LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 J UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. I 
 
THE 
 
 UNDERWOOD-MARPLES DEBATE, 
 
 COMMENCING 
 July 30, 1875, and Continuing Four Evenings, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 / 
 
 B. F. UNDERWOOD, 
 
 BOSTON, MASS., 
 
 AND 
 
 REV. JOHN 7 MARPLES, 
 
 TORONTO, 'ONT. 
 
 1 
 
 BFPOBTED BY JOHN T. HAWKE, 
 
 Of the Toronto Leader, 
 
 — 
 
 (h-^ 
 
 v| 
 
 D. M. BENNETT, 
 
 OFFICE OF THE TRUTH SEEKER, 
 
 LIBERAL AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
 141 Eighth Street, New York. 
 
 1877. 
 
-V 
 
 1* 
 
 *b 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 This debate, which created no little interest in Can- 
 ada, is now given to the public with the consent and 
 approval of both contestants, who have kindly revised 
 their speeches for publication by us. 
 
 A Letter from Mr. Marples to Mr. Underwood. 
 
 Montreal, April 19, 1876. 
 My Dear Sir: Yours of the 15th reached me here. I 
 am perfectly willing that you should republish the 
 report of our debate at Napanee. Of course you will 
 have to correct your speeches and perhaps have to 
 re-write whole paragraphs, but I must depend on your 
 honor to put in nothing but what was uttered in the 
 public debate. 
 
 In reporting my speeches for "Both Sides," many 
 paragraphs were much condensed; but Mr. Hawks suc- 
 ceeded in bringing out the sense for the most part, and 
 as I have corrected most of the mistakes in the sheets 
 I sent you some time ago, I should not be disposed to 
 re-write them all over again. Possibly your speeches 
 will appear when in print in a permanent form longer 
 than mine from the fact above stated, but you have my 
 full sanction for the publication of the debate. 
 
 With kind regards, I remain, my Dear Sir, 
 
 Yours very truly, John Marples. 
 
 B. F. Underwood, Esq. 
 
iv INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 [From the Toronto National.] 
 
 The four days' debate between the Eev. John Mar- 
 ples, Presbyterian minister, and B. F. Underwood, Free- 
 thought lecturer, on the subjects of the existence of a 
 Personal God and the Inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 commenced on the evening of the 20th inst., in the town 
 of Napanee. The circumstances which gave occasion for 
 this display of intellectual gladiatorship between one of 
 the leaders of American Freethcught and a gentleman 
 who has proved himself a fair and worthy representative 
 of the talent, intellect, and culture of the Christian min- 
 istry of Canada, are as follows : A short time since Eev. 
 Mr. Marples, then a missionary located at Bracebridge, 
 Ont., came across a copy of the National containing a 
 letter of Rev. Dr. Carroll, of Leslieville, in reply to a 
 communication from Mr. Allen Pringle, of Selby, near 
 Napanee. His attention was called to the spread of the 
 principles of Freethought in Canada, and he felt it to 
 be his duty to endeavor to arrest its progress, not by 
 ignoring it, as most ministers have studiously done, nor 
 by attempting to crush out freedom of speech, as has 
 been tried in several localities without success during 
 the past year, but by meeting the champions of the 
 new ideas face to face, in fair argument, and endeavor- 
 ing to prove the incorrectness of their views before a 
 public audience. He accordingly wrote to Dr. Carroll, 
 obtained from him Mr. Pringle's address, and published 
 a challenge to the latter gentleman through the columns 
 of the National. The gauntlet thus thrown down was 
 quickly taken up, Mr. Pringle accepted the challenge, 
 but not being, a practiced viva voce debater, stipulated 
 that he should be at liberty, if he chose, to provide a 
 substitute — and procured Mr. Underwood in his place. 
 
