rivers sprang.
The Euphrates still journeys 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
330 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
beds. Will some minister when he answers the
* Mis-takes of Moses, tell 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 for
the Tigris. In fact, philologists tell us 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 frequently interchanged
with each other by different nations, as the Chinese
call an American, a Melican man. (See Gesenius
Lexicon, Hiddekel: Max Mtiller s Science of Lan
guage, Lecture 5.)
However, without insisting upon this derivation,
we have positive testimony that Hiddekel is the
Tigris.
Josephus naming these four rivers states that,
" Euphrates and Tigris flow into the Red Sea ....
Tigris or Diglath signifies swift and narrow." (Antiq.
Book i, 1.) Diglath is the Aramaean 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
Eddekel" (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 Pison
and Gihon also. No doubt these terms were, at that
time, perfectly well understood by the Hebrews.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 331
The Tigris and Euphrates rise not far from each
other, and the ancient writers Quintus Curtius, Pro-
copius, Xenophon and Lucan, state that they rose
then from a common source. The Araxes, majestic
and slow, is called Gechon by the natives, and it
waters Chutha, Scythia. It is true this country is
not now called Ethiopia, but being settled by the de
scendants of Cush, was called Gush, (Ethiopia,)
equally with the Cush of Africa. The Araxes has an
annual overflow like the Nile, as stated of Gihon in
Ecclesiasticus. It empties into the Caspian Sea, and
is probably the Gihon of Genesis.
The river called by the Turks Fasi, passes through
Colchis or Mingrelia, famous for its gold and gums.
(Strabo,Book i; Pliny, Book xxxiii, 3.) The country
watered by Phison or Pison, is in Genesis called
Havilah. This is the name of a son of Cush who set
tled in that neighborhood. (Gen. x.) The Fasi
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 the Gihon and Pison of Genesis.
This view, also, accords well with what is related in
Genesis.
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 the 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
junction and subsequent division of the waters of the
332 MISTAKES OF MODERX INFIDELS.
>
Euphrates and Tigris. It appears, then, that these
four rivers have not "been obliterated by convul
sions of nature within six thousand years;" (Mis
takes of Moses, p. 123;) though possibly there has
been considerable change in them.
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 his hypothesis. Let us follow the text, and not
Josephus.
The Colonel asks: " Can we not account for these
contradictions, absurdities and falsehoods by simply
saying that although the writer may have done his
level best, he failed because he was limited in knowl
edge, led away by tradition, and depended too im
plicitly upon the correctness of his imagination?"
(P. 123.) : -
Answer. No, we cannot. 1st. We have proved
that Moses statements are neither contradictions,
absurdities nor falsehoods. 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.
The Colonel. "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 dust, your question is
verbal balderdash. Again, as your course has been
proved to be most unreasonable, it will not become
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 333
reasonable by comparing it with another unreason
able course.
The Colonel. "Can any reason be given for not
allowing man to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowl
edge?" (P. 123.)
Answer. Yes. St. Chrysostom gave a reason fif
teen hundred years ago: "God gave the command
ment to prove man s obedience. He imposes a law
to try man s good will God threatens to save,
the serpent entices to harass With God there
is severity which is benignant, with the Devil there
is persuasion which is hurtful." (Forbidden Tree,
part 1.)
The Colonel. " Will some minister, some graduate
of Andover tell us what this means ?" (P. 124.)
Answer. 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
which he would have an opportunity to obey.
The Colonel. " What objection could God have
had to the immortality of man ?" (P. 125.)
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.
The Colonel." You see that after all this sacred
record, instead of assuring us of immortality, shows
us only how we lost it." (P. 125.)
" Upon the subject of a future state, there is not
one word in the Pentateuch." (P. 47.)
Answer. Even if this were the case, would not
334 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the Revelation of some truths be useful to us, even if
all truths were not revealed ? God must be the
Judge what truths it is expedient we should know.
Besides, it is nowhere asserted that the Pentateuch
contains everything that the Jews knew concerning
God, In difficult cases, the High Priest and the San
hedrim were to be consulted. There is no doubt that
the Immortality of the soul was known to the Jews.
It is taught by their prophets, and the line of proph
ets, taught directly by God, and to whose directions
they were obliged to yield obedience, was constantly
kept up. Thus the ancient tradition of the soul s
immortality could be constantly kept up among them,
even though the doctrine were not explicitly taught
in the Pentateuch.
The Pentateuch contains chiefly the history of a
nation, the people of God. It deals, for the most part,
with the external acts of that nation, as subject to
God s Sovereign rule. Thus Josephus explains in
his preface to the Antiquities of the Jews:
" Moses deemed it exceeding necessary that he who
would conduct his own life well, and give laws to
others, in the first place should consider the divine
nature ; and upon the contemplation of God s opera
tions, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns,
so far as it is possible for human nature to do, ....
nor would anything he should write tend to the pro
motion of virtue in his readers; I mean unless they
be taught first of all that God is the Father and Lord
of all things, and sees all things; and that thence he
bestows a happy life upon those that follow him, but
plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue
into inevitable miseries But as for our legis
lator, when he had once demonstrated that God was
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 335
possessed of perfect virtue, 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 shalt thou not receive ? but if
ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door ?"
(Gen. iv, 7.)
Abel received no reward of virtue on earth, since
he was cut off by a violent and premature death.
These words, therefore, refer to future rewards and
punishments, and 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
ferred on his posterity. He had certainly the expec*
tation of a future reward to be enjoyed in the
company of his fathers. This consciousness 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 further 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 sufficiently attest their
belief in a future life. Saul invoked the dead (l Ki.
xxviii, 11; 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
336 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
these sufficiently evince that in the time of Moses the
Jews held the Immortality of the soul as part of their
religious belief.
CHAPTER XLIII.
THE FALL OF MAN.
Colonel Ingersoll denies the Fall of Man. He says:
" Is it true that man was once perfectly pure and
innocent, and that he became degenerate by disobe-
V
dience ? No; the real truth 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 advance ? Profane authentic
history 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
doubtedly, 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, it must
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 have
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 few scholars may,
indeed, without religion, under the influence of the
Christian atmosphere which they have breathed all
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 337
their lives, shape their outward conduct in accordance
with the current principles of morality, but a moral
nation, without religion, is an impossibility, whatever
may be their intellectual training. A Robespierre or
or a Danton will not become better by a more ex
tended knowledge. They will only acquire additional
facilities to work out their evil designs.
^y
According to Ecclesiastes vii, 4, "God made man
right." As a history, even, the account given in
the Pentateuch, of his 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
had just been placed by God, who had already em
ployed His infinite power in creating him. Surely
there can be 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 Ingersoll asks, " Why did God not defend
his children against the snares of the serpent? (P.
133.)
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 disobedience, in or
der that God s design should be accomplished.
We are asked also:
"Is it possible that God would make a successful
rival?" (P. 133.)
God did not make the devil as he is. He made him
an angel of light; but by his pride and disobedience,
he by his own act became a devil. Even as a devil
he is not God s successful rival. It is true, his wiles
prevail over many men, but the grace which God
15
338 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
affords to all His children will enable them to resist
the devil s wiles successfully. Man cannot be forced
to sin against his own will. If, therefore, he chooses
the way of death, it is his own act, not that of God.
It was, therefore, by man s own act that he fell in the
garden of Eden.
Infidels are fond of saying that it was an injustice
in God to make the sin of Adam pass to his posterity.
This is the natural condition of humanity. A father,
by his evil conduct, brings many miseries upon his
ch .ldren, even from the moment of their birth. Even
from this dispensation good results follow. The fact
is a motive which inspires parents with greater horror
for crimes and vices which they know will entail
misfortunes on their children. Children also have* an
additional reason for gratitude to parents who by
their wisdom and good morals have preserved them
from many evils.
Of course Christians do not deny the power of
God to have created man in a social condition differ
ent from his present state. Man might have been
created 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, be
cause a greater can be conceived. Now, undoubtedly,
the gift of liberty of choice between good and evil,
given to man, is a good gift. God, therefore, may
give it, as He actually does 3 and it is no valid argu
ment against His justice that He has not given in its
stead another gift which we may imagine to be pre
ferable. It is very possible, also, that we may be
mistaken when we persuade ourselves that the gift
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 339
/
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 wise 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 fruitful theme for Colonel Ingersoll s
ridicule. (Pp. 128 to 137.)
Is the Scriptural account, then, so full of absurdi
ties as the Colonel represents ? He quotes Dr. Adam
Clark as giving his opinion that " a creature of the
ape or orang-outang kind is here intended." Dr.
Clark is an able scholar, and is frequently 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 himself
with a serpent s body to appear to Eve. The devil ^
is called "the serpent," and "the old serpent," in
Apocalypse xii, 9, 14, 15 (Prot. Bible, Rev.) Cor
nelius a Lapide, points out that the subtlety men
tioned in Gen. 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 absurdity 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 use of the body of a
beast for his purposes, if we were not already aware
that spirits can and do make use of material bodies.
The union of soul and body in man is an example of
this, within the experience of all. The possession of
340 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
a serpent s body by the devil is not so close or com
plete a union as the one we know to exist within our
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 deceive 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 difficulties about the
Fall of mankind disappear.
We may add here the mature judgment of a well-
known infidel, Bayle, on this very subject:
" From the manner in which the historian relates
this sad event it appears evident that his intention
was to let us know what actually took place, and this
alone ought to persuade any reasonable person that
the pen of Moses was under special direction of the
Holy Ghost. In fact, 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 according to
his own views, but according to the hidden designs
of Providence." (Noiivelles, 1686, art. 2: quoted by
Bergier Diet. Theol. Adam.)
Is there any sense, then, in such questions as the
following ?
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 341
t
" What and who was this 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 God take him by the
tail and snap his head off?" (Pp. 133, 134.)
In fact there is neither head nor tail in the Colonel s
whole category of queries.
Equally void of common sense is the slur thrown
upon the tradesmen of America by ridiculing " God
as a butcher, tanner, and tailor." These trades are
by no means dishonorable, though the Colonel s in
tention is none the less blasphemous, inasmuch as he
aims at degrading the Infinite God to the level of
Finite Man.
CHAPTER XLIV.
THE DELUGE. ITS POSSIBILITY. THE GATHER
ING OF THE ANIMALS.
THE history of the Deluge is related in the sixth,
seventh and eighth chapters of Genesis.
"And God seeing that the wickedness of men was
great on the earth .... it repented him that he had
made man on the earth. And .... he said: I will
destroy man whom I have created from the face of
the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping
thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth
me that I have made them."
