Question. Do you really believe that the infinite
God killed some animals, took their skins from them,
cut out and sewed up clothes for Adam and Eve?
Answer. The Bible says so; we know that he
had patterns for clothes, because he showed some
to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Question. About how long did God continue
to pay particular attention to his children in this
world?
Answer. For about fifteen hundred years; and
some of the people lived to be nearly a thousand
years of age.
Question. Did this God establish any schools or
institutions of learning? Did he establish any church?
Did he ordain any ministers, or did he have any re-
vivals?
Answer. No; he allowed the world to go on
pretty much in its own way. He did not even keep
his own boys at home. They came down and made
373
love to the daughters of men, and finally the world
got exceedingly bad.
Question. What did God do then?
Answer. He made up his mind that he would drown
them. You see they were all totally depraved,—in
every joint and sinew of their bodies, in every drop
of their blood, and in every thought of their brains.
Question. Did he drown them all?
Answer. No, he saved eight, to start with again.
Question. Were these eight persons totally de-
praved?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why did he not kill them, and start
over again with a perfect pair? Would it not have
been better to have had his flood at first, before he
made anybody, and drowned the snake?
Answer. "God's way are not our ways;" and
besides, you must remember that "a thousand years
"are as one day" with God.
Question. How did God destroy the people?
Answer. By water; it rained forty days and forty
nights, and "the fountains of the great deep were
"broken up."
Question. How deep was the water?
Answer. About five miles.
374
Question. How much did it rain each day?
Answer. About eight hundred feet; though the
better opinion now is, that it was a local flood. In-
fidels have raised objections and pressed them to that
degree that most orthodox people admit that the
flood was rather local.
Question. If it was a local flood, why did they put
birds of the air into the ark? Certainly, birds could
have avoided a local flood?
Answer. If you take this away from us, what do
you propose to give us in its place? Some of the
best people of the world have believed this story.
Kind husbands, loving mothers, and earnest patriots
have believed it, and that is sufficient.
Question. At the time God made these people,
did he know that he would have to drown them all?
Answer. Of course he did.
Question. Did he know when he made them that
they would all be failures?
Answer. Of course.
Question. Why, then, did he make them?
Answer. He made them for his own glory, and
no man should disgrace his parents by denying it.
Question. Were the people after the flood just as
bad as they were before?
375
Answer. About the same.
Question. Did they try to circumvent God?
Answer. They did.
Question. How?
Answer. They got together for the purpose of build-
ing a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,
so that they could laugh at any future floods, and go
to heaven at any time they desired.
Question. Did God hear about this?
Answer. He did.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. He said: "Go to; let us go down," and
see what the people are doing; I am satisfied they
will succeed.
Question. How were the people prevented from
succeeding?
Answer. God confounded their language, so that
the mason on top could not cry "mort'!" to the
hod-carrier below; he could not think of the word
to use, to save his life, and the building stopped.
Question. If it had not been for the confusion of
tongues at Babel, do you really think that all the
people in the world would have spoken just the same
language, and would have pronounced every word
precisely the same?
376
Answer. Of course.
Question. If it had not been, then, for the con-
fusion of languages, spelling books, grammars and
dictionaries would have been useless?
Answer. I suppose so.
Question. Do any two people in the whole world
speak the same language, now?
Answer. Of course they don't, and this is one of
the great evidences that God introduced confusion
into the languages. Every error in grammar, every
mistake in spelling, every blunder in pronunciation,
proves the truth of the Babel story.
Question. This being so, this miracle is the best
attested of all?
Answer. I suppose it is.
Question. Do you not think that a confusion of
tongues would bring men together instead of separa-
ting them? Would not a man unable to converse
with his fellow feel weak instead of strong; and
would not people whose language had been con-
founded cling together for mutual support?
Answer. According to nature, yes; according to
theology, no; and these questions must be answered
according to theology. And right here, it may be
well enough to state, that in theology the unnatural
377
is the probable, and the impossible is what has always
happened. If theology were simply natural, anybody
could be a theologian.
Question. Did God ever make any other special
efforts to convert the people, or to reform the world?
Answer. Yes, he destroyed the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah with a storm of fire and brimstone.
Question. Do you suppose it was really brim-
stone?
Answer. Undoubtedly.
Question. Do you think this brimstone came from
the clouds?
Answer. Let me tell you that you have no right
to examine the Bible in the light of what people are
pleased to call "science." The natural has nothing
to do with the supernatural. Naturally there would
be no brimstone in the clouds, but supernaturally
there might be. God could make brimstone out of
his "omnipotence." We do not know really what
brimstone is, and nobody knows exactly how brim-
stone is made. As a matter of fact, all the brimstone
in the world might have fallen at that time.
Question. Do you think that Lot's wife was
changed into salt?
Answer. Of course she was. A miracle was per-
378
formed. A few centuries ago, the statue of salt made
by changing Lot's wife into that article, was standing.
Christian travelers have seen it.
Question. Why do you think she was changed
into salt?
Answer. For the purpose of keeping the event
fresh in the minds of men.
Question. God having failed to keep people in-
nocent in a garden; having failed to govern them
outside of a garden; having failed to reform them by
water; having failed to produce any good result by a
confusion of tongues; having failed to reform them
with fire and brimstone, what did he then do?
Answer. He concluded that he had no time to
waste on them all, but that he would have to select
one tribe, and turn his entire attention to just a few
folks.
Question. Whom did he select?
Answer. A man by the name of Abram.
Question. What kind of man was Abram?
Answer. If you wish to know, read the twelfth
chapter of Genesis; and if you still have any doubts
as to his character, read the twentieth chapter of the
same book, and you will see that he was a man who
made merchandise of his wife's body. He had had
379
such good fortune in Egypt, that he tried the experi-
ment again on Abimelech.
Question. Did Abraham show any gratitude?
Answer. Yes; he offered to sacrifice his son, to
show his confidence in Jehovah.
Question. What became of Abraham and his
people?
Answer. God took such care of them, that in
about two hundred and fifteen years they were all
slaves in the land of Egypt.
Question. How long did they remain in slavery?
Answer. Two hundred and fifteen years.
Question. Were they the same people that God
had promised to take care of?
Answer. They were.
Question. Was God at that time, in favor of
slavery?
Answer. Not at that time. He was angry at the
Egyptians for enslaving the Jews, but he afterwards
authorized the Jews to enslave other people.
Question. What means did he take to liberate
the Jews?
Answer. He sent his agents to Pharaoh, and de-
manded their freedom; and upon Pharaoh s refusing,
he afflicted the people, who had nothing to do with
380
it, with various plagues,—killed children, and tor-
mented and tortured beasts.
Question. Was such conduct Godlike?
Answer. Certainly. If you have anything against
your neighbor, it is perfectly proper to torture his
horse, or torment his dog. Nothing can be nobler
than this. You see it is much better to injure his
animals than to injure him. To punish animals for
the sins of their owners must be just, or God would
not have done it. Pharaoh insisted on keeping the
people in slavery, and therefore God covered the
bodies of oxen and cows with boils. He also bruised
them to death with hailstones. From this we infer,
that "the loving kindness of God is over all his works."
Question. Do you consider such treatment of ani-
mals consistent with divine mercy?
Answer. Certainly. You know that under the
Mosaic dispensation, when a man did a wrong, he
could settle with God by killing an ox, or a sheep,
or some doves. If the man failed to kill them, of
course God would kill them. It was upon this prin-
ciple that he destroyed the animals of the Egyptians.
They had sinned, and he merely took his pay.
Question. How was it possible, under the old dis-
pensation, to please a being of infinite kindness?
381
Answer. All you had to do was to take an innocent
animal, bring it to the altar, cut its throat, and sprinkle
the altar with its blood. Certain parts of it were to be
given to the butcher as his share, and the rest was to
be burnt on the altar. When God saw an animal thus
butchered, and smelt the warm blood mingled with
the odor of burning flesh, he was pacified, and the
smile of forgiveness shed its light upon his face.
Of course, infidels laugh at these things; but what
can you expect of men who have not been "born
"again"? "The carnal mind is enmity with God."
Question. What else did God do in order to in-
duce Pharaoh to liberate the Jews?
Answer. He had his agents throw down a cane
in the presence of Pharaoh and thereupon Jehovah
changed this cane into a serpent.
Question. Did this convince Pharaoh?
Answer. No; he sent for his own magicians.
Question. What did they do?
Answer. They threw down some canes and they
also were changed into serpents.
Question. Did Jehovah change the canes of the
Egyptian magicians into snakes?
Answer. I suppose he did, as he is the only one
capable of performing such a miracle.
382
Question. If the rod of Aaron was changed into
a serpent in order to convince Pharaoh that God had
sent Aaron and Moses, why did God change the
sticks of the Egyptian magicians into serpents—why
did he discredit his own agents, and render worth-
less their only credentials?
Answer. Well, we cannot explain the conduct of
Jehovah; we are perfectly satisfied that it was for
the best. Even in this age of the world God allows
infidels to overwhelm his chosen people with argu-
ments; he allows them to discover facts that his
ministers can not answer, and yet we are satisfied
that in the end God will give the victory to us. All
these things are tests of faith. It is upon this prin-
ciple that God allows geology to laugh at Genesis,
that he permits astronomy apparently to contradict
his holy word.
Question. What did God do with these people
after Pharaoh allowed them to go?
Answer. Finding that they were not fit to settle
a new country, owing to the fact that when hungry
they longed for food, and sometimes when their lips
were cracked with thirst insisted on having water,
God in his infinite mercy had them marched round
and round, back and forth, through a barren wilder-
383
ness, until all, with the exception of two persons,
died.
Question. Why did he do this?
Answer. Because he had promised these people
that he would take them "to a land flowing with
"milk and honey."
Question. Was God always patient and kind and
merciful toward his children while they were in the
wilderness?
Answer. Yes, he always was merciful and kind
and patient. Infidels have taken the ground that he
visited them with plagues and disease and famine;
that he had them bitten by serpents, and now and
then allowed the ground to swallow a few thousands
of them, and in other ways saw to it that they were
kept as comfortable and happy as was consistent with
good government; but all these things were for their
good; and the fact is, infidels have no real sense of
justice.
Question. How did God happen to treat the Is-
raelites in this way, when he had promised Abraham
that he would take care of his progeny, and when he
had promised the same to the poor wretches while
they were slaves in Egypt?
Answer. Because God is unchangeable in his na-
384
ture, and wished to convince them that every being
should be perfectly faithful to his promise.
Question. Was God driven to madness by the
conduct of his chosen people?
Answer. Almost.
Question. Did he know exactly what they would
do when he chose them?
Answer. Exactly.
Question. Were the Jews guilty of idolatry?
Answer. They were. They worshiped other gods
—gods made of wood and stone.
Question. Is it not wonderful that they were not
convinced of the power of God, by the many mira-
cles wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness?
Answer. Yes, it is very wonderful; but the Jews,
who must have seen bread rained from heaven; who
saw water gush from the rocks and follow them up hill
and down; who noticed that their clothes did not
wear out, and did not even get shiny at the knees,
while the elbows defied the ravages of time, and
their shoes remained perfect for forty years; it is
wonderful that when they saw the ground open
and swallow their comrades; when they saw God
talking face to face with Moses as a man talks with
his friend; after they saw the cloud by day and the
385
pillar of fire by night,—it is absolutely astonishing
that they had more faith in a golden calf that they
made themselves, than in Jehovah.
Question. How is it that the Jews had no confi-
dence in these miracles?
Answer. Because they were there and saw them.
Question. Do you think that it is necessary for
us to believe all the miracles of the Old Testament
in order to be saved?
Answer. The Old Testament is the foundation of
the New. If the Old Testament is not inspired, then
the New is of no value. If the Old Testament is
inspired, all the miracles are true, and we cannot
believe that God would allow any errors, or false
statements, to creep into an inspired volume, and to
be perpetuated through all these years.
Question. Should we believe the miracles, whether
they are reasonable or not?
Answer. Certainly; if they were reasonable, they
would not be miracles. It is their unreasonableness
that appeals to our credulity and our faith. It is im-
possible to have theological faith in anything that
can be demonstrated. It is the office of faith to
believe, not only without evidence, but in spite of
evidence. It is impossible for the carnal mind to
386
believe that Samsons muscle depended upon the
length of his hair. "God has made the wisdom of
"this world foolishness." Neither can the uncon-
verted believe that Elijah stopped at a hotel kept by
ravens. Neither can they believe that a barrel would
in and of itself produce meal, or that an earthen pot
could create oil. But to a Christian, in order that a
widow might feed a preacher, the truth of these
stories is perfectly apparent.
Question. How should we regard the wonderful
stories of the Old Testament?
Answer. They should be looked upon as "types"
and "symbols." They all have a spiritual signifi-
cance. The reason I believe the story of Jonah is,
that Jonah is a type of Christ.
Question. Do you believe the story of Jonah to
be a true account of a literal fact?
Answer. Certainly. You must remember that
Jonah was not swallowed by a whale. God "pre-
"pared a great fish" for that occasion. Neither is it by
any means certain that Jonah was in the belly of
this whale. "He probably stayed in his mouth."
Even if he was in his stomach, it was very easy
for him to defy the ordinary action of gastric juice
by rapidly walking up and down..
387
Question. Do you think that Jonah was really in
the whale's stomach?
Answer. My own opinion is that he stayed in his
mouth. The only objection to this theory is, that it
is more reasonable than the other and requires less
faith. Nothing could be easier than for God to make
a fish large enough to furnish ample room for one
passenger in his mouth. I throw out this suggestion
simply that you may be able to answer the objections
of infidels who are always laughing at this story.
Question. Do you really believe that Elijah went
to heaven in a chariot of fire, drawn by horses of
fire?
Answer. Of course he did.
Question. What was this miracle performed for?
Answer. To convince the people of the power of
God.
Question. Who saw the miracle?
Answer. Nobody but Elisha.
Question. Was he convinced before that time?
Answer. Oh yes; he was one of God's prophets.
Question. Suppose that in these days two men
should leave a town together, and after a while one
of them should come back having on the clothes of
the other, and should account for the fact that he had
388
his friend's clothes by saying that while they were
going along the road together a chariot of fire came
down from heaven drawn by fiery steeds, and there-
upon his friend got into the carriage, threw him his
clothes, and departed,—would you believe it?
Answer. Of course things like that don't happen
in these days; God does not have to rely on wonders
now.
Question. Do you mean that he performs no
miracles at the present day?
Answer. We cannot say that he does not perform
miracles now, but we are not in position to call atten-
tion to any particular one. Of course he supervises
the affairs of nations and men and does whatever in
his judgment is necessary.
Question. Do you think that Samson's strength
depended on the length of his hair?
Answer. The Bible so states, and the Bible is true.
A physiologist might say that a man could not use
the muscle in his hair for lifting purposes, but these
same physiologists could not tell you how you move
a finger, nor how you lift a feather; still, actuated by
the pride of intellect, they insist that the length of a
man's hair could not determine his strength. God
says it did; the physiologist says that it did not; we
389
can not hesitate whom to believe. For the purpose
of avoiding eternal agony I am willing to believe
anything; I am willing to say that strength depends
upon the length of hair, or faith upon the length of
ears. I am perfectly willing to believe that a man
caught three hundred foxes, and put fire brands be-
tween their tails; that he slew thousands with a bone,
and that he made a bee hive out of a lion. I will
believe, if necessary, that when this man's hair was
short he hardly had strength enough to stand, and
that when it was long, he could carry away the gates
of a city, or overthrow a temple filled with people.
If the infidel is right, I will lose nothing by believing,
but if he is wrong, I shall gain an eternity of joy.
If God did not intend that we should believe these
stories, he never would have told them, and why
should a man put his soul in peril by trying to dis-
prove one of the statements of the Lord?
Question. Suppose it should turn out that some
of these miracles depend upon mistranslations of the
original Hebrew, should we still believe them?
Answer. The safe side is the best side. It is
far better to err on the side of belief, than on the
side of infidelity. God does not threaten anybody
with eternal punishment for believing too much.
390
Danger lies on the side of investigation, on the
side of thought. The perfectly idiotic are absolutely
safe. As they diverge from that point,—as they rise
in the intellectual scale, as the brain develops, as the
faculties enlarge, the danger increases. I know that
some biblical students now take the ground that
Samson caught no foxes,—that he only took sheaves
of wheat that had been already cut and bound, set
them on fire, and threw them into the grain still
standing. If this is what he did, of course there is
nothing miraculous about it, and the value of the
story is lost. So, others contend that Elijah was not
fed by the ravens, but by the Arabs. They tell us
that the Hebrew word standing for "Arab" also
stands for "bird," and that the word really means
"migratory—going from place to place—homeless."
But I prefer the old version. It certainly will do no
harm to believe that ravens brought bread and flesh
to a prophet of God. Where they got their bread
and flesh is none of my business; how they knew
where the prophet was, and recognized him; or how
God talks to ravens, or how he gave them directions,
I have no right to inquire. I leave these questions
to the scientists, the blasphemers, and thinkers.
There are many people in the church anxious to
391
get the miracles out of the Bible, and thousands,
I have no doubt, would be greatly gratified to learn
that there is, in fact, nothing miraculous in Scripture;
but when you take away the miraculous, you take
away the supernatural; when you take away the
supernatural, you destroy the ministry; and when
you take away the ministry, hundreds of thousands
of men will be left without employment.
Question. Is it not wonderful that the Egyptians
were not converted by the miracles wrought in their
country?
Answer. Yes, they all would have been, if God
had not purposely hardened their hearts to prevent
it. Jehovah always took great delight in furnishing
the evidence, and then hardening the man's heart so
that he would not believe it. After all the miracles
that had been performed in Egypt,—the most won-
derful that were ever done in any country, the
Egyptians were as unbelieving as at first; they pur-
sued the Israelites, knowing that they were protected
by an infinite God, and failing to overwhelm them,
came back and worshiped their own false gods just as
firmly as before. All of which shows the unreason-
ableness of a Pagan, and the natural depravity of
human nature.
