3. That Christ is "all sympathetic," and ready to take the whole world to his heart.
4. Heaven for believers and hell for unbelievers.
_First_. I admit that the Bible says that God is
good and holy. But this Bible also tells what God did, and if God did what the Bible says he did, then I insist that God is not good, and that he is not holy, or forgiving. According to the Bible, this good God believed in religious persecution; this good
201
God believed in extermination, in polygamy, in con- cubinage, in human slavery; this good God com- manded murder and massacre, and this good God could only be mollified by the shedding of blood.
This good God wanted a butcher for a priest. This good God wanted husbands to kill their wives-- wanted fathers and mothers to kill their children.
This good God persecuted animals on account of the crimes of their owners. This good God killed the common people because the king had displeased him.
This good God killed the babe even of the maid behind the mill, in order that he might get even with a king. This good God committed every possible crime.
_Second_. The statement that man is a lost sinner is not true. There are thousands and thousands of magnificent Pagans--men ready to die for wife, or child, or even for friend, and the history of Pagan countries is filled with self-denying and heroic acts.
If man is a failure, the infinite God, if there be one, is to blame. Is it possible that the God of Mr. Tal- mage could not have made man a success? Accord- ing to the Bible, his God made man knowing that in about fifteen hundred years he would have to drown all his descendants.
202
Why would a good God create a man that he knew would be a sinner all his life, make hundreds of thousands of his fellow-men unhappy, and who at last would be doomed to an eternity of suffering?
Can such a God be good? How could a devil have done worse?
_Third._ If God is infinitely good, is he not fully as sympathetic as Christ? Do you have to employ Christ to mollify a being of infinite mercy? Is Christ any more willing to take to his heart the whole world than his Father is? Personally, I have not the slightest objection in the world to anybody believing in an infinitely good and kind God--not the slightest objection to any human being worshiping an infi- nitely tender and merciful Christ--not the slightest objection to people preaching about heaven, or about the glories of the future state--not the slightest.
_Fourth_. I object to the doctrine of two destinies for the human race. I object to the infamous false- hood of eternal fire. And yet, Mr. Talmage is en- deavoring to poison the imagination of men, women and children with the doctrine of an eternal hell.
Here is what he preaches, taken from the "Constitu- "tion of the Presbyterian Church of the United "States:"
203
"By the decrees of God, for the manifestation of "his glory, some men and angels are predestinated "to everlasting life, and others foreordained to ever- "lasting death."
That is the doctrine of Mr. Talmage. He wor- ships a God who damns people "for the manifesta- "tion of his glory,"--a God who made men, knowing that they would be damned--a God who damns babes simply to increase his reputation with the angels. This is the God of Mr. Talmage. Such a God I abhor, despise and execrate.
_Question_. What does Mr. Talmage think of man- kind? What is his opinion of the "unconverted"?
How does he regard the great and glorious of the earth, who have not been the victims of his particular superstition? What does he think of some of the best the earth has produced?
_Answer_. I will tell you how he looks upon all such. Read this from his "Confession of Faith:"
"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety "of the tempter, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.
"By this sin, they fell from their original righteous- "ness and communion with God, and so became "dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties
204
"and parts of soul and body; and they being the "root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was "imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted "nature conveyed to all their posterity. From this "original corruption--whereby we are utterly indis- "posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, "and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual "transgressions."
This is Mr. Talmage's view of humanity.
Why did his God make a devil? Why did he allow the devil to tempt Adam and Eve? Why did he leave innocence and ignorance at the mercy of subtlety and wickedness? Why did he put "the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in the garden? For what reason did he place temptation in the way of his children? Was it kind, was it just, was it noble, was it worthy of a good God? No wonder Christ put into his prayer: "Lead us not "into temptation."
At the time God told Adam and Eve not to eat, why did he not tell them of the existence of Satan?
Why were they not put upon their guard against the serpent? Why did not God make his appearance just before the sin, instead of just after. Why did he not play the role of a Savior instead of that of a
205
detective? After he found that Adam and Eve had sinned--knowing as he did that they were then totally corrupt--knowing that all their children would be corrupt, knowing that in fifteen hundred years he would have to drown millions of them, why did he not allow Adam and Eve to perish in accord- ance with natural law, then kill the devil, and make a new pair?
When the flood came, why did he not drown all?