We cannot conceive a more complete summary of
human wickedness than this. I need not again prove
that Colonel Ingersoll is mistaken in making God
342 MISTAKES OP MODEEN INFIDELS.
responsible for all man s wickedness. This has been
done already.
" But Noah found grace before the Lord."
Noah was commanded to build an ark, and to enter
therein with his" household, and to take with him of
all animals, two of every sort, but of all clean beasts
"seven and seven": that is seven of a kind, since
the unclean beasts are taken " two and two," vii, 2,
which is otherwise expressed in vi, 19, 20, "two of a
sort .... male and female."
The command of God was obeyed, and thereupon
" after the seven days were passed, the waters of the
flood overflowed the earth All the fountains
of the great deep were broken up, and the flood-gates
of heaven were opened. And the rain fell upon the
earth forty days and forty nights .... And the
waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth, and
all the high mountains under the whole heaven were
covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than
the mountains which it covered .... And all things
^7
wherein there is the breath of life on the earth died."
"And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred
and fifty days."
"And God remembered Noah and all the living
creatures .... which were with him in the ark, and
brought a wind upon the earth, and the waters were
abated."
" And the ark rested .... upon the Mountains
of Armenia."
The Hebrew has " mountains 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
MISTAKES OF MODEEX INFIDELS. 343
is rather astray in his Geography. He insists that
the mountain 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 true the Persians call the highest peak of
Armenia, which is also the highest of Western Asia,
" Koh-i-Nuh," Noah s Mountain. It is true that it is
now called Mount Ararat, but it by no means follows
that this is the mountain on which the ark rested.
Hence the Colonel s sad picture of the animals freez
ing, and the necessity for "stoves, furnaces, fire-places
and steam coils," (P. 161,) is a mere fancy -sketch.
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 Genesis is self -contradictory,
you must show the contradictions in the text not in
your fancy.
The Corvdsean 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 meas
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
o
world? He makes the following catechism on this
subject, question and answer.
"How long did it rain?
" Forty days.
344 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
"How deep did the water get?
"About five miles and a half.
" How much did it rain a day?
" Enough to cover the whole world to a depth of
about 742 feet."
" Some Christians say that the fountains of the great
deep were broken up. Will they be kind enough to
tell 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-gates of heaven were opened, and
the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty
nights." (Genesis vii, 11, 2.)
It is evident that the power of the Almighty 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 producing the de
luge, the breaking up of the fountains of the great
deep, and a continuous rain for forty days and forty
nights.
It is often said by Infidels that all the waters of the
earth together would not be enough to cover the
land. Yet it has 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 surface may be brought beneath the sea. In
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 345
/
fact it is acknowledged that every part of the surface
has been at some time or other, and repeatedly sub
merged. On the highest mountains, on the Alps, the
Pyrenees, the Andes, the Himalayas, as well as on
the vast plains of the Old and New Worlds, there
are irrefragable proofs that the waters of the sea have
been 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. Prob
ably at the deluge, 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 equator. Thus would Col. Inger-
soil s 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 fills the pores of
every rock.
" Gypsum absorbs from 0.50 to 1.50 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 Abbe 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
346 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
valves and deluged the terrestrial globe, filling the
exterior glass globe, but as soon as the motion 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 hill," surely God also could do so.
There is also in the atmosphere a vast amount of
water of which undoubtedly God could make use in
order to send rain on its mission to punish sinful 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 Colonel against
the possibility of collecting the animals and of sup
plying them with sufficient food and water, and of
preserving them against the effects of an incongenial
climate.
However, there are not wanting natural means of
explaining most of these points satisfactorily. Where
natural means are insufficient, we must suppose
divine intervention.
As regards the gathering of the animals, the Col
onel takes for granted several propositions which are
undoubtedly false. On these his whole argument
rests, and with them all his reasonings on this subject
crumble into dust.
1. He assumes that before the deluge the conti
nents were very much the same as they are now.
Thus he says:
"We know that there are many animals on this
continent not found in the old world. These must
have been carried from here to the ark and then
brought back afterwards. Were the peccary, anna-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 347
dillo, arit-eater, sloth, etc., carried by the Angels from
America to Asia ? Did the polar bear leave his field
of ice and journey toward the tropics ? How did he
know where the ark was ? Did the kangaroo swim
or jump from Australia to Asia? .... What had
these animals to eat while on the journey?" (P.
149.)
One of the foremost Geologists of the world, Cu-
vier, who was convinced, not only that the deluge
was a fact, but that Geology proves that it occurred,
says that,
" It engulphed and caused Jto 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 Ingersoll s 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.) Let him not expect us, therefore, to believe
him in regard to the climate of Armenia. It is to
day a delightful climate. You say "toward the
348 MISTAKES OF MODEEN INFIDELS.
tropics," to convey, probably, the idea of intense
heat. Yes, Armenia was toward the tropics in rela
tion to the North Pole; but after all its latitude cor
responds to that of the middle part of the Colonel s
own State, Illinois. Its cliifcate, then is not quite so
intolerable but that the Colonel himself might pos
sibly live in it if he were suddenly transported thither.
It is not at all 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 found in Armenia itself or the countries immedi
ately adjacent. 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 search for the
beasts, as if they were distant and difficult to be
found, but to take them as the shepherd selects from
his flock which is at hand.
CHAPTER XLV.
.
CAPACITY OF NOAH S ARK. PAGAN TRADITIONS
OF THE DELUGE. COL. INGERSOLL S BLUN
DERS. THE TESTIMONY OF GEOLOGY.
Another objection is put forward by infidels with
great persistency, and of course it is not omitted by
Col. Ingersoll. They say: " An ark of the dimen
sions given by Moses could not contain the number
of animals requisite for the preservation of existing
species."
Col. Ingersoll puts the matter thus:
"The next question, is, how many beasts, fowls
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 349
and creeping things did Noah take into the ark?"
(P. 148.)
He then says, there are at least twelve thousand
five hundred kinds of birds, besides birds of regions
yet unexplored, one thousand six hundred and fifty-
eight kinds of beasts, about twenty-five being clean,
six hundred and fifty species of reptiles, one million
species of insects, including creeping things, and
probably hundreds of thousands of animalculse, all
of which "Noah had to pick out by pairs." (P. 149.)
Would it not have been more satisfactory if the
Colonel had shown how much space each of the ani
mals would require, and to.have computed whether
the space in the ark was sufficient for them ?
The Colonel seems to exaggerate the number of
species of birds at all events. Chambers Encyclopaedia
gives the number at about five thousand. Many of
these live on the water, or are amphibious, and would
not need to be brought into the ark, and the same is
true of the animals. The reptiles are nearly all amphib
ious The insects and animalculae nearly all deposit
their eggs where they are secure from 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 the subsidence of the waters.
We have, therefore, only to consider the non-aquatic
birds, and the mammals, and even of these all whales
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. The dis
covery of a new species of bird or mammal is an
event in science, and if any one will take the trouble
350 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
to visit the Paris museum, one of the most complete
in the world, he will see that the cells which contain
the greater part of the species of mammals and birds
of full growth, form scarcely one story of a building
which is much smaller than was the ark of Noah."
Chambers Encyclopaedia numbers the mammals
at two thousand and sixty-seven. Of the few clean
mammals, seven of a kind were brought into the ark:
of the rest two of a kind. The total number of indi
viduals could not have exceeded four thousand two
hundred. A stall of twelve cubic feet each way
would accommodate the largest individual, that is to
say, one thousand seven. hundred and twenty-eight
cubic feet of space, while a very large number would
require less than one cubic foot each. Now, the
length of the ark is stated to be three hundred cubits,
its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits:
that is to say, omitting fractions, five hundred and
forty-seven feet by ninety-one feet, by fifty-four feet
two million six hundred and eighty-seven thousand
nine hundred and fifty-eight cubic feet.
The following estimate is liberal in the amount of
space allowed to each animal.
APPROXIMATE SPACE OCCUPIED BY MEN AND ANIMALS
IN THE ARK.
Space for each i No. of individuals. Space for each
individual. class.
10 x 10 x 10 ft 8 persons 8,000 ft.
12x12x12 " 20 animals 34,560"
llxllxll " 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"
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 351
* of
5 x5 x5 ft. ....... 200 animals ............ 25,000ft.
4x4x4 " .......... 400 " ............ 25,000"
3x3x3 " .......... 540 " ............ 14,580"
2x2x2 .......... 700 " ............ 5,600"
Uxlixli " .......... 800 " ............ 2,700"
1 xl xl " ......... 1200 " ............ 1,200"
4,208 277,100 ft
Birds: an equal space 277,100
Total space occupied by animals 554,200 ft
Total capacity of ark 2,687,958
Space for access, provisions and water, and
for the few purely land reptiles 2,133,758 ft
Vice Admiral Thevenard of the French Navy,
formerly master builder, says "the ark was more
than ample to accommodate all the animals with food
and water sufficient for their sustenance." (Sea
Memoirs, vol. iv.)
I have supposed, hitherto, that the deluge was uni
versal. This was the opinion of nearly all the An
cient Fathers and writers of Christianity. However,
many are of opinion that the words of Holy Scrip
ture do not imply absolute universality, but only uni
versality as regards the portion of the earth which
was then inhabited by man. It is the known usage
of the Orientals to speak of all the earth, or all of
anything for a very considerable part; and this usage
is frequent even in our more matter of fact 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 incredible.
352 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
If we ask what testimony Geology gives regarding
the deluge, we receive a rather uncertain answer.
Geology makes it certain that the earth has been de
luged; but many modern scholars are of opinion that
the deluges which Geology attests are far more an
cient than that recorded in Genesis. Other geolo
gists have arrived at a different conclusion. It will
suffice to quote the conclusion of Cuvier, founded on
a close observation of innumerable facts.
" I think, therefore, with Messrs. Deluc and Dolo-
mieu, that if there is anything proved in geology, it
is that the surface of our globe has been the victim
of a great and sudden revolution, which does not
date further back than five or six thousand years:
that it is since that revolution that the small number
of individuals spared from it have been propagated
on the earth newly made dry, and consequently that
it is since that time only that society has taken up its
forward march, formed all its works, raised its monu
ments, collected its natural facts, and combined its
scientific systems." (Revolutions of the Globe.)
The learned geologists Messrs Boue and Pallas are
equally positive in their language. This is all in
perfect accord with the Mosaic narrative. On the
other hand, the geologists who maintain that the
Noachian deluge is not proved l?y 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 letter could be expected to leave few if
any geological traces.