392
Question. How did it happen that the Canaanites
were never convinced that the Jews were assisted by
Jehovah?
Answer. They must have been an exceedingly
brave people to contend so many years with the
chosen people of God. Notwithstanding all their
cities were burned time and time again; notwith-
standing all the men, women and children were put
to the edge of the sword; notwithstanding the taking
of all their cattle and sheep, they went right on
fighting just as valiantly and desperately as ever.
Each one lost his life many times, and was just as
ready for the next conflict. My own opinion is, that
God kept them alive by raising them from the dead
after each battle, for the purpose of punishing the
Jews. God used his enemies as instruments for the
civilization of the Jewish people. He did not wish
to convert them, because they would give him much
more trouble as Jews than they did as Canaanites.
He had all the Jews he could conveniently take care
of. He found it much easier to kill a hundred
Canaanites than to civilize one Jew.
Question. How do you account for the fact that
the heathen were not surprised at the stopping of the
sun and moon?
393
Answer. They were so ignorant that they had
not the slightest conception of the real cause of
the phenomenon. Had they known the size of
the earth, and the relation it sustained to the other
heavenly bodies; had they known the magnitude of
the sun, and the motion of the moon, they would,
in all probability, have been as greatly astonished as
the Jews were; but being densely ignorant of as-
tronomy, it must have produced upon them not the
slightest impression. But we must remember that
the sun and moon were not stopped for the purpose
of converting these people, but to give Joshua more
time to kill them. As soon as we see clearly the
purpose of Jehovah, we instantly perceive how ad-
mirable were the means adopted.
Question. Do you not consider the treatment
of the Canaanites to have been cruel and ferocious?
Answer. To a totally depraved man, it does look
cruel; to a being without any good in him,—to one
who has inherited the rascality of many generations,
the murder of innocent women and little children
does seem horrible; to one who is "contaminated in
"all his parts," by original sin,—who was "conceived
"in sin, and brought forth in iniquity," the assassina-
tion of men, and the violation of captive maidens,
394
do not seem consistent with infinite goodness. But
when one has been "born again," when "the love
"of God has been shed abroad in his heart," when
he loves all mankind, when he "overcomes evil with
"good," when he "prays for those who despite-
"fully use him and persecute him,"—to such a man,
the extermination of the Canaanites, the violation
of women, the slaughter of babes, and the destruc-
tion of countless thousands, is the highest evidence
of the goodness, the mercy, and the long-suffering
of God. When a man has been "born again," all
the passages of the Old Testament that appear so
horrible and so unjust to one in his natural state,
become the dearest, the most consoling, and the
most beautiful of truths. The real Christian reads
the accounts of these ancient battles with the greatest
possible satisfaction. To one who really loves his
enemies, the groans of men, the shrieks of women,
and the cries of babes, make music sweeter than the
zephyr's breath.
Question. In your judgment, why did God destroy
the Canaanites?
Answer. To prevent their contaminating his
chosen people. He knew that if the Jews were
allowed to live with such neighbors, they would
395
finally become as bad as the Canaanites themselves.
He wished to civilize his chosen people, and it was
therefore necessary for him to destroy the heathen.
Question. Did God succeed in civilizing the Jews
after he had "removed" the Canaanites?
Answer. Well, not entirely. He had to allow the
heathen he had not destroyed to overrun the whole
land and make captives of the Jews. This was done
for the good of his chosen people.
Question. Did he then succeed in civilizing them?
Answer. Not quite.
Question. Did he ever quite succeed in civilizing
them?
Answer. Well, we must admit that the experi-
ment never was a conspicuous success. The Jews
were chosen by the Almighty 430 years before he
appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai. He was their
direct Governor. He attended personally to their
religion and politics, and gave up a great part of his
valuable time for about two thousand years, to the
management of their affairs; and yet, such was the
condition of the Jewish people, after they had had all
these advantages, that when there arose among them
a perfectly kind, just, generous and honest man, these
people, with whom God had been laboring for so
396
many centuries, deliberately put to death that good
and loving man.
Question. Do you think that God really endeav-
ored to civilize the Jews?
Answer. This is an exceedingly hard question.
If he had really tried to do it, of course he could
have done it. We must not think of limiting the
power of the infinite. But you must remember that
if he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, if he had
educated them up to the plane of intellectual liberty,
and made them just and kind and merciful, like him-
self, they would not have crucified Christ, and you
can see at once the awful condition in which we
would all be to-day. No atonement could have
been made; and if no atonement had been made,
then, according to the Christian system, the whole
world would have been lost. We must admit that
there was no time in the history of the Jews from
Sinai to Jerusalem, that they would not have put a
man like Christ to death.
Question. So you think that, after all, it was not
God's intention that the Jews should become civilized?
Answer. We do not know. We can only say
that "God's ways are not our ways." It may be
that God took them in his special charge, for the
397
purpose of keeping them bad enough to make the
necessary sacrifice. That may have been the divine
plan. In any event, it is safer to believe the explana-
tion that is the most unreasonable.
Question. Do you think that Christ knew the
Jews would crucify him?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Do you think that when he chose
Judas he knew that he would betray him?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Did he know when Judas went to the
chief priest and made the bargain for the delivery
of Christ?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Why did he allow himself to be be-
trayed, if he knew the plot?
Answer. Infidelity is a very good doctrine to live
by, but you should read the last words of Paine and
Voltaire.
Question. If Christ knew that Judas would betray
him, why did he choose him?
Answer. Nothing can exceed the atrocities of the
French Revolution—when they carried a woman
through the streets and worshiped her as the goddess
of Reason.
398
Question. Would not the mission of Christ have
been a failure had no one betrayed him?
Answer. Thomas Paine was a drunkard, and re-
canted on his death-bed, and died a blaspheming
infidel besides.
Question. Is it not clear that an atonement was
necessary; and is it not equally clear that the atone-
ment could not have been made unless somebody
had betrayed Christ; and unless the Jews had been
wicked and orthodox enough to crucify him?
Answer. Of course the atonement had to be
made. It was a part of the "divine plan" that Christ
should be betrayed, and that the Jews should be
wicked enough to kill him. Otherwise, the world
would have been lost.
Question. Suppose Judas had understood the
divine plan, what ought he to have done? Should
he have betrayed Christ, or let somebody else do it;
or should he have allowed the world to perish, in-
cluding his own soul?
Answer. If you take the Bible away from the
world, "how would it be possible to have witnesses
"sworn in courts;" how would it be possible to ad-
minister justice?
Question. If Christ had not been betrayed and
399
crucified, is it true that his own mother would be in
perdition to-day?
Answer. Most assuredly. There was but one
way by which she could be saved, and that was by
the death of her son—through the blood of the
atonement. She was totally depraved through the
sin of Adam, and deserved eternal death. Even her
love for the infant Christ was, in the sight of God,—
that is to say, of her babe,—wickedness. It can not
be repeated too often that there is only one way to
be saved, and that is, to believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
Question. Could Christ have prevented the Jews
from crucifying him?
Answer. He could.
Question. If he could have saved his life and did
not, was he not guilty of suicide?
Answer. No one can understand these questions
who has not read the prophecies of Daniel, and has
not a clear conception of what is meant by "the full-
"ness of time."
Question. What became of all the Canaanites, the
Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and Romans and
Chinese? What became of the billions who died
before the promise was made to Abraham; of the
400
billions and billions who never heard of the Bible,
who never heard the name, even, of Jesus Christ—
never knew of "the scheme of salvation"? What
became of the millions and billions who lived in this
hemisphere, and of whose existence Jehovah himself
seemed perfectly ignorant?
Answer. They were undoubtedly lost. God
having made them, had a right to do with them as
he pleased. They are probably all in hell to-day, and
the fact that they are damned, only adds to the joy
of the redeemed. It is by contrast that we are able
to perceive the infinite kindness with which God has
treated us.
Question. Is it not possible that something can
be done for a human soul in another world as well as
in this?
Answer. No; this is the only world in which
God even attempts to reform anybody. In the
other world, nothing is done for the purpose of
making anybody better. Here in this world, where
man lives but a few days, is the only opportunity
for moral improvement. A minister can do a thou-
sand times more for a soul than its creator; and this
country is much better adapted to moral growth than
heaven itself. A person who lived on this earth a
401
few years, and died without having been converted,
has no hope in another world. The moment he arrives
at the judgment seat, nothing remains but to damn
him. Neither God, nor the Holy Ghost, nor Jesus
Christ, can have the least possible influence with
him there.
Question. When God created each human being,
did he know exactly what would be his eternal fate?
Answer. Most assuredly he did.
Question. Did he know that hundreds and millions
and billions would suffer eternal pain?
Answer. Certainly. But he gave them freedom
of choice between good and evil.
Question. Did he know exactly how they would
use that freedom?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did he know that billions would use
it wrong?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Was it optional with him whether he
should make such people or not?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Had these people any option as to
whether they would be made or not?
Answer, No.
402
Question. Would it not have been far better to
leave them unconscious dust?
Answer. These questions show how foolish it is
to judge God according to a human standard. What
to us seems just and merciful, God may regard in an
exactly opposite light; and we may hereafter be
developed to such a degree that we will regard the
agonies of the damned as the highest possible evi-
dence of the goodness and mercy of God.
Question. How do you account for the fact that
God did not make himself known except to Abra-
ham and his descendants? Why did he fail to
reveal himself to the other nations—nations that,
compared with the Jews, were learned, cultivated
and powerful? Would you regard a revelation now
made to the Esquimaux as intended for us; and
would it be a revelation of which we would be
obliged to take notice?
Answer. Of course, God could have revealed him-
self, not only to all the great nations, but to each
individual. He could have had the Ten Command-
ments engraved on every heart and brain; or he
could have raised up prophets in every land; but
he chose, rather, to allow countless millions of his
children to wander in the darkness and blackness of
403
Nature; chose, rather, that they should redden their
hands in each other's blood; chose, rather, that they
should live without light, and die without hope;
chose, rather, that they should suffer, not only in this
world, but forever in the next. Of course we have
no right to find fault with the choice of God.
Question. Now you can tell a sinner to "believe
"on the Lord Jesus Christ;" what could a sinner have
been told in Egypt, three thousand years ago; and
in what language would you have addressed a Hindu
in the days of Buddha—the "divine scheme" at that
time being a secret in the divine breast?
Answer. It is not for us to think upon these
questions. The moment we examine the Christian
system, we begin to doubt. In a little while, we shall
be infidels, and shall lose the respect of those who
refuse to think. It is better to go with the majority.
These doctrines are too sacred to be touched. You
should be satisfied with the religion of your father
and your mother. "You want some book on the
"centre-table," in the parlor; it is extremely handy
to have a Family Record; and what book, other than
the Bible, could a mother give a son as he leaves the
old homestead?
Question. Is it not wonderful that all the writers
404
of the four gospels do not give an account of the
ascension of Jesus Christ?
Answer. This question has been answered long
ago, time and time again.
Question. Perhaps it has, but would it not be
well enough to answer it once more? Some may
not have seen the answer?
Answer. Show me the hospitals that infidels
have built; show me the asylums that infidels
have founded.
Question. I know you have given the usual an-
swer; but after all, is it not singular that a miracle
so wonderful as the bodily ascension of a man, should
not have been mentioned by all the writers of that
man's life? Is it not wonderful that some of them
said that he did ascend, and others that he agreed to
stay with his disciples always?
Answer. People unacquainted with the Hebrew,
can have no conception of these things. A story
in plain English, does not sound as it does in Hebrew.
Miracles seem altogether more credible, when told in
a dead language.
Question. What, in your judgment, became of
the dead who were raised by Christ? Is it not
singular that they were never mentioned afterward?
405
Would not a man who had been raised from the
dead naturally be an object of considerable interest,
especially to his friends and acquaintances? And
is it not also wonderful that Christ, after having
wrought so many miracles, cured so many lame and
halt and blind, fed so many thousands miraculously,
and after having entered Jerusalem in triumph as a
conqueror and king, had to be pointed out by one
of his own disciples who was bribed for the purpose?
Answer. Of course, all these things are exceed-
ingly wonderful, and if found in any other book,
would be absolutely incredible; but we have no
right to apply the same kind of reasoning to the
Bible that we apply to the Koran or to the sacred
books of the Hindus. For the ordinary affairs of
this world, God has given us reason; but in the
examination of religious questions, we should de-
pend upon credulity and faith.
Question. If Christ came to offer himself a sacri-
fice, for the purpose of making atonement for the
sins of such as might believe on him, why did he
not make this fact known to all of his disciples?
Answer. He did. This was, and is, the gospel.
Question. How is it that Matthew says nothing
about "salvation by faith," but simply says that God
406
will be merciful to the merciful, that he will forgive
the forgiving, and says not one word about the
necessity of believing anything?
Answer. But you will remember that Mark says,
in the last chapter of his gospel, that "whoso be-
"lieveth not shall be damned."
Question. Do you admit that Matthew says
nothing on the subject?
Answer. Yes, I suppose I must.
Question. Is not that passage in Mark generally
admitted to be an interpolation?
Answer. Some biblical scholars say that it is.
Question. Is that portion of the last chapter of
Mark found in the Syriac version of the Bible?
Answer. It is not.
Question. If it was necessary to believe on Jesus
Christ, in order to be saved, how is it that Matthew
failed to say so?
Answer. "There are more copies of the Bible
"printed to-day, than of any other book in the world,
"and it is printed in more languages than any other
"book."
Question. Do you consider it necessary to be
"regenerated"—to be "born again"—in order to be
saved?
407
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Did Matthew say anything on the sub-
ject of "regeneration"?
Answer. No.
Question. Did Mark?
Answer. No.
Question. Did Luke?
Answer. No.
Question. Is Saint John the only one who speaks
of the necessity of being "born again"?
Answer. He is.
Question. Do you think that Matthew, Mark and
Luke knew anything about the necessity of "regen-
"eration"?
Answer. Of course they did.
Question. Why did they fail to speak of it?
Answer. There is no civilization without the Bible.
The moment you throw away the sacred Scriptures,
you are all at sea—you are without an anchor and
without a compass.
Question. You will remember that, according to
Mark, Christ said to his disciples: "Go ye into all
"the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
Did he refer to the gospel set forth by Mark?
Answer. Of course he did.
408
Question. Well, in the gospel set forth by Mark,
there is not a word about "regeneration," and no
word about the necessity of believing anything—ex-
cept in an interpolated passage. Would it not seem
from this, that "regeneration" and a "belief in the
"Lord Jesus Christ," are no part of the gospel?
Answer. Nothing can exceed in horror the last
moments of the infidel; nothing can be more ter-
rible than the death of the doubter. When the
glories of this world fade from the vision; when am-
bition becomes an empty name; when wealth turns
to dust in the palsied hand of death, of what use is
philosophy then? Who cares then for the pride of
intellect? In that dread moment, man needs some-
thing to rely on, whether it is true or not.
Question. Would it not have been more con-
vincing if Christ, after his resurrection, had shown
himself to his enemies as well as to his friends?
Would it not have greatly strengthened the evidence
in the case, if he had visited Pilate; had presented
himself before Caiaphas, the high priest; if he had
again entered the temple, and again walked the
streets of Jerusalem?
Answer. If the evidence had been complete and
overwhelming, there would have been no praise-
409
worthiness in belief; even publicans and sinners
would have believed, if the evidence had been suffi-
cient. The amount of evidence required is the test
of the true Christian spirit.
Question. Would it not also have been better
had the ascension taken place in the presence of
unbelieving thousands; it seems such a pity to have
wasted such a demonstration upon those already
convinced?
Answer. These questions are the natural fruit of
the carnal mind, and can be accounted for only by
the doctrine of total depravity. Nothing has given
the church more trouble than just such questions.
Unholy curiosity, a disposition to pry into the divine
mysteries, a desire to know, to investigate, to explain
—in short, to understand, are all evidences of a re-
probate mind.
Question. How can we account for the fact that
Matthew alone speaks of the wise men of the East
coming with gifts to the infant Christ; that he alone
speaks of the little babes being killed by Herod? Is
it possible that the other writers never heard of these
things?
Answer. Nobody can get any good out of the
Bible by reading it in a critical spirit. The contra-
410
dictions and discrepancies are only apparent, and melt
away before the light of faith. That which in other
books would be absolute and palpable contradiction,
is, in the Bible, when spiritually discerned, a perfect
and beautiful harmony. My own opinion is, that
seeming contradictions are in the Bible for the pur-
pose of testing and strengthening the faith of Chris-
tians, and for the further purpose of ensnaring infidels,
"that they might believe a lie and be damned."
Question. Is it possible that a good God would
take pains to deceive his children?
Answer. The Bible is filled with instances of that
kind, and all orthodox ministers now know that
fossil animals—that is, representations of animals in
stone, were placed in the rocks on purpose to mis-
lead men like Darwin and Humboldt, Huxley and
Tyndall. It is also now known that God, for the
purpose of misleading the so-called men of science,
had hairy elephants preserved in ice, made stomachs
for them, and allowed twigs of trees to be found in
these stomachs, when, as a matter of fact, no such
elephants ever lived or ever died. These men who
are endeavoring to overturn the Scriptures with the
lever of science will find that they have been de-
ceived. Through all eternity they will regret their
411
philosophy. They will wish, in the next world, that
they had thrown away geology and physiology and
all other "ologies" except theology. The time is
coming when Jehovah will "mock at their fears and
"laugh at their calamity."
Question. If Joseph was not the father of Christ,
why was his genealogy given to show that Christ
was of the blood of David; why would not the
genealogy of any other Jew have done as well?
Answer. That objection was raised and answered
hundreds of years ago.
