You felt very badly because I did not break the law, so you could prosecute me for teaching polygamy, didn't you? You remind me of a booby, who, in playing with his big brother, cried out, "Ma, he won't let me hit him." Solomon and David both sinned, we admit, but you took special pains not to tell the audience "when" they transgressed. But then this was necessary in order to keep your "clay brick" logic from going to pieces. Does the fact that God has a body, parts and passions, debar Him from being an intelligent being, omnipresent, etc.? The glory of God is intelligence, and He, being a real live God, and not a nonentity, would His materiality prohibit Him from controlling the intelligences for the just governing of His children and the universe? Let us look at your syllogism. "A brick is made of clay, a man is made of clay, therefore a man is a brick." Now let us construct one from the Bible, taking care to have our premises correct. "All sons are in the image of their fathers, Jesus was a Son, therefore He was in the 'express' image of His Father." Now, Brother Brougher, what was the image of His Father? Jesus had a body of flesh and bones—can you explain or ridicule it away? If the words "God is a spirit" mean that He has neither body, parts or passions, then are we to dispense with our body, parts and passions in order to worship Him in "spirit" and in truth? When you find some quotation in the Bible that suits your idea, you seem to be willing to take the words literally. If the symbolical or figurative parts of the Bible are so plain, why is there such a wide difference of opinion, among the learned even, as to its teachings? I remember that Peter declared that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." I do not mention this by way of belittling your great knowledge of interpretation and for calling me a fool for taking the book literally, but speak of it that the public might know how ignorant and how very little Peter really knew about how to read the Bible.
You say Mark 16: 16 is spurious, to justify yourself in not believing baptism to be essential to salvation, don't you? "Only believe and you shall be saved;" you may just as well say to the farmer, "only believe in planting and your crop will grow." But let us see where your declaration "that this part of the Bible is spurious" leads us. There are other passages of Scripture which say baptism is essential to salvation. Are they also spurious? John 3: 5 reports Jesus saying to Nicodemus, "except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Matthew says, 3: 13-15, that it was necessary for our Savior to be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness. Jesus also says, Matt. 28, in giving the Apostles their commissions to go to teach all nations, baptizing them that believe; and Paul also enumerates in Heb. 6 that baptism is a doctrine of Christ. We are told that it was necessary for Paul to be baptized, likewise the jailor, the people at Ephesus, the people at Samaria, the eunuch, and even a man as just as was Cornelius could not escape, and according to St. Luke, "some rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized." According to the practice generally in vogue, is it not about time for a revision of the Bible, that the offending parts may be cast out? Ought you not to use your potent influence to accomplish this end, as I contended in my former letter? You charge me falsely with misquoting Mark 16: 16, because I placed within the quotation an interpolation in brackets, and if this is misquoting I surely had no intention of doing so. Any school boy would have known that the words in brackets were mine. You say the passage does not mean what my interpolation indicated, but you failed to point out what it did mean. Look at it again, even if it is spurious and of no consequence. The words "belief" and "baptism" are placed on even terms by our Savior, and there is no other conclusion but that the believer must be baptized (unless it is one of your figures of speech). This being true, the unbeliever very naturally would not be baptized and be damned, as Christ says, in consequence of unbelief and nonconformity to this ordinance. Really, brother, over whose "shop" should the sign "All kinds of turning and twisting done here" be placed? I am perfectly willing to leave that to an intelligent public. You entertained your congregation last Sunday evening by relating to them a pretty fable about a jackass, who was in the woods braying. It was nicely related and caused much laughter and mirth; and no one could become offended by a jackass story; therefore, kindly allow me the same privilege, Brother Brougher, as I also have a jackass story.
"Once upon a time" there was a jackass who imagined he was preaching the same Gospel that was taught many hundreds of years ago; he stood before a large, fashionable congregation of people and started to bray. He opened his mouth and said: "Oh, money, oh, money, thy praises I'll sing; thou art my Savior, my God and my King; 'tis for thee that I preach, 'tis for thee that I pray, and make a collection twice each Sabbath day. Money's my creed, and I won't pray without it, the heavens are closed against those who doubt it This is the essence of popular religion, come regular to church and be plucked like a pigeon. I'll have carriages, horses, servants and all, I'm not going to foot it like Peter and Paul; neither, like John, feed on locusts and honey, so out with your purse and down with your money. I gather my knowledge from wisdom's great tree, and the whole of my trinity is D. D. and C.; dimes, dollars and cents are all that I crave, from the first step on earth to the brink of the grave. In the cold earth I may soon be laid low, to sleep with the just, that have gone long ago; I shall slumber in peace till the great resurrection, and be first on my legs to make a collection." Then he blessed the contribution boxes and the show closed.
Now, dear brother, don't you think that my jackass story equals yours, and contains a better moral? I am sure it is just as funny; so now we are even, on jackass stories, anyhow.
We see how careful the nations of the earth are in throwing their protecting arms around the principle of authority; how careful they are that all representatives acknowledged by them are endowed with proper authority from their respective governments. In this nation of ours no man has the right to initiate a foreigner into the government unless he be endowed with authority, beyond the question of a doubt; the government would undoubtedly punish any man who might read of a commission given to others, and then take the authority unto himself to initiate foreigners into the government of the United States.
We see the same careful protection thrown around the principle of authority throughout the different states of the union; throughout the different counties of the state, and throughout all the different cities of the various counties. All will admit that without this strict attention to authority, there would be no law, no order and no protection. Out of all known governments the great government of God, according to our opinion, is the only one that treats the principle of authority in a careless and reckless manner. Anciently a prophet of God, through the principle of revelation, called Aaron to the ministry; at a later period, an Apostle of Jesus Christ said that no man was to take this honor unto himself save he be called of God, as was Aaron. Yet men of our day will read where men were commissioned by Jesus Christ eighteen hundred years ago, with authority to initiate foreigners into the great government of God, and by virtue of that authority, given to others, they take the honor unto themselves; while declaring that the great God has sealed up the system of revelation; and through the heavens, as you say, being as brass above our heads, no man can be called, as was Aaron. In the face of all this, any man purchasing a Bible, which contains that commission once given to others, imagines he is called of God to preach the Gospel; and the result is we are living in a babel of confusion; God says "He is not the author of confusion."
Of course I realize these words of mine will have no weight upon you, but they may be read by some fair-minded, thinking man, who may stop, ponder and investigate.
By innuendo you advocated mob violence in your sermon last Sunday night. Do you think it was becoming to a man who professes to be a representative of the meek and lowly One whose mission was peace on earth and good will to man? In carefully looking over the history of this Mission for a number of years back and noting the number of mobbings to which our Elders have been subjected, and the number is not small, we find by careful comparison that 90 per cent of the mobbings have been led in person or inspired by so-called Christian ministers.
Do you think you were serving God on the Sabbath when you so nearly sanctioned brute force against a people who have never harmed you or any of the good people of Chattanooga? Do you really believe that such a course will make you popular with the liberty-loving and law-abiding population of your new home? Think over the matter carefully and perhaps you will admit you over-reached yourself a little.
You took for your text, "Answer a fool according to his folly." In closing allow me to respectfully present you with the words of our Master, "He who calleth his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire."