_Question_. Mr. Talmage says that you insist that, according to the Bible, the universe was made out of nothing, and he denounces your statement as a gross misrepresentation. What have you stated upon that subject?
_Answer_. What I said was substantially this: "We "are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the "beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
"If this means anything, it means that God pro- "duced--caused to exist, called into being--the "heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that "God formed the heaven and the earth of previously "existing matter. Moses conveys, and intended to "convey, the idea that the matter of which the "universe is composed was created."
This has always been my position. I did not sup- pose that nothing was used as the raw material; but
if the Mosaic account means anything, it means that whereas there was nothing, God caused something to
25
exist--created what we know as matter. I can not conceive of something being made, created, without anything to make anything with. I have no more confidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat money.
Mr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the uni- verse out of _nothing_, but out of "omnipotence."
Exactly how God changed "omnipotence" into matter is not stated. If there was _nothing_ in the universe, _omnipotence_ could do you no good. The weakest man in the world can lift as much _nothing_ as God.
Mr. Talmage seems to think that to create something from nothing is simply a question of strength--that it requires infinite muscle--that it is only a question of biceps. Of course, omnipotence is an attribute, not an entity, not a raw material; and the idea that something can be made out of omnipotence--using that as the raw material--is infinitely absurd. It would have been equally logical to say that God made the universe out of his omniscience, or his omnipresence, or his unchangeableness, or out of his honesty, his holiness, or his incapacity to do evil. I confess my utter in- ability to understand, or even to suspect, what the reverend gentleman means, when he says that God created the universe out of his "omnipotence."
I admit that the Bible does not tell when God created
26
the universe. It is simply said that he did this "in the beginning." We are left, however, to infer that "the beginning" was Monday morning, and that on the first Monday God created the matter in an exceedingly chaotic state; that on Tuesday he made a firmament to divide the waters from the waters; that on Wednes- day he gathered the waters together in seas and allowed the dry land to appear. We are also told that on that day "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." This was before the creation of the sun, but Mr. Talmage takes the ground that there are many other sources of light; that "there may have been volcanoes in active operation on other planets." I have my doubts, however, about the light of volcanoes being sufficient to produce or sustain vegetable life, and think it a little doubtful about trees growing only by "volcanic glare." Neither do I think one could depend upon "three thousand miles of liquid granite" for the pro- duction of grass and trees, nor upon "light that rocks might emit in the process of crystallization." I doubt whether trees would succeed simply with the assistance of the "Aurora Borealis or the Aurora Australis."
There are other sources of light, not mentioned by
27
Mr. Talmage--lightning-bugs, phosphorescent beetles, and fox-fire. I should think that it would be humili- ating, in this age, for an orthodox preacher to insist that vegetation could exist upon this planet without the light of the sun--that trees could grow, blossom and bear fruit, having no light but the flames of volcanoes, or that emitted by liquid granite, or thrown off by the crystallization of rocks.
There is another thing, also, that should not be for- gotten, and that is, that there is an even balance for- ever kept between the totals of animal and vegetable life--that certain forms of animal life go with certain forms of vegetable life. Mr. Haeckel has shown that "in the first epoch, algae and skull-less vertebrates were found together; in the second, ferns and fishes; in the third, pines and reptiles; in the fourth, foliaceous
forests and mammals." Vegetable and animal life sustain a necessary relation; they exist together; they act and interact, and each depends upon the other.
The real point of difference between Mr. Talmage and myself is this: He says that God made the universe out of his "omnipotence," and I say that, although I know nothing whatever upon the subject, my opinion is, that the universe has existed from eternity--that it continually changes in form, but that it never was
28
created or called into being by any power. I think that all that is, is all the God there is.
_Question_. Mr. Talmage charges you with having misrepresented the Bible story of the deluge. Has he correctly stated your position?
_Answer_. Mr. Talmage takes the ground that the flood was only partial, and was, after all, not much of a flood. The Bible tells us that God said he would "destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from "under heaven, and that everything that is in the "earth shall die;" that God also said: "I will destroy "man, whom I have created, from the face of the "earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing "and the fowls of the air, and every living substance "that I have made will I destroy from off the face of "the earth."
I did not suppose that there was any miracle in the Bible larger than the credulity of Mr. Talmage. The flood story, however, seems to be a little more than he can bear. He is like the witness who stated that he had read _Gullivers Travels_, the _Stories of Mun- chausen_, and the _Flying Wife_, including _Robinson Crusoe_, and believed them all; but that Wirt's _Life of Patrick Henry_ was a litde more than he could stand.
29
It is strange that a man who believes that God created the universe out of "omnipotence" should believe that he had not enough omnipotence left to drown a world the size of this. Mr. Talmage seeks to make the story of the flood reasonable. The moment it is reasonable, it ceases to be miraculous.
Certainly God cannot afford to reward a man with eternal joy for believing a reasonable story. Faith is only necessary when the story is unreasonable, and if the flood only gets small enough, I can believe it myself. I ask for evidence, and Mr. Talmage seeks to make the story so little that it can be believed without evidence. He tells us that it was a kind of "local option" flood--a little wet for that part of the country.