Question. If they wanted to show that Christ was of
the blood of David, why did they not give the gene-
alogy of his mother if Joseph was not his father?
Answer. That objection was answered hundreds
of years ago.
Question. How was it answered?
Answer. When Voltaire was dying, he sent for a
priest.
Question. How does it happen that the two gene-
alogies given do not agree?
Answer. Perhaps they were written by different
persons.
Question. Were both these persons inspired by
the same God?
412
Answer. Of course.
Question. Why were the miracles recorded in the
New Testament performed?
Answer. The miracles were the evidence relied
on to prove the supernatural origin and the divine
mission of Jesus Christ.
Question. Aside from the miracles, is there any
evidence to show the supernatural origin or character
of Jesus Christ?
Answer. Some have considered that his moral
precepts are sufficient, of themselves, to show that
he was divine.
Question. Had all of his moral precepts been
taught before he lived?
Answer. The same things had been said, but they
did not have the same meaning.
Question. Does the fact that Buddha taught the
same tend to show that he was of divine origin?
Answer. Certainly not. The rules of evidence
applicable to the Bible are not applicable to other
books. We examine other books in the light of
reason; the Bible is the only exception. So, we
should not judge of Christ as we do of any other
man.
Question. Do you think that Christ wrought
413
many of his miracles because he was good, charitable,
and filled with pity?
Answer. Certainly
Question. Has he as much power now as he had
when on earth?
Answer. Most assuredly.
Question. Is he as charitable and pitiful now, as
he was then?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why does he not now cure the lame
and the halt and the blind?
Answer. It is well known that, when Julian the
Apostate was dying, catching some of his own blood
in his hand and throwing it into the air he exclaimed:
"Galileean, thou hast conquered!"
Question. Do you consider it our duty to love our
neighbor?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Is virtue the same in all worlds?
Answer. Most assuredly.
Question. Are we under obligation to render good
for evil, and to "pray for those who despitefully use us"?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will Christians in heaven love their
neighbors?
414
Answer. Y es; if their neighbors are not in hell.
Question. Do good Christians pity sinners in this
world?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why?
Answer. Because they regard them as being in
great danger of the eternal wrath of God.
Question. After these sinners have died, and
been sent to hell, will the Christians in heaven then
pity them?
Answer. No. Angels have no pity.
Question. If we are under obligation to love our
enemies, is not God under obligation to love his?
If we forgive our enemies, ought not God to forgive
his? If we forgive those who injure us, ought not
God to forgive those who have not injured him?
Answer. God made us, and he has therefore the
right to do with us as he pleases. Justice demands
that he should damn all of us, and the few that he
will save will be saved through mercy and without
the slightest respect to anything they may have done
themselves. Such is the justice of God, that those
in hell will have no right to complain, and those in
heaven will have no right to be there. Hell is justice,
and salvation is charity.
415
Question. Do you consider it possible for a law to
be jusdy satisfied by the punishment of an innocent
person?
Answer. Such is the scheme of the atonement.
As man is held responsible for the sin of Adam, so
he will be credited with the virtues of Christ; and
you can readily see that one is exactly as reasonable
as the other.
Question. Suppose a man honestly reads the New
Testament, and honestly concludes that it is not an
inspired book; suppose he honestly makes up his
mind that the miracles are not true; that the devil
never really carried Christ to the pinnacle of the
temple; that devils were really never cast out of a
man and allowed to take refuge in swine;—I say,
suppose that he is honestly convinced that these
things are not true, what ought he to say?
Answer. He ought to say nothing.
Question. Suppose that the same man should read
the Koran, and come to the conclusion that it is not
an inspired book; what ought he to say?
Answer. He ought to say that it is not inspired;
his fellow-men are entitled to his honest opinion, and
it is his duty to do what he can do to destroy a per-
nicious superstition.
416
Question. Suppose then, that a reader of the Bible,
having become convinced that it is not inspired—
honestly convinced—says nothing—keeps his con-
clusion absolutely to himself, and suppose he dies in
that belief, can he be saved?
Answer. Certainly not.
Question. Has the honesty of his belief anything
to do with his future condition?
Answer. Nothing whatever.,
Question. Suppose that he tried to believe, that
he hated to disagree with his friends, and with his
parents, but that in spite of himself he was forced to
the conclusion that the Bible is not the inspired word
of God, would he then deserve eternal punishment?
Answer. Certainly he would.
Question. Can a man control his belief?
Answer. He cannot—except as to the Bible.
Question. Do you consider it just in God to
create a man who cannot believe the Bible, and then
damn him because he does not?
Answer. Such is my belief.
Question. Is it your candid opinion that a man
who does not believe the Bible should keep his
belief a secret from his fellow-men?
Answer. It is.
417
Question. How do I know that you believe the
Bible? You have told me that if you did not be-
lieve it, you would not tell me?
Answer. There is no way for you to ascertain,
except by taking my word for it.
Question. What will be the fate of a man who
does not believe it, and yet pretends to believe it?
Answer. He will be damned.
Question. Then hypocrisy will not save him?
Answer. No.
Question. And if he does not believe it, and ad-
mits that he does not believe it, then his honesty will
not save him?
Answer. No. Honesty on the wrong side is no
better than hypocrisy on the right side.
Question. Do we know who wrote the gospels?
Answer. Yes; we do.
Question. Are we absolutely sure who wrote
them?
Answer. Of course; we have the evidence as it
has come to us through the Catholic Church.
Question. Can we rely upon the Catholic Church
now?
Answer. No; assuredly no! But we have the
testimony of Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement,
418
and others of the early fathers, together with that of
the Christian historian, Eusebius.
Question. What do we really know about Polycarp?
Answer. We know that he suffered martyrdom un-
der Marcus Aurelius, and that for quite a time the fire
refused to burn his body, the flames arching over him,
leaving him in a kind of fiery tent; and we also know
that from his body came a fragrance like frankincense,
and that the Pagans were so exasperated at seeing
the miracle, that one of them thrust a sword through
the body of Polycarp; that the blood flowed out and
extinguished the flames and that out of the wound
flew the soul of the martyr in the form of a dove.
Question. Is that all we know about Polycarp?
Answer. Yes, with the exception of a few more
like incidents.
Question. Do we know that Polycarp ever met
St. John?
Answer. Yes; Eusebius says so.
Question. Are we absolutely certain that he ever
lived?
Answer. Yes, or Eusebius could not have written
about him.
Question. Do we know anything of the character
of Eusebius?
419
Answer. Yes; we know that he was untruthful
only when he wished to do good. But God can use
even the dishonest. Other books have to be sub-
stantiated by truthful men, but such is the power of
God, that he can establish the inspiration of the Bible
by the most untruthful witnesses. If God's witnesses
were honest, anybody could believe, and what be-
comes of faith, one of the greatest virtues?
Question. Is the New Testament now the same as
it was in the days of the early fathers?
Answer. Certainly not. Many books now thrown
out, and not esteemed of divine origin, were esteemed
divine by Polycarp and Irenæus and Clement and
many of the early churches. These books are now
called "apocryphal."
Question. Have you not the same witnesses in
favor of their authenticity, that you have in favor of
the gospels?
Answer. Precisely the same. Except that they
were thrown out.
Question. Why were they thrown out?
Answer. Because the Catholic Church did not es-
teem them inspired.
Question. Did the Catholics decide for us which
are the true gospels and which are the true epistles?
420
Answer. Yes. The Catholic Church was then the
only church, and consequently must have been the
true church.
Question. How did the Catholic Church select the
true books?
Answer. Councils were called, and votes were
taken, very much as we now pass resolutions in
political meetings.
Question. Was the Catholic Church infallible then?
Answer. It was then, but it is not now.
Question. If the Catholic Church at that time
had thrown out the book of Revelation, would it
now be our duty to believe that book to have been
inspired?
Answer. No, I suppose not.
Question. Is it not true that some of these books
were adopted by exceedingly small majorities?
Answer. It is.
Question. If the Epistle to the Hebrews and to
the Romans, and the book of Revelation had been
thrown out, could a man now be saved who honestly
believes the rest of the books?
Answer. This is doubtful.
Question. Were the men who picked out the in-
spired books inspired?
421
Answer. We cannot tell, but the probability is
that they were.
Question. Do we know that they picked out the
right ones?
Answer. Well, not exactly, but we believe that
they did.
Question. Are we certain that some of the books
that were thrown out were not inspired?
Answer. Well, the only way to tell is to read
them carefully.
Question. If upon reading these apocryphal books
a man concludes that they are not inspired, will he be
damned for that reason?
Answer. No. Certainly not.
Question. If he concludes that some of them are
inspired, and believes them, will he then be damned
for that belief?
Answer. Oh, no! Nobody is ever damned for
believing too much.
Question. Does the fact that the books now com-
prising the New Testament were picked out by the
Catholic Church prevent their being examined now
by an honest man, as they were examined at the time
they were picked out?
422
Answer. No; not if the man comes to the con-
clusion that they are inspired.
Question. Does the fact that the Catholic Church
picked them out and declared them to be inspired,
render it a crime to examine them precisely as you
would examine the books that the Catholic Church
threw out and declared were not inspired?
Answer. I think it does.
Question. At the time the council was held in which
it was determined which of the books of the New
Testament are inspired, a respectable minority voted
against some that were finally decided to be inspired.
If they were honest in the vote they gave, and died
without changing their opinions, are they now in hell?
Answer. Well, they ought to be.
Question. If those who voted to leave the book
of Revelation out of the canon, and the gospel of
Saint John out of the canon, believed honestly that
these were not inspired books, how should they have
voted?
Answer. Well, I suppose a man ought to vote as
he honestly believes—except in matters of religion.
Question. If the Catholic Church was not infal-
lible, is the question still open as to what books are,
and what are not, inspired?
423
Answer. I suppose the question is still open—
but it would be dangerous to decide it.
Question. If, then, I examine all the books again,
and come to the conclusion that some that were
thrown out were inspired, and some that were ac-
cepted were not inspired, ought I to say so?
Answer. Not if it is contrary to the faith of your
father, or calculated to interfere with your own po-
litical prospects.
Question. Is it as great a sin to admit into the
Bible books that are uninspired as to reject those
that are inspired?
Answer. Well, it is a crime to reject an inspired
book, no matter how unsatisfactory the evidence is
for its inspiration, but it is not a crime to receive an
uninspired book. God damns nobody for believing
too much. An excess of credulity is simply to err in
the direction of salvation.
Question. Suppose a man disbelieves in the inspira-
tion of the New Testament—believes it to be entirely
the work of uninspired men; and suppose he also be-
lieves—but not from any evidence obtained in the New
Testament—that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and
that he made atonement for his soul, can he then be
saved without a belief in the inspiration of the Bible?
424
Answer. This has not yet been decided by
our church, and I do not wish to venture an
opinion.
Question. Suppose a man denies the inspiration
of the Scriptures; suppose that he also denies the
divinity of Jesus Christ; and suppose, further, that
he acts precisely as Christ is said to have acted;
suppose he loves his enemies, prays for those who
despitefully use him, and does all the good he pos-
sibly can, is it your opinion that such a man will be
saved?
Answer. No, sir. There is "none other name
"given under heaven and among men," whereby a
sinner can be saved but the name of Christ.
Question. Then it is your opinion that God
would save a murderer who believed in Christ, and
would damn another man, exactly like Christ, who
failed to believe in him?
Answer. Yes; because we have the blessed
promise that, out of Christ, "our God is a consuming
"fire."
Question. Suppose a man read the Bible care-
fully and honestly, and was not quite convinced that
it was true, and that while examining the subject, he
died; what then?
425
Answer. I do not believe that God would allow
him to examine the matter in another world, or to
make up his mind in heaven. Of course, he would
eternally perish.
Question. Could Christ now furnish evidence
enough to convince every human being of the truth
of the Bible?
Answer. Of course he could, because he is in-
finite.
Question. Are any miracles performed now?
Answer. Oh, no!
Question. Have we any testimony, except human
testimony, to substantiate any miracle?
Answer. Only human testimony.
Question. Do all men give the same force to the
same evidence?
Answer. By no means.
Question. Have all honest men who have exam-
ined the Bible believed it to be inspired?
Answer. Of course they have. Infidels are not
honest.
Question. Could any additional evidence have
been furnished?
Answer. With perfect ease.
Question. Would God allow a soul to suffer
426
eternal agony rather than furnish evidence of the
truth of his Bible?
Answer. God has furnished plenty of evidence,
and altogether more than was really necessary. We
should read the Bible in a believing spirit.
Question. Are all parts of the inspired books
equally true?
Answer. Necessarily.
Question. According to Saint Matthew, God
promises to forgive all who will forgive others; not
one word is said about believing in Christ, or believ-
ing in the miracles, or in any Bible; did Matthew tell
the truth?
Answer. The Bible must be taken as a whole;
and if other conditions are added somewhere else,
then you must comply with those other conditions.
Matthew may not have stated all the conditions.
Question. I find in another part of the New
Testament, that a young man came to Christ and
asked him what was necessary for him to do in order
that he might inherit eternal life. Christ did not tell
him that he must believe the Bible, or that he must
believe in him, or that he must keep the Sabbath-
day; was Christ honest with that young man?
Answer. Well, I suppose he was.
427
Question. You will also recollect that Zaccheus
said to Christ, that where he had wronged any man
he had made restitution, and further, that half his
goods he had given to the poor; and you will re-
member that Christ said to Zaccheus: "This day
"hath salvation come to thy house." Why did not
Christ tell Zaccheus that he "must be born again;"
that he must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"?
Answer. Of course there are mysteries in our
holy religion that only those who have been "born
"again" can understand. You must remember that
"the carnal mind is enmity with God."
Question. Is it not strange that Christ, in his Ser-
mon on the Mount, did not speak of "regeneration,"
or of the "scheme of salvation"?
Answer. Well, it may be.
Question. Can a man be saved now by living
exactly in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount?
Answer. He can not.
Question. Would then a man, by following the
course of conduct prescribed by Christ in the Sermon
on the Mount, lose his soul?
Answer. He most certainly would, because there
is not one word in the Sermon on the Mount about
believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; not one word
428
about believing in the Bible; not one word about the
"atonement;" not one word about "regeneration."
So that, if the Presbyterian Church is right, it is abso-
lutely certain that a man might follow the teachings
of the Sermon on the Mount, and live in accordance
with its every word, and yet deserve and receive the
eternal condemnation of God. But we must remem-
ber that the Sermon on the Mount was preached be-
fore Christianity existed. Christ was talking to Jews.
Question. Did Christ write anything himself, in
the New Testament?
Answer. Not a word.
Question. Did he tell any of his disciples to write
any of his words?
Answer. There is no account of it, if he did.
Question. Do we know whether any of the dis-
ciples wrote anything?
Answer. Of course they did.
Question. How do you know?
Answer. Because the gospels bear their names.
Question. Are you satisfied that Christ was abso-
lutely God?
Answer. Of course he was. We believe that
Christ and God and the Holy Ghost are all the same,
that the three form one, and that each one is three.
429
Question. Was Christ the God of the universe at
the time of his birth?
Answer. He certainly was.
Question. Was he the infinite God, creator
and controller of the entire universe, before he was
born?
Answer. Of course he was. This is the mystery
of "God manifest in the flesh." The infidels have
pretended that he was like any other child, and was
in fact supported by Nature instead of being the
supporter of Nature. They have insisted that like
other children, he had to be cared for by his mother.
Of course he appeared to be cared for by his mother.
It was a part of the plan that in all respects he should
appear to be like other children.
Question. Did he know just as much before he
was born as after?
Answer. If he was God of course he did.
Question. How do you account for the fact that
Saint Luke tells us, in the last verse of the second
chapter of his gospel, that "Jesus increased in wis-
"dom and stature"?
Answer. That I presume is a figure of speech;
because, if he was God, he certainly could not have
increased in wisdom. The physical part of him could
430
increase in stature, but the intellectual part must have
been infinite all the time.
Question. Do you think that Luke was mistaken?
Answer. No; I believe what Luke said. If it
appears untrue, or impossible, then I know that it is
figurative or symbolical.
Question. Did I understand you to say that Christ
was actually God?
Answer. Of course he was.
Question. Then why did Luke say in the same
verse of the same chapter that "Jesus increased in
"favor with God"?
Answer. I dare you to go into a room by your-
self and read the fourteenth chapter of Saint John!
Question. Is it necessary to understand the Bible
in order to be saved?
Answer. Certainly not; it is only necessary that
you believe it.
Question. Is it necessary to believe all the
miracles?
Answer. It may not be necessary, but as it is im-
possible to tell which ones can safely be left out, you
had better believe them all.
Question. Then you regard belief as the safe
way?
431
Answer. Of course it is better to be fooled in this
world than to be damned in the next.
Question. Do you think that there are any cruel-
ties on God's part recorded in the Bible?
Answer. At first flush, many things done by God
himself, as well as by his prophets, appear to be
cruel; but if we examine them closely, we will find
them to be exactly the opposite.
Question. How do you explain the story of Elisha
and the children,—where the two she-bears destroyed
forty-two children on account of their impudence?
Answer. This miracle, in my judgment, estab-
lishes two things: 1. That children should be polite
to ministers, and 2. That God is kind to animals—
"giving them their meat in due season." These
bears have been great educators—they are the
foundation of the respect entertained by the young
for theologians. No child ever sees a minister now
without thinking of a bear.
Question. What do you think of the story of
Daniel—you no doubt remember it? Some men
told the king that Daniel was praying contrary to
law, and thereupon Daniel was cast into a den of
lions; but the lions could not touch him, their
mouths having been shut by angels. The next
432
morning, the king, finding that Daniel was still
intact, had him taken out; and then, for the purpose
of gratifying Daniels God, the king had all the men
who had made the complaint against Daniel, and
their wives and their little children, brought and cast
into the lions' den. According to the account, the
lions were so hungry that they caught these wives
and children as they dropped, and broke all their
bones in pieces before they had even touched the
ground. Is it not wonderful that God failed to pro-
tect these innocent wives and children?