If the Noachian deluge occurred, we should expect
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 353
/
that 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; but if it did not occur, it
would be absurd to suppose that anything like the
history 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
other.
It is so incontestably true that this tradition has
been universally preserved, that Boulanger, one of
the most incredulous writers of the last century,
says :
"That incomprehensible fact, the deluge, which
people believe by habit, and philosophers deny by
habit, is both most notorious 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 his
tory, and the universal voice of mankind." (An
tiquity Unveiled, C. 1.)
The poet Lucian relates the Greek, Scythian, and
Syrian traditions, Hieronymus of Tyre, Mnaseas, and
others relate those of the Phoenicians, Nicholas of
Damascus, and Josephus record those of the Arme
nians. 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 Chnhleans have preserved
an account of the great deluge, which, if stripped
354 MISTAKES OF MODEJSN INFIDELS.
of its Polytheism, is almost identical with that of
Moses, preserving in many places the very words of
the Hebrew text: for, as is well known, the Chaldean
and Hebrew languages have a great similarity, they
being cognate tongues.
Colonel Ingersoll himself acknowledges the uni
versality of these traditions, and he is forced to
acknowledge a common origin for them, as they give
"the same story in each instance." (P. 168.) He
deserves, certainly, the palm for originality of
thought, if not for common sense, when he says:
The real origin of them was, in his opinion, "an
effort to account for the sun, moon, and stars."
(P. 168.) . " - . - *
He is perfectly "assured 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 Ingersoll says there are two accounts of
the deluge, and that according to one, Noah 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 reference 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 pur
poses after the deluge. But if two and seven were
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 355
/
to be taken respectively, why does the Colonel insist
on counting fourteen birds and clean beasts of each
kind when counting the total number of animals in
the ark?
He also says that according to the "third verse of
the 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
entry into the ark till he came out. How could there
be a leap year spoken of by Moses, over fourteen
hundred years before the Julian calendar was estab
lished ? The Jewish calendar was entirely different,
even in the length of the years, from 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
botched it sadly with your anachronisms.
Your assertion is not true, that the third verse of
the eighth chapter says that the flood ended with the
150th day. It is said the waters " began to be
abated after 150 days." This is very different from
what you assert. Where is the contradiction ? How
do such misrepresentations accord with your pro
fessed admiration for " blessed truth ? " (P. 30.)
You 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 Eastern,
with only one window, and that but 22 inches square! "
(P. 144.)
356 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
It is to be remarked that the Hebrew word here
translated window, viz., tsohar, signifies primarily,
light, and is used undoubtedly for a transparent win
dow. It refers, therefore, merely to the principal
transparent window of the ark. There is nothing,
therefore, to exclude other windows of less impor
tance, by means of which both light and ventilation
could be secured. Cornelius a Lapide. Can we
thihk that during the one hundred years that Noah
had to build the ark, means of ventilation and of
lighting the ark were neglected ?
Another difficulty raised by the Colonel, is made a
mountain of: after the flood God "said in his heart
that he would not any more curse the ground for
man s sake. For saying this the Lord gives as a rea
son. . . . because the imagination of man s heart is
evil from his youth. God destroyed man because
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
because every imagination of the thoughts of his
heart was only evil continually. And he promised
for the same reason not to destroy him again." (P.
163.)
Any child $>f intelligence could have removed the
Colonel s mountain. God punishes man for his per
sistent evil deeds: but after the punishment has been
inflicted, he is moved by his mercy to promise that
he 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 account of man s frailty and proneness
to evil, " from his youth." This is well expressed in
the Catholic translation:
" For the imagination and thought of man s heart
are prone to evil from their youth."
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 357
/
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
shocked."
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 full 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 notthe 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 the 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
multuous. It has no marks of quiet bedding. Is it
358 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
probable that the mountains of Wales alone were 1,400
feet lower than they are now ? There might be very
local, very partial submergence of volcanic moun
tains under the sea. But what I have described hap
pened not in a volcanic district, and Moel Tryfan is
not a volcanic mountain. But we are not left alto
gether to presumptive evidence upon this subject.
We have similar gravels all over the counties of Lan
cashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire.
In Cheshire they are found near the town of Maccles-
field, at 1,200 feet above the level of the sea, and very
much under the same condition. I think, therefore,
that there is fair evidence that the submergence of
the land, which, in North Wales amounted to about
1,400 feet, extended over the whole of the British
islands." (Summarized from Duke of Argyll in Good
Words.)
It appears thus that Geological evidences of the
deluge are not lacking: and many more equally strong
might be given.
CHAPTER XL VI.
THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. BABEL. EVIDENCES
OF ONE ORIGINAL TONGUE.
IT is not stated in Holy Scripture that Hebrew was
the language spoken by Adam and Eve. Many are
of opinion that this was the case, but we have not to
defend this, since it is only an opinion. We are as
sured that Adam and Eve had the gift of speech, and
undoubtedly God was as able to give them this gift,
as He was to endow them with other faculties.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 359
There can be no absurdity in believing that they were
so endowed.
Col. Ingersoll says:
" We know now that it requires a great number of
years to form a language." (P. 170.)
No doubt it does as languages are usually formed,
that 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 he had the chemical elements given him,
out of which these are made, and even after many
years he would not succeed. We are not to judge
the power of God in Creation by the standard of
man s abilities. From the account given in Genesis
we learn that man was created by the act of God s
will, and it is certain that he was from the beginning
given the use of speech. You ask,
"Does anybody believe that God directly taught a
language to Adam and Eve? : (P. 171.)
Yes. Such is the belief of Christians, and there is
nothing absurd in this belief. The soundest philo
sophers have come to the conclusion that man would
need to know language before he could invent? lan
guage.
It is certain that when once man had attained the
use of speech, he could extend it by inventing new
words for new ideas, or by combining old words so as
to form new ones, for daily experience proves that
this is constantly done, and thus even entirely new
languages are constantly being formed. But could
man have invented by himself the first language?
Rousseau himself, well known as an Infidel, ac
knowledges the difficulty, even the "almost demon
strated impossibility that language should have been
originally a human invention." (Encyc. Art. Lan
guage.)
360 MISTAKES OP MODEEN INFIDELS.
Max Mtlller says:
" We cannot tell as yet what language is. It may
be a production of nature, a work of human art, or
a divine gift. But to whatever sphere it belongs, it
would seem to stand unsurpassed nay, unequalled in
it by anything else. If it be a production of nature,
it is her last and crowning production, which she re
served for 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. If it be the gift of God,
it is God s greatest gift; for through 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 this great linguist is more
to be relied on than Col. Ingersoll. The first or the
third hypothesis of Max Mtlller is quite according to
the account given in Genesis. Col. Ingersoll 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
quotecl in this chapter.)
From all this it follows that the Colonel so far from
having proved an absurdity in Genesis, has himself
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 Milller 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
I
MISTAKES OF HODE11X INFIDELS. 361
his capacity as a historian settles the matter by dis
carding the second theory, which Colonel Ingersoll
adopts. We must therefore confine ourselves to one
or other of the other two, either of which accords
perfectly with the Mosaic account.
The Colonel next asks:
" How 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 enough to learn sufficient for 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 strongest evidences of the truth
of the record, that the writer confines himself to
those facts which most concern mankind. Genesis is
unlike the records of other nations. It is clear, cir
cumstantial and connected. It is not interlarded
with the superstitions of idolatry, and it does not in-
16
362 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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 his nation, as did the Egyptians
and Chinese and others. But no ! Genesis gives a
plain, unornamented account of facts which perfectly
coincide with the manners of the ancient world as far
as we know them, 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 of 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 "strike higher" or
"strike lower," till 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, whether the history in the
Pentateuch be detailed, as when Moses led the Israel
ites out of Egypt, or synoptical, as in the Genesis
records.
The same reasoning applies to the Colonel s 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 have been done.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 363
Not a school was established. There was no written
language. There was not a bible in the world. The
scheme of salvation was kept a profound secret. The
five points of Calvinism had not been taught. 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 trembling of
the earth accompanied the drowning of the Egyp
tians in the Red Sea. Yet of all this we would have
known nothing from the Pentateuch alone; and in
the 17th 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. Ingersoll assert so posi
tively that there was nothing done for the reformation
of men before the delude ? How does he know there
O
were no schools ? How does he know there was no
written language ? Does not the Colonel assert in
his lecture on skulls that written lansjuasfe existed
, o o
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, 15,) did
not omit to have penance inculcated on those who
perished in the deluge before they were so punished.
364 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Even from 1st Peter iii, 19, 20, we learn that many
who had been incredulous while the ark was being
built, received the glad tidings of redemption when
Christ preached to the spirits in prison. These in
cluded, undoubtedly, souls who were converted to
God 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
benefit.
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, for it was revealed by God to our first parents
as we read in Genesis iii; and it may have been other
wise revealed still more clearly. We may very fairly
draw this inference from the passage of St. Peter
already referred to.
Again, how does Col. Ingersoll 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 use of argument against
Pharaoh, before resorting to the extreme measures
which alone brought Pharaoh to terms ? In fact
from Exodus iv, we may naturally infer 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.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 365
The Confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel
is the next subject for Colonel IngersolPs wit. He
says:
" Nothing 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 could language be confounded ?
It could be confounded only by the destruction of
memory." (P. 173.)
Yet after this statement he suggests another mode
by which the confusion 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 some 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
whatsoever.
Others, however, 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
same speech," and Colonel Ingersoll asks, with his
usual confidence:
366 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
"Is it possible that any one now believes that the
whole world would be of one speech had the language
not been confounded at Babel?" (P. 174.)
It is nowhere stated that there would or would not
have remained only one language, if the confusion had
not occurred at Babel. The Colonel s query is, there
fore, altogether beside the question, and it is of no
consequence whatsoever how it may be answered.
Let us, therefore, turn to the consideration of the
views of those who maintain that languages cannot
have had a common origin.
Until late years* most philological scholars took it
for granted that any resemblance between two lan
guages must be accounted for by supposing that one
must be the child of the other. Modern philologists,
however, while not ignoring the filial relationships of
languages, recognize that numerous languages are
related to each 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 had 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 his remarks on the subject.
u Every new discovery only served to increase this
perplexity; 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
MISTAKES OP 3VIODEBN INFIDELS. 367
a new organization was even then taken, by the divi
sion of those materials into distinct homogeneous
masses into continents, as it were, and oceans; the
stable arid circumscribed, and the movable and vary
ing elements, whereof this science is now composed.
"The affinities which formerly had been but
vaguely seen between languages separated in their
origin by history and geography, began now to appeal-
definite and certain. It was now found that new and
most important connections existed among languages
so as to combine in large provinces or groups the
idioms of nations whom no other research would
have shown to be mutually related." (Science and
Religion, Lecture 1.)
