Why I Interfere.

A Flippant Lecture has been delivered somewhere in America, an enterprising publisher has given it circulation in our city; the leading newspaper hopes no one will read it. The publisher says it is replete with wit, sarcasm, and audacity, and that those who read it are not able to sleep the night following. Notwithstanding the newspaper's warning, and the publisher's announcement, I have read it; yet my sleep has been undisturbed. I have carefully examined it and declare it the most grotesque piece of blasphemous audacity which my eyes have beheld. Its audacity is futile; its wit, stale; and its sarcasm, pointless.

If anyone, therefore, should ask why I endeavour to interfere with the sayings and doings of such a person, and why I try to take from such a man the soothing consolation of being a "thorn in the side" of believers in the Bible? I answer thus—I want to contribute my mite

To Keep My Country Free.

I desire to prevent the contraction of the intellectual horizon of the people. I want to guard them against giving heed to every prating parrot who has audacity enough to intrude upon their attention, and endeavour to sow pernicious seeds in that productive soil; and I want to aid them in discerning the wolf from the lamb. I want to encourage every man, every woman, youth and maid to be active in these matters, and diligently to enquire into the foundation of every so-called fact, presented by whomsoever it may be, or wheresoever found. I want to admonish all to give up that ruining custom of our commercial and social life, and take no more on credit. Make all your own before you use it, and if it is not worth buying, do not borrow, but despise it. I want them to have more of the true spirit of "the man in them,"—to be thoroughly manly—too high spirited to take facts in a present—too keen-sighted to take brass for gold. We are surrounded by

Quacks of Every Sort,

I want to see congregations, and audiences of all sorts, which will not only eagerly listen to the results of laborious thought, but which will demand from every instructor

A Fidelity to the Honest Truth

both in statement of facts and in all deductions therefrom. As it now is, we find men and women coming amongst us hired to defend certain stated opinions; pledged to shape arguments and so-called facts to that end. If they cannot find facts already coined to their hands, they have established a mint for the special purpose of supplying facts which their "trusting hearers" will never recognise from the genuine article. And if any person is found with so much of the man in him as to expose the counterfeit, that man is set upon with the poisoned shafts of malice and slander. I detest to see the public platform made a sort of parrot-strutting rack, or a luring siren's rock.

They have over in America several institutions which may be described as

Factories for Turning Out

what are called trained free-thought people. They are "taken in" when young, and taught to believe that the Bible is a compilation of forgeries and falsehoods, a book full of immoralities and inconsistencies; and they are advised never to waste their time by reading it, for they are told nothing in it is worth the precious time it would require to master it. They are taught that the best books to read are, for instance—"The Origin of Species," by High Priest Darwin; and the works of Wallace, Spencer, Huxley, Haekel, Tyndal, Owen, Paine, Voltaire, &c. And they are instructed never to deviate from the broad path laid out by these leaders of independent and free-thinking people, and they seldom do. They are only allowed to grow as their leaders indicate the propriety of another step in the path of development. They are servile followers of these leaders of the thoughtful. They are "trusting" hearers. This is the foundation of their creed—writers and teachers who have no foundation for their own. Tell me these are the authors which a man reads and I will produce the measure of the breadth of his intellect; and will not hesitate to assert that he will grow more bigoted and stupid as grey hairs gather upon his sapient pate. All this is wrong. It is tyrannically cruel!

I wish to prevent the enslavement of the schools of our country to the tyranny of the leaders of loose thought. I entertain a desire to have every teacher surrounded by such

An Atmosphere of Freedom

that while he sees no "fact inconsistent with Moses," he will not be compelled to hide Moses from the presence of his enquiring pupils; and that it will not be the worse for him for having produced Moses to be read and examined by his scholars. I want to see an "eternal divorce" between truth and falsehood—between reality and sham. I would feel ashamed to be connected with a system of Education which teaches assumptions in the place of facts, that sets up a theory which casts a blindness, or which even tends to obscure the mental vision of youth, Or cast a network over the aspiring mind. Let fair freedom have her unfettered way; and let her bind and banish superstition. Religion is not averse to facts. It is one of the most indestructible facts of the world's history. There may be no religion in mathematics; but there is certainly mathematics in religion. Religion is full of botany, astronomy, biology, and being itself the purest science, it embraces all others within its encircling arms. It is the pivot of all sciences. It has nothing to do with superstition, but facts are its pillars.

