The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-03-20
INFIDELITY.
Mr.. McNiece's SECOND Lecture
Criticized

Criticized.
There were three reasons given by
Mr.. McNiecs why infidels objected to
the Bible, which are as follows:
.First-Beoause it was sntiquated.
Second-Because it sustained slavery.
Third Because it sustained polyg
amy.
And Mr.. McNiece also stated that the
teachings OF infidelity had an immoral
tendency, and warned all to avoid In
fdel literature aud the society of those
who did not believe in the Scripture.
If have stated correctly the position
taken by the reverend gentleman
on this subject, then he asserts
that the Bible does not sustain or
countenance slavery or polygamy-and
that infdels must be immoral-because
their teachings and literature lead in
that direction. First. allow me to say
that intidels do not object to the Blbl
on account of its antiquity; for If it told
the truth its age would be no objection,
but we have an idea that it most EN-
phaticaliy sustRins both slavery and
po!ygamy, and they are among the
many reasons why we regard il az un-
worthy OF our admiration. can hardly
think a man OF intelligence sincere,
when be says that the Bible does rot
sustain slavery, for until but a few
years sgo, ministers of all denom-
nations in our own favored
land, preached the divine origin
of slavery, and many believe it to thi,
day-sVen the crest Jere Black in re-
plying to Colonel 1ngersoll in 1881 ad
united that God established slavery in
Judea and maintained that it has
always had the sanction OF tn
Almighty. and that the great war of the
rebellion was war against God and HIS,
Institutions. Strange, indeed, that
$4,000 priests OF all denominations
should take the ground that the B BILE
sanctioned slavery, and they fought to
maintain it through q sea of blood.
Did they not believe it had the divine
sanction2 But Mr.. McNiece says
that the Bible only meant "vol-
untary ser7itude." What pity
that this Interpretation comes so
late. That the Bible does not
sustain polygamy, is statement
equally unfortunate, and l hardly think
anyone who has read the Bible would
accept the statement of Mr.. McNiece
on the subject. The practice of this
doctrine was the rule among the patri-
archs of old, and God seemed to be
perfectly satisfied with their conduct,
and never rebuked them in any way;
and to this day. Abraham Is designated
the Father of the Faithful, and Chris
tians are praying that they be taken
TO his bosom when they Gle. David
was a man according to Gods
own heart, and pleased him in all
things, except in the case of Uriah.
II is piteous tale. and no
wonder the Lord is said to have called
him in question for his vlllainous con-
duct, but it must be remembered tina
he VI S not taken to task on account Of
polygamy, but for the murder of poor
Uriah and the robblng him of his wife,
for instead of having an opulent flock
ike the favored servants of the Lord
poor Uriah had but one little eve lamb
but here comes the word of the Lore
God of Israel and says to David: II
delivered thee out of the hand of Saul
and I gave to thee thy masters house
and thy masters ICiyeS 5nt0 thy bosom
Cow is thst2 But this is simply one of
hundreds of instances which go to
prove the divine origin of polygainy, il
the Bibls be true.
That the teachings of in6delity and
the resdiog of irfidel literature have an
immor0l tendency. must kindly deny,
and if Mr.. McNiece is sincereln making
such statement, then he knows moth
ing whatever on the subject. for if be
we're correct then we would naturally
suppose that nearly all of the criminals
in our jails and penitentiaries would be
infdels. Now is this the case? Let US
look at the reports furnished by jailors,
wardens and others in charge of those
institutions and see. Father Nugent,
Roman Catholic prison chapla n in
Liverpool, England, furnishes the fol-
lowing statement for 1875:
Total number of prisoners passing
through the borough jail, 1858, of
which there were:
Catholics O 4o7