Why was it necessary to save the birds? They certainly could have gotten out of the way of a real small flood. Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of each species. He was commanded to take of the fowls of the air by sevens--seven of each sex--and, as there are at least 12,500 species, Noah collected an aviary of about 175,000 birds, provided the flood was general.
If it was local, there are no means of determining the number. But why, if the flood was local, should he have taken any of the fowls of the air into his ark?
30
All they had to do was to fly away, or "roost high;"
and it would have been just as easy for God to have implanted in them, for the moment, the instinct of getting out of the way as the instinct of hunting the ark.
It would have been quite a saving of room and pro- visions, and would have materially lessened the labor and anxiety of Noah and his sons.
Besides, if it had been a partial flood, and great enough to cover the highest mountains in that country, the highest mountain being about seventeen thousand feet, the flood would have been covered with a sheet of ice several thousand feet in thickness. If a column of water could have been thrown seventeen thousand feet high and kept stationary, several thousand feet of the upper end would have frozen. If, however, the deluge was general, then the atmosphere would have been forced out the same on all sides, and the climate remained substantially normal.
Nothing can be more absurd than to attempt to explain the flood by calling it partial.
Mr. Talmage also says that the window ran clear round the ark, and that if I had only known as much Hebrew as a man could put on his little finger, I would have known that the window went clear round.
To this I reply that, if his position is correct, then the
31
original translators of King James' edition did not know as much Hebrew as they could have put on their little fingers; and yet I am obliged to believe their translation or be eternally damned. If the window went clear round, the inspired writer should have said so, and the learned translators should have given us the truth. No one pretends that there was more than one door, and yet the same language is used about the door, except this--that the exact size of the window is given, and the only peculiarity men- tioned as to the door is that it shut from the outside.
For any one to see that Mr. Talmage is wrong on the window question, it is only necessary to read the story of the deluge.
Mr. Talmage also endeavors to decrease the depth of the flood. If the flood did not cover the highest hills, many people might have been saved. He also insists that all the water did not come from the rains, but that "the fountains of the great deep were broken "up." What are "the fountains of the great deep"?
How would their being "broken up" increase the depth of the water? He seems to imagine that these "fountains" were in some way imprisoned--anxious to get to the surface, and that, at that time, an oppor- tunity was given for water to run up hill, or in some
32
mysterious way to rise above its level. According to the account, the ark was at the mercy of the waves for at least seven months. If this flood was only partial, it seems a little curious that the water did not seek its level in less than seven months. With anything like a fair chance, by that time most of it would have found its way to the sea again.
There is in the literature of ignorance no more perfectly absurd and cruel story than that of the deluge.
I am very sorry that Mr. Talmage should disagree with some of the great commentators. Dr. Scott tells us that, in all probability, the angels assisted in getting the animals into the ark. Dr. Henry insists that the waters in the bowels of the earth, at God's command, sprung up and flooded the earth. Dr.
Clark tells us that it would have been much easier for God to have destroyed all the people and made some new ones, but that he did not want to waste anything. Dr. Henry also tells us that the lions, while in the ark, ate straw like oxen. Nothing could be more amusing than to see a few lions eating good, dry straw. This commentator assures us that the waters rose so high that the loftiest mountains were overflowed fifteen cubits, so that salvation was not
33
hoped for from any hills or mountains. He tells us that some of the people got on top of the ark, and hoped to shift for themselves, but that, in all proba- bility, they were washed off by the rain. When we consider that the rain must have fallen at the rate of about eight hundred feet a day, I am inclined to think that they were washed off.
Mr. Talmage has clearly misrepresented the Bible.
He is not prepared to believe the story as it is told.
The seeds of infidelity seem to be germinating in his mind. His position no doubt will be a great relief to most of his hearers. After this, their credulity will not be strained. They can say that there was probably quite a storm, some rain, to an extent that rendered it necessary for Noah and his family--his dogs, cats, and chickens--to get in a boat. This would not be unreasonable. The same thing happens almost every year on the shores of great rivers, and consequently the story of the flood is an exceedingly reasonable one.
Mr. Talmage also endeavors to account for the miraculous collection of the animals in the ark by the universal instinct to get out of the rain. There are at least two objections to this: 1. The animals went into the ark before the rain commenced; 2. I
34
have never noticed any great desire on the part of ducks, geese, and loons to get out of the water. Mr.
Talmage must have been misled by a line from an old nursery book that says: "And the little fishes got "under the bridge to keep out of the rain." He tells us that Noah described what he saw. He is the first theologian who claims that Genesis was written by Noah, or that Noah wrote any account of the flood.
Most Christians insist that the account of the flood was written by Moses, and that he was inspired to write it. Of course, it will not do for me to say that Mr. Talmage has misrepresented the facts.
_Question_. You are also charged with misrepresen- tation in your statement as to where the ark at last rested. It is claimed by Mr. Talmage that there is nothing in the Bible to show that the ark rested on the highest mountains.
_Answer_. Of course I have no knowledge as to where the ark really came to anchor, but after it struck bottom, we are told that a dove was sent out, and that the dove found no place whereon to rest her foot. If the ark touched ground in the low country, surely the mountains were out of water, and an or- dinary mountain furnishes, as a rule, space enough