Religion and Science

(Properly understood) are inseparable companions. Without religion, science would die of asphyxia. Christianity is the patron and generator of science. I pity the man who longs for a world of what he calls science with the sun of religion burned out. I would mourn for the country page 6 which has a hard, dry, icy, scientific policy with no genial beams from the inspiring, ameliorating sun of religion, to mollify, warm, and quicken its heart of hearts. Science cannot grow charity: it is too stern. It may give forth justice, but can we all stand the cold iron grasp of the hand of justice, while we feel no hand of mercy, to give a glass of water, or to adjust the pillow beneath our racking head? Religion despises the man, who, to gain an end, will make himself so mean as to play the hypocrite. In religion alone is the true essence of manhood developed. There is no religion in the hypocrite. Some men don't seem to know what religion is. That is because they are not themselves religious; and because they see some men who "pretend to be religious" acting corruptly, they say religion must be bad, or religious men would live more consistently. If all religious men acted so, they might have some reason for blaming the cause rather than the men. But those who decry us say these corrupt, religious men are hypocrites, and therefore by their own words they justify religion and condemn its counterfeit. Hence their logic is bad. Religion embraces everything that is good and true and just and kind and pure, from the nursery to the legislative halls of the nation, and to the boundless expanse of the magnificent universe. Religion centres in God, and ramifies through all His works. It shines in the glorious sun, and is reflected by the minutest insect. The ocean sings the songs of God, and the tempest sounds His praise. Religion can only be absent from things of evil. That which is for man's good cannot dispense with it. Where it is not, good cannot come to maturity. But this lecturer longs to procure complete and irreparable separation between

Religion and Politics.

Indeed! I wonder if he means to say that it is his desire to have all religious men Disfranchised! Is religion, in his eyes, such a despicable thing? Or does he mean, that if religious men should chance to be chosen as representatives of the people in the Legislative Councils of the nations, they should on leaving their homes to go up to the capital, completely divest themselves of all their religion? Has he yet to learn that religion is not a garment which a man who is its possessor can cast off for something of another texture and colour? and will he advise that a man may be religious at home, and the reverse abroad; a Christian in Church—anything in business—and an out-and-out wordling in the Legislature? Good philosophy! Charming principle! Profound economy! Not much of the "spirit of the man" about it, I opine.

Man is a noble being truly, and woman is his worthy companion: yet they should remember that they are

Simply Human.

They are not divine They are equally precious in the eyes of the God Christianity, but only in the sight of the Christian's God, and the eyes of national laws founded on that religion. Turkish men and women are not regarded by the laws of their country as of equal importance. Not in India, nor in Japan, nor in China, only where the benignant rays of Christianity have fallen are the sexes of equal importance in the laws of page 7 the land. There is, however, a great deal of old Paganism coated over, with mediæval Romanism, spread upon much that is called Christianity. But only the ignorant and the wilfully blind are unable to detect the heterogeneous compound. The New Testament is the only standard of Christianity, and in its light alone can the religion of Christ be judged. Does that New Testament discourage enquiry and careful investigation into its truths? Is it not rather a fact that those who for themselves anxiously examine the things set before them as facts, are contrasted with great commendation with those who do not? Then how dare any man tell us that Christianity discountenances the spirit of active investigation? I now propose to review a few things said about our religion and Bible by that

Infallible High Priest

of Freethought, or more correctly styled libertine of thought, Robert G. Ingersoll, in his "Mistakes of Moses." Of course he makes no "mistakes." According to his own mind he is "the correct card." He cannot say what is not right. If it were not true in the mouth of any other man, its utterance by him must make it true. What he enunciates is decided, and there is no appeal. "Right there" he nails it down, and who dare remove it? Well, here goes to make an attempt to draw some of his home-driven nails, for I see no reason to regard him as infallible any more than any one of the Popes of Rome who have made such fools of themselves through this pretension. Let us then begin with some of

The Mistakes of Ingersoll.