It is evident that if languages are derived from a
common source, we should find the greatest resem
blances between the forms of languages in their ear
liest stages, and this is precisely what takes place.
Remarkable resemblances have been discovered
between the Teutonic and Celtic tongues, Latin
and Greek, Russian and other Slavonian languages,
and the languages of Persia and India, especially -as
these languages were spoken over three thousand
years ago. So striking are these resemblances, that
it is now agreed upon that the ancestors of all the
nations we have named must have spoken substan
tially the same tongue. The differences of language
must have arisen in great measure from the different
ways in which the various families and tribes pro
nounced the same words as they became scattered
over the different parts of tjae world, and modern
philology has discovered the corresponding sounds
which were usually adopted by the different nation
alities in their endeavors to pronounce the same
368 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
original root- word. (See Max Muller, Science of Lan
guage, vol. ii, p. 216 and sequel.)
The discoveries of the Sanscrit, the ancient lan
guage of India, and of Zend, the ancient language
of Persia, have contributed in very great measure to
make these results certain, so that now it is fully con
ceded that, with the exception of the Biscayan and
Finnish languages, Hungarian included, all the
tongues of Europe, together with those of a large
part of Asia, have a common origin. These lan
guages have, on this account, been called by the gen
eral name of Indo-European, or Aryan tongues.
Another class of languages, usually called Semitic,
quite distinct from the Aryan, includes Hebrew, Syro-
Chaldaic, Arabic and Abyssinian. These also are ac
knowledged to have a common origin.
"The Turanian languages include Tungusic, Mon-
golic, Turkic, Finnic and Samoyedic, Tamulic, Thibe-
tian, Siamese and Malayic, or the Malay and Polyne
sian dialects." (Max Muller, ib. vol. i, p. 334.)
These are Nomad languages, and consequently
the changes from their original forms were more
rapid and complete than in the more settled countries
occupied by those who spoke the Aryan and Semitic
tongues. There cannot be expected between tongues
of this class such resemblances as are found in
those already mentioned, nevertheless, Max Mtiller
says:
" These languages share elements in common which
they must have borrowed from the same source, and
their formal coincidences, though of a different char
acter from those of the Aryan and Semitic families,
are such that it would be impossible to ascribe them
to mere accident." (Ib. vol. i, p. 334.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 369
As the various languages become better known, it
usually results that they are at last resolved into one
or the other of these 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 from
one common stock. Max Mtiller is most positive on
the possibility of all these distinct classes of lan
guages springing from one original.
" We have examined all possible forms 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 human speech ? I answer
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 sec/is, in Slavonic
schest, in Greek hex, in Zend qowas, is found with but
slight variation in the Semitic tongues also: in He
brew shesh, in Arabic shet, sheh, in Aramaean sheth, in
Ethiopic sesu.
Seven is in Sanscrit sapta, in Old German sibun, in
Gothic sibum, in Latin septem, in Greek hepta, in
Zend hapta, while the Semitic tongues have, Hebrew
sheva, Syriac shebe, Arabic sheba t.
Many other words may be found in Dwight s Philo
logy, Cardinal Wiseman s and Max Miiller s Lec
tures, Sir William Jones Asiatic Researches, and
370 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon. I may cite a few other
examples.
One is in Sanscrit aika, in Persian yak, in Pehlevi
jek, in Hebrew echad, in Arabic achad, in Ethiopic
ahadu.
Mother is in Sanscrit ama, in Biscay an ama, in
Hebrew em, in Arabic omma, in Ethiopic emme.
Horn is in Latin cornu, in Gothic haurns, in Ger
man horn, in French come, in Greek keras, in tie-
brew, Arabic and Phoenician keren, in Syriac karno.
Now it becomes a question: what number of words
common to two lan^ua^es will warrant the conclu-
o o
sion that they have a common origin ?
V * *
Cardinal Wiseman (Lecture 2,) quotes Dr. Young
as giving a mathematical formula from which he
o o
draws the conclusion that in the comparison of two
languages, " the odds would be three to one against
the agreement of two words: but 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, beria, new;
ora, a dog ; guchi, little; oguia, bread; otzoa, a wolf;
and zazpi or shashpi, seven. Now in the ancient
Egyptian new is beri; a dog, whor; little, 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 established itself in
Spain.
MISTAKES OF MODEKX INFIDELS. 371
I have not at band the data assumed by Dr.
Young in his calculations, but WQ may arrive at a
satisfactory result by the method given in the note. It
may be a satisfaction to mathematical readers to find
the 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 grammarians to have one thousand seven hundred and six
roots, but Max Miiller reduces the number to about five hun
dred and thirty-five primary roots. Vol. ii, p. 359.
Next, let there be 22 radical letters in the languages com
pared, and let the roots contain respectively 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
guages.
In the following calculations the symbol [_ * s use( ^ to
signify the product of the integers 1, 8, 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 ~~ , = 462
[2 1 20
(22 "
Roots with 3 different letters = 3 -TZ = 9240
Bi-literal roots with same letter repeated, 22
Tri-literal roots with one repeated letter=22 x 21 x 3=^ 1848
11594
Thus 10,000 will be a very moderate estimate of the num
ber of available roots, after rejecting such as might not be
sufficiently euphonious for use.
2. The total number of languages possible to be formed
j 10000 1 10000
with 500 primary roots in each will be 1500 19500
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, 3 or more
roots.
3. If now we assume one language as fixed, and compare
with it another, finding that n roots are identical in both we
372 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
From this it is clear that a very small number of
identical words, or words that are substantially iden
tical, will suffice to establish an extreme probability,
amounting almost to demonstration, that the lan
guages so coinciding have a common origin. We may
may find the number of possible cases in which this may
occur.
n roots being the same in both languages, the number of
|500
ways in which this may occur in 500 fixed roots = , ,~ nn
72 OUU"~~~ /
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 (3), there must re
main 10000 n words from which 500 n must be selected,
and the number of ways these selections may be made not
|10000-yi
greater than ,,-QQ n 9500" 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 as many different ways as there are
permutations possible of 500 n things- 1 500 n.
6. Thus the total number of cases in which n roots may
be identical iu the two given languages not greater than
the product of the above three results and not greater
[500 1 10000 -/a
than \n loOO-r. [500-71 [9500
7. If this quantity .in (6) be reduced and divided by the
number of possible languages in (2), we shall have the
probability of two languages having n roots alike, when not
derived from a common source. This probability not greater
[500 j 10000 -n
than
\n [500 n [10000
8. Tt follows that if we give to n various values, we can
estimate the probability that two languages have a common
origin. If n=l, that is if there be 1 common primary root,
the probability is not greater than -^ for an independent
origin, or is at least 19 to 1 in favor of a common origin.
If n = 2, probability in favor of a common origin > 800 to 1
If 7i = 3, " " " > 47903 tol
And so the probability increases with great rapidity as the
number of coinciding roots increases.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 373
therefore very fairly draw the conclusion that even
the Aryan and Semitic tongues were originally one
language. Thus we see that the discoveries of science
far from weakening the authority of Holy Writ, tend
in many respects to confirm it.
Could we possibly imagine Moses to have made
merely a happy hit in stating so positively the original
unity of language, whereas the probabilities then
must have appeared so strong against it? Or are we
to suppose that his knowledge of the real science of
language was the truth as revealed to him by Almighty
God? In spite of Col. Ingersoll s sneers, the latter is
certainly the most reasonable supposition, even inde
pendently of the positive proofs we have advanced.
CHAPTER XLVIL
CHRISTIAN vs. INFIDEL MORALITY : POLYGAMY:
DIVORCE: FREE-LOVE.
INFIDELITY is notorious for the inculcation of
principles which subvert the morality of nations, as
morality is understood wherever the light of Chris
tianity has shone. It is true, there are Christians, or
professing Christians, who do not put into practice the
sacred and sanctifying principles of Christianity, but
in their very neglect they are conscious of their dis
obedience to the law they should obey. Christianity
is not in fault because so many refuse to put her
precepts into practice. There are devout souls who
do so, and this is enough to show that Christianity is
a success, though she does no violence to man s free
will by the use of physical force. Infidelity cannot
374 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
insist upon these moral precepts, because where there
is no responsibility to God, there can be no moral
precepts.
Col. Ingersoll says in his lecture on "Skulls:
" One ounce of restitution is worth a million of
repentances anywhere."
This is empty vaporing, inasmuch as restitution is
a part of true repentance, and a part of a good thing
cannot be worth a million times the whole. Christian
ity insists upon that practical repentance of the sin
ner which consists in a complete conversion to God
with our whole heart and soul, and which necessarily
includes the observance of God s precepts; and resti
tution of ill-gotten goods is part of God s law. Hence
restitution is frequently made by Christians, at all
events by Catholics, as I can speak of such from per
sonal knowledge. But can Col. Ingersoll s Infidelity
furnish a motive for restitution? If there isjno God,
there is no moral law and no distinction between right
and wrong. Therefore there is no motive for resti
tution, and Col. Ingersoll s " ounce of restitution is
nowhere. Hence also his 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. The praises of chastity
are a constant theme of the Old and New Testaments.
These words of the Apostle St. John are a sample of
what is to be found throughout the Bible.
The chaste "were purchased from among men, the
first fruits 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 of immodesty, as Colonel
Insrersoll does:
MISTAKES OF MODERN- INFIDELS. 375
"If the Bible is not obscene, what book is?" (P.
178.)
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 perfectly modest, and the whole
narrative relating to Tamar is calculated to show
the detestation in which God holds all crimes against
chastity. Yet this is Col. Ingersoll s excuse for charg
ing 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 merciful dealings with them should
be made known, even in their acts of ingratitude and
disobedience to His law. Besides, their shortcomings
&
and faults had to be recorded, as well as their virtues,
as an evidence of the truthfulness and impartiality of
the historian, and to inculcate humility, 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 infidels with revolting
indecency. It ill becomes Satan to reprove sin. Juve
nal says: "We may pardon, him that is sound in
limb for mocl^ig 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 hypocritical philosophers. Voltaire, Paine
and Bennet are examples.)
376 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
3dly. Jt is only from Christian morality that infi
dels can 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 unlaw
ful, 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. Ingersoll s indignation against 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
fireside, makes virtue an outcast, 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 government.
The virtues grow .... where the one man loves the
one woman. Lover husband wife mother father
child home without these sacred words the
world is but a lair, and men and women merely
beasts." (P. 251.)