Why did he save for seed that which was "perfectly "and thoroughly corrupt in all its parts and facul- "ties"? If God had drowned Noah and his sons and their families, he could have then made a new pair, and peopled the world with men not "wholly "defiled in all their faculties and parts of soul and "body."
Jehovah learned nothing by experience. He per- sisted in his original mistake. What would we think of a man who finding that a field of wheat was worthless, and that such wheat never could be raised with profit, should burn all of the field with the exception of a few sheaves, which he saved for seed?
Why save such seed? Why should God have pre- served Noah, knowing that he was totally corrupt, and that he would again fill the world with infamous
206
people--people incapable of a good action? He must have known at that time, that by preserving Noah, the Canaanites would be produced, that these same Canaanites would have to be murdered, that the babes in the cradles would have to be strangled.
Why did he produce them? He knew at that time, that Egypt would result from the salvation of Noah, that the Egyptians would have to be nearly de- stroyed, that he would have to kill their first-born, that he would have to visit even their cattle with disease and hailstones. He knew also that the Egyptians would oppress his chosen people for two hundred and fifteen years, that they would upon the back of toil inflict the lash. Why did he preserve Noah? He should have drowned all, and started with a new pair. He should have warned them against the devil, and he might have succeeded, in that way, in covering the world with gentlemen and ladies, with real men and real women.
We know that most of the people now in the world are not Christians. Most who have heard the gospel of Christ have rejected it, and the Presby- terian Church tells us what is to become of all these people. This is the "glad tidings of great joy."
Let us see:
207
"All mankind, by their fall, lost communion with "God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made "liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself, "and to the pains of hell forever."
According to this good Presbyterian doctrine, all that we suffer in this world, is the result of Adam's fall. The babes of to-day suffer for the crime of the first parents. Not only so; but God is angry at us for what Adam did. We are under the wrath of an infinite God, whose brows are corrugated with eternal hatred.
Why should God hate us for being what we are and necessarily must have been? A being that God made--the devil--for whose work God is responsible, according to the Bible wrought this woe. God of his own free will must have made the devil. What did he make him for? Was it necessary to have a devil in heaven? God, having infinite power, can of course destroy this devil to-day. Why does he per- mit him to live? Why did he allow him to thwart his plans? Why did he permit him to pollute the inno- cence of Eden? Why does he allow him now to wrest souls by the million from the redeeming hand of Christ?
According to the Scriptures, the devil has always
208
been successful. He enjoys himself. He is called "the prince of the power of the air." He has no conscientious scruples. He has miraculous power.
All miraculous power must come of God, otherwise it is simply in accordance with nature. If the devil can work a miracle, it is only with the consent and by the assistance of the Almighty. Is the God of Mr. Talmage in partnership with the devil? Do they divide profits?
We are also told by the Presbyterian Church-- I quote from their Confession of Faith--that "there "is no sin so small but it deserves damnation." Yet Mr. Talmage tells us that God is good, that he is filled with mercy and loving-kindness. A child nine or ten years of age commits a sin, and thereupon it deserves eternal damnation. That is what Mr. Talmage calls, not simply justice, but mercy; and the sympathetic heart of Christ is not touched. The same being who said: "Suffer little children to come unto me," tells us that a child, for the smallest sin, deserves to be eternally damned. The Presbyterian Church tells us that infants, as well as adults, in order to be saved, need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regen- eration by the Holy Ghost.
I am charged with trying to take the consolation
209
of this doctrine from the world. I am a criminal because I am endeavoring to convince the mother that her child does not deserve eternal punishment.
I stand by the graves of those who "died in their "sins," by the tombs of the "unregenerate," over the ashes of men who have spent their lives working for their wives and children, and over the sacred dust of soldiers who died in defence of flag and country, and I say to their friends--I say to the living who loved them, I say to the men and women for whom they worked, I say to the children whom they edu- cated, I say to the country for which they died: These fathers, these mothers, these wives, these husbands, these soldiers are not in hell.
_Question_. Mr. Talmage insists that the Bible is scientific, and that the real scientific man sees no contradiction between revelation and science; that, on the contrary, they are in harmony. What is your understanding of this matter?
_Answer_. I do not believe the Bible to be a sci- entific book. In fact, most of the ministers now admit that it was not written to teach any science. They admit that the first chapter of Genesis is not geo- logically true. They admit that Joshua knew nothing