Answer. These wives and children were heathen;
they were totally depraved. And besides, they were
used as witnesses. The fact that they were devoured
with such quickness shows that the lions were
hungry. Had it not been for this, infidels would
have accounted for the safety of Daniel by saying
that the lions had been fed.
Question. Do you believe that Shadrach, Meshach
and Abednego were cast "into a burning fiery furnace
"heated one seven times hotter than it was wont to
"be heated," and that they had on "their coats, their
"hosen and their hats," and that when they came
out "not a hair of their heads was singed, nor was
"the smell of fire upon their garments"?
433
Answer. The evidence of this miracle is exceed-
ingly satisfactory. It resulted in the conversion of
Nebuchadnezzar.
Question. How do you know he was converted?
Answer. Because immediately after the miracle
the king issued a decree that "every people, nation
"and language that spoke anything amiss against
"the God of Shadrach and Company, should be cut
"in pieces." This decree shows that he had become
a true disciple and worshiper of Jehovah.
Question. If God in those days preserved from
the fury of the fire men who were true to him and
would not deny his name, why is it that he has failed
to protect thousands of martyrs since that time?
Answer. This is one of the divine mysteries.
God has in many instances allowed his enemies to
kill his friends. I suppose this was allowed for the
good of his enemies, that the heroism of the mar-
tyrs might convert them.
Question. Do you believe all the miracles?
Answer. I believe them all, because I believe the
Bible to be inspired.
Question. What makes you think it is inspired?
Answer. I have never seen anybody who knew
it was not; besides, my father and mother believed it.
434
Question. Have you any other reasons for be-
lieving it to be inspired?
Answer. Yes; there are more copies of the Bible
printed than of any other book; and it is printed in
more languages. And besides, it would be impossible
to get along without it.
Question. Why could we not get along without it?
Answer. We would have nothing to swear wit-
nesses by; no book in which to keep the family
record; nothing for the centre-table, and nothing for
a mother to give her son. No nation can be civilized
without the Bible.
Question. Did God always know that a Bible was
necessary to civilize a country?
Answer. Certainly he did.
Question. Why did he not give a Bible to
the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Greeks and the
Romans?
Answer. It is astonishing what perfect fools in-
fidels are.
Question. Why do you call infidels "fools"?
Answer. Because I find in the fifth chapter of the
gospel according to Matthew the following: "Who-
"soever shall say 'Thou fool!' shall be in danger of
"hell fire."
435
Question. Have I the right to read the Bible?
Answer. Yes. You not only have the right, but
it is your duty.
Question. In reading the Bible the words make
certain impressions on my mind. These impressions
depend upon my brain,—upon my intelligence. Is
not this true?
Answer. Of course, when you read the Bible, im-
pressions are made upon your mind.
Question. Can I control these impressions?
Answer. I do not think you can, as long as you
remain in a sinful state.
Question. How am I to get out of this sinful state?
Answer. You must believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and you must read the Bible in a prayerful
spirit and with a believing heart.
Question. Suppose that doubts force themselves
upon my mind?
Answer. Then you will know that you are a sin-
ner, and that you are depraved.
Question. If I have the right to read the Bible,
have I the right to try to understand it?
Answer. Most assuredly.
Question. Do you admit that I have the right to
reason about it and to investigate it?
436
Answer. Yes; I admit that. Of course you can-
not help reasoning about what you read.
Question. Does the right to read a book include
the right to give your opinion as to the truth of what
the book contains?
Answer. Of course,—if the book is not inspired.
Infidels hate the Bible because it is inspired, and
Christians know that it is inspired because infidels
say that it is not.
Question. Have I the right to decide for myself
whether or not the book is inspired?
Answer. You have no right to deny the truth of
God's Holy Word.
Question. Is God the author of all books?
Answer. Certainly not.
Question. Have I the right to say that God did
not write the Koran?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why?
Answer. Because the Koran was written by an
impostor.
Question. How do you know?
Answer. My reason tells me so.
Question. Have you the right to be guided by
your reason?
437
Answer. I must be.
Question. Have you the same right to follow your
reason after reading the Bible?
Answer. No. The Bible is the standard of reason.
The Bible is not to be judged or corrected by your
reason. Your reason is to be weighed and measured
by the Bible. The Bible is different from other
books and must not be read in the same critical spirit,
nor judged by the same standard.
Question. What did God give us reason for?
Answer. So that we might investigate other
religions, and examine other so-called sacred books.
Question. If a man honestly thinks that the Bible
is not inspired, what should he say?
Answer. He should admit that he is mistaken.
Question. When he thinks he is right?
Answer. Yes. The Bible is different from other
books. It is the master of reason. You read the
Bible, not to see if that is wrong, but to see
whether your reason is right. It is the only book
about which a man has no right to reason. He must
believe. The Bible is addressed, not to the reason,
but to the ears: "He that hath ears to hear, let
"him hear."
Question. Do you think we have the right to tell
438
what the Bible means—what ideas God intended to
convey, or has conveyed to us, through the medium
of the Bible?
Answer. Well, I suppose you have that right.
Yes, that must be your duty. You certainly ought
to tell others what God has said to you.
Question. Do all men get the same ideas from
the Bible?
Answer. No.
Question. How do you account for that?
Answer. Because all men are not alike; they
differ in intellect, in education, and in experience.
Question. Who has the right to decide as to the
real ideas that God intended to convey?
Answer. I am a Protestant, and believe in the
right of private judgment. Whoever does not is a
Catholic. Each man must be his own judge, but God
will hold him responsible.
Question. Does God believe in the right of private
judgment?
Answer. Of course he does.
Question. Is he willing that I should exercise my
judgment in deciding whether the Bible is inspired or
not?
Answer. No. He believes in the exercise of
439
private judgment only in the examination and rejec-
tion of other books than the Bible.
Question. Is he a Catholic?
Answer. I cannot answer blasphemy! Let me
tell you that God will "laugh at your calamity, and
"will mock when your fear cometh." You will be
accursed.
Question. Why do you curse infidels?
Answer. Because I am a Christian.
Question. Did not Christ say that we ought to
"bless those who curse us," and that we should
"love our enemies"?
Answer. Yes, but he cursed the Pharisees and
called them "hypocrites" and "vipers."
Question. How do you account for that?
Answer. It simply shows the difference between
theory and practice.
Question. What do you consider the best way to
answer infidels.
Answer. The old way is the best. You should
say that their arguments are ancient, and have been
answered over and over again. If this does not
satisfy your hearers, then you should attack the
character of the infidel—then that of his parents—
then that of his children.
440
Question. Suppose that the infidel is a good man,
how will you answer him then?
Answer. But an infidel cannot be a good man.
Even if he is, it is better that he should lose his
reputation, than that thousands should lose their
souls. We know that all infidels are vile and infa-
mous. We may not have the evidence, but we know
that it exists.
Question. How should infidels be treated? Should
Christians try to convert them?
Answer. Christians should have nothing to do
with infidels. It is not safe even to converse with
them. They are always talking about reason, and
facts, and experience. They are filled with sophistry
and should be avoided.
Question. Should Christians pray for the con-
version of infidels?
Answer. Yes; but such prayers should be made
in public and the name of the infidel should be given
and his vile and hideous heart portrayed so that the
young may be warned.
Question. Whom do you regard as infidels?
Answer. The scientists—the geologists, the as-
tronomers, the naturalists, the philosophers. No one
can overestimate the evil that has been wrought
441
by Laplace, Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel,
Renan, Emerson, Strauss, Bikhner, Tyndall, and
their wretched followers. These men pretended to
know more than Moses and the prophets. They
were "dogs baying at the moon." They were
"wolves" and "fools." They tried to "assassinate
"God," and worse than all, they actually laughed
at the clergy,
Question. Do you think they did, and are doing
great harm?
Answer. Certainly. Of what use are all the
sciences, if you lose your own soul? People in hell
will care nothing about education. The rich man
said nothing about science, he wanted water.
Neither will they care about books and theories
in heaven. If a man is perfectly happy, it makes
no difference how ignorant he is.
Question. But how can he answer these scientists?
Answer. Well, my advice is to let their argu-
ments alone. Of course, you will deny all their
facts; but the most effective way is to attack their
character.
Question. But suppose they are good men,—
what then?
Answer. The better they are, the worse they are.
442
We cannot admit that the infidel is really good. He
may appear to be good, and it is our duty to strip
the mask of appearance from the face of unbelief. If
a man is not a Christian, he is totally depraved, and
why should we hesitate to make a misstatement
about a man whom God is going to make miserable
forever?
Question. Are we not commanded to love our
enemies?
Answer. Yes, but not the enemies of God.
Question. Do you fear the final triumph of infi-
delity?
Answer. No. We have no fear. We believe
that the Bible can be revised often enough to agree
with anything that may really be necessary to the
preservation of the church. We can always rely
upon revision. Let me tell you that the Bible is the
most peculiar of books. At the time God inspired his
holy prophets to write it, he knew exactly what the
discoveries and demonstrations of the future would
be, and he wrote his Bible in such a way that the
words could always be interpreted in accordance with
the intelligence of each age, and so that the words
used are capable of several meanings, so that, no
matter what may hereafter be discovered, the Bible
443
will be found to agree with it,—for the reason that
the knowledge of Hebrew will grow in the exact
proportion that discoveries are made in other depart-
ments of knowledge. You will therefore see, that all
efforts of infidelity to destroy the Bible will simply
result in giving a better translation.
Question. What do you consider is the strongest
argument in favor of the inspiration of the Scrip-
tures?
Answer. The dying words of Christians.
Question. What do you consider the strongest
argument against the truth of infidelity?
Answer. The dying words of infidels. You know
how terrible were the death-bed scenes of Hume,
Voltaire, Paine and Hobbes, as described by hundreds
of persons who were not present; while all Christians
have died with the utmost serenity, and with their
last words have testified to the sustaining power of
faith in the goodness of God.
Question. What were the last words of Jesus
Christ?
Answer. "My God, my God, why hast thou for-
"saken me?"
A VINDICATION OF THOMAS PAINE.
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and
authority of reason, is like administering
medicine to the dead."—Thomas Paine.
Peoria, October 8, 1877.
To the Editor of the N Y. Observer:
Sir: Last June in San Francisco, I offered a
thousand dollars in gold—not as a wager, but as a
gift—to any one who would substantiate the absurd
story that Thomas Paine died in agony and fear,
frightened by the clanking chains of devils. I also
offered the same amount to any minister who would
prove that Voltaire did not pass away as serenely as
the coming of the dawn. Afterward I was informed
that you had accepted the offer, and had called upon
me to deposit the money. Acting upon this inform-
ation, I sent you the following letter:
Peoria, Ill., August 31st, 1877.
To the Editor of the New York Observer:
I have been informed that you accepted, in your
paper, an offer made by me to any clergyman in
San Francisco. That offer was, that I would pay
448
one thousand dollars in gold to any minister in that
city who would prove that Thomas Paine died in
terror because of religious opinions he had ex-
pressed, or that Voltaire did not pass away serenely
as the coming of the dawn.
For many years religious journals and ministers
have been circulating certain pretended accounts of
the frightful agonies endured by Paine and Voltaire
when dying; that these great men at the moment of
death were terrified because they had given their
honest opinions upon the subject of religion to their
fellow-men. The imagination of the religious world
has been taxed to the utmost in inventing absurd
and infamous accounts of the last moments of these
intellectual giants. Every Sunday school paper,
thousands of idiotic tracts, and countless stupidities
called sermons, have been filled with these calumnies.
Paine and Voltaire both believed in God—both
hoped for immortality—both believed in special
providence. But both denied the inspiration of the
Scriptures—both denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.
While theologians most cheerfully admit that most
murderers die without fear, they deny the possibility
of any man who has expressed his disbelief in the
inspiration of the Bible dying except in an agony of
terror. These stories are used in revivals and in
449
Sunday schools, and have long been considered of
great value.
I am anxious that these slanders shall cease. I
am desirous of seeing justice done, even at this late
day, to the dead.
For the purpose of ascertaining the evidence upon
which these death-bed accounts really rest, I make
to you the following proposition:—
First.—As to Thomas Paine: I will deposit with
the First National Bank of Peoria, Illinois, one thou-
sand dollars in gold, upon the following conditions:
This money shall be subject to your order when
you shall, in the manner hereinafter provided, sub-
stantiate that Thomas Paine admitted the Bible to be
an inspired book, or that he recanted his Infidel
opinions—or that he died regretting that he had dis-
believed the Bible—or that he died calling upon
Jesus Christ in any religious sense whatever.
In order that a tribunal may be created to try this
question, you may select one man, I will select
another, and the two thus chosen shall select a third,
and any two of the three may decide the matter.
As there will be certain costs and expenditures on
both sides, such costs and expenditures shall be paid
by the defeated party.
In addition to the one thousand dollars in gold, I
450
will deposit a bond with good and sufficient security
in the sum of two thousand dollars, conditioned for
the payment of all costs in case I am defeated. I
shall require of you a like bond.
From the date of accepting this offer you may
have ninety days to collect and present your testi-
mony, giving me notice of time and place of taking
depositions. I shall have a like time to take evi-
dence upon my side, giving you like notice, and you
shall then have thirty days to take further testimony
in reply to what I may offer. The case shall then
be argued before the persons chosen; and their
decisions shall be final as to us.
If the arbitrator chosen by me shall die, I shall
have the right to choose another. You shall have
the same right. If the third one, chosen by our two,
shall die, the two shall choose another; and all va-
cancies, from whatever cause, shall be filled upon the
same principle.
The arbitrators shall sit when and where a major-
ity shall determine, and shall have full power to pass
upon all questions arising as to competency of
evidence, and upon all subjects.
Second.—As to Voltaire: I make the same prop-
osition, if you will substantiate that Voltaire died
expressing remorse or showing in any way that he
451
was in mental agony because he had attacked Catholi-
cism—or because he had denied the inspiration of the
Bible—or because he had denied the divinity of Christ.
I make these propositions because I want you
to stop slandering the dead.
If the propositions do not suit you in any particu-
lar, please state your objections, and I will modify
them in any way consistent with the object in view.
If Paine and Voltaire died filled with childish and
silly fear, I want to know it, and I want the world to
know it. On the other hand, if the believers in
superstition have made and circulated these cruel
slanders concerning the mighty dead, I want the
world to know that.
As soon as you notify me of the acceptance of
these propositions I will send you the certificate of
the bank that the money has been deposited upon
the foregoing conditions, together with copies of
bonds for costs. Yours truly,
R. G. Ingersoll.
In your paper of September 27, 1877, you acknowl-
edge the receipt of the foregoing letter, and after
giving an outline of its contents, say: "As not one
of the affirmations, in the form stated in this letter,
was contained in the offer we made, we have no
occasion to substantiate them. But we are prepared
452
to produce the evidence of the truth of our own
statement, and even to go further; to show not only
that Tom Paine 'died a drunken, cowardly, and
beastly death,' but that for many years previous, and
up to that event he lived a drunken and beastly life."
In order to refresh your memory as to what you
had published, I call your attention to the following,
which appeared in the N. Y. Observer, July 19, 1877:
"Put Down the Money.
"Col. Bob Ingersoll, in a speech full of ribaldry
and blasphemy, made in San Francisco recently, said:
"I will give $1,000 in gold coin to any clergyman
who can substantiate that the death of Voltaire was
not as peaceful as the dawn; and of Tom Paine whom
they assert died in fear and agony, frightened by the
clanking chains of devils—in fact frightened to death
by God. I will give $1,000 likewise to any one who
can substantiate this 'absurd story'—a story without
a word of truth in it."
"We have published the testimony, and the wit-
nesses are on hand to prove that Tom Paine died a
drunken, cowardly and beastly death. Let the Colo-
nel deposit the money with any honest man, and the
absurd story, as he terms it, shall be shown to be an
ower true tale. But he wont do it. His talk is Infi-
del 'buncombe' and nothing more."
453
On the 31st of August I sent you my letter, and
on the 27th of September you say in your paper:
"As not one of the affirmations in the form stated
in this letter was contained in the offer we made, we
have no occasion to substantiate them."
What were the affirmations contained in the offer
you made? I had offered a thousand dollars in gold
to any one who would substantiate "the absurd story"
that Thomas Paine died in fear and agony,frightened
by the clanking chains of devils—in fact, frightened to
death by God.
In response to this offer you said: "Let the Colo-
nel deposit the money with an honest man and the
'absurd story' as he terms it, shall be shown to be
an 'ower true tale.' But he won't do it. His talk
is infidel 'buncombe' and nothing more."
Did you not offer to prove that Paine died in fear
and agony, frightened by the clanking chains of
devils? Did you not ask me to deposit the money
that you might prove the "absurd story" to be an
"ower true tale" and obtain the money? Did you
not in your paper of the twenty-seventh of September
in effect deny that you had offered to prove this
"absurd story"? As soon as I offered to deposit
the gold and give bonds besides to cover costs, did
you not publish a falsehood?
454
You have eaten your own words, and, for my
part, I would rather have dined with Ezekiel than
with you.
You have not met the issue. You have know-
ingly avoided it. The question was not as to the
personal habits of Paine. The real question was
and is, whether Paine was filled with fear and horror
at the time of his death on account of his religious
opinions. That is the question. You avoid this.
In effect, you abandon that charge and make others.
To you belongs the honor of having made the
most cruel and infamous charges against Thomas
Paine that have ever been made. Of what you
have said you cannot prove the truth of one word.
You say that Thomas Paine died a drunken,
cowardly and beastly death.
I pronounce this charge to be a cowardly and
beastly falsehood.
Have you any evidence that he was in a drunken
condition when he died?
What did he say or do of a cowardly character
just before, or at about the time of his death?
