The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-15
A Chicago Minister'S Re-
view of lngerSOll.
Argument Concerning Faith
in Christianity.
He'll Is What We Make It--Our
Lives Given In Trust.


John, ex-p-esdent OF Depauw university
and well-known Methodist minister, re-
plies to the address of Colonel Ingersoll
delivered az the Militant church Sunday
DIR. John said in part:
do not wish 10 abuse Mr.. Ingersoll.
Abuse Is not argument He has proposed
some difficult questions 10 the defenders
of the Christian faith. 1t is not sutli-
cient answer To say that he is a BIAS
phcmer; that Is TO beg the question.
Let 'him be a good man; that will not
serve as cruieh for his logic IL 1t be
lame Let him be bad man; that will
not make his logic limp II IL be sound.
Truth is In a sorry plight II 10 must rest
upon epithets. Ii Is old enough 10 stand
alone The truth is worth its face value,
though uttered by the devil, AID sophistry
does not become logic In the mouth OF the
saint.
Mr.. Ingorsoll claimed that the Christian
religion and It's reputed author are both
man-made and therefore no better than
the man that made them. He objects 10
the author OF the Bible on the ground that
he is Ignorant, cruel, savage, unjust, inn
moral inconsistent, unfaithful, and that
he is opposed 20 art, science, education,
progress and liberty. He objects TO the
Christian scheme on the broad ground
that it Is unscientitic; that having been
made 10y unscientiilc men the Christian
superstitious, and not adapted to the task
II proposes.
The Bible must be judged by the man
ner if which it does what it processes TO
do, and not by a foreign standard. 1t came
To teach men OF duty, and Is destined
not to teach art science or literature. IL
the Bible Is opposed TO these things be-
cause IL Is not a good textbook on these
subjects. Mr.. Ingersoll mulSt be opposed To
public schools. because he does NOT make
plea for them in his eloquent Grafton at
his brothers grave.
under two heads, namely, moral objec-
tions against the character OF God, and in
tellectual objections against his reyela-
ton. First, the objections against his
character for ordering in ancient times,
and permitting in both aacient and modern
times, acts which men cannot commit
against their fellows without being guilty
of robbery, OF oppression and murder. i
will put these Two classes: First, those
instances in which God destroyed life by
natural agents, such as flood, fire and the
like; and, second, those instances in which
infliotion OF pain, condscation OF property
and destruction of life occurred through
human agency, under his order or by his
permission.
First, natural agency. Tho answer Is
short: Life is the gift OF God in trust
The most refined ideals OF justice demand
rendered according TO Its terms. But the
agnostic replies that he was not consulted
about the trust and that it is unjust TO
make him compulsory participant in the
Transaction. He has, however, accepted
the terms OF the trust, aud he stoutly
claims all the advantages arising there
from. Attempt TO relieve him of his en-
barrassment by taking his life and he pro-
tects himself against your well-meant
endeavor. He gets vaccinated when the
smallpox comes, and when the cyclone be-
gins TO blow he hurries 10 the cellar As
long as men continue TO live ON Gods
bounty, human life Is u trust as sacred AS
II IL had been originally sought from the
hand Of God
Lessons OF the Past.
But what Of the savageries of war and
the infamies OF slavery permitted and
ordered by Jehovah In the early history OF
the racer The only new element In the
case is the reflex influence on the men
who acted us Gods agents. Society may
for It's own protection deprive men OF
what would otherwise be their rights
when the exercise of the right becomes de-
structive of society itself; and shall not
the maker OF heaven and earth be per-
mittcd to do as much?
But what OF the reflex influence on the
men who acted as Gods agents in the de-
privatlon OF liberty and the destruction Of
lifeY Why did not God, with whom IA
miracle Is so easy, says Mr.. 1ngersoll,
make the Israeites ut once what he
wanted them TO be without educating
them through war and slavery? Because
! he could not. God can make clods in the
way heswants them, and so they will re-
main, but he cannot make parallel lines
meet, for they Will not longer be parallel,
and he cannot make men virtuous against
their Wills, for they Will no longer be men.
Education Is process OF steps, and not
sudden bridging of extremes. Ancient
Israelites had been slaves for centuries,
and they came out OF their bondage ig-
norant. animal and brutal. GOD could
not train them by the methods he would
use under the civilization OF the 18th cen.
tury Yon cannot train lion by the
methods OF tho lamb.
Education must proceed In harmony
with environments "A magnet will not lift
n feather, though IL Will lift a ton of steel.
The feather does not know the magnet.
Ancient Isruel did not know truth,
beauty, tenderness and lofty sentiment,
aud God himself could not do otherwise
than adapt his methods of education to
their feeble capacity for truth.
But Mr.. Ingersoll raises his chief OBJ
lection against God because OF his proposed
dealing with men in the next world. He
hates hell, he says, and SO do /, but neither
of us can hate IL QUO of existence. He'll is
already here. The majority of mankind
are already iu iIs fanCs There Is no hell