"And right here," let me note page 4, paragraph 2, where he says, "Moses never wrote one word of the Pentateuch; not one word was written until he had been dust and ashes for hundreds of years." Now, it is absolutely impossible for any living man to demonstrate the accuracy of this statement. Ingersoll I defy to do so. For this there are two reasons. It is a negative proposition, and there is no evidence which bears in its favour. Surely, then, Ingersoll has "made a mistake." He is not infallible. The most he could possibly have been justified in saying, is, that he did not know whether Moses was the author or not. But surely his ignorance is not sufficient to belie the received account of the authorship of the Pentateuch? Ingersoll does not know that there is such a person as Te Whiti, the Maori prophet: but will his ignorance of this fact make it false? I have no evidence that Ingersoll is the author of the lecture under notice: shall I therefore blankly deny that he composed it? True enough it comes to me with his name upon it, having also all the appearance of being an American production; and I, believing from report that there is such a man in the United States, accept the lecture's account of its own origin. Yet I have no proof which amounts to a demonstration: very far from it. How absurd it would be, however, for me to reject the authenticity of the lecture on that account. I have not a tittle of evidence to show that this lecture was not written in Dunedin, by some person now living here, who has an intimate acquaintance with the use of Americanisms. The copy of it which is before me has most evidently page 8 been made in Dunedin, for it bears a Dunedin publisher's name and address, and has other marks which do amount to a demonstration that it has never been in America. Shall not I then say that Ingersoll "never wrote a word of it;" that he never saw it; that it is purely a case of forgery? But as the "general opinion is" that Ingersoll wrote it, I shall for the present purpose admit so much.

Now, people say this lecture is full of wit, sarcasm, and audacity. I care little whether it is or not. The question of importance is—

Is it True?

Truth never joined hands with falsehood; and facts are more wondrous than fiction. Facts do not, how ever, please everybody. Many persons do not like to look at naked facts. They prefer to see them dressed after the human fashion—in fabricated material; considering them, of course, more respectable in such an attire—in fact, only then presentable. They have become so accustomed to see facts only in this unnatural costume that they consider that the costumes are even essentials, because by them the essentials have been hidden from their view. Now it may, by such, be deemed rude in this age of refinement and artificial polish to strip off these gaudy habiliments—the excrescences of civilisation—and reduce facts to their native rudeness, barbaric state, if you will. Yet it must be so if we would discern the true from the false.

Ingersoll admits that "a lie will not fit anything, except another lie made for the express purpose." I like sentences of that kind; how forcible they are! How hard they strike against the walls of fabrication! They come like an explosive shell, which the solid rock can scarce resist. But it is a singular thing that just in the same paragraph in which this grand sentence occurs the author has given another, by which I can strikingly illustrate the feebleness of a "lie" when a truth is thrown at it. Here it is: "The gentleman who wrote it (the Bible) begins by telling us that God made the universe

Out of Nothing."

Now this is a "lie." The gentleman who wrote the Pentateuch begins by telling us simply that "In the 'beginning' God created the heaven and earth." Not one word about what the universe was made out of. For all that the passage says to the contrary He may have made down a former universe for the purpose of building up the present one. He who doubts this should turn up the passage for examination. See how soon his lie is shattered by a very little truth! And now as Ingersoll has endeavoured to make nothing into something, he has, in his own words, "made a decided failure." "A lie will not fit anything, but another lie made for the express purpose." If you lay it beside a little truth it will vanish into thin air. It is remarkable that so brilliant a man as R. G. Ingersoll should have laid the foundation of his argument against the Bible in a lie! The foundation being a lie what must be the value of the superstructure? If there are any truths in it they cannot fit into or agree with the foundation: hence the fabric must be insecure. Is it, however, a construction of lies made for the "express purpose" of fitting the first one? Well, no. There is a large quantity of

Supposititious Matter

used as mortal—in fact, a larger proportion of this slimy stuff than is usual in this particular kind of construction. There is very little of that good, old, and justly celebrated cement, called "I know," or "knowledge," which in the hands of a faithful master-builder is always mixed with "wisdom;" but this man has preferred the more modern material which he calls "I suppose." This he employs very extensively, together with that particular sort of amateur mixture, diversely expressed by the terms "I cannot imagine," "I cannot comprehend," and "I cannot believe," which, by interpretation, means "folly." Of course these form very soft and pleasant beds for the constructive elements to lie on, and they sound very well sometimes as they roll glibly from the voice of a happy speaker. It does not matter that they are only confessions of the speaker's want of knowledge. We are told "an open confession is good for the soul," and, of course, if a man who presumes to know everything is ignorant of something and acknowledges it in this way, is not that a strong reason why those who presume not to know so much should regard their monitor's ignorance as good proof of the non-existence of those things? And who would dare to differ from him, when in the magnitude of his intelligence he considers it safe to suppose certain things, of the existence of which, there is no evidence, but without which his cause must inevitably dissolve and vanish?