This is almost the only truth to be found in the
book named " Mistakes of Moses." Tne 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
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 377
inviolate ? Because 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 from 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 asunder ....
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 I say to you that whoso
ever shall put away his wife, except it be for forni
cation, and shall marry another committeth adul
tery, " etc. (St. Matt, xix, 4 to 9.)
Take away God s revelation, and how will you show
that man may not have as many wives as the Grand
Turk ? In appealing to the Christian sentiment which
pervades the United States and Canada against Po
lygamy, you are stealing Christian arguments under
the pretence that they are your property. You 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. You 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 perfect code of morality. You
attack the Bible as teaching Polygamy. We have
seen from the words of Christ that Christianity forbids
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
378 MISTAKES OF MODERN" INFIDELS.
Polygamy, to some extent. Polygamy is nowhere
inculcated in the Old Testament, but as Abraham
and Jacob were holy men, it is inferred 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 laws. 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 can provide for the
family peace and the education of the children by other
means fully 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 few cases, 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
Ingersoll."
" This is the gospel of dirt. I don t say that Mr.
Ingersoll swallows it whole. He believes, or at least
he practices the Christian doctrine on the subjects
of marriage, paternity and property, not because he
is bound by the Divine commandment, but because
he feels like it. Others, rejecting as he does the
golden metewand 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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 379
another blackguards 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 extract 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 marriasre enchains one s whole life.
J O
.... Yes, one s whole life ! and yet who can an
swer for the sentiments of a whole life? .... There
fore, to accept indissoluble ties, is it not to commit
an act of selfish and impious folly ? . . . . We ought
to pledge ourselves, not .... always to belong to
one another .... for 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. Under
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. Under
such regulations, what is to become of Col. IngersolPs
" good family, the unit of good government ?" What
is to become of "husband, wife, mother, father,
380 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
child, home, without which words the world is but
a lair, and men and women merely beasts ?" Once
let such teachings prevail, imprudent marriages, con
cubinages rather, will be the rule: under the expecta
tion of future divorce, there will be no restraint on
family bickerings and adulteries, families united by
the ties of affinity, will be irreconcilably separated
in enmity and hate, property will become more than
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.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
INCREASE OF THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT. THE
TRIBE OF DAN THE NUMBER OF FIRST
BORN MALES.
COLONEL Ingersoll takes more than usual pains to
prove that from the entry of Jacob and his family,
70 souls, into Egypt till 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 hundred and thirty years."
From the call of Abraham to the entry of the
Israelites, two hundred and fifteen years elapsed.
Hence if this is to be counted as part of the time named
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 381
in Ex. xii, 40, the sojourn of the Israelites from the
entry of Jacob till the Exodus will be reduced to two
hundred and fifteen years. Some commentators
maintain that 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 favor 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 hundred 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 remained two hundred and
fifteen years, and at the end of that time they had
increased to about three million." (P. 185.)
He reasons 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 hundred 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 account when the comparsion is made with
382 MISTAKES OP MODERN" INFIDELS.
the increase in the United States? Were there no
deaths in the United States during the one hundred
years between 1776 and 1876? This is evidently
added from the suspicion that there is a satisfactory an
swer to his difficulty, and so there is. Nevertheless
the Colonel s course is dishonest. He wishes to make
his difficulty as formidable as possible, even at the
expense of truth.
The Colonel draws the conclusion:
"Every sensible man knows that this (the scriptu
ral) account is not, and cannot be true. We know
that seventy people could not increase to three million
in two hundred and fifteen years." (P. 187.)
The three million are estimated as the population
on the assumption that there must have been at least
five times as many persons as there were men of war.
"In every State in this Union there will be to each
voter, five other persons at least; and we all know
that there are always more voters than men of war."
(P. 185.) ; . , . .
This loose way of making statistical statements is
very unsatisfactory. Among the voters there are
many who reside in neighboring countries, and many
naturalized citizens, while there are many residents
who have not become naturalized. A good deal
depends also on the state of the laws at any particu
lar period, who are the " men of war." Then you do
not give the figures for any one State. Now the
number of the Israelites in each tribe is very definitely
stated, as far as the census was made.
"And the whole number of the children of Israel
by their houses and families, from twenty years old and
upward, that were able to go to war, were 603,550
men." (Num. i, 45, 46.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 383
The Levites were not numbered with these. (Verse
47.)
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
tsoon that it is not necessary to speculate on the total
population of the Israelites in order to meet Colonel
Ingersoll s argument. However we may follow his
line of argument and find its result.
o
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 1880 gives 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 we 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 filled
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
384 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
several books with an object similar to that of the
Colonel.
How many ancestors of these entered into Egypt
with Jacob ? Excluding Levi and his sons, and
even Jacob and his wives, sixty-seven are named.
To these we must add the wives of those who
were married, according to Gen. xlvi, 26. These
wives were at least fourteen in number, probably
more, since the same chapter speaks of thirteen
who are married, besides the Canaanitish wife of Si
meon. Hence we have at least eighty-one ancestors
of the numbered Israelites, instead of seventy, as
stated by the Colonel. In what length of time must
these double their number in order to reach 2,414,200
in two hundred and fifteen years ? A few days over
fourteen years, five and a half months. In fact, if
we suppose the time needed for doubling to be
fourteen years four months, we shall have the popu
lation doubled just fifteen times in succession.
Eighty-one multiplied by two, fifteen times succes
sively, gives 2,654,208. It is true, the doubling of a
population in fourteen years, five and a half months
is a rapid increase, still it is neither impossible nor,
under favorable circumstances, improbable. The like
has often occurred in the past, and will probably
occur again. If these facts had been related in pro
fane history, they would have been readily accepted,
as indeed similar facts have been unquestioned. Every
one is aware that population is very fluctuating in its
rate of increase, and under favorable circumstances it
is frequently very rapid. Bullet relates in "Reponses
Critiques " that an Island in the South Sea " first oc
cupied by a few shipwrecked English in 1589, and
discovered by a Dutch vessel in 1667 was peopled
MISTAKES OF MODEBJST INFIDUL3. 385
/
after eighty years by twelve thousand souls, all the
descendants of four mothers." (See Card. Wiseman s
Science and Religion, Lect. 4.)
These doubled their population in less than every
seven years and seven months. This is much more
rapid than the increase of the Israelites in Egypt.
It will be seen from the answer which I will give to
Bishop Colenso s objection specially directed against
the account of the increase of the tribe of Dan, that
very large families are not required in order to effect
a very great increase, in a wonderfully short space of
time. It is quite sufficient that the circumstances be
favorable to the lives of children, and that marriages
O
be not delayed to a late period of life, to render the
actual increase of a people almost incredible, even
with ordinary families. Still a few large families
will accelerate the increase very much. Now the fa
vorable circumstances existed with the Israelites in
Egypt, since they were specially blessed by God to
multiply and fill the land.
Very frequently such large families occur, and ac
counts of them are to be seen in the public journals.
Thus a "Mr. Lemay Deloame, at his death in 1849
had a posterity of two hundred and twenty-five chil
dren and grand-children .... and on the monument
of Rev. Dr. Honeywood, Dean of Lincoln, is the fol
lowing inscription:
"HERE LYETH THE BODY OF MICHAEL HONEYWOOD, D. D.,
WHO WAS GRAND-CHILD AND ONE OP THE
THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN PERSONS
THAT MARY, THE WIFE OF ROBERT HONEYWOOD, ESQ. ,
DlD SEE BEFORE SHE DIED
LAWFULLY DESCENDED FROM HER."
(Pettigrew s Chronicles of the Tombs; also Prof. Hirsch-
felder s reply to Colenso.)
17
J86 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
It is therefore clear that this favorite objection of
infidels is futile. Many more proofs might be ad
duced, but every one is aware that such large fami
lies frequently occur, and most of my readers will be
able to recall instances which have come within their
own observation.
Bishop Colenso, and others before him brought the
same objection, but applied it also, as having special
force, to the tribe of Dan. Only one son of Dan,
Hushim, is spoken of in Genesis, yet in the census
recorded in Numbers i, it is said he had sixty-two
thousand seven hundred descendants of twenty years
of age and upwards. This increase is much greater
than that of the rest of Israel. Bishop Colenso main
tains that as the exodus was said to be in the fourth
generation of the sojourn in Egypt:
" Dan s one son, and each of his sons and grand
sons must have had about eighty children of both
sexes." (Bp. C. on Pentateuch, p. 168.)
Everyone acquainted with the process of compu
ting Compound Interest, knows that a slight increase
in the rate per cent, makes a wonderful difference in
the amount after a considerable number of years.
Precisely the same principle operates here. A slight
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 the
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 than pro-
duce the population of Israel in two hundred and
fifteen years: so the doubling of the tribe of Dan
every twelve years eight months would produce
more of a population than is attributed to the tribe
in the census of Numbers i.
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
We may arrive at a similar result in another way.
Let us suppose that in the family of Hushim there
are four sons, viz.: one born every second year, com
mencing with the third year of the sojourn in Egypt.
Next, let each of Hu shim s sons have the same
number of sons, four; the first in each family being
born when the father is 22 years old, and let the
same rule continue till the time of the Exodus. On
this very reasonable hypothesis, we shall have the
result given in the Appendix to this chapter.
From the Appendix it will be seen that on this
assumption the family of Hushim would increase
much more than is stated in the book of Numbers.
The number of men between twenty and fifty
years of age would be 98,615, which is 35,915 more
than the number given by Moses.
It follows, then, that the increase of the Israelites
in Egypt is neither impossible nor improbable, as
Bishop Colenso and Colonel Ingersoll pretend; and
since the increase of the tribe of Dan is so readily
accounted for, which is much greater in proportion
than the rest of Israel, of course there remains no
difficulty whatever in accounting for the rapid in
crease of the whole nation. The assumption of three
sons in each family of the fifty sons and grandsons of
Jacob, (excluding Levi and his sons,) would give
824,000 men between twenty and fifty years of age
at the time of the census. This would leave a mar
gin of 220,450 for deaths.
I said above that if a similar fact to the increase of
the Israelites had been related in profane history it
would have been accepted without difficulty or ques
tion. Since writing those words, and while I was in
the very act of writing this argument of which they
388 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
form a part, I noticed a decided confirmation of my
whole statement. It is to be found in the Infidel
organ, the " Truth-Seeker," of New York, in an edi
torial commentary on " The Plenary Council " of the
Catholic Church, in session at Baltimore. The editor
says:
" The wonderful expansion of the Church s power
through increase by immigration and the birth rate,
lias made the Romish organization bold and arrogant.