In what way was his death cowardly? You must
answer these questions, and give your proof, or all
honest men will hold you in abhorrence. You have
made these charges. The man against whom you
Vindication of thomas paine.
455
make them is dead. He cannot answer you. I
can. He cannot compel you to produce your testi-
mony, or admit by your silence that you have
cruelly slandered the defenceless dead. I can and I
will. You say that his death was cowardly. In
what respect? Was it cowardly in him to hold the
Thirty-Nine Articles in contempt? Was it cowardly
not to call on your Lord? Was it cowardly not to
be afraid? You say that his death was beastly.
Again I ask, in what respect? Was it beastly to
submit to the inevitable with tranquillity? Was it
beastly to look with composure upon the approach
of death? Was it beastly to die without a com-
plaint, without a murmur—to pass from life without
a fear?
Did Thomas Paine Recant?
Mr. Paine had prophesied that fanatics would
crawl and cringe around him during his last mo-
ments. He believed that they would put a lie in
the mouth of Death.
When the shadow of the coming dissolution was
upon him, two clergymen, Messrs. Milledollar and
Cunningham, called to annoy the dying man. Mr.
Cunningham had the politeness to say, "You have
now a full view of death you cannot live long, and
whosoever does not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
456
will asuredly be damned." Mr. Paine replied, "Let
me have none of your popish stuff. Get away with
you. Good morning."
On another occasion a Methodist minister ob-
truded himself when Willet Hicks was present.
This minister declared to Mr. Paine "that unless he
repented of his unbelief he would be damned."
Paine, although at the door of death, rose in his bed
and indignantly requested the clergyman to leave
his room. On another occasion, two brothers by
the name of Pigott, sought to convert him. He was
displeased and requested their departure. After-
ward Thomas Nixon and Captain Daniel Pelton
visited him for the express purpose of ascertaining
whether he had, in any manner, changed his relig-
ious opinions. They were assured by the dying
man that he still held the principles he had expressed
in his writings.
Afterward, these gentlemen hearing that William
Cobbett was about to write a life of Paine, sent him
the following note:
New York, April 24, 1818.
"Sir: We have been informed that you have a de-
sign to write a history of the life and writings of
Thomas Paine. If you have been furnished with
materials in respect to his religious opinions, or
457
rather of his recantation of his former opinions before
his death, all you have heard of his recanting is false.
Being aware that such reports would be raised after
his death by fanatics who infested his house at the
time it was expected he would die, we, the subscrib-
ers, intimate acquaintances of Thomas Paine since
the year 1776, went to his house. He was sitting
up in a chair, and apparently in full vigor and use of
all his mental faculties. We interrogated him upon
his religious opinions, and if he had changed his
mind, or repented of anything he had said or wrote
on that subject. He answered, "Not at all," and
appeared rather offended at our supposition that any
change should take place in his mind. We took
down in writing the questions put to him and his
answers thereto before a number of persons then in
his room, among whom were his doctor, Mrs.
Bonneville, etc. paper is mislaid and cannot
be found at present, but the above is the substance
which can be attested by many living witnesses."
Thomas Nixon.
Daniel Pelton.
Mr. Jarvis, the artist, saw Mr. Paine one or two
days before his death. To Mr. Jarvis he expressed
his belief in his written opinions upon the subject of
religion. B. F. Haskin, an attorney of the city of
458
New York, also visited him and inquired as to his
religious opinions. Paine was then upon the thresh-
old of death, but he did not tremble. He was not a
coward. He expressed his firm and unshaken belief
in the religious ideas he had given to the world.
Dr. Manley was with him when he spoke his last
words. Dr. Manley asked the dying man if he did
not wish to believe that Jesus was the Son of God,
and the dying philosopher answered: "I have no
wish to believe on that subject." Amasa Woodsworth
sat up with Thomas Paine the night before his
death. In 1839 Gilbert Vale hearing that Mr.
Woodsworth was living in or near Boston, visited
him for the purpose of getting his statement. The
statement was published in the Beacon of June 5,
1839, while thousands who had been acquainted with
Mr. Paine were living.
The following is the article referred to.
"We have just returned from Boston. One ob-
ject of our visit to that city, was to see a Mr. Amasa
Woodsworth, an engineer, now retired in a hand-
some cottage and garden at East Cambridge, Boston.
This gentleman owned the house occupied by Paine
at his death—while he lived next door. As an act
of kindness Mr. Woodsworth visited Mr. Paine every
day for six weeks before his death. He frequently
459
sat up with him, and did so on the last two nights of
his life. He was always there with Dr. Manley, the
physician, and assisted in removing Mr. Paine while
his bed was prepared. He was present when Dr.
Manley asked Mr. Paine "if he wished to believe
that Jesus Christ was the Son of God," and he de-
scribes Mr. Paine's answer as animated. He says
that lying on his back he used some action and with
much emphasis, replied, "I have no wish to believe
on that subject." He lived some time after this, but
was not known to speak, for he died tranquilly. He
accounts for the insinuating style of Dr. Manley's
letter, by stating that that gentleman just after its
publication joined a church. He informs us that he
has openly reproved the doctor for the falsity con-
tained in the spirit of that letter, boldly declaring be-
fore Dr. Manley, who is yet living, that nothing
which he saw justified the insinuations. Mr. Woods-
worth assures us that he neither heard nor saw any-
thing to justify the belief of any mental change in
the opinions of Mr. Paine previous to his death; but
that being very ill and in pain chiefly arising from
the skin being removed in some parts by long lying,
he was generally too uneasy to enjoy conversation
on abstract subjects. This, then, is the best evidence
that can be procured on this subject, and we publish
460
it while the contravening parties are yet alive, and
with the authority of Mr. Woodsworth.
Gilbert Vale.
A few weeks ago I received the following letter
which confirms the statement of Mr. Vale:
Near Stockton, Cal., Green-
wood Cottage, July 9, 1877.
Col. Ingersoll: In 1842 I talked with a gentle-
man in Boston. I have forgotten his name; but he was
then an engineer of the Charleston navy yard. I am
thus particular so that you can find his name on the
books. He told me that he nursed Thomas Paine
in his last illness, and closed his eyes when dead. I
asked him if he recanted and called upon God to
save him. He replied, "No. He died as he had
taught. He had a sore upon his side and when we
turned him it was very painful and he would cry out
'O God!' or something like that." "But," said
the narrator, "that was nothing, for he believed in a
God." I told him that I had often heard it asserted
from the pulpit that Mr. Paine had recanted in his
last moments. The gentleman said that it was not
true, and he appeared to be an intelligent, truthful
man. With respect, I remain, etc.
Philip Graves, M. D.
461
The next witness is Willet Hicks, a Quaker
preacher. He says that during the last illness of
Mr. Paine he visited him almost daily, and that
Paine died firmly convinced of the truth of the relig-
ious opinions he had given to his fellow-men. It
was to this same Willet Hicks that Paine applied for
permission to be buried in the cemetery of the
Quakers. Permission was refused. This refusal
settles the question of recantation. If he had re-
canted, of course there could have been no objection
to his body being buried by the side of the best
hypocrites on the earth.
If Paine recanted why should he be denied "a
little earth for charity"? Had he recanted, it
would have been regarded as a vast and splendid
triumph for the gospel. It would with much noise
and pomp and ostentation have been heralded
about the world.
I received the following letter to-day. The
writer is well know in this city, and is a man of
high character:
Peoria, Oct. 8th, 1877.
Robert G. Ingersoll, Esteemed Friend: My
parents were Friends (Quakers). My father died
when I was very young. The elderly and middle-
aged Friends visited at my mother's house. We
462
lived in the city of New York. Among the number
I distinctly remember Elias Hicks, Willet Hicks,
and a Mr.-Day, who was a bookseller in Pearl
street. There were many others, whose names I
do not now remember. The subject of the recanta-
tion by Thomas Paine of his views about the Bible
in his last illness, or at any other time, was dis-
cussed by them in my presence at different times.
I learned from them that some of them had attended
upon Thomas Paine in his last sickness and minis-
tered to his wants up to the time of his death.
And upon the question of whether he did recant
there was but one expression. They all said that
he did not recant in any manner. I often heard
them say they wished he had recanted. In fact,
according to them, the nearer he approached death
the more positive he appeared to be in his con-
victions.
These conversations were from 1820 to 1822. I
was at that time from ten to twelve years old, but
these conversations impressed themselves upon me
because many thoughtless people then blamed the
Society of Friends for their kindness to that "arch
Infidel," Thomas Paine..
Truly yours,
A. C. Hankinson.
463
A few days ago I received the following letter:
Albany, New York, Sept. 27, 1877.
Dear Sir: It is over twenty years ago that pro-
fessionally I made the acquaintance of John Hogeboom,
a Justice of the Peace of the county of
Rensselaer, New York. He was then over seventy
years of age and had the reputation of being a man
of candor and integrity. He was a great admirer of
Paine. He told me that he was personally ac-
quainted with him, and used to see him frequently
during the last years of his life in the city of New
York, where Hogeboom then resided. I asked him
if there was any truth in the charge that Paine was
in the habit of getting drunk. He said that it was
utterly false; that he never heard of such a thing
during the life-time of Mr. Paine, and did not believe
any one else did. I asked him about the recantation
of his religious opinions on his death-bed, and the
revolting death-bed scenes that the world had heard
so much about. He said there was no truth in
them, that he had received his information from
persons who attended Paine in his last illness, "and
that he passed peacefully away, as we may say, in
the sunshine of a great soul."...
Yours truly,
W. J. Hilton,
464
The witnesses by whom I substantiate the fact
that Thomas Paine did not recant, and that he died
holding the religious opinions he had published, are:
First—Thomas Nixon, Captain Daniel Pelton,
B. F. Haskin. These gentlemen visited him during
his last illness for the purpose of ascertaining whether
he had in any respect changed his views upon relig-
ion. He told them that he had not.
Second—James Cheetham. This man was the
most malicious enemy Mr. Paine had, and yet he
admits that "Thomas Paine died placidly, and al-
most without a struggle." (See Life of Thomas
Paine, by James Cheetham).
Third—The ministers, Milledollar and Cunning-
ham. These gentlemen told Mr. Paine that if he
died without believing in the Lord Jesus Christ he
would be damned, and Paine replied, "Let me have
none of your popish stuff. Good morning." (See
Sherwin's Life of Paine, p. 220).
Fourth—Mrs. Hedden. She told these same
preachers when they attempted to obtrude them-
selves upon Mr. Paine again, that the attempt to
convert Mr. Paine was useless—"that if God did not
change his mind no human power could."
Fifth—Andrew A. Dean. This man lived upon
Paine's farm at New Rochelle, and corresponded
465
with him upon religious subjects. (See Paine's
Theological Works, p. 308.)
Sixth—Mr. Jarvis, the artist with whom Paine
lived. He gives an account of an old lady coming
to Paine and telling him that God Almighty had
sent her to tell him that unless he repented and be-
lieved in the blessed Savior, he would be damned.
Paine replied that God would not send such a foolish
old woman with such an impertinent message. (See
Clio Rickman's Life of Paine.)
Seventh—Wm. Carver, with whom Paine boarded.
Mr. Carver said again and again that Paine did not
recant. He knew him well, and had every opportun-
ity of knowing. (See Life of Paine by Gilbert Vale.)
Eighth—Dr. Manley, who attended him in his last
sickness, and to whom Paine spoke his last words.
Dr. Manley asked him if he did not wish to believe in
Jesus Christ, and he replied, "I have no wish to
believe on that subject."
Ninth—Willet Hicks and Elias Hicks, who were
with him frequently during his last sickness, and
both of whom tried to persuade him to recant. Ac-
cording to their testimony, Mr. Paine died as he had
lived—a believer in God, and a friend of man.
Willet Hicks was offered money to say something
false against Thomas Paine. He was even offered
466
money to remain silent and allow others to slander
the dead. Mr. Hicks, speaking of Thomas Paine,
said: "He was a good man—an honest man."
(Vale's Life of Paine.)
Tenth—Amasa Woodsworth, who was with him
every day for some six weeks immediately preceding
his death, and sat up with him the last two nights of
his life. This man declares that Paine did not recant
and that he died tranquilly. The evidence of Mr.
Woodsworth is conclusive.
Eleventh—Thomas Paine himself. The will of
Thomas Paine, written by himself, commences as
follows:
"The last will and testament of me, the subscriber,
Thomas Paine, reposing confidence in my creator
God, and in no other being, for I know of no other,
nor believe in any other;" and closes in these words;
"I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind;
my time has been spent in doing good, and I die in
perfect composure and resignation to the will of my
creator God."
Twelfth—If Thomas Paine recanted, why do you
pursue him? If he recanted, he died substantially
in your belief, for what reason then do you denounce
his death as cowardly? If upon his death-bed he
renounced the opinions he had published, the busi-
467
ness of defaming him should be done by Infidels, not
by Christians.
I ask you if it is honest to throw away the testi-
mony of his friends—the evidence of fair and honor-
able men—and take the putrid words of avowed and
malignant enemies?
When Thomas Paine was dying, he was infested
by fanatics—by the snaky spies of bigotry. In the
shadows of death were the unclean birds of prey
waiting to tear with beak and claw the corpse of him
who wrote the "Rights of Man." And there lurk-
ing and crouching in the darkness were the jackals
and hyenas of superstition ready to violate his grave.
These birds of prey—these unclean beasts are the
witnesses produced and relied upon by you.
One by one the instruments of torture have been
wrenched from the cruel clutch of the church, until
within the armory of orthodoxy there remains but
one weapon—Slander.
Against the witnesses that I have produced you
can bring just two—Mary Roscoe and Mary Hins-
dale. The first is referred to in the memoir of
Stephen Grellet. She had once been a servant in his
house. Grellet tells what happened between this
girl and Paine. According to this account Paine
asked her if she had ever read any of his writings,
468
and on being told that she had read very little of
them, he inquired what she thought of them, adding
that from such an one as she he expected a correct
answer.
Let us examine this falsehood. Why would Paine
expect a correct answer about his writings from one
who had read very little of them? Does not such a
statement devour itself? This young lady further
said that the "Age of Reason" was put in her hands
and that the more she read in it the more dark and
distressed she felt, and that she threw the book into
the fire. Whereupon Mr. Paine remarked, "I wish
all had done as you did, for if the devil ever had any
agency in any work, he had it in my writing that book."
The next is Mary Hinsdale. She was a servant
in the family of Willet Hicks. She, like Mary Ros-
coe, was sent to carry some delicacy to Mr. Paine.
To this young lady Paine, according to her account,
said precisely the same that he did to Mary Roscoe,
and she said the same thing to Mr. Paine.
My own opinion is that Mary Roscoe and Mary
Hinsdale are one and the same person, or the same
story has been by mistake put in the mouth of both.
It is not possible that the same conversation should
have taken place between Paine and Mary Roscoe,
and between him and Mary Hinsdale.
469
Mary Hinsdale lived with Willet Hicks and he
pronounced her story a pious fraud and fabrication.
He said that Thomas Paine never said any such
thing to Mary Hinsdale. (See Vale's Life of
Paine.)
Another thing about this witness. A woman by
the name of Mary Lockwood, a Hicksite Quaker,
died. Mary Hinsdale met her brother about that
time and told him that his sister had recanted, and
wanted her to say so at her funeral. This turned
out to be false.
It has been claimed that Mary Hinsdale made her
statement to Charles Collins. Long after the alleged
occurrence Gilbert Vale, one of the biographers of
Paine, had a conversation with Collins concerning
Mary Hinsdale. Vale asked him what he thought
of her. He replied that some of the Friends be-
lieved that she used opiates, and that they did not
give credit to her statements. He also said that he
believed what the Friends said, but thought that
when a young woman, she might have told the
truth.
In 1818 William Cobbett came to New York.
He began collecting materials for a life of Thomas
Paine. In this he became acquainted with Mary
Hinsdale and Charles Collins. Mr. Cobbett gave a
470
full account of what happened in a letter addressed
to the Norwich Mercury in 1819. From this ac-
count it seems that Charles Collins told Cobbett that
Paine had recanted. Cobbett called for the testi-
mony, and told Mr. Collins that he must give time,
place, and the circumstances. He finally brought a
statement that he stated had been made by Mary
Hinsdale. Armed with this document Cobbett, in
October of that year, called upon the said Mary
Hinsdale, at No. 10 Anthony street, New York, and
showed her the statement. Upon being questioned
by Mr. Cobbett she said, "That it was so long ago
that she could not speak positively to any part of the
matter—that she would not say that any part of the
paper was true—that she had never seen the paper
—and that she had never given Charles Collins
authority to say anything about the matter in her
name." And so in the month of October, in the
year of grace 1818, in the mist and fog of forgetful-
ness disappeared forever one Mary Hinsdale—the
last and only witness against the intellectual honesty
of Thomas Paine.
Did Thomas Paine live the life of a drunken beast,
and did he die a drunken, cowardly and beastly death?
Upon you rests the burden of substantiating these
infamous charges.
471
You have, I suppose, produced the best evidence
in your possession, and that evidence I will now pro-
ceed to examine. Your first witness is Grant Thor-
burn. He makes three charges against Thomas
Paine, 1st. That his wife obtained a divorce from
him in England for cruelty and neglect. 2d. That
he was a defaulter and fled from England to Amer-
ica. 3d. That he was a drunkard.
These three charges stand upon the same evidence
—the word of Grant Thorburn. If they are not all
true Mr. Thorburn stands impeached.
The charge that Mrs. Paine obtained a divorce on
account of the cruelty and neglect of her husband is
utterly false. There is no such record in the world,
and never was. Paine and his wife separated by
mutual consent. Each respected the other. They
remained friends. This charge is without any foun-
dation in fact. I challenge the Christian world to
produce the record of this decree of divorce. Accord-
ing to Mr. Thorburn it was granted in England. In
that country public records are kept of all such de-
crees. Have the kindness to produce this decree
showing that it was given on account of cruelty or
admit that Mr. Thorburn was mistaken.