In this way it is no difficult matter to round off the corners of a fact which must in some shape appear in the wall, or fill up a crack in a falsehood which must be laid next to it. That is the only way that falsehoods and facts can be worked with anything like successful deception. Truth has to be distorted into the shape of falsehood, when it ceases to be truth; then it is the lie made expressely to tit another particular lie. In the present case, the first lie having been put in position, and well coated over with the supposititious mortar, the second followed immediately after as if made to fit the first; but unfortunately for the sake of the workman the mortar was not used with sufficient skill to prevent the imperfections of the joint appearing, and an ugly gap presented itself. Ingersoll cannot be a good mason. He must surely be a self-trained hewer of stones and bearer of the hod, for his lies do not fit even when made "expressely for the purpose." Here is the shape of his second: "The next thing he proceeds to tell us is that God divided the darkness from the light." False! for after affirming the creation of the universe to have been in the beginning, the writer of Genises proceeds to declare the chaotic state of the earth, and then taking a second step, he tells us that

"God said let there be light,

and there was light: And God saw that it was good." Why did our brilliant lecturer leave out that most important part of the second thing which was told by Moses? Perhaps it was not suitable for being "expressely made to fit" the first misstatement, and consequently had to be rejected. Besides, with this stone laid on the foundation, no amount of plaster could have caused sufficient adhesiveness for the next tier, which he could not possibly lay aside—to lie compactly—we shall see why presently. In the proper place, however, Moses did say "God divided page 10 the light from the darkness," and is there any idiot in the world who would contradict that patent truth? Are our daylight and darkness both one? Are they not truly divided? Have we not daylight one part of our day and darkness the other? When, therefore, will wise men learn to speak sensibly, and cease to make fools of themselves in such matters?

There does seem to be still a serious mixture of darkness and light forming a painful obscurity in the mind of this sarcastic lecturer; and of a truth it is an obscurity that can be felt, and I fear will continue to be felt long "after he is dust and ashes." Still there is little reason to believe that ever it will have the honor of being preserved in a bottle at Washington for exhibition to future generations; simply because that kind of mixture has become so common a commodity that no person is the least surprised when it is discovered. It is by no means a novelty. It is as common as free-thought lecturers and even more intrusive. To minds benighted by this darkness, strangely intermixed with streaks of light, it is absolutely impossible for things to appear in the form and pure distinctiveness which they present in the clear sunlight. This mixture of light with things that are dark causes mirage and shadows, and consequently a greater or less degree of distortion. That Ingersoll was suffering from a defect of this kind appears most evident in the succeeding paragraph, when speaking of

The Firmament,

where he says, "The next thing that he informs us is that God divided the waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmament. The man who wrote that believed it to be a solid affair." Now, whoever uttered these words must have read the narrative to very little purpose; for it is a shocking misrepresentation. Can it be possible that the man who said, "A lie will not fit anything, except another lie made for the express purpose," wrote this lecture? For he surely would be careful about rearing a harmonious structure. Who told him that the writer of Genesis believed the firmament to be a "solid affair?" Had he for a moment cast his eye on the marginal column, he would, to his dire confusion, at once have found that the more correct, or rather the more expressive idea is there given, in the word expansion. Moreover, the passage does not read as Ingersoll would make believe. For this is as it appears in the authorised version, "And God said let there be a firmament (expansion) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Does this convey the idea of a solid? If I can be shown a solid space, then I will believe so. Until someone produces or demonstrates to me that an expansion or a space between two solids, or liquids, if you please, is also a solid, I shall take the liberty of regarding the man who says it as regardless of the sacredness of truth or the vileness of falsehood. It is a common complaint amongst the traducers of religion that preachers do not reason cogently, and that they expect their hearers to believe whatever is told them. Oh, Ingersoll, behold your picture faintly drawn!

What can he mean by such an unwarrantable assertion regarding

The Tower of Babel

as this? "We read" (of course he does not tell where), "that the children of men built a tower to reach the heavens and climb unto the abode of the Gods." Surely the Bible must be an unknown book in America if such sayings can go uncontradicted, for such a passage is not to be found in it. It is one of Ingersoll's own manufacture. I am prepared to prove that. Then see what the sarcastic lecturer says of himself. "The man who wrote that believed the firmament to be solid. He knew nothing about the laws of evaporation." Mr. Ingersoll is of course the most fit person to make such a statement. I suppose he would speak the truth about himself in a matter like that; however, I am quite willing to accept his authority in this particular case. But then, what surprises me is that a few lines previous he seems to blame Moses for, in his opinion, believing the same thing. It is not often that men fall out when they are agreed. In such cases there is generally some ulterior motive operating behind the scenes; perhaps tills time it arises from a spirit of jealousy in the heart of the brilliant and audacious Ingersoll, lest the honour and fame of being the first to publish this strange theory should be given to Moses. I may assure him that Moses nowhere makes claim, nor is, from any part of his truly excellent works, entitled to this superior distinction. He may rest perfectly composed, for Moses will never be able to deprive him of his well-earned reward in the world of fame.