In fifty years it has developed from half a million of
believers to nearly eight millions. (Truth Seeker,
29th November, 1884.)-
Here is a statement which was being read by thou
sands of Infidels in the United States and Canada
while I was writing on this very subject, and proba
bly by Col. Ingersoll himself. With what senti
ments did they read that statement ? Did they say
with the Colonel, " Every one knows that this is not
and cannot be true ?" Certainly not. They swal
lowed it holus-bolus, because their organ asserted it,
and indeed it is very near the exact truth, and is rather
under than over the correct estimate. Yet this in
crease in the Catholic body is much greater than the
increase of the Israelites in Egypt. It exceeds even
the increase of the tribe of Dan, which, according to
Bishop Colenso, would require 80 children in every
family ! According to the " Truth Seeker" state
ment, the Catholics doubled every 12 years six months,
while the tribe of Dan required 12 years eight
months to double. Yet there are not 80 children in
each Catholic family.
I know that it will be answered, " but there was a
large Catholic immigration during that period."
I have not overlooked this fact in what I have said.
.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 389
I appeal to the experience of every resident of every
State in the Union for an answer to this question:
Did Catholic immigration in any year since 1834
equal one-third, or even one-fourth of the natural
increase by births ?
The answer to this will certainly be, No. Then I
infer that if the families of the tribe of Dan were
one-fourth larger than those of the Catholics of the
United States, their increase would have been much
larger than it is stated by Moses to have been.
Where, then, is the impossibility ? It exists only in
the brains of the Infidel objectors.
" And Moses reckoned up .... the first-born of
the children of Israel ; and the males by their names,
from one month and upward, were 22,273." Numb,
iii, 42, 43.
On this the Colonel reasons:
" It is reasonable to suppose that there were about
as many first-born females. This would make 44,546
first-born children. Now there must have been about
as many mothers as there were first-born 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-born males.
First. Those under one month were not enumer
ated.
Secondly. When Pharaoh issued his decree for the
death of the male children, the destruction must have
390 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS,
fallen more heavily on the first-born than upon other
male children. There is no means of estimating the
number who perished in. this way.
Thirdly. It is well known that mothers frequently
lose the first child in birth, and yet have large fami
lies afterwards. Thus the total number of males
would be increased, while the number of first-born
would remain stationary.
Fourthly. Where polygamy was allowed, there
would be children by several mothers, yet only by one
father. 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 had seventy sons by many
wives. (Judg. viii, 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.)
Yet he had only one " first-born," Ammon. (verse 2.)
The first-born had rights of primogeniture which
were very important. It was, therefore, necessary
that the law should define the first-born accurately,
and this is done, Deut. xxi, 15, 17.
Fifthly. The first-born, being the oldest, would
often be the first to die.
Taking all these circumstances together, it was to
be expected that the number of first-born should be
much smaller than the number of families, and as the
Israelites " multiplied exceedingly," the families were
large. It is therefore a proof of the genuineness of
the books of Moses, that in such incidental matters
his statements accord with all the circumstances of
the case.
MISTAKES OP MODERN IXPIDELS.
191
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XL VIII.
CHABT
Showing the probable increase of the family of Hushim (son of
Dan,) during the sojourn in Egypt. (See explanation
below.)
Year of
Sons born.
, 1st Genera
Year of
Sons born.
4th Genera
Sojourn.
tion.
Sojourn.
tion.
3
1
85
31
5
1
87
20
7
1
89
10
9
1
5th Gen.
__
91
4 1
2d Gen.
93
1 5
25
1
95
15
27
2
97
35
29
3
99
65
31
4
101
101
33
3
103
135
35
2
105
155
37
1
107
155
3d Gen.
109
135
47
1
111
101
49
3
6th Gen.
51
6
113
65
1
53
10
115
35
6
55
12
117
15
21
57
12
119
5
56
59
10
121
1
120
61
6
123
216
63
3
125
336
65
1
127
456
129
546
4th Gen.
131
580
69
1
133
546
71
4
7th Gen.
73
10
135
1
456 1
75
20
137
336 7
77
31
139
216 28
79
40
141
120 84
81
44 143
56 203
83
40
145
21 413
392 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS,
The sons born in the following years would be between 50
and 20 years old at the time of the Exodus.
Year of Sons born.
Sojourn. 6th Gen. 7th Gen.
147 6 728
149 1 1128
151 1554
153 1918
155 2128
8th Gen.
157 2128 1
159 1918 8
161 1554 36
163 1128 120
165 728 322
167 413 728
169 203 1428
171 84 2472
173 28 3823
175 7 5328
177 1 6728
8th Gen.
179 7728 1
181 8092 9
183 7728 45
185 6728 165
187 5328 486
189 3823 1206
191 2472 2598
193 1428 4950
195 728 8451
Totals of each) - 15648 6 5 049 17911
generation, }
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:
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 393
Of the 6th Generation, 7
" " 7th " 15648
" " 8th " 65049
" " 9th " 17911
Total, 98615
This leaves a margin of nearly 36,000 for deaths.
EXPLANATION OF THE CHART.
In the above Chart, the assumed four sons of Hushirn are
placed under the first generation, in the years of the sojourn
wherein they are respectively supposed to have been^orn,
viz. : 3, 5, 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 from those 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 from 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, Num. i. Thus we see that the assumption 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.
Tfeere is therefore an ample margin for deaths.
894 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
CHAPTER XLIX.
THE FLIGHT FROM EGYPT. -THE MANNA. REFU
TATION OF MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES.
UNDEK the caption " The Flight," Colonel Inger-
soll brings forward a great number of objections.
Every circumstance which is at all miraculous, and
which is related in the Bible, is a subject for his ridi
cule. Once for all, we must say we proved in chap
ter 13 the possibility of miracles. We showed that
miracles are the means by which God attests Revela
tion. An objection which takes it for gra nted that
miracles are absurd, is therefore of no weight what
soever. It is sufficient that, as facts, 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 his host in the Red
Sea.
"It hardly looks reasonable that God would take
the wheels off the chariots. How did he do it ?
Did he pull out the linch-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
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 395
Power to effect this. If the fact was done, it is not
necessary for us to know the precise manner in which
it was done, and it is folly to ask- the question
"How?"
God sent manna to feed the Israelites in the desert.
They needed food, and as they were under God s
special protection, He supplied food miraculously.
Surely it is not surprising that there should be certain
miraculous 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 refutation to say " it would be a magnifi
cent substance with which to make a currency
shrinking and swelling according to the great laws
of supply and demand? 1 (P. 215.)
The Colonel adds that there are two accounts which
disagree and are therefore unreasonable, and he says
they are "grossly absurd and infinitely impossible.
God himself gives to Moses the answer to the Col
onel s difficulties:
" Is the hand of the Lord unable ? Thou shalt
presently see whether my word shall come to pass or
no." (Num. xi, 23.)
This manna was first furnished 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 quails to supply their want. From
396 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Numbers i, 1, it may be seen that this book com
mences with the second year of the stay in the des
ert. The account of the manna and of the quails
given in Exodus regards, therefore, quite a different
event from that which is recorded in Numbers, and
there can be no contradiction between them.
The Colonel further objects that the request of
the people for a change of food was a very reason
able one, which should not have been punished so
severely. (P. 217.)
The occasion of these animadversions is the state
ment that on account of the murmurs of the people,
" speaking against God and Moses .... the Lord
sent among them fiery serpents, which bit and killed
many of them." (Num. xxi, 5. 6.)
It was the covenant of God with His people that
he would shew " mercy unto thousands to them that
love me and keep my commandments," but that
when they were disobedient he would inflict punish
ment, even " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children." (Ex. xx, 5, 6.) Even when in His jus
tice He inflicts punishment, His mercy is always
eminent.
"The Lord God is merciful and gracious, patient
and of much compassion and true, who keepest
mercy unto thousands, who takest away iniquity and
wickedness and sins, and no man of himself is inno
cent 1 before him. (Ex. xxxiv, 7.)
We have already shown that, as God is the Supreme
Arbiter of life and death, there can be no injustice
in the manner in which he ma} r 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 for a change of diet, but
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 397
the speaking against Himself and Moses. His author
ity over them required a public vindication. How
ever, when they had been sufficiently punished, he
supplied a remedy by ordering Moses to erect "a
brazen serpent .... that whosoever .... being
bitten should look upon it should be healed." (Num.
xxi, 8, 9.)
In Ex. xxiii, 28 and Deut. vii, 20, we are told that
God will send hornets to drive away the nations whose
possessions God had determined to transfer to the
Israelites. We are also informed in Deut. xxix, 5,
and in 2 Esdras ix, 21 (Nehemiah) that the " garments
of the Israelites were not worn out, nor the shoes of
their feet consumed with age." In Num. v, 14, etc.,
the method of punishment of the unfaithful wife is
indicated, and God promises, in a miraculous manner
to manifest her innocence or guilt.
What God promises he is able to fulfil. Col. Inger-
soll s ridicule cannot lessen the power of God, and
the fact that he dictatorially pronounces all these
events absurd, cannot impede God s Providence over
the affairs of men. (See pp. 219, 222, 223.) We have
already sufficiently proved God s power of working
miracles. We need not repeat the proofs. We need
only add to what we have said already, that many of
the miraculous events referred to in this chapter do
not require miraculous intervention in all their details.
God 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 facts
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:
398 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
" Enoch walked with God and was seen no more, be-
. J
cause God took him." (Gen. v. 23.)
"The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha
brimstone and fire from the Lord, out of heaven."
(xix, 24.)
" Lot s wife looking behind her was turned 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 Melach, 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; for I
have 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 witness
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 his angels, (xix; xxii;
xxxii,) the blossoming of Aaron s rod, and its bring-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 399
ing forth almonds, (Num. xvii, 8,) and similar events.
These circumstances are not to be refuted by mere
ridicule or denial. They are well attested occurrences,
and have all the force of historic facts related by cred
ible witnesses.
In the case of the trial of a wife for infidelity to
her marriage vows, Col. Ingersoll maintains that the
promise of God to manifest the guilt or innocence of
the accused, "has been the foundation 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 this 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 burned. 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 sym-
400 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
bolical ceremony, which had its efficacy from God s
promise. The Colonel objects to all religious cere
monies. On this plea he objects to the composition
of incense for exclusive use in Divine Worship. He
objects to the sacred ointment employed in the con
secration of priests, (p. 225,) and to the other cere
monies used on the same occasion. (P. 226.) He ridi
cules the commandment of God that special vestments
should be devoted to the use of priests, made after a
particular form, and also to the use of certain articles,
as a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes in the ser
vice of God. (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 are included under
the general name of "Superstition." (P. 26.)
