Now, we are also told in the New Testament that Christ was tempted by the devil; that is, by a "personification of evil," and that this personification took him to the pinnacle of the temple and tried to induce him to jump off. Now, where did this personification of evil come from? Was it an actual existence? Dr. MacArthur says that it may not have been. Then it did not come from the outside of Christ. If it existed it came from the inside of Christ, so that, according to MacArthur, Christ was the creator of his own devil.
I do not know that I have a right to say that this is Dr. MacArthur"s opinion, as he has wisely refrained from giving his opinion. I hope some time he will tell us whether he really believes in a devil or not, or whether he thinks all allusions and references to devils in the New Testament can be explained away by calling the devils "personifications of evil." Then, of course, he will tell us whether it was a "personification of evil" that offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world, and whether Christ expelled seven "personifications of evil" from Mary Magdalene, and how did they come to count these "personifications of evil"? If the devils, after all, are only "personifications of evil,"
then, of course, they cannot be numbered. They are all one. There may be different manifestations, but, in fact, there can be but one, and yet Mary Magdalene had seven.
Dr. MacArthur states that I put up a man of straw, and then vigorously beat him down. Now, the question is, do I attack a man of straw? I take it for granted that Christians to some extent, at least, believe in their creeds. I suppose they regard the Bible as the inspired word of G.o.d; that they believe in the fall of man, in the atonement, in salvation by faith, in the resurrection and ascension of Christ. I take it for granted that they believe these things. Of course, the only evidence I have is what they say. Possibly that cannot be depended upon.
They may be dealing only in the "personification of truth."
When I charge the orthodox Christians with believing these things, I am told that I am far behind the religious thinking of the hour, but after all, this "man of straw" is quite powerful. Prof. Briggs attacked this "man of straw," and the straw man turned on him and put him out. A preacher by the name of Smith, a teacher in some seminary out in Ohio, challenged this "man of straw," and the straw man put him out.
Both these reverend gentlemen were defeated by the straw man, and if the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will explain to his congregation, I mean only explain what he calls the "religious thinking of the hour," the "straw man" will put him out too.
Dr. MacArthur finds fault with me because I put into the minds of representative thinkers of to-day the opinions of medieval monks, which leading religious teachers long ago discarded. Will Dr. MacArthur have the goodness to point out one opinion that I have put into the minds of representative thinkers--that is, of orthodox thinkers--that any orthodox religious teacher of to-day has discarded? Will he have the kindness to give just one?
In my lecture on "Superst.i.tion" I did say that to deny the existence of evil spirits, or to deny the existence of the devil, is to deny the truth of the New Testament; and that to deny the existence of these imps of darkness is to contradict the words of Jesus Christ. I did say that if we give up the belief in devils we must give up the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, and we must give up the divinity of Christ.
Upon that declaration I stand, because if devils do not exist, then Jesus Christ was mistaken, or we have not in the New Testament a true account of what he said and of what he pretended to do. If the New Testament gives a true account of his words and pretended actions, then he did claim to cast out devils. That was his princ.i.p.al business. That was his certificate of divinity, casting out devils. That authenticated his mission and proved that he was superior to the hosts of darkness.
Now, take the devil out of the New Testament, and you also take the veracity of Christ; with that veracity you take the divinity; with that divinity you take the atonement, and when you take the atonement, the great fabric known as Christianity becomes a shapeless ruin.
Now, let Dr. Mac Arthur answer this, and answer it not like a minister, but like a man. Ministers are unconsciously a little unfair. They have a little tendency to what might be called a natural crook. They become spiritual when they ought to be candid. They become a little ingenious and pious when they ought to be frank; and when really driven into a corner, they clasp their hands, they look upward, and they cry "_Blasphemy!_" I do not mean by this that they are dishonest. I simply mean that they are illogical.
Dr. MacArthur tells us also that Spain is not a representative of progressive religious teachers. I admit that. There are no progressive religious teachers in Spain, and right here let me make a remark. If religion rests on an inspired revelation, it is incapable of progress.
It may be said that year after year we get to understand it better, but if it is not understood when given, why is it called a "revelation"?
There is no progress in the multiplication table. Some men are better mathematicians than others, but the old multiplication table remains the same. So there can be no progress in a revelation from G.o.d.
Now, Spain--and that is the great mistake, the great misfortune--has remained orthodox. That is to say, the Spaniards have been true to their superst.i.tion. Of course the Rev. Dr. MacArthur will not admit that Catholicism is Christianity, and I suppose that the pope would hardly admit that a Baptist is a very successful Christian. The trouble with Spain is, and the trouble with the Baptist Church is, that neither of them has progressed to any great extent.