Is there not something singular in the philosophy of this sentence—"The sun wooed with amorous kiss the waves of the sea, and disappointed, their vaporous sighs changed into tears and fell again as rain." I should say the man who wrote this thought the sun was a young man, and the waves of the sea a maiden, very deeply in love with each other; and that an irate father had prevented their matrimonial union. He was quite ignorant of the real nature of either the sun or the waves of the sea. He did not know that the sun was a great orb of light and heat, the material centre of our planetary system; nor did he know that the waves of the sea were merely ruffles on the face of the ocean caused by the blowing of the wind.

The Gods Came Down.

He rather taxed the retentive powers of the memories of his audience when he said to them "you recollect the gods came down and made love to the daughters of men." To me there is something very obscure in this statement. It is difficult to discover the relevancy of the sentence, for he was then speaking of the Bible account of the firmament. But it cannot be to refresh their memories of any passage of Scripture, for there is no such sentence in it. I think he made a mistake, and told them they recollected something it was absolutely impossible for them to remember; for I believe they never heard that piece of history until he uttered it. It was in fact a piece of his own making. But I suppose those free and independent thinkers imagined they did recollect it; at all events they would doubtless take his word for it, and believe they did, because he said so. Those "trusting hearers" would never doubt their great apostle. Of course the Bible says something like that in page 12 sound; but very far from that in fact. You know it was a truth which would not fit well into the new structure, and Ingersoll shaped it down expressly to fit into a particular spot, and tried to daub up the roughness with his amateur mortar. It was no more a peculiar characteristic action than those remarks about

A Gleam of Sunshine,

and the eternal quiver of the sun. For he says, "The next thing he tells us is that the grass began to grow, and the branches of the trees laughed into blossom, and the grass ran up the shoulders of the hills, and yet not a solitary ray of light had left the eternal quiver of the sun. Not a blade of grass had ever been touched by a gleam of light. And I do not think that grass will grow to hurt without a gleam of sunshine." I think the man who wrote that was very foolish, or else made a serious mistake in displaying so much ignorance. For the narrative tells no such story. It says nothing which can be so construed without violence. His knowledge of the growth of vegetation must have been left shamefully uncultivated. I fear the sunshine has scorched him so severely as to prevent his natural development. He thought the grass could not grow without the gloriously bright rays of the sun falling upon it. He never paid a visit to a deep wooded glen where the foliage of the forest entirely shut out the golden brightness of the sunshine from the almost impenetrably luxuriant undergrowth, where the grass, the fern, and the tender shrubs vie with each other in their attempts at perfection. Had he been privileged to obtain a few hours' education in such a school of nature, probably a less foolish remark would have fallen from him; for there he would have beheld the grass and other members of the vegetable kingdom growing to such consummate excellence as was never presented to the eye on a spot where the heat of the sun's rays fall and suck up the moisture from the soil. Therefore it is a natural and indisputable fact that grass will not only grow without sunshine, but that it will grow more luxuriantly when deeply shaded from its scorching rays. It must be observed that Ingersoll has grossly garbled the text when he says that "not a blade of grass had been touched by a gleam of light." This is a direct contradiction of his previous remarks about the "light being divided from the darkness," as the work of the second day of creation. If, then, the light and the darkness were divided on the second day, surely there must have been light falling upon the grass during the second day! I think he is extremely subject to making mistakes. But the man who wishes to renovate society should assiduously guard against this blemish: for to be above suspicion, and to be looked up to as an example of rectitude, is one of the chief things in the constitution of a social leader. And with all charity, I must confess that these frequent mistakes in regard to so important a matter are very suspicious. I can see no excuse for a man who has been so long conversant with the world and its ways falling into these initial errors. I really cannot conceive that he was in his sober senses when he allowed himself to go so egregiously wrong. He lays himself open to the same charge when speaking of the