Thomas Paine was a just man. Although sepa-
rated from his wife, he always spoke of her with
472
tenderness and respect, and frequently sent her
money without letting her know the source from
whence it came. Was this the conduct of a drunken
beast?
The second charge, that Paine was a defaulter in
England and fled to America, is equally false. He
did not flee from England. He came to America,
not as a fugitive, but as a free man. He came with
a letter of introduction signed by another Infidel,
Benjamin Franklin. He came as a soldier of Free-
dom—an apostle of Liberty.
In this second charge there is not one word of truth.
He held a small office in England. If he was a
defaulter the records of that country will show that
fact.
Mr. Thorburn, unless the record can be produced
to substantiate him, stands convicted of at least two
mistakes.
Now, as to the third: He says that in 1802 Paine
was an "old remnant of mortality, drunk, bloated
and half asleep."
Can any one believe this to be a true account of
the personal appearance of Mr. Paine in 1802? He
had just returned from France. He had been wel-
comed home by Thomas Jefferson, who had said that
he was entitled to the hospitality of every American.
473
In 1802 Mr. Paine was honored with a public din-
ner in the city of New York. He was called upon
and treated with kindness and respect by such men
as DeWitt Clinton.
In 1806 Mr. Paine wrote a letter to Andrew A.
Dean upon the subject of religion. Read that letter
and then say that the writer of it was an "old rem-
nant of mortality, drunk, bloated and half asleep."
Search the files of the New York Observer from the
first issue to the last, and you will find nothing supe-
rior to this letter.
In 1803 Mr. Paine wrote a letter of considerable
length, and of great force, to his friend Samuel
Adams. Such letters are not written by drunken
beasts, nor by remnants of old mortality, nor by
drunkards. It was about the same time that he
wrote his "Remarks on Robert Hall's Sermons."
These "Remarks" were not written by a drunken
beast, but by a clear-headed and thoughtful man.
In 1804 he published an essay on the invasion of
England, and a treatise on gunboats, full of valuable
maritime information:—in 1805, a treatise on yellow
fever, suggesting modes of prevention. In short, he
was an industrious and thoughtful man. He sympa-
thized with the poor and oppressed of all lands. He
looked upon monarchy as a species of physical
474
slavery. He had the goodness to attack that form
of government. He regarded the religion of his day
as a kind of mental slavery. He had the courage to
give his reasons for his opinion. His reasons filled
the churches with hatred. Instead of answering his
arguments they attacked him. Men who were not
fit to blacken his shoes, blackened his character.
There is too much religious cant in the statement
of Mr. Thorburn. He exhibited too much anxiety
to tell what Grant Thorburn said to Thomas Paine.
He names Thomas Jefferson as one of the disreputa-
ble men who welcomed Paine with open arms. The
testimony of a man who regarded Thomas Jefferson
as a disreputable person, as to the character of any-
body, is utterly without value. In my judgment, the
testimony of Mr. Thorburn should be thrown aside
as wholly unworthy of belief.
Your next witness is the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.
D., who tells what an elder in his church said. This
elder said that Paine passed his last days on his farm
at New Rochelle with a solitary female attendant.
This is not true. He did not pass his last days at
New Rochelle. Consequently this pious elder did
not see him during his last days at that place. Upon
this elder we prove an alibi. Mr. Paine passed his
last days in the city of New York, in a house upon
475
Columbia street. The story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-
ham, D.D., is simply false.
The next competent false witness is the Rev.
Charles Hawley, D.D., who proceeds to state that
the story of the Rev. J. D. Wickham, D.D., is cor-
roborated by older citizens of New Rochelle. The
names of these ancient residents are withheld. Ac-
cording to these unknown witnesses, the account
given by the deceased elder was entirely correct.
But as the particulars of Mr. Paine's conduct "were
too loathsome to be described in print," we are left
entirely in the dark as to what he really did.
While at New Rochelle Mr. Paine lived with Mr.
Purdy—with Mr. Dean—with Captain Pelton, and
with Mr. Staple. It is worthy of note that all of
these gentlemen give the lie direct to the statements
of "older residents" and ancient citizens spoken of
by the Rev. Charles Hawley, D.D., and leave him
with his "loathsome particulars" existing only in his
own mind.
The next gentleman you bring upon the stand is
W. H. Ladd, who quotes from the memoirs of
Stephen Grellet. This gentleman also has the mis-
fortune to be dead. According to his account, Mr.
Paine made his recantation to a servant girl of his
by the name of Mary Roscoe. To this girl, accord-
476
ing to the account, Mr. Paine uttered the wish that
all who read his book had burned it. I believe there
is a mistake in the name of this girl. Her name was
probably Mary Hinsdale, as it was once claimed that
Paine made the same remark to her, but this point
I shall notice hereafter. These are your witnesses,
and the only ones you bring forward, to support
your charge that Thomas Paine lived a drunken and
beastly life and died a drunken, cowardly and beastly
death. All these calumnies are found in a life of
Paine by a Mr. Cheetham, the convicted libeler
already referred to. Mr. Cheetham was an enemy
of the man whose life he pretended to write.
In order to show you the estimation in which Mr.
Cheetham was held by Mr. Paine, I will give you a
copy of a letter that throws light upon this point:
October 28, 1807.
"Mr. Cheetham: Unless you make a public apol-
ogy for the abuse and falsehood in your paper of
Tuesday, October 27th, respecting me, I will prose-
cute you for lying."
Thomas Paine.
In another letter, speaking of this same man, Mr.
Paine says: "If an unprincipled bully cannot be re-
formed, he can be punished." "Cheetham has been
so long in the habit of giving false information, that
truth is to him like a foreign language."
477
Mr. Cheetham wrote the life of Paine to gratify
his malice and to support religion. He was prose-
cuted for libel—was convicted and fined.
Yet the life of Paine written by this man is referred
to by the Christian world as the highest authority.
As to the personal habits of Mr. Paine, we have
the testimony of William Carver, with whom he
lived; of Mr. Jarvis, the artist, with whom he lived;
of Mr. Staple, with whom he lived; of Mr. Purdy,
who was a tenant of Paine's; of Mr. Burger, with
whom he was intimate; of Thomas Nixon and
Captain Daniel Pelton, both of whom knew him
well; of Amasa Woodsworth, who was with him
when he died; of John Fellows, who boarded at the
same house; of James Wilburn, with whom he
boarded; of B. F. Haskin, a lawyer, who was well
acquainted with him and called upon him during his
last illness; of Walter Morton, a friend; of Clio
Rickman, who had known him for many years; of
Willet and Elias Hicks, Quakers, who knew him in-
timately and well; of Judge Herttell, H. Margary,
Elihu Palmer, and many others. All these testified
to the fact that Mr. Paine was a temperate man. In
those days nearly everybody used spirituous liquors.
Paine was not an exception; but he did not drink to
excess. Mr. Lovett, who kept the City Hotel where
478
Paine stopped, in a note to Caleb Bingham, declared
that Paine drank less than any boarder he had.
Against all this evidence you produce the story of
Grant Thorburn—the story of the Rev. J. D. Wick-
ham that an elder in his church told him that Paine
was a drunkard, corroborated by the Rev. Charles
Hawley, and an extract from Lossing's history to
the same effect. The evidence is overwhelmingly
against you. Will you have the fairness to admit it?
Your witnesses are merely the repeaters of the false-
hoods of James Cheetham, the convicted libeler.
After all, drinking is not as bad as lying. An
honest drunkard is better than a calumniator of the
dead. "A remnant of old mortality, drunk, bloated
and half asleep" is better than a perfectly sober
defender of human slavery.
To become drunk is a virtue compared with steal-
ing a babe from the breast of its mother.
Drunkenness is one of the beatitudes, compared
with editing a religious paper devoted to the defence
of slavery upon the ground that it is a divine insti-
tution.
Do you really think that Paine was a drunken
beast when he wrote "Common Sense"—a pamphlet
that aroused three millions of people, as people were
never aroused by a pamphlet before? Was he a
479
drunken beast when he wrote the "Crisis"? Was
it to a drunken beast that the following letter was
addressed:
Rocky Hill, September 10, 1783.
"I have learned since I have been at this place,
that you are at Bordentown.—Whether for the sake
of retirement or economy I know not. Be it for
either or both, or whatever it may, if you will come
to this place and partake with me I shall be exceed-
ingly happy to see you at it. Your presence may
remind Congress of your past services to this country;
and if it is in my power to impress them, command
my best exertions with freedom, as they will be
rendered cheerfully by one who entertains a lively
sense of the importance of your works, and who with
much pleasure subscribes himself,
"Your Sincere Friend,
"George Washington."
Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter
like that?
Do you think that Paine was a drunken beast
when the following letter was received by him?
"You express a wish in your letter to return to
America in a national ship; Mr. Dawson, who brings
over the treaty, and who will present you with this
letter, is charged with orders to the captain of the
480
Maryland to receive and accommodate you back, if you
can be ready to depart at such a short warning. You
will in general find us returned to sentiments worthy
of former times; in these it will be your glory to have
steadily labored and with as much effect as any man
living. That you may live long to continue your
useful labors, and reap the reward in the thankfulness
of nations, is my sincere prayer. Accept the assur-
ances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment."
Thomas Jefferson.
Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter
like that?
"It has been very generally propagated through
the continent that I wrote the pamphlet 'Common
Sense.' I could not have written anything in so
manly and striking a style."—John Adams.
"A few more such flaming arguments as were
exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to the
sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning con-
tained in the pamphlet 'Common Sense,' will not
leave numbers at a loss to decide on the propriety of
a separation."—George Washington.
"It is not necessary for me to tell you how
much all your countrymen—I speak of the great
mass of the people—are interested in your welfare.
481
They have not forgotten the history of their own
Revolution and the difficult scenes through which
they passed; nor do they review its several stages
without reviving in their bosoms a due sensibility of
the merits of those who served them in that great
and arduous conflict. The crime of ingratitude has
not yet stained, and I trust never will stain, our
national character. You are considered by them as
not only having rendered important services in our
own Revolution, but as being on a more extensive
scale the friend of human rights, and a distinguished
and able defender of public liberty. To the welfare
of Thomas Paine the Americans are not, nor can
they be indifferent.".. James Monroe.
Did any of your ancestors ever receive a letter
like that?
"No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and famil-
iarity of style, in perspicuity of expression, happiness
of elucidation, and in simple and unassuming lan-
guage."'—Thomas Jefferson.
Was ever a letter like that written about an editor
of the New York Observer?
Was it in consideration of the services of a
drunken beast that the Legislature of Pennsylvania
presented Thomas Paine with five hundred pounds
sterling?
482
Did the State of New York feel indebted to a
drunken beast, and confer upon Thomas Paine an
estate of several hundred acres?
"I believe in the equality of man, and I believe
that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving
mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creat-
ures happy."
"My own mind is my own church."
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he
be mentally faithful to himself."
"Any system of religion that shocks the mind of
a child cannot be a true system."
"The Word of God is the creation which we
behold."
"The age of ignorance commenced with the
Christian system."
"It is with a pious fraud as with a bad action—it
begets a calamitous necessity of going on."
"To read the Bible without horror, we must undo
everything that is tender, sympathizing and benev-
olent in the heart of man."
"The man does not exist who can say I have per-
secuted him, or that I have in any case returned evil
for evil."
"Of all tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in
religion is the worst."
483
"My own opinion is, that those whose lives have
been spent in doing good and endeavoring to make
their fellow-mortals happy, will be happy hereafter."
"The belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man."
"The intellectual part of religion is a private affair
between every man and his Maker, and in which no
third party has any right to interfere. The practical
part consists in our doing good to each other."
"No man ought to make a living by religion. One
person cannot act religion for another—every person
must perform it for himself."
"One good schoolmaster is of more use than a
hundred priests."
"Let us propagate morality unfettered by super-
stition."
"God is the power, or first cause, Nature is the
law, and matter is the subject acted upon."
"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope
for happiness beyond this life."
"The key of heaven is not in the keeping of any
sect nor ought the road to it to be obstructed
by any."
"My religion, and the whole of it, is the fear and
love of the Deity and universal philanthropy."
"I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I
have a good state of health and a happy mind. I
484
take care of both, by nourishing the first with tem-
perance and the latter with abundance."
"He lives immured within the Bastile of a
word."
How perfectly that sentence describes you! The
Bastile in which you are immured is the word
"Calvinism."
"Man has no property in man."
What a splendid motto that would have made for
the New York Observer in the olden time!
"The world is my country; to do good, my
religion."
I ask you again whether these splendid utterances
came from the lips of a drunken beast?
Did Thomas Paine die in destitution and want?
The charge has been made, over and over again,
that Thomas Paine died in want and destitution—
that he was an abandoned pauper—an outcast with-
out friends and without money. This charge is just
as false as the rest.
Upon his return to this country in 1802, he was
worth $30,000, according to his own statement made
at that time in the following letter addressed to Clio
Rickman:
"My Dear Friend: Mr. Monroe, who is appointed
minister extraordinary to France, takes charge of
485
this, to be delivered to Mr. Este, banker in Paris, to
be forwarded to you.
"I arrived at Baltimore the 30th of October, and
you can have no idea of the agitation which my
arrival occasioned. From New Hampshire to
Georgia (an extent of 1,500 miles) every newspaper
was filled with applause or abuse.
"My property in this country has been taken care
of by my friends, and is now worth six thousand
pounds sterling; which put in the funds will bring
me £400 sterling a year.
"Remember me in affection and friendship to your
wife and family, and in the circle of your friends."
Thomas Paine.
A man in those days worth thirty thousand dol-
lars was not a pauper. That amount would bring an
income of at least two thousand dollars per annum.
Two thousand dollars then would be fully equal to
five thousand dollars now.
On the 12th of July, 1809, the year in which he
died, Mr. Paine made his will. From this instru-
ment we learn that he was the owner of a valuable
farm within twenty miles of New York. He also
was the owner of thirty shares in the New York
Phoenix Insurance Company, worth upwards of fif-
teen hundred dollars. Besides this, some personal
486
property and ready money. By his will he gave to
Walter Morton, and Thomas Addis Emmett, brother
of Robert Emmett, two hundred dollars each, and
one hundred to the widow of Elihu Palmer.
Is it possible that this will was made by a pauper
—by a destitute outcast—by a man who suffered for
the ordinary necessaries of life?
But suppose, for the sake of the argument, that he
was poor and that he died a beggar, does that tend
to show that the Bible is an inspired book and that
Calvin did not burn Servetus? Do you really regard
poverty as a crime? If Paine had died a millionaire,
would you have accepted his religious opinions? If
Paine had drank nothing but cold water would you
have repudiated the five cardinal points of Calvin-
ism? Does an argument depend for its force upon
the pecuniary condition of the person making it?
As a matter of fact, most reformers—most men and
women of genius, have been acquainted with poverty.
Beneath a covering of rags have been found some of
the tenderest and bravest hearts.
Owing to the attitude of the churches for the last
fifteen hundred years, truth-telling has not been a
very lucrative business. As a rule, hypocrisy has
worn the robes, and honesty the rags. That day is
passing away. You cannot now answer the argu-
487
ments of a man by pointing at holes in his coat.
Thomas Paine attacked the church when it was
powerful—when it had what was called honors to
bestow—when it was the keeper of the public con-
science—when it was strong and cruel. The church
waited till he was dead then attacked his reputation
and his clothes.
Once upon a time a donkey kicked a lion. The
lion was dead.
Conclusion.
From the persistence with which the orthodox
have charged for the last sixty-eight years that
Thomas Paine recanted, and that when dying he
was filled with remorse and fear; from the malignity
of the attacks upon his personal character, I had con-
cluded that there must be some evidence of some
kind to support these charges. Even with my ideas
of the average honor of believers in superstition—
the disciples of fear—I did not quite believe that all
these infamies rested solely upon poorly attested
lies. I had charity enough to suppose that some-
thing had been said or done by Thomas Paine capa-
ble of being tortured into a foundation for these
calumnies. And I was foolish enough to think that
even you would be willing to fairly examine the pre-
tended evidence said to sustain these charges, and
488
give your honest conclusion to the world. I sup-
posed that you, being acquainted with the history of
your country, felt under a certain obligation to
Thomas Paine for the splendid services rendered by
him in the darkest days of the Revolution. It was
only reasonable to suppose that you were aware that
in the midnight of Valley Forge the "Crisis," by
Thomas Paine, was the first star that glittered in the
wide horizon of despair. I took it for granted that
you knew of the bold stand taken and the brave
words spoken by Thomas Paine, in the French Con-
vention, against the death of the king. I thought it
probable that you, being an editor, had read the
"Rights of Man;" that you knew that Thomas
Paine was a champion of human liberty; that he was
one of the founders and fathers of this Republic; that
he was one of the foremost men of his age; that he
had never written a word in favor of injustice; that
he was a despiser of slavery; that he abhorred tyr-
anny in all its forms; that he was in the widest and
highest sense a friend of his race; that his head was
as clear as his heart was good, and that he had the
courage to speak his honest thought. Under these
circumstances I had hoped that you would for the
moment forget your religious prejudices and submit
to the enlightened judgment of the world the evi-
489
dence you had, or could obtain, affecting in any way
the character of so great and so generous a man. This
you have refused to do. In my judgment, you have
mistaken the temper of even your own readers. A
large majority of the religious people of this country
have, to a considerable extent, outgrown the preju-
dices of their fathers. They are willing to know the
truth and the whole truth, about the life and death of
Thomas Paine. They will not thank you for having
presented them the moss-covered, the maimed and dis-
torted traditions of ignorance, prejudice, and credulity.
By this course you will convince them not of the
wickedness of Paine, but of your own unfairness.