Now, in my judgment, what is called religion must grow better as man grows better, simply because it was produced by man and the better man is, the nearer civilized he is, the better, the nearer civilized, will be what he calls his religion; and if the Baptist religion has progressed, it is a demonstration that it was not originally founded on a revelation from G.o.d.
In my lecture I stated that we had no right to make any distinction between the actions of infinite wisdom and goodness, and that if G.o.d created and governs this world we ought to thank him, if we thanked him at all, for all that happens; that we should thank him just as heartily for famine and cyclone as for sunshine and harvest, and that if President McKinley thanked G.o.d for the victory at Santiago, he also should have thanked him for sending the yellow fever.
I stand by these words. A finite being has no right to make any distinction between the actions of the infinitely good and wise. If G.o.d governs this world, then everything that happens is the very best that could happen. When A murders B, the best thing that could happen to A is to be a murderer and the best thing that could have happened to B was to be murdered. There is no escape from this if the world is governed by infinite wisdom and goodness.
It will not do to try and dodge by saying that man is free. This G.o.d who made man and made him free knew exactly how he would use his freedom, and consequently this G.o.d cannot escape the responsibility for the actions of men. He made them. He knew exactly what they would do. He is responsible.
If I could turn a piece of wood into a human being, and I knew that he would murder a man, who is the real murderer? But if Dr. MacArthur would think as much as he preaches, he would come much nearer agreeing with me.
The Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks is very sorry that he cannot discuss Ingersoll"s address, because to do so would be dignifying Ingersoll. Of course I deeply regret the refusal of Dr. J. Lewis Parks to discuss the address. I dislike to be compelled to go to the end of my life without being dignified. At the same time I will forgive the Rev. Dr. J. Lewis Parks for not answering me, because I know that he cannot.
The Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, whose name seems chiefly made of consonants, denounces me as a scoffer and as illogical, and says that Christianity is not founded upon the devil, but upon Christ. He further says that we do not believe in such a thing as a devil in human form, but we know that there is evil, and that evil we call the devil. He hides his head under the same leaf with Dr. MacArthur by calling the devil evil.
Now, is this gentleman willing to say that all the allusions to the devil in the Old and New Testaments can be harmonized with the idea that the devil is simply a personification of evil? Can he say this and say it honestly?
But the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke, I think, seems to be consistent; seems to go along with the logic of his creed. He says that the yellow fever, if it visited our soldiers, came from G.o.d, and that we should thank G.o.d for it. He does not say the soldiers should thank G.o.d for it, or that those who had it should thank G.o.d for it, but that we should thank G.o.d for it, and there is this wonderful thing about Christianity. It enables us to bear with great fort.i.tude, with a kind of sublime patience, the misfortunes of others.
He says that this yellow fever works out G.o.d"s purposes. Of course I am not as well acquainted with the Deity as the Rev. Moldehnke appears to be. I have not the faintest idea of what G.o.d"s purposes are. He works, even according to his messengers, in such a mysterious way, that with the little reason I have I find it impossible to follow him. Why G.o.d should have any purpose that could be worked out with yellow fever, or cholera, or why he should ever ask the a.s.sistance of tapeworms, or go in partnership with cancers, or take in the plague as an a.s.sistant, I have never been able to understand. I do not pretend to know. I admit my ignorance, and after all, the Rev. Dr. Moldehnke may be right. It may be that everything that happens is for the best. At the same time, I do not believe it.
There is a little old story on this subject that throws some light on the workings of the average orthodox mind.
One morning the son of an old farmer came in and said to his father, "One of the ewe lambs is dead."
"Well," said the father; "that is all for the best. Twins never do very well, any how."
The next morning the son reported the death of the other lamb, and the old man said, "Well, that is all for the best; the old ewe will have more wool."
The next morning the son said, "The old ewe is dead."
"Well," replied the old man; "that may be for the best, but I don"t see it this morning."
The Rev. Mr. Hamlin has the goodness to say that my influence is on the wane. This is an admission that I have some, for which I am greatly obliged to him. He further states that all my arguments are easily refuted, but fails to refute them on the ground that such refutation might be an advertis.e.m.e.nt for me.
Now, if Mr. Hamlin would think a little, he would see that there are some things in the lecture on "Superst.i.tion" worth the while even of a Methodist minister to answer.