Two Great Lights

which were made to rule the day and the night. His words in this place cannot be harmonised with the context of the passage he refers to. He acknowledges that the first verse refers to the creation of the universe. Let me ask, could the universe possibly be completed without the sun and moon? Could the solar system be created without its centre? Does not the second day's work further refer to the existence of light, and does our lecturer not so acknowledge? Is not the sun our source of light? and does not the record declare that evening and morning were during the second period? Then why does Ingersoll attempt to make the words—"and he made the sun and the moon—the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night," to mean that the sun and moon were not created until the fourth period? He should be just in this matter as he probably would be in fulfilling a mercantile or official engagement. Truth and candour are the only things which fit facts. They are never out of joint with the harmony of the universe. He should have referred, if his intentions were honourable, to the complete paragraph from which he made this partial extract, and have shown that "God said let there be lights in the firmament,"—bodies of light, or light-giving orbs in the expanse of heaven,—"to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years . . . and it was so." Then succeeds, naturally, the narrator's description of these two great lights, one of which was made to rule the day, and the other was made to rule the night, It neither states nor implies that these orbs were not till then called into existence and placed in their positions in the universe, but simply that to them were delegated the offices mentioned, which they have faithfully performed until this day in strict obedience to the Divine command.

I imagine he thought that by this misrepresentation he would be able to call forth some derision upon the cosmic record of Moses. But nature would falsify herself if she did not cause the ridicule to recoil upon the head of the guilty fabricator! How did he come to forget that "a lie will not fit anything" in the catalogue of facts? Had he been a careful student of the Mosaic records, and a faithful—by that I mean not an untruthful—expounder of the facts of creation, he would have been less foolish than to attempt to ridicule the former by the latter, for it is impossible to discover a want of harmony between them.

The carelessness of his method of examining the Bible is plainly evinced by such expressions as—"Because I find in

Some Book, &c."

This at once betrays the utmost ignorance of the volume to which he claims to have devoted a whole year's study. I don't believe the man who made such a claim, and then displayed so much ignorance, knows "what study is." And right here, since he so contemptibly undervalues the exact astronomical knowledge of the writer of Genesis, I will challenge him to give in figures or words the exact diameter of the sun, or even of our little earth. With all his boast of modern science he cannot do either. Nor can he give the exact length of the sun's year. No more is he able to state within two millions of miles how far the page 14 earth is distant from the sun. Yet these are the initial propositions of astronomy, and without the perfect knowledge of them there cannot possibly be an exact knowledge of the "science of the heavens." For if we cannot tell within two millions of miles how far we are from the centre of our own system, how is it possible we can arrive at exact details of our distance from the centres of other systems? The whole affair resolves itself into this form: we think that our knowledge of astronomy is a good deal more perfect than we think Moses' was. It is only a matter of what we think, not of what we know.

How terribly illogical Ingersoll can be in his hypercritical examination of Moses. "I think he thought that the sun was about three feet in diameter, because I find in some book that the sun was stopped a whole day." What has Moses to do with "some book"? Moses is surely not held responsible for more books than those of which he is the reputed author. Will our lecturer endorse the following syllogism?

Moses wrote some books;

In some books it is said that the sun was stopped a whole day;

Therefore, Moses wrote that the sun was stopped a whole day. Is not the argument absolutely conclusive? Seriously, is it not an evident reductio ad absurdum? And yet this brilliant American lecturer uses it as if in good earnest. He was perfectly aware that Moses never wrote a word about

The Sun Standing Still.

If he knew anything at all about the question, he knew that the chapter in the history of the Hebrews to which he referred, occurred long after Moses had ceased to lead the chosen people. Moreover, as proof that he had not consulted the book in which the alleged record of the strange phenomenon occurs, he states that it was to give Joshua "time to kill a few more Amalekites," thus confounding the event with a battle which was fought years before, during the lifetime and leadership of Moses. Whereas it was the combined armies of the five kings of the Amorites, against whom Joshua was marching, and with which he entered into conflict. Could any one believe that the brilliant Ingersoll could have committed so many mistakes?

But does the book of Joshua say that the sun stood still? I contend that it does not. My good orthodox friends, do not be startled. This is the logical position of several diligent Biblical students of our day. Examine the passage (Joshua x., 12), with the context, and you will find the words "Stand still," rendered in the margin "be silent": and it might with propriety be translated "cease." Now travelling is not the only operation of the Sun. Its chief relation to the earth is the dissipation of darkness, or rather the radiation of light and heat. Then what in that light will be the signification of the word "cease"? Withhold thy light. "Cease to cast thy beams of light and heat upon this scene;" or, "cease to perform thy usual functions, in dividing the light from the darkness." Now, carefully examine the preceding part of the chapter, and you will learn that the battle had not taken place in the afternoon, as the standing-still theory would suggest, but on the contrary, in the early watch of the morning, under cover of the darkness. It was in fact a night surprise, made by the cunning Joshua upon the sleeping camp of the unsuspecting Amorites.