What crime had Thomas Paine committed that he
should have feared to die? The only answer you
can give is, that he denied the inspiration of the
Scriptures. If this is a crime, the civilized world is
filled with criminals. The pioneers of human thought
—the intellectual leaders of the world—the foremost
men in every science—the kings of literature and
art—those who stand in the front rank of investiga-
tion—the men who are civilizing, elevating, instruct-
ing, and refining mankind, are to-day unbelievers in
the dogma of inspiration. Upon this question, the
intellect of Christendom agrees with the conclusions
reached by the genius of Thomas Paine. Centuries
490
ago a noise was made for the purpose of frightening
mankind. Orthodoxy is the echo of that noise.
The man who now regards the Old Testament as
in any sense a sacred or inspired book is, in my judg-
ment, an intellectual and moral deformity. There is
in it so much that is cruel, ignorant, and ferocious
that it is to me a matter of amazement that it was
ever thought to be the work of a most merciful deity.
Upon the question of inspiration Thomas Paine
gave his honest opinion. Can it be that to give an
honest opinion causes one to die in terror and de-
spair? Have you in your writings been actuated by
the fear of such a consequence? Why should it be
taken for granted that Thomas Paine, who devoted
his life to the sacred cause of freedom, should have
been hissed at in the hour of death by the snakes of
conscience, while editors of Presbyterian papers who
defended slavery as a divine institution, and cheer-
fully justified the stealing of babes from the breasts of
mothers, are supposed to have passed smilingly from
earth to the embraces of angels? Why should you
think that the heroic author of the "Rights of Man"
should shudderingly dread to leave this "bank and
shoal of time," while Calvin, dripping with the blood
of Servetus, was anxious to be judged of God? Is
it possible that the persecutors—the instigators of
491
the massacre of St. Bartholomew—the inventors and
users of thumb-screws, and iron boots, and racks—
the burners and tearers of human flesh—the stealers,
whippers and enslavers of men—the buyers and
beaters of babes and mothers—the founders of
inquisitions—the makers of chains, the builders of
dungeons, the slanderers of the living and the calum-
niators of the dead, all died in the odor of sanctity,
with white, forgiven hands folded upon the breasts
of peace, while the destroyers of prejudice—the
apostles of humanity—the soldiers of liberty—the
breakers of fetters—the creators of light—died sur-
rounded with the fierce fiends of fear?
In your attempt to destroy the character of Thomas
Paine you have failed, and have succeeded only in
leaving a stain upon your own. You have written
words as cruel, bitter and heartless as the creed of
Calvin. Hereafter you will stand in the pillory of
history as a defamer—a calumniator of the dead.
You will be known as the man who said that Thomas
Paine, the "Author Hero," lived a drunken, coward-
ly and beastly life, and died a drunken and beastly
death. These infamous words will be branded upon
the forehead of your reputation. They will be re-
membered against you when all else you may have
uttered shall have passed from the memory of men.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
THE OBSERVER'S SECOND ATTACK
* From the NY. Observer of Nov. 1, 1877.
TOM PAINE AGAIN.
In the Observer of September 27th, in response
to numerous calls from different parts of the country
for information, and in fulfillment of a promise, we
presented a mass of testimony, chiefly from persons
with whom we had been personally acquainted,
establishing the truth of our assertions in regard to
the dissolute life and miserable end of Paine. It was
not a pleasing subject for discussion, and an apology,
or at least an explanation, is due to our readers for
resuming it, and for occupying so much space, or
any space, in exhibiting the truth and the proofs in
regard to the character of a man who had become so
debased by his intemperance, and so vile in his
habits, as to be excluded, for many years before and
up to the time of his death, from all decent society.
Our reasons for taking up the subject at all, and
for presenting at this time so much additional testi-
mony in regard to the facts of the case, are these:
At different periods for the last fifty years, efforts
493
have been made by Infidels to revive and honor the
memory of one whose friends would honor him most
by suffering his name to sink into oblivion, if that
were possible. About two years since, Rev. O. B.
Frothingham, of this city, came to their aid, and
undertook a sort of championship of Paine, making
in a public discourse this statement: "No private
character has been more foully calumniated in the
name of God than that of Thomas Paine." (Mr.
Frothingham, it will be remembered, is the one who
recently, in a public discourse, announced the down-
fall of Christianity, although he very kindly made
the allowance that, "it may be a thousand years
before its decay will be visible to all eyes." It is
our private opinion that it will be at least a thousand
and one.) Rev. John W. Chadwick, a minister of
the same order of unbelief, who signs himself, "Min-
ister of the Second Unitarian Society in Brooklyn,"
has devoted two discourses to the same end, eulogiz-
ing Paine. In one of these, which we have before
us in a handsomely printed pamphlet, entitled,
"Method and Value of his (Paine's) Religious
Teachings," he says: "Christian usage has determ-
ined that an Infidel means one who does not believe
in Christianity as a supernatural religion; in the
Bible as a Supernatural book; in Jesus as a super-
494
natural person. And in this sense Paine was an
Infidel, and so, thank God, am I." It is proper to
add that Unitarians generally decline all responsibil-
ity for the utterances of both of these men, and that
they compose a denomination, or rather two denom-
inations, of their own.
There is also a certain class of Infidels who are
not quite prepared to meet the odium that attaches
to the name; they call themselves Christians, but
their sympathies are all with the enemies of Chris-
tianity, and they are not always able to conceal it.
They have not the courage of their opinions, like
Mr. Frothingham and Mr. Chadwick, and they work
only sideways toward the same end. We have been
no little amused since our last article on this subject
appeared, to read some of the articles that have been
written on the other side, though professedly on no
side, and to observe how sincerely these men depre-
cate the discussion of the character of Paine, as an
unprofitable topic. It never appeared to them un-
profitable when the discussion was on the other side.
Then, too, we have for months past been receiving
letters from different parts of the country, asking
authentic information on the subject and stating that
the followers of Paine are making extraordinary
efforts to circulate his writings against the Christian
495
religion, and in order to give currency to these writ-
ings they are endeavoring to rescue his name from
the disgrace into which it sank during the latter
years of his life. Paine spent several of his last
years in furnishing a commentary upon his Infidel
principles. This commentary was contained in his
besotted, degraded life and miserable end, but his
friends do not wish the commentary to go out in
connection with his writings. They prefer to have
them read without the comments by their author.
Hence this anxiety to free the great apostle of
Infidelity from the obloquy which his life brought
upon his name; to represent him as a pure, noble,
virtuous man, and to make it appear that he died a
peaceful, happy death, just like a philosopher.
But what makes the publication of the facts in the
case still more imperative at this time is the whole-
sale accusation brought against the Christian public
by the friends and admirers of Paine. Christian
ministers as a class, and Christian journals are
expressly accused of falsifying history, of defaming
"the mighty dead!" (meaning Paine,) etc. In
the face of all these accusations it cannot be out of
place to state the facts and to fortify the statement
by satisfactory evidence, as we are abundantly able
to do.
496
The two points on which we proposed to produce
the testimony are, the character of Paine's life (refer-
ring of course to his last residence in this country,
for no one has intimated that he had sunk into such
besotted drunkenness until about the time of his
return to the United States in 1802), and the real
character of his death as consistent with such a life,
and as marked further by the cowardliness, which
has been often exhibited by Infidels in the same
circumstances.
It is nothing at all to the purpose to show, as his
friends are fond of doing, that Paine rendered
important service to the cause of American Inde-
pendence. This is not the point under discussion
and is not denied. No one ever called in question
the valuable service that Benedict Arnold rendered
to the country in the early part of the Revolutionary
war; but this, with true Americans, does not suffice
to cast a shade of loveliness or even to spread a man-
tle of charity over his subsequent career. Whatever
share Paine had in the personal friendship of the
fathers of the Revolution he forfeited by his subse-
quent life of beastly drunkenness and degradation,
and on this account as well as on account of his
blasphemy he was shunned by all decent people.
We wish to make one or two corrections of mis-
497
statements by Paine's advocates, on which a vast
amount of argument has been simply wasted. We
have never stated in any form, nor have we ever
supposed, that Paine actually renounced his Infidel-
ity. The accounts agree in stating that he died a
blaspheming Infidel, and his horrible death we regard
as one of the fruits, the fitting complement of his
Infidelity. We have never seen anything that
encouraged the hope that he was not abandoned of
God in his last hours. But we have no doubt, on
the other hand, that having become a wreck in body
and mind through his intemperance, abandoned of
God, deserted by his Infidel companions, and de-
pendent upon Christian charity for the attentions he
received, miserable beyond description in his condi-
tion, and seeing nothing to hope for in the future, he
was afraid to die, and was ready to call upon God
and upon Christ for mercy, and ready perhaps in the
next minute to blaspheme. This is what we referred
to in speaking of Paine's death as cowardly. It is
shown in the testimony we have produced, and still
more fully in that which we now present. The most
wicked men are ready to call upon God in seasons
of great peril, and sometimes ask for Christian min-
istrations when in extreme illness; but they are
often ready on any alleviation of distress to turn to
498
their wickedness again, in the expressive language
of Scripture, "as the sow that was washed to her
wallowing in the mire."
We have never stated or intimated, nor, so far as
we are aware, has any one of our correspondents
stated, that Paine died in poverty. It has been
frequently and truthfully stated that Paine was de-
pendent on Christian charity for the attentions he
received in his last days, and so he was. His Infidel
companions forsook him and Christian hearts and
hands ministered to his wants, notwithstanding the
blasphemies of his death-bed.
Nor has one of our correspondents stated, as
alleged, that Paine died at New Rochelle. The
Rev. Dr. Wickham, who was a resident of that place
nearly fifty years ago, and who was perfectly familiar
with the facts of his life, wrote that Paine spent "his
latter days" on the farm presented to him by
the State of New York, which was strictly true,
but made no reference to it as the place of his
death.
Such misrepresentations serve to show how much
the advocates of Paine admire "truth."
With these explanations we produce further evi-
dence in regard to the manner of Paine's life and the
character of his death, both of which we have already
499
characterized in appropriate terms, as the following
testimony will show.
In regard to Paine's "personal habits," even before
his return to this country, and particularly his aver-
sion to soap and water, Elkana Watson, a gentleman
of the highest social position, who resided in France
during a part of the Revolutionary war, and who
was the personal friend of Washington, Franklin,
and other patriots of the period, makes some inci-
dental statements in his "Men and Times of the
Revolution." Though eulogizing Paine's efforts in
behalf of American Independence, he describes him
as "coarse and uncouth in his manners, loathsome
in his appearance, and a disgusting egotist." On
Paine's arrival at Nantes, the Mayor and other dis-
tinguished citizens called upon him to pay their
respects to the American patriot. Mr. Watson says:
"He was soon rid of his respectable visitors, who
left the room with marks of astonishment and dis-
gust." Mr. W., after much entreaty, and only by
promising him a bundle of newspapers to read while
undergoing the operation, succeeded in prevailing
on Paine to "stew, for an hour, in a hot bath." Mr.
W. accompanied Paine to the bath, and "instructed
the keeper, in French, (which Paine did not under-
stand,) gradually to increase the heat of the water
500
until 'le Monsieur serait bien bouille (until the gentle-
man shall be well boiled;) and adds that "he became
so much absorbed in his reading that he was nearly-
parboiled before leaving the bath, much to his im-
provement and my satisfaction."
William Carver has been cited as a witness in be-
half of Paine, and particularly as to his "personal
habits." In a letter to Paine, dated December 2,
1776, he bears the following testimony:
"A respectable gentlemen from New Rochelle
called to see me a few days back, and said that
everybody was tired of you there, and no one would
undertake to board and lodge you. I thought this
was the case, as I found you at a tavern in a most
miserable situation. You appeared as if you had
not been shaved for a fortnight, and as to a shirt, it
could not be said that you had one on. It was only
the remains of one, and this, likewise, appeared not
to have been off your back for a fortnight, and was
nearly the color of tanned leather; and you had the
most disagreeable smell possible; just like that of
our poor beggars in England. Do you remember the
pains I took to clean you? that I got a tub of warm
water and soap and washed you from head to foot, and
this I had to do three times before I could get you
clean." (And then follow more disgusting details.)
501
"You say, also, that you found your own liquors
during the time you boarded with me; but you
should have said, 'I found only a small part of the
liquor I drank during my stay with you; this part I
purchased of John Fellows, which was a demijohn of
brandy containing four gallons, and this did not serve
me three weeks.' This can be proved, and I mean
not to say anything that I cannot prove; for I hold
truth as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact,
that you drank one quart of brandy per day, at my
expense, during the different times that you have
boarded with me, the demijohn above mentioned
excepted, and the last fourteen weeks you were sick.
Is not this a supply of liquor for dinner and supper?"
This chosen witness in behalf of Paine, closes his
letter, which is full of loathsome descriptions of
Paine's manner of life, as follows:
"Now, sir, I think I have drawn a complete por-
trait of your character; yet to enter upon every
minutiae would be to give a history of your life, and
to develop the fallacious mask of hypocrisy and de-
ception under which you have acted in your political
as well as moral capacity of life."
(Signed) "William Carver."
Carver had the same opinion of Paine to his dying
day. When an old man, and an Infidel of the Paine
502
type and habits, he was visited by the Rev. E. F.
Hatfield, D.D., of this city, who writes to us of his
interview with Carver, under date of Sept. 27, 1877:
"I conversed with him nearly an hour. I took
special pains to learn from him all that I could about
Paine, whose landlord he had been for eighteen
months. He spoke of him as a base and shameless
drunkard, utterly destitute of moral principle. His
denunciations of the man were perfectly fearful, and
fully confirmed, in my apprehension, all that had been
written of Paine's immorality and repulsiveness."
Cheetham's Life of Paine, which was published
the year that he died, and which has passed through
several editions (we have three of them now before
us) describes a man lost to all moral sensibility and
to all sense of decency, a habitual drunkard, and it is
simply incredible that a book should have appeared
so soon after the death of its subject and should have
been so frequently republished without being at once
refuted, if the testimony were not substantially true.
Many years later, when it was found necessary to
bolster up the reputation of Paine, Cheetham's
Memoirs were called a pack of lies. If only one-
tenth part of what he publishes circumstantially in
his volume, as facts in regard to Paine, were true, all
that has been written against him in later years does
503
not begin to set forth the degraded character of the
man's life. And with all that has been written on
the subject we see no good reason to doubt the sub-
stantial accuracy of Cheetham's portrait of the man
whom he knew so well.
Dr. J. W. Francis, well-known as an eminent phy-
sician, of this city, in his Reminiscences of New York,
says of Paine:
"He who, in his early days, had been associated
with, and had received counsel from Franklin, was,
in his old age, deserted by the humblest menial; he,
whose pen has proved a very sword among nations,
had shaken empires, and made kings tremble, now
yielded up the mastery to the most treacherous of
tyrants, King Alcohol."
The physician who attended Paine during his last
illness was Dr. James R. Manley, a gentleman of the
highest character. A letter of his, written in Octo-
ber of the year that Paine died, fully corroborates
the account of his state as recorded by Stephen
Grellet in his Memoirs, which we have already
printed. He writes:
"New York, October 2, 1809: I was called upon
by accident to visit Mr. Paine, on the 25th of Feb-
ruary last, and found him indisposed with fever, and
very apprehensive of an attack of apoplexy, as he
504
stated that he had that disease before, and at this
time felt a great degree of vertigo, and was unable
to help himself as he had hitherto done, on account
of an intense pain above the eyes. On inquiry of
the attendants I was told that three or four days
previously he had concluded to dispense with his
usual quantity of accustomed stimulus and that he
had on that day resumed it. To the want of his
usual drink they attributed his illness, and it is highly
probable that the usual quantity operating upon a
state of system more excited from the above priva-
tions, was the cause of the symptoms of which he
then complained.... And here let me be per-
mitted to observe (lest blame might attach to those
whose business it was to pay any particular attention
to his cleanliness of person) that it was absolutely
impossible to effect that purpose. Cleanliness ap-
peared to make no part of his comfort; he seemed
to have a singular aversion to soap and water; he
would never ask to be washed, and when he was he
would always make objections; and it was not un-
usual to wash and to dress him clean very much
against his inclinations. In this deplorable state,
with confirmed dropsy, attended with frequent cough,
vomiting and hiccough, he continued growing from
bad to worse till the morning of the 8th of June,
505
when he died. Though I may remark that during
the last three weeks of his life his situation was such
that his decease was confidently expected every day,
his ulcers having assumed a gangrenous appearance,
being excessively fetid, and discolored blisters hav-
ing taken place on the soles of his feet without any
ostensible cause, which baffled the usual attempts to
arrest their progress; and when we consider his
former habits, his advanced age, the feebleness of his
constitution, his constant habit of using ardent spirits
ad libitum till the commencement of his last illness,
so far from wondering that he died so soon, we are
constrained to ask, How did he live so long? Con-
cerning his conduct during his disease I have not
much to remark, though the little I have may be
somewhat interesting. Mr. Paine professed to be
above the fear of death, and a great part of his con-
versation was principally directed to give the impres-
sion that he was perfectly willing to leave this world,
and yet some parts of his conduct were with difficulty
reconcilable with his belief. In the first stages of his
illness he was satisfied to be left alone during the
day, but he required some person to be with him at
night, urging as his reason that he was afraid that
he should die when unattended, and at this period
his deportment and his principle seemed to be con-
506
sistent; so much so that a stranger would judge from
some of the remarks he would make that he was an
Infidel. I recollect being with him at night, watch-
ing; he was very apprehensive of a speedy dissolu-
tion, and suffered great distress of body, and perhaps
of mind (for he was waiting the event of an applica-
tion to the Society of Friends for permission that his
corpse might be deposited in their grave-ground, and
had reason to believe that the request might be
refused), when he remarked in these words, 'I think
I can say what they made Jesus Christ to say—"My
God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" He
went on to observe on the want of that respect which
he conceived he merited, when I observed to him
that I thought his corpse should be matter of least
concern to him; that those whom he would leave
behind him would see that he was properly interred,
and, further, that it would be of little consequence to
me where I was deposited provided I was buried;
upon which he answered that he had nothing else to
talk about, and that he would as lief talk of his death
as of anything, but that he was not so indifferent
about his corpse as I appeared to be.
