, 1879-07-06

voice. .,: ;:~-
this weakness, as q tender father leads STUN
bling ci1lld, aid Iasr til all ages, revealed Him
self to aud through gifted souls, who carry His
messages to the weaker and more timid of the
race; but nothing in its history proves, conclu-
sively, that it ever was any part Of His plan to
dictate book, aud then retire into infinite space
:,ni.lcayc tie worldEo tie mercy of translators,
copyists, printers, and proof-readers until the
end of tirnei Neither is there any good reason
to believe that Lie has egec made either the
tongue or pen OF any: man infalliblc.
Curtis We lookIor someexplanation OF the ap-
parent plagiarism OF the Mosaic account OF crca-
fion. Il it true that the Buddhsts have q his
tory, or myth, or poem 1000 years older than
the Book OF Genesis, even II Moses wrote 1t;
aud that this history IS SO like that attributed to
Noses tnat this must be an altered copy2
II Inpersoll's statement is not true, whv not
pivc II an expicit deniall II it is true, why not
l,ln,t it louoraoly, openly, fairly, und teach it
to The people as part Of TINT Truth which is to
make us free!
II tne Christian system is true, as believe it
10 be. it must be, consistent with every other
trnth: and il there is anything in the Bible which
is mot true we want to know it! Even Ingersoll
has attacked nothing In the recorded words Of
Christ; and the philosophy he reaches is that
which be has learned in the Christian school; !;
and when atr. Curtis compares his cry for a
hetter Interpretation Of God than that OF the
Jews to cll for change in the mu1tiplica-
ton fable he does great injury to himself and
the cause he represents.
II our multiplication table told US, IN one
place, that five times one are five; and, in an
n;hrr tl1at five time one are tlfty-n1ne it would
need revision, just as Iugers0ll says the Bible
focs when it tells us, In Que place, that 'sGod is
Love y, and In another, that He ordered armed
men to butcher infants, women, und old meu.
Ingersoll argues that the Bible teaches
fpii lint
in war: that it states impossibi!ltics as facts,
and Claims as Divine and original inspiration
whole cnapters which are only altered copies OF
works which had existed thousands Of years
before it claims to have been written; and for
auy one to pretend to meet such specifications
by talking about altering the multiplication Ia
Bic is q giving up Of the whole case.
Mr. Cnrtis has not answered Mr. Ingersoll,
neither has Mr.. Goodwin, nor Prof. Swing, nor
Dr.. I:homus, nor auy one else whose argument
l have seen; anu IL ooes oot seem possible tnaI
he can be answered..
That he is special pleader Is most true; but
he PROCESSES to bc nothing else. That he is tlip-
narit mud trreYerent Is also true; bur bis manner
does not change his matter. His weak point is
his wholesale charge OF dishonesty against teach
are RAPIDLY strengthening.
In SO far rs he claims originality for his
structures, he is wrong, and in so far Us he as
sumes that religious teachers have all been igno-
rant of or have concealed the points he makes,
he pears false witness against them. His criti-
cisms are but comic prcsentments or burlesuue
of the grave and rcvcrential Investigations Of
Bishop Coleuso Of the Church of England, the
Rev. Mr. smith of the Kirk Of Scotland. and
other deyout Christian teachers searching
earnestly for truth. The Jews differed among
themselves about their Canonical Scripture, and
so have Christians differed, # I'M tile establish
1ncpt OF their New Testament, 300 years after
the crucii:tion, even unto this day.
Perhaps no other question has been the sub
iecL Of more earnest controversy, In both the
Jewish and Christian Churches, than this OF
what is, and what ts not, Canonlcal Scripture.
Clergy as we'll as laitv hold that the SALIVA
ton Of their own souls depends on the correct
settlement OF the question, and there IT, or has
been, little temptation to unfairness. Where
they have been mistaken, there is large room to
conclude that theT have been honestly So and
nothing in Mr. Ingersoll's plan Is SO blame
worthy as hts charge, expressed or implied, Of
hypocrisy in the clergy; while nothing in their
replies is SO lamentable as charging him with
evil motives or disregard for public morals.
The record OF believers is not such as to in-
spirc confidence in the principles By which they
profess to be guided; and q man may as we'll
attack these principles, in the cause OF moralty,
as to assume that their denial must bring de
mora1ization. It is mere Popery to restrict in-
vvstigation lest men grow wicked by too much
knowedge! No matter in what form the asser-
ton. comes, 1t is repetition OF the old adagc,
stIgnoraucc Is the mother OF devotion ~ and
all that any man, or set Of men, eau 10 to limit
this inquiry us to te itspira tion, Of the Bible,
Ia so much straw and stubble built on the foun-
dation Ut pure religion; mud, like other rubbish,
it must be burned in good time. II the Bible
will not bear investigation VIC have no need OF 1t.
JANE GREY SWls5uELM.