Take a map of the country, and you will find that Gibeon was in the east; the sun was therefore just about to usher in the dawn of day. The valley of Ajalon was in the west; so that the moon was just retiring from view, after having acted as a light to Joshua's army as it marched about fifteen miles during the night from Gilgal to Beth-horon, where the Amorites were located. Having then, before daylight, reached the enemy, Joshua fell upon their unprepared armies and threw them into consternation and confusion; but many flying before his men to the hills, he feared that on daylight breaking upon them the enemy might be able to re-form in their great force, and even then present a formidable array against his exhausted and hungry troops. The wary general, therefore, fully alive to his position, saw that the eastern sky was growing light beyond Gibeon, and consequently knew that a few minutes' more would bring the day, and knowing the commission which had been given to the two great lights, he cried, "Sun, cease from over Gibeon; and thou, Moon, also from Ajalon." And observe how beautifully he was obeyed: immediately after a tremendous hailstorm broke over the scene, and as it rolled over the sky in the deep black clouds of early morning, an almost impenetrable darkness would shroud the earth as in a pall.

I do not think such a ceasing of the sun would cause so much "heat as the burning of a lump of coal eleven thousand million tons in weight!" It seems to have been rather colder than usual in that subtropical climate that day. I don't believe Ingersoll ever read that part of the Bible. If he did he was not solicitous about his own honour, or the elegance of his diction. He goes on to tell us that we read that "the sun was turned

Ten Degrees Backward,

to convince Hezekiah that he was not going to die of a boil." Now, how is that for truth? It is simply unadulterated falsehood! There is no place in the Bible where such a record is found. If said anywhere else the Bible must not be held responsible for it. What the Bible says is just this, "And he brought the shadow back ten degrees on the dial, (degrees) of Abaz." There is not one word about the sun. It is only by inference that we suppose that the sun had anything to do with the shadow that was brought backward. And even if it referred to a shadow caused by an interception of the sun's rays, it was a matter of refraction only, and not of retrogression of the sun, for it was only the one shadow which went back, other shadows do not seem to have changed. Nothing was observed elsewhere. It was only the shadow on the steps of Ahaz which receded. It was merely some atmospheric interference. How culpably careless, or grossly untruthful, are the statements of Ingersoll, this man of fettered thought and manacled reason!

The History of Astronomy

is said to be given by Moses to us in "five words," and Ingersoll quotes those words thus, "He made the stars also." He should have been contented with only "three words," he has two too many. Turn up the passage and you will see that I am right, for the words he made have no business there. What, then, is the meaning? The entire passage supplies the answer: "He set the greater light to rule the day, and lesser light page 16 to rule the night—the stars also." Is it not most patently evident that the office given to the moon was also given to the stars? and might justly be placed thus, "the lesser light, and also the stars, to rale the night." If Ingersoll or any other can show from this statement anything inconsistent with facts, he will do more than any of his predecessors. It matters little what he "believes," it is what he proves, that we have to do with, or that will affect the minds of the religious thoughtful. To me it appears that Moses knew more about the science of astronomy than most men give him credit for. There are few cosmologists who have been able to write so consistent a description of the great event. To those who have made it a matter of conscientious study, the harmony between the Mosaic record and geological discoveries is most overpoweringly wonderful, and such scurrilous attacks upon it as that made by Ingersoll only tend to deepen their admiration! But, was it written as a history of astronomy? Who gave Ingersoll authority to say that it was? not certainly the author of Genesis. It is simply one of Ingersoll's supposititious facts, created by him for an "express purpose."

Animal Life.

One remarkable feature in this lecture is that no fault is found with the Bible record of animal life. It seems to quite agree with our lecturers's idea of progress: of this I feel glad. He seems to be perfectly satisfied that the waters brought forth living creatures first, and that next the air was peopled with the winged tribes, and then that the dry land was the scene of animal existence. It is a relief to find some part of the record uncontradicted. Probably Moses has established his reputation as a trusty natural historian, notwithstanding his serious geological and astronomical blunders? But as that department has been so loosely passed over, I feel some doubt in claiming this triumph for Moses, for the truth may be that Ingersoll had not given quite sufficient attention to that particular branch of study to enable him to enter the arena upon it, or doubtless he would have tried to give his antagonist a hard knock or two. I put in this remark because I find that as Ingersoll did know something of "man," he makes a tremendous effort to throw Moses over on that point, and the order of events during this last period of the great work of creation, of which he contends Moses has given two accounts contradictory on two essential points. We shall devote a few lines to examine the assertion about the

Creation of Man.