"During the latter part of his life, though his con-
versation was equivocal, his conduct was singular;
he could not be left alone night or day; he not only
507
required to have some person with him, but he must
see that he or she was there, and would not allow
his curtain to be closed at any time; and if, as it
would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was left
alone, he would scream and halloo until some person
came to him. When relief from pain would admit,
he seemed thoughtful and contemplative, his eyes
being generally closed, and his hands folded upon
his breast, although he never slept without the assist-
ance of an anodyne. There was something remark-
able in his conduct about this period (which comprises
about two weeks immediately preceding his death),
particularly when we reflect that Thomas Paine was
the author of the 'Age of Reason.' He would call
out during his paroxysms of distress, without inter-
mission, 'O Lord help me! God help me! Jesus
Christ help me! Lord help me!' etc., repeating the
same expressions without the least variation, in a
tone of voice that would alarm the house. It was
this conduct which induced me to think that he had
abandoned his former opinions, and I was more
inclined to that belief when I understood from his
nurse (who is a very serious and, I believe, pious
woman), that he would occasionally inquire, when he
saw her engaged with a book, what she was reading,
and, being answered, and at the same time asked
508
whether she should read aloud, he assented, and
would appear to give particular attention.
"I took occasion during the nights of the fifth
and sixth of June to test the strength of his opinions
respecting revelation. I purposely made him a very
late visit; it was a time which seemed to suit exactly
with my errand; it was midnight, he was in great
distress, constantly exclaiming in the words above
mentioned, when, after a considerable preface, I
addressed him in the following manner, the nurse
being present: 'Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large
portion of the community, have been treated with
deference, you have never been in the habit of mix-
ing in your conversation words of coarse meaning;
you have never indulged in the practice of profane
swearing; you must be sensible that we are ac-
quainted with your religious opinions as they are
given to the world. What must we think of your
present conduct? Why do you call upon Jesus
Christ to help you? Do you believe that he can
help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus
Christ? Come, now, answer me honestly. I want
an answer from the lips of a dying man, for I verily
believe that you will not live twenty-four hours.' I
waited some time at the end of every question; he
did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above
509
manner. Again I addressed him; 'Mr. Paine, you
have not answered my questions; will you answer
them? Allow me to ask again, do you believe? or
let me qualify the question, do you wish to believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?' After a pause
of some minutes, he answered, 'I have no wish to
believe on that subject.' I then left him, and knew
not whether he afterward spoke to any person on
any subject, though he lived, as I before observed,
till the morning of the 8th. Such conduct, under
usual circumstances, I conceive absolutely unaccount-
able, though, with diffidence, I would remark, not so
much so in the present instance; for though the first
necessary and general result of conviction be a sin-
cere wish to atone for evil committed, yet it may be
a question worthy of able consideration whether
excessive pride of opinion, consummate vanity, and
inordinate self-love might not prevent or retard that
otherwise natural consequence. For my own part,
I believe that had not Thomas Paine been such a
distinguished Infidel he would have left less equivo-
cal evidences of a change of opinion. Concerning
the persons who visited Mr. Paine in his distress as
his personal friends, I heard very little, though I may
observe that their number was small, and of that
number there were not wanting those who endeavor-
510
ed to support him in his deistical opinions, and to
encourage him to 'die like a man,' to 'hold fast his
integrity,' lest Christians, or, as they were pleased to
term them, hypocrites, might take advantage of his
weakness, and furnish themselves with a weapon by
which they might hope to destroy their glorious sys-
tem of morals. Numbers visited him from motives
of benevolence and Christian charity, endeavoring to
effect a change of mind in respect to his religious
sentiments. The labor of such was apparently lost,
and they pretty generally received such treatment
from him as none but good men would risk a second
time, though some of those persons called frequently."
The following testimony will be new to most of
our readers. It is from a letter written by Bishop
Fenwick (Roman Catholic Bishop of Boston), con-
taining a full account of a visit which he paid to
Paine in his last illness. It was printed in the United
States Catholic Magazine for 1846; in the Catholic
Herald of Philadelphia, October 15, 1846; in a sup-
plement to the Hartford Courant, October 23, 1847;
and in Littell's Living Age for January 22, 1848,
from which we copy. Bishop Fenwick writes:
"A short time before Paine died I was sent for by
him. He was prompted to this by a poor Catholic
woman who went to see him in his sickness, and
511
who told him, among other things, that in his
wretched condition if anybody could do him any
good it would be a Roman Catholic priest. This
woman was an American convert (formerly a Shak-
ing Quakeress) whom I had received into the church
but a few weeks before. She was the bearer of this
message to me from Paine. I stated this circum-
stance to F. Kohlmann, at breakfast, and requested
him to accompany me. After some solicitation on
my part he agreed to do so? at which I was greatly
rejoiced, because I was at the time quite young and
inexperienced in the ministry, and was glad to have
his assistance, as I knew, from the great reputation
of Paine, that I should have to do with one of the
most impious as well as infamous of men. We
shortly after set out for the house at Greenwich
where Paine lodged, and on the way agreed on a
mode of proceeding with him.
"We arrived at the house; a decent-looking elderly
woman (probably his housekeeper,) came to the
door and inquired whether we were the Catholic
priests, for said she, 'Mr. Paine has been so much
annoyed of late by other denominations calling upon
him that he has left express orders with me to admit
no one to-day but the clergymen of the Catholic
Church. Upon assuring her that we were Catholic
512
clergymen she opened the door and showed us into
the parlor. She then left the room and shortly after
returned to inform us that Paine was asleep, and, at
the same time, expressed a wish that we would not
disturb him, 'for,' said she, 'he is always in a bad
humor when roused out of his sleep. It is better we
wait a little till he be awake.' We accordingly sat
down and resolved to await a more favorable moment.
'Gentlemen,' said the lady, after having taken her
seat also, 'I really wish you may succeed with Mr.
Paine, for he is laboring under great distress of mind
ever since he was informed by his physicians that he
cannot possibly live and must die shortly. He sent
for you to-day because he was told that if any one
could do him good you might. Possibly he may
think you know of some remedy which his physicians
are ignorant of. He is truly to be pitied. His cries
when he is left alone are heart-rending. 'O Lord
help me!' he will exclaim during his paroxysms of
distress—'God help me—Jesus Christ help me!'
repeating the same expressions without the least
variation, in a tone of voice that would alarm the
house. Sometimes he will say, 'O God, what have
I done to suffer so much!' then, shortly after, 'But
there is no God,' and again a little after, 'Yet if
there should be, what would become of me hereafter.'
513
Thus he will continue for some time, when on a sud-
den he will scream, as if in terror and agony, and
call out for me by name. On one of these occasions,
which are very frequent, I went to him and inquired
what he wanted. 'Stay with me,' he replied, 'for
God's sake, for I cannot bear to be left alone.' I
then observed that I could not always be with him,
as I had much to attend to in the house. 'Then,' said
he, 'send even a child to stay with me, for it is a
hell to be alone.' 'I never saw,' she concluded, 'a
more unhappy, a more forsaken man. It seems he
cannot reconcile himself to die.'
"Such was the conversation of the woman who
had received us, and who probably had been employ-
ed to nurse and take care of him during his illness.
She was a Protestant, yet seemed very desirous that
we should afford him some relief in his state of
abandonment, bordering on complete despair. Hav-
ing remained thus some time in the parlor, we at
length heard a noise in the adjoining passage-way,
which induced us to believe that Mr. Paine, who was
sick in that room, had awoke. We accordingly pro-
posed to proceed thither, which was assented to by
the woman, and she opened the door for us. On
entering, we found him just getting out of his
slumber. A more wretched being in appearance I
514
never beheld. He was lying in a bed sufficiently
decent of itself, but at present besmeared with filth;
his look was that of a man greatly tortured in mind;
his eyes haggard, his countenance forbidding, and
his whole appearance that of one whose better days
had been one continued scene of debauch. His only
nourishment at this time, as we were informed, was
nothing more than milk punch, in which he indulged
to the full extent of his weak state. He had par-
taken, undoubtedly, but very recently of it, as the
sides and corners of his mouth exhibited very un-
equivocal traces of it, as well as of blood, which had
also followed in the track and left its mark on the
pillow. His face, to a certain extent, had also been
besmeared with it."
Immediately upon their making known the object
of their visit, Paine interrupted the speaker by say-
ing: "That's enough, sir; that's enough," and again
interrupting him, "I see what you would be about.
I wish to hear no more from you, sir. My mind is
made up on that subject. I look upon the whole of
the Christian scheme to be a tissue of absurdities
and lies, and Jesus Christ to be nothing more than a
cunning knave and impostor." He drove them out
of the room, exclaiming: Away with you and your
God, too; leave the room instantly; all that you
515
have uttered are lies—filthy lies; and if I had a
little more time I would prove it, as I did about
your impostor, Jesus Christ."
This, we think, will suffice. We have a mass of
letters containing statements confirmatory of what
we have published in regard to the life and death of
Paine, but nothing more can be required.
INGERSOLL'S SECOND REPLY.
Peoria, Nov. 2d, 1877.
To the Editor of the New York Observer:
You ought to have honesty enough to admit that
you did, in your paper of July 19th, offer to prove
that the absurd story that Thomas Paine died in
terror and agony on account of the religious opinions
he had expressed, was true. You ought to have
fairness enough to admit that you called upon me
to deposit one thousand dollars with an honest man,
that you might, by proving that Thomas Paine did
die in terror, obtain the money.
You ought to have honor enough to admit that
you challenged me and that you commenced the
controversy concerning Thomas Paine.
You ought to have goodness enough to admit
that you were mistaken in the charges you made.
You ought to have manhood enough to do what
you falsely asserted that Thomas Paine did:—you
ought to recant. You ought to admit publicly that
you slandered the dead; that you falsified history;
that you defamed the defenceless; that you deliber-
517
ately denied what you had published in your own
paper. There is an old saying to the effect that
open confession is good for the soul. To you is
presented a splendid opportunity of testing the truth
of this saying.
Nothing has astonished me more than your lack
of common honesty exhibited in this controversy. In
your last, you quote from Dr. J. W. Francis. Why
did you leave out that portion in which Dr. Francis
says that Cheetham with settled malignity wrote the
life of Paine? Why did you leave out that part in
which Dr. Francis says that Cheetham in the same
way slandered Alexander Hamilton and De Witt
Clinton? Is it your business to suppress the truth?
Why did you not publish the entire letter of Bishop
Fenwick? Was it because it proved beyond all
cavil that Thomas Paine did not recant? Was it
because in the light of that letter Mary Roscoe,
Mary Hinsdale and Grant Thorburn appeared un-
worthy of belief? Dr. J. W. Francis says in the
same article from which you quoted, "Paine clung to
his Infidelity until the last moment of his life!' Why
did you not publish that? It was the first line im-
mediately above what you did quote. You must
have seen it. Why did you suppress it? A lawyer,
doing a thing of this character, is denominated a
518
shyster. I do not know the appropriate word to
designate a theologian guilty of such an act.
You brought forward three witnesses, pretending
to have personal knowledge about the life and death
of Thomas Paine: Grant Thorburn, Mary Roscoe
and Mary Hinsdale. In my reply I took the ground
that Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale must have
been the same person. I thought it impossible that
Paine should have had a conversation with Mary
Roscoe, and then one precisely like it with Mary
Hinsdale. Acting upon this conviction, I proceeded
to show that the conversation never could have hap-
pened, that it was absurdly false to say that Paine
asked the opinion of a girl as to his works who had
never read but little of them. I then showed by the
testimony of William Cobbett, that he visited Mary
Hinsdale in 1819, taking with him a statement con-
cerning the recantation of Paine, given him by Mr.
Collins, and that upon being shown this statement
she said that "it was so long ago that she could not
speak positively to any part of the matter—that she
would not say any part of the paper was true." At
that time she knew nothing, and remembered noth-
ing. I also showed that she was a kind of standing
witness to prove that others recanted. Willett Hicks
denounced her as unworthy of belief.
519
To-day the following from the New York World
was received, showing that I was right in my
conjecture:
Tom Paine's Death-Bed.
To the Editor of the World:
Sir: I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll dis-
credits Mary Hinsdale's story of the scenes which
occurred at the death-bed of Thomas Paine. No
one who knew that good lady would for one moment
doubt her veracity or question her testimony. Both
she and her husband were Quaker preachers, and
well known and respected inhabitants of New York
City, Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that Mary
Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale was the same person. Her
maiden name was Roscoe, and she married Henry
Hinsdale. My mother was a Roscoe, a niece of
Mary Roscoe, and lived with her for some time. I
have heard her relate the story of Tom Paine's dying
remorse, as told her by her aunt, who was a witness
to it. She says (in a letter I have just received from
her), "he (Tom Paine) suffered fearfully from remorse,
and renounced his Infidel principles, calling on God
to forgive him, and wishing his pamphlets and books
to be burned, saying he could not die in peace until
it was done." (Rev.) A. W. Cornell.
Harpersville, New York.
520
You will notice that the testimony of Mary Hins-
dale has been drawing interest since 1809, and has
materially increased. If Paine "suffered fearfully
from remorse, renounced his Infidel opinions and
called on God to forgive him," it is hardly generous
for the Christian world to fasten the fangs of malice
in the flesh of his reputation.
So Mary Roscoe was Mary Hinsdale, and as
Mary Hinsdale has been shown by her own admis-
sion to Mr. Cobbett to have known nothing of the
matter; and as Mary Hinsdale was not, according to
Willet Hicks, worthy of belief—as she told a false-
hood of the same kind about Mary Lockwood, and
was, according to Mr. Collins, addicted to the use of
opium—this disposes of her and her testimony.
There remains upon the stand Grant Thorburn.
Concerning this witness, I received, yesterday, from
the eminent biographer and essayist, James Parton,
the following epistle:
Newburyport, Mass.
Col. R. G. Ingersoll:
Touching Grant Thorburn, I personally know him
to have been a dishonest man. At the age of ninety-
two he copied, with trembling hand, a piece from a
newspaper and brought it to the office of the Home
Journal, as his own. It was I who received it and
521
detected the deliberate forgery. If you are ever go-
ing to continue this subject, I will give you the exact
facts.
Fervently yours,
James Parton.
After this, you are welcome to what remains of
Grant Thorburn.
There is one thing that I have noticed during this
controversy regarding Thomas Paine. In no instance
that I now call to mind has any Christian writer
spoken respectfully of Mr. Paine. All have taken
particular pains to call him "Tom" Paine. Is it not
a little strange that religion should make men so
coarse and ill-mannered?
I have often wondered what these same gentle-
men would say if I should speak of the men eminent
in the annals of Christianity in the same way. What
would they say if I should write about "Tim"
Dwight, old "Ad" Clark, "Tom" Scott, "Jim"
McKnight, "Bill" Hamilton, "Dick" Whately, "Bill"
Paley, and "Jack" Calvin?
They would say of me then, just what I think of
them now.
Even if we have religion, do not let us try to get
along without good manners. Rudeness is exceed-
ingly unbecoming, even in a saint. Persons who
522
forgive their enemies ought, to say the least, to
treat with politeness those who have never injured
them.
It is exceedingly gratifying to me that I have com-
pelled you to say that "Paine died a blaspheming
Infidel." Hereafter it is to be hoped nothing will be
heard about his having recanted. As an answer to
such slander his friends can confidently quote the
following from the New York Observer of November
ist, 1877:
"WE HAVE NEVER STATED IN ANY FORM, NOR
HAVE WE EVER SUPPOSED THAT PAINE ACTUALLY RE-
NOUNCED HIS INFIDELITY. THE ACCOUNTS AGREE IN
STATING THAT HE DIED A BLASPHEMING INFIDEL."
This for all coming time will refute the slanders of
the churches yet to be.
Right here allow me to ask: If you never supposed
that Paine renounced his Infidelity, why did you try
to prove by Mary Hinsdale that which you believed
to be untrue?
From the bottom of my heart I thank myself for
having compelled you to admit that Thomas Paine
did not recant.
For the purpose of verifying your own admission
concerning the death of Mr. Paine, permit me to call
your attention to the following affidavit:
523
Wabash, Indiana, October 27, 1877.
Col. R. G. Ingersoll:
Dear Sir: The following statement of facts is at
your disposal. In the year 1833 Willet Hicks made
a visit to Indiana and stayed over night at my father's
house, four miles east of Richmond. In the morn-
ing at breakfast my mother asked Willet Hicks the
following questions:
"Was thee with Thomas Paine during his last
sickness?"
Mr. Hicks said: "I was with him every day dur-
ing the latter part of his last sickness."
"Did he express any regret in regard to writing
the 'Age of Reason,' as the published accounts say
he did—those accounts that have the credit of ema-
nating from his Catholic housekeeper?"
Mr. Hicks replied: "He did not in any way by
word or action."
"Did he call on God or Jesus Christ, asking either
of them to forgive his sins, or did he curse them or
either of them?"
Mr. Hicks answered: "He did not. He died as
easy as any one I ever saw die, and I have seen
many die in my time." William B Barnes.
Subscribed and sworn to before me Oct. 27, 1877.
Warren Bigler, Notary Public.
524
You say in your last that "Thomas Paine was
abandoned of God." So far as this controversy is
concerned, it seems to me that in that sentence you
have most graphically described your own condi-
tion.
Wishing you success in all honest undertakings, I
remain,
Yours truly,
Robert G. Ingersoll.