Does Mr. Hamlin believe in the existence of the devil? If he does, will he Have the goodness to say who created the devil? He may say that G.o.d created him, as he is the creator of all. Then I ask Mr. Hamlin this question: Why did G.o.d create a successful rival? When G.o.d created the devil, did he not know at that time that he was to make this world? That he was to create Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden, and did he not know that this devil would tempt this Adam and Eve? That in consequence of that they would fall? That in consequence of that he would have to drown all their descendants except eight? That in consequence of that he himself would have to be born into this world as a Judean peasant? That he would have to be crucified and suffer for the sins of these people who had been misled by this devil that he deliberately created, and that after all he would be able only to save a few Methodists?
Will the Rev. Mr. Hamlin have the goodness to answer this? He can answer it as mildly as he pleases, so that in any event it will be no advertis.e.m.e.nt for him.
The Rev. Mr. F. J. Belcher pays me a great compliment, for which I now return my thanks. He has the goodness to say, "Ingersoll in many respects is like Voltaire." I think no finer compliment has been paid me by any gentleman occupying a pulpit, for many years, and again I thank the Rev. Mr. Belcher.
The Rev. W. D. Buchanan, does not seem to be quite fair. He says that every utterance of mine impresses men with my insincerity, and that every argument I bring forward is specious, and that I spend my time in ringing the changes on arguments that have been answered over and over again for hundreds of years.
Now, Dr. Buchanan should remember that he ought not to attack motives; that you cannot answer an argument by vilifying the man who makes it.
You must answer not the man, but the argument.
Another thing this reverend gentleman should remember, and that is that no argument is old until it has been answered. An argument that has not been answered, although it has been put forward for many centuries, is still as fresh as a flower with the dew on its breast. It never is old until it has been answered.
It is well enough for this gentleman to say that these arguments have been answered, and if they have and he knows that they have, of course it will be but a little trouble to him to repeat these answers.
Now, my dear Dr. Buchanan, I wish to ask you some questions. Do you believe in a personal devil? Do you believe that the bodies of men and women become tenements for little imps and goblins and demons? Do you believe that the devil used to lead men and women astray? Do you believe the stories about devils that you find in the Old and New Testaments?
Now, do not tell me that these questions have been answered long ago.
Answer them now. And if you say the devil does exist, that he is a person, that he is an enemy of G.o.d, then let me ask you another question: Why should this devil punish souls in h.e.l.l for rebelling against G.o.d? Why should the devil, who is an enemy of G.o.d, help punish G.o.d"s enemies? This may have been answered many times, but one more repet.i.tion will do but little harm.
Another thing: Do you believe in the eternity of punishment? Do you believe that G.o.d is the keeper of an eternal prison, the doors of which open only to receive sinners, and do you believe that eternal punishment is the highest expression of justice and mercy?
If you had the power to change a stone into a human being, and you knew that that human being would be a sinner and finally go to h.e.l.l and suffer eternal torture, would you not leave it stone? And if, knowing this, you changed the stone into a man, would you not be a fiend?
Now, answer this fairly. I want nothing spiritual; nothing with the Presbyterian flavor; just good, honest talk, and tell us how that is.
I say to you that if there is a place of eternal torment or misery for any of the children of men--I say to you that your G.o.d is a wild beast, an insane fiend, whom I abhor and despise with every drop of my blood.
At the same time you may say whether you are up, according to Dr. Mac Arthur, with the religious thinking of the hour.
The Rev. J. W. Campbell I rather like. He appears to be absolutely sincere. He is orthodox--true blue. He believes in a devil; in an acting, thinking devil, and a clever devil. Of course he does not think this devil is as stout as G.o.d, but he is quicker; not quite as wise, but a little more cunning.
According to Mr. Campbell, the devil is the bunco steerer of the universe--king of the green goods men; but, after all, Mr. Campbell will not admit that if this devil does not exist the Christian creeds all crumble, but I think he will admit that if the devil does not exist, then Christ was mistaken, or that the writers of the New Testament did not truthfully give us his utterances.
Now, if Christ was mistaken about the existence of the devil, may be he was mistaken about the existence of G.o.d. In other words, if Christ made a mistake, then he was ignorant. Then we cannot say he was divine, although ignorance has generally believed in divinity. So I do not see exactly how Mr. Campbell can say that if the devil does not exist the Christian creeds do not crumble, and when I say Christian creeds I mean orthodox creeds. Is there any orthodox Christian creed without the devil in it?
Now, if we throw away the devil we throw away original sin, the fall of man, and we throw away the atonement. Of this arch the devil is the keystone. Remove him, the arch falls.