The Bible narrates the story thus:—"And God made the beasts of the earth, &c.; and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, &c. So Cod created man after His image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." That is the first account of the creation of man. The importance of the man's creation is evidently made more prominent than that of the woman. Whatever the cause may be I shall not show at present; but proceed to give the second notice of man's creation. And I shall premise my remarks and quotations by drawing attention to the evident fact that the second reference to the work of creation only page 17 has to do with the mode, and not the order of creation: whereas the first was the order apart from the mode. But are they contradictory? Bead. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and he became a living soul." "And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it." Then it proceeds to tell how God created the beasts of the field; then how they were brought to the man to be named. Then comes the statement that the female of the human race was as yet non-existent. And the record of how she was created is given with minute particulars. Where then is the alleged contradiction between the two records? It is certainly not apparent. The one tells how the acts of creation succeeded each other; the other how the manner of creation differed in the various beings. The fact that the method of man's formation is given before that of the lower animals does not in any sense contradict that he was created after them. The first account states distinctly, first, that man was created, and then affirms the creation of both male and female, indicating a lapse of time between the man and the woman—showing rather a confirmation than a contradiction of the second notice. Where then are Ingersoll's two essential points? Relegated to oblivion.

With what characteristic egotism does he make the statement—"I am probably

The only Man in the United States

who has read the Bible through this year"! There are many old women who make it part of their duty to read it so. But even they are not always the most conversant with its facts; and this egotist has a good deal of imbecility apparent in his ignorance of its contents. He did not learn much from his reading. When he got through Revelation he had nearly forgotten the earlier books, and knew so little of their individual contents that he had to refer to what he had read as being in "some book," and then he grossly misquoted it. It was a profound truth he uttered when he said, "I have wasted that time;" for when a man devotes so much time, and so little attention to any subject, it cannot be otherwise than wasted; and to waste time in this manner is a criminal matter, which will have to be accounted for to the great Recorder. "But I had a purpose in view," adds the brilliant gentleman. And no one who reads his lecture will for one moment doubt that statement. What then was the purpose which he had in view, when he wasted a year in reading the Bible? He gives no verbal answer to the question. But it is evident throughout the whole dissertation that his purpose was to find some way of turning the Bible into a "jest book," that he might be able to draw a good house, and pocket a large "taking at the doors."

Sore on Darwin and co.

It is not a rule that men of Ingersoll's stamp are so severe on Darwin and his disciples. Nevertheless, here is one who evidently thinks that if man had come on the scene of the world's life after the manner of the "Origin of Species," it would have been a dire calamity to all Freethought notions. It would, he maintains, have effectually prevented the existence of a single freethinker. And had we sprung from even the highest order of the brute creation, or if even Adam had chosen one of these for his page 18 companion, the inevitable consequences would have been that every man would have been orthodox. So that the existence of Freethought in the world, is proof of the separate creation of the human species. So after all Moses knew more about it than our belauded Darwinites. And because of this, Ingersoll exultingly expresses his gratification. In this I willingly join him. And it seems to me that if I were to logically extend the argument, it would come out that if both our first parents had been members of the brute creation, thought of any kind would have been denied us—that is, we would have been no better in this respect than our ancestors. Ingersoll is proud to call his ancestors to the end of reckoning "men and women." That they were all "human beings, with interests in common," and that any change of that title "belittles them." "Man is the highest; woman is the highest," and he scorns to degrade them to a lower level at any point of time.

The Summing Up.

It would now be profitless to proceed in the same manner to follow this brilliant talkist through all his grotesque characters, for the merest babe in Bible learning may, for himself, mark the distortions and wilful corruptions which he makes, as he professes to quote from the sacred books, and to represent the cardinal truths of Christianity. It were a waste of time to devote such attention to his remaining pages, after having so absolutely overthrown every assertion he has made regarding the Mosaic record of the creation. I therefore conclude by advising young persons, not to spurn to read the strange lecture, but to read it with care, and then compare its statements with those of the Bible. I have great faith in freedom of exercise in each one of his intellectual faculties. No power should be cramped, but rather expanded and cultivated with care and pruned with caution. Take no man's word about the Bible, you have it by you, fear not to open it. Do not be too lazy to turn up its references, make it a point to sift every proposition to the very foundation, and thus to a very great extent be your own instructor.

"They of Berea were more noble than they of Thessalonica, for they searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."—Acts.

"Go thou and do likewise."
"Search the Scriptures."—

Jesus

.

"Prove all things."
"Hold fast that which is good."—

Paul

.