Of course there is no means of convincing one who
denies, o"r refuses to believe, the existence of God, and
that religious ceremonies are useful 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 follows as a necessary consequence.
Have men the need of manifesting their thoughts
and affections 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 exterior signs is rooted in the very nature
of man. They are necessary for the preservation of
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 401
good will among men, and they therefore constitute
the very essence 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, sacrifices were
offered by all nations, as offerings to the Gods in
acknowledgment of their Supreme Dominion. The
same ceremony of sacrifice was retained by the Jews
in the worship of the true God for the same purpose.
It was not a rite borrowed from Paganism. It was
from the beginning recognized as the principal act of
Religion, and as such was used by Cain and Abel,
and after th j deluge by Noah. The Pagans therefore
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 for the institution of other
ceremonies than sacrifice. They have a useful effect
in making man more devout, because man is impressed
through his senses, in spite of all the efforts of so-
called Philosophers to throw off their influence, be
cause 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 society, the arbiter of all nature
who would reward them for 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 God s
special protection.
402 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
Thus 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.)
Oil is strengthening and, nourishing. Hence the
abundance of corn, wine, and oil implies constantly
in Holy Scripture the abundance of all good things.
(See Deut. xxviii, 51; 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 nourished the people by
teaching them sound doctrine. Hence also to secure
respect for these sacred symbols, the people were for
bidden to use for profane purposes 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
officiating in God s name. The different parts of these
vestments were all calculated to recall some truth re
vealed, or some mystery of God 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 fact that ceremonial worship is of no avail with-
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 403
out the homage of the heart and soul. How could
there be superstition 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. Ingersoll
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 bullock 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 offering of atone
ment for sin. The hands 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. (Cornelius 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 asunde~
of the victims denotes the amictions 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 Providence, as Abraham drove away
the birds.
404 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
"And when the sun was set there arose a dark
mist, and there appeared a smoking furnace, and a
lamp of fire passing between those divisions." Gen.
xv, 17.
It shows a great anxiety on Col. IngersolPs part to
make out a case when he casts ridicule on Abraham s
dream or vision. This was not a part of the cere
mony performed by Abraham. However, from the
fact that the vision is recorded we may infer that it
came from God for Abraham s instruction, and that
its symbolism was revealed to him.
The Septuagint records that this was a vision:
ekatasis, verse 12. The smoking furnace implied the
hardships of the Egyptian bondage, as inDeut. iv, 20.
The lamp of fire signifies 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 Ingersoll 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.
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 405
CHAPTER L.
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS REFUTED. RITUAL
LAWS. FLOCKS AND HERDS IN THE DESERT.
Similar to the objections against the ceremonies
mentioned in the last chapter, are Col. Ingersoll s re
marks on the treatment of those afflicted with lep
rosy.
The Colonel represents the leper s treatment as a
mere empty form, under pretence of curing the dis
ease. (P. 236.)
The priest was not authorized to cure the leprosy.
He was only to pronounce the cure complete. The
medical treatment was finished before he was brought
to the priest. Hence the Colonel s account of the
case is a total misrepresentation. This is evident
from the 3d verse of the 14th chapter of Leviticus,
the chapter referred to by the Colonel.
" When he (the priest) shall find that the leprosy
is cleansed, he shall command him that is to be puri
fied to offer for himself two living sparrows," etc.
The uncleanness here spoken of, from which the
leper was cleansed was the legal uncleanness which
was imposed partly for the separation of the leper
from the people to prevent the contagion from spread
ing, and partly because the leprosy was regarded as a
symbol of sin, the leprosy of the soul. The 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 Colonel s questions: "Why should
406 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the bird be killed in an* earthen vessel? , . . Why over
running water?" (P. 236.)
All the Jewish ceremonies had their mystical mean
ing. Of some, this meaning was not at once evident,
nevertheless each rite formed part of a grand whole
which taken altogether made a magnificent cere
monial well calculated to impress the beholder with
that awe and reverence which he ought to feel 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 Church to-day.
The following from "Jews letters to Voltaire,"
will appropriately close my remarks on the Jewish
Ritual.
"Our ritual laws, then, which you look upon as
whimsical, did not spring from caprice. They were
positive laws, but yet founded in reason, and each
had a particular motive, although the distance of so
many ages prevents us from knowing them all."
"But to these particular motives a general one
must be added, which alone would be sufficient to
justify the wisdom of these extraordinary institution*.
They all tended to one common end worthy of a
great legislator. This was to insure the duration of
his people, and the purity of their worship against
all the revolutions of time. For this purpose it was
necessary to attach the Hebrews very strongly to
their religion, and this he did most effectually by
the multitude of observances which he laid on them.
For as the author of the Spirit of Laws judiciously
says, *A religion which is loaded with many rites
MISTAKES OF HODEKN INFIDELS. 407
/
attaches men more strongly than one that has fewer.
The things which we are continually doing become
very 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 much surprised that a man of your sagacity did
not catch it." (P. 188.)
It appears that Moses knew more of successful leg
islation than did Voltaire or Col. Ingersoll.
The next objection we have to encounter is the
difficulty the Israelites 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 torn
by storm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at
by a Gorgon and changed instantly to stone. Such
was the desert of Sinai. All of the civilized nations
of the world could not feed and support three mil
lions of people on the desert of Sinai for forty years.
It would cost more than one hundred thousand mil
lions of dollars and would bankrupt Christendom.
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-born
lambs. How were these flocks supported? What
did they eat ? There was no grass, no forests. . . .
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 furnished by God, for
he denies all miracles, but as we have proved that
God can perform miracles, and as it is attested that
408 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
the Israelities were supplied with manna by a miracle,
there is no need of bankrupting Christianity by call
ing upon it to furnish the Hebrews with food. God
supplied it.
But the Colonel says " it did not rain baled hay " for
the flocks and herds. Where did you learn that the
flocks were so very numerous? There is no such
statement in the Bible as that over one hundred and
fifty thousand first-born lambs were sacrificed at one
time. In Numbers ix, it is stated that sacrifice was
offered, but there is no reference 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 perfectly 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
fiction, 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 or rain, so that
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 409
there are places lovely in their verdure and fruitful-
ness, amid the prevailing solitude and desolation:
though the country is only inhabited by nomad
tribes. The Sinaitic peninsula was, in the time of
Moses, inhabited by Amalekites, Midianites, and
other pastoral tribes, depending entirely on their
flocks for subsistence. Certainly, then, there must
have been a sufficiency of pasture. The sweeping
away of numerous forests by fire has contributed to
make the land more sterile, and the many centuries
that have passed since any care was bestowed upon it
have left it to the mercy of the drifting sands and
the violence of winter torrents. The same causes
which have turned Palestine into a bleak desert,
though 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 turned the rock into a standing water, the
flint into a fountain of waters >: (Ps. cxiii, 8. Prot.
Bible, cxiv,) could also have caused grass to spring
from the earth. The manna was accompanied with
dew. That dew undoubtedly contributed very much
towards fertilizing the earth. (Num. xi, 9.)
Colonel Ingersoll makes a serious mistake when
he says the Paschal lamb must be the first-born.
The command is that it should be " a lamb without
blemish, a male of one year." (Ex. xii, 5.)
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 had been they could not
have lived."
18
410 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
These directions were given for the time " When
you shall be come into the (promised) land:" that
is into Palestine, not for while they were in the desert.
(Lev. xix, 23.)
Then the Colonel asks:
u Why did God tell Moses while in the desert to
make curtains of fine linen ? Where could he have
obtained his flax ? There was no land upon which it
could have been produced. Why did he tell him to
make things of gold and silver and precious stones
when they could not have been in possession of these
things? There is but one answer, and that Is, the
Pentateuch 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 much raiment; and .... that they lent unto
them, and they stripped the Egyptians " ? (Ex. xii,
35, 36: xi, 2, 3.)
The Israelites, therefore, had abundance of these
things with them. They received but what was due
to them for 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-four hours." (P. 230.)
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 411
This sacrifice and other offerings, like the rite of
circumcision, were instituted for the permanent rule
of the Jews, 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 before him. The law of purification is
given in Lev. xii. The doves "were delivered to the
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 mistakes of savages." (Pp. 230, 231.)
You refer 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 from the mother as an acknowledgment of
God s supreme dominion over all his creatures and of
our total dependence on him.
You say " I cannot believe that Moses had in his
412 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
hands a couple of tables of stone upon which God
had written the ten commandments, and that when
he saw the golden calf, and the dancing, that he
dashed the tables to the earth and broke them to
pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a
golden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder and madethe
people drink it with water as related in the thirty-
second chapter of Exodus." (P. 232.)
Your refusal to believe does not make the history
impossible or incredible. We have proved that it
is related by a truthful historian, and your unreason
able incredulity will not render it untruthful or
incredible.
Voltaire asserted that " the most learned chemistry
could not reduce gold into potable powder." You
probably intend the public to believe that this is the
case. I cannot otherwise account for 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,
would be an appropriate means of punishing the idol
aters. Learned chemists have also shown that natron,
a mineral found near the Nile, produces a like effect.
The Colonel next states that there is "another
account of the giving of the ten commandments " in
Exodus, nineteenth and twentieth chapters. (P. 232.)
He adds: "Both accounts cannot be true."
This so-called " other account " is merely the be-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
ginning of the history of which Exodus xxxii is the
conclusion. This is evident from Ex. xxxi, 18.
"When the Lord had ended these words in Mount
Sinai, he gave to Moses two stone tables of testimony
written with the finger of God." 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 chapters
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. xix, 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 Revelation made through Moses. This is
evident from Genesis xxxviii: so that punishment
might even have been inflicted under their earlier
code.
The Colonel expresses great 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." (P. 1 83.)
God s promise to Abraham was expressly made to
be fulfilled in his posterity, and in them it was strictly
fulfilled. "That day God made a covenant with
414 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
Abram saying: To THY SEED 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 fulfilled
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. vi. 6,)
was fulfilled to the then existing generation, besides
other promises made. The promise to lead them into
the land of Canaan was fulfilled only to the next gene
ration, but this was because the former generation did
not fulfil their part of the covenant. The promises
were fulfilled faithfully as they were made. The
promises which were conditional were fulfilled 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 science, Jehovah
was superseded by Copernicus, 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 fact the bible had ceased to be regarded
as a standard. Science had succeeded in breaking
the chains of theology." (P. 242.)
Answer. As Natural Science has for its object the
knowledge of nature, of which God is the author,
Science is certainly good, and Christianity has not a
word to say against it. But the truths which Natural
Science reveals to us forms but part of the great body
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 415
of truth requisite for us to know. The most import
ant science is the science which relates to God and to
our salvation. The science of the things which re
late to God, or Theology, concerns our everlasting wel
fare, whereas all others concern only this world.
Natural science can, therefore, never supersede Theo
logy. One truth cannot be opposed to another.
Mathematics cannot refute historical truth. Neither
can Natural Science refute Theology.
CHAPTER LI.
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS REPUTED. CON
CLUSION.
IN the last chapter of the so-called "Mistakes of
Moses," the author groups together a large number of
objections, mere assertions without a particle of
proof. Surely Col. Ingersoll is the one whose apothegm
is "Believe and obey: if you reason, you will be ex
cluded from the philosopher s paradise." Compare
"Mistakes of Moses." (P. 53.)
Many of the objections of that chapter have been
answered in the course of this work. We may now
proceed to consider the others.
It is first asserted that many doctrines of the Pen
tateuch were taught among the heathens. (P. 262.)
We already proved conclusively that this would not
in the least lower the authority of the Pentateuch.
It would only show that Pagans preserved parts of
the original teachings of God to man : while the Penta
teuch alone preserves these doctrines in their entirety.
416 MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS.
Besides among Pagan nations such doctrines are but
as grains of gold in a mountain of dross.
The superiority of Natural Science over religion is
next insisted on. (P. 263.)
We all know that Natural Science has nothing to
do with Morality. We have already shown in chap
ter 9 that it has failed wofully in teaching Morality
to man.
The Superiority of Poetic writers is the Colonel s
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 answer can be given by
the good sense of the community: an indignant nega
tive.
He next enumerates evil doctrines which he declares
are taught in the Bible. (Pp. 264, 265.) We have
already proved that he is a slanderer. (Chapter 47.)
He objects that the Bible teaches that the sons of
God married the daughters of men.
It is a Hebrew idiom to qualify that which is strong
great and excellent as of God. Thus Psalms Ixxix, 11:
Prot. Bible Psalms Ixxx: Cedars of God; that is the
highest cedars: Lexicon of Gesenius El: Cornelius a
Lapide on Gen. vi, 2, 4. Hence it is the general opin
ion of theologians that the sons of Seth, of peculiar
virtue are here meant and that they married the
daughters of Cain.
" The origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy
according to the Colonel. (P. 265.)
Has the rainbow, then, no origin? Is there no
cause for this grand phenomenon?
Perhaps, however, you mean to say that the Bible
gives an absurd origin for the rainbow. A writer
MISTAKES OP MODERN INFIDELS. 41 7
whose boast it is that you "could write a better
book" than Moses did, should be able to tell 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 must remember that this passage is a transla
tion from another language. The translator gives
the sense, retaining as far as possible the original
idiom. If a difficulty appears in translation, it will
frequently be dissipated if we interpret it by means
of the original. We find that one of the meanings
of nathan is to constitute, and if this sense be given
to the word here, we find a beautiful meaning given
to the whole passage: God constitutes His bow, to be
a sign of the covenant between Him and man. It
had existed previously, but it is now made the sign
of His peace with the human race. Col. Ingersoll s
commentary (p. 164) is, therefore, as absurd as it is
ridiculous: "Did God put it in the cloud simply to
keep his agreement in His memory ? >:
We are next told: "Methusaleh did not live 969
years."
The great age of the antediluvian patriarchs is
attested by a reliable witness, as we have proved in
chapter 30. Col. Ingersoll 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 patriarchs 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 before the
time of Moses. There is, therefore, sufficient evi-
418 MISTAKES OF MODERX INFIDELS.
dence of the historical fact, and Colonel Ingersoll s
denial of it is of no weight.
The Colonel objects to belief in Pharaoh s dreams.
He does not give a single reason to show that God
may not by means of a dream send knowledge of an
event. Dreams are not usually to be credited; but
when God wishes to make a Revelation by this
means, He will undoubtedly also supply means by
which it will be certainly known that the Revelation
is from Him.
He objects that "widows were commanded to spit
in the faces of their brothers-in-law." (Num. xxvi, 9.)
When we consider that this was only done when
the brother-in-law refused to give the widow her just
due in accordance with the law, it will be acknowl
edged that the punishment was not excessive.
Some of the Jews, however, maintain that "in the
face " merely means " in the presence " of the brother-
in-law.
The next difficulty is that in Lev. xi, 6, the hare is
pronounced unclean, " because it cheweth the cud."
Zoology as a science was not studied in the time of
Moses as it is to-day, and the scientific classification
of animals was not made. Hence the words of Moses
"it cheweth the cud," mahaleh gerah must be taken
in the sense in which they were used in ordinary con
versation, not in the modern scientific sense. A cer
tain muscular motion which is habitual with hares
was commonly considered as the chewing of the cud,
and was so named, and for this reason it is said that
the hare "cheweth the cud."
There are, however, some Naturalists who assert
still that the hare is a cud-chewing animal. Valmont
de Bomare in his "Dictionary of Natural History,"
MISTAKES OF MODEBN INFIDELS. 419
says so positively. This author would scarcely have
made so positive an assertion if there were not some
good reasons for so believing. However, it must be
confessed that this is not the opinion of Naturalists
generally.
The Colonel says there " are no four-footed birds."
(P. 268.)
In Leviticus xi, 20, we read:
"Of things that fly, whatsoever goeth upon four
feet shall be abominable to you." Call them birds if
you will: the original has things that fly.
The wings of the bat are formed by a membrane
stretched on the fingers and arms or fore-feet of the
bat: so that the bat corresponds perfectly to the un
clean animal described in Leviticus. So universal a
genius as Col. Ingersoll should have thought of this.
The colugo and the flying phalanger may likewise be
included under the description given in Leviticus.
We are next told " one who frightens savages with
loud noises is unworthy the love of civilized men."
I would say, frighten 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 according to the Penta
teuch, "God was afraid of wild beasts." (P. 267.)
There is certainly no such statement in the Penta
teuch. God declares that he will not drive out the
Canaanite from the promised land immediately, " lest
the beasts multiply against thee" (Ex. xxiii, 29,) but
there is nothing like what Col. Ingersoll asserts. How
could it be that God should be afraid of the beasts,
420 MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS.
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,
Beople with flat noses, and too many fingers, he ought
not to have created such folks. . . . physical deform
ity is a crime." (P. 269.)
There is no reproach against deformed persons 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: God "objected to the raising of horses."
This is another falsification. God merely lays
down the law that when, at some future time, there
shall be a king in Israel, "he shall not multiply
horses to himself " to take a pride therein, and to push
his kingdom by unjust conquest. (Deut. xvii, 16.)
We are told that God " was kept from killing the
Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would laugh at
him." .
This is a gloss for which there 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 God 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 sworn:
therefore did He kill them in the wilderness.
(Num. xiv, 15, 16.)
God yields to the prayer of Moses, and modifies the
punishment which the people had brought upon them-
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 421
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.
InarersolL
O
The assertion that God " 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 pleased with sacrifice. It is be
cause it is the outward expression of our belief that
God is the Master of all things, and that we are totally
dependent on Him. HE does not need that we should
make this acknowledgment, but we need God, and
therefore WE need to acknowledge his Supreme Do
minion.
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
spirits, and this is quite conformable with reason.
The devils are spirits who have abused 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 believ
ing that there are persons who have communication
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 them. 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 Truth-Seeker, to propagate belief in
witches and wizards, (spiritual mediums,) and in
devils.
422 MISTAKES OF MODEKN INFIDELS.
To answer Col. Ingersoll has not been my main ob
ject in this work. It was my chief aim to furnish to
the general reader some plain yet conclusive reasons
for his belief in Revelation, and especially in Chris
tianity. In establishing Christianity, it came natu
rally into my plan that I should answer such objec
tions as are usually made against the Holy Scrip
tures. In doing this I have made free use of the
works of Voltaire, Paine and other infidels: and as
Col. Ingersoll has of late years made himself con
spicuous in the United States and Canada by his at
tacks upon the Christian Religion, I have thought it
advisable to answer especially that one amongst his
works which, I believe, has had the greatest circula
tion. I could not, of course, quote his entire book in
a limited work like the present, but I have taken
especial care to state his arguments in their full force,
and, in nearly every case, in his own words. Some
times I have been obliged to condense, but in doing
so I have taken care not to put forward his arguments
in a weaker form than that in which they are put for
ward by himself.
I flatter myself that I have answered all his objec
tions in such a way that their fallacy is evident. If I
have failed in anything the defect is in my advocacy,
and not in the cause I have sustained.
Notwithstanding the Colonel s gross attacks upon
the Christian clergy, I have endeavored to treat my
adversary with all courtesy. My desire was to re
fute his reasoning without personalities against the
individual.
The Holy Scriptures, comprising as they do His
tory, Jurisprudence, Prophecy, Dogma and Morals,
have many points of contact with the Sciences. If
MISTAKES OF MODERN INFIDELS. 423
they were the work of impostors, writing, as infidels
pretend, hundreds of years after the dates to which
they claim to belong, there would be palpable intrin
sic evidences of the fraud. They would not be able
to stand the rigid scrutiny to which they have been
subjected : but they endure every test without scath.
There are, of course, other objections against the
Sacred Scriptures, besides those which have been an
swered here, but we may assure ourselves that if we
are unable to refute them, when we hear them pro
posed, it is because we are not aware of all the cir
cumstances relating to the subject. Sometimes the
difficulty we experience may arise from inadequate
knowledge of the original language in which they
were written, sometimes from our not knowing suffi
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 objections
should not be allowed to weaken our faith; for we
have sufficient evidence to convince us that the Holy
Scriptures contain the doctrine which God Himself
has delivered to man. In studying the sciences we
are ready to accept the observations of men of
learning and experience. We must not hesitate,
therefore, to accept with implicit confidence the
Word of God who cannot deceive nor be deceived.
"We know that his testimony is true:" and "If we
receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God
is greater." (1 Jno. v. 9.)
In conclusion, I desire to express my thankfulness
to friends who have given me access to their libraries,
424 MISTAKES OF MODEEN INFIDELS.
or otherwise encouraged me to the writing of this
work. Especially I return thanks to the Rev. P. Cor
coran, P. P., of Parkhill, Ont., for valuable sugges
tions and other encouragement given to me during
its progress.
o
H 1 tS O O
o> o -+> g-
co o w co
NORTHCRAVES, G.R.
Mistakes of modern infidels.
BQX
4138
.L6N6