 Eev. John Marples was born amid the romantic 
 
INTRODUCTORY. v 
 
 scenery of the Peak of Derbyshire, England, in 1825, 
 and is consequently fifty years of age. He was educated 
 and ordained as a Congregational minister in Yorkshire 
 and labored there for several years. He subsequently 
 accepted charge of the Congregational church at Darlas- 
 ton, in the "Black Country," and after some years re- 
 moved to Edinburgh, where he became a member and 
 elder of the Free church. He labored four years with- 
 out pastoral charge, a portion of the time a,s financial 
 agent of the Scottish Evangelistic Association. On his 
 emigration to Canada a few years since he made appli- 
 cation to the Presbytery of Toronto and was received as 
 a minister of the Canada Presbyterian Church. In 1873 he 
 was appointed by the Presbytery of Simcoe to the charge 
 of the missions in Muskoka, being stationed at Brace- 
 bridge. The circumstances of his withdrawal from that 
 sphere of action in consequence of his determination to 
 engage in the public discussion of the question at issue 
 between Freethinkers and the upholders of revealed 
 religion, have already been noticed in our columns. In 
 person Mr. Marples is of medium height, broad-chested 
 ' and of powerful frame. He has a high, well-developed 
 forehead, the full perceptive faculties being well sup- 
 ported by the driving force-bestowing organs of the 
 back brain. He has a fair complexion and full features 
 of great mobility, his emotions being generally strongly 
 expressed in his countenance. He wears bushy side- 
 whiskers, the original brown color of which has nearly 
 all merged into the grey which betokens advancing 
 years. His hair is straight and of a light brown. Mr. 
 Marples makes a pleasant impression upon you from 
 the first. His air is frank, genial, and ingenuous, and 
 his cheery, hearty manner and personal magnetism go 
 far towards securing the sympathies of his hearers, 
 
Vi INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 apart from the subject-matter or style of his addresses. 
 He smiles frequently when in conversation, with a 
 broad, complacent smile, not a mere motion of the lips, 
 but a movement giving the impression that the risible 
 muscles extend over his entire countenance. When en- 
 gaged in discussing religious subjects, he is all energy, 
 combativeness, and vehemence. His strong emotional 
 nature is apparently stirred to its depths. He speaks 
 with great distinctness, deliberation, and emphasis, in a 
 loud, sonorous voice, rolling his "r's" after the fashion 
 of a tragic actor in a melodrama of the old school. 
 He has the lung-power of a Boanerges, and his delivery 
 is forcible in the extreme, abounding in changes of in- 
 flection and pauses for effect, and characterized by vio- 
 lent gesticulation. When excited he sways his body 
 backwards and forwards, takes long strides, and whirls 
 his arms in all directions in regular revival style. His 
 rhetoric is that of the exhorter seeking to work upon 
 men's emotions rather than that of the debater appeal- 
 ing to their intellects. He has a strong North of Eng- 
 land accent, which, together with his Presbyterianism, 
 generally induces the idea that he is of Scotch origin. 
 When he thinks he has gained an advantage over his 
 antagonist he frequently gives utterance to an exclama- 
 tion of triumph something between a laugh and a shout, 
 which reminds one of the sound of a Scotch terrier shak- 
 ing a rat. He is a kindly, earnest, and fair-minded man, 
 and his bonhommie and ready humor find vent in fre- 
 quent colloquialisms, and speedily put him en rapport 
 with his auditors. 
 
 [From the Napanee Express.] 
 
 The debate of which so much has been heard for 
 somo weeks past, between Rev. John Marples, Pr sbyto- 
 
INTRODUCTORY. vii 
 
 rian minister, Toronto, and Mr. B. F. Underwood, of 
 Boston, is now in progress in the Music Hall, Napanee, 
 and attracts a great deal of attention. About three hun- 
 dred persons have attended the first two evenings' de- 
 bate, many of whom came from a distance to attend. 
 
 Mr. Marples is a Scotch Presbyterian minister, who 
 came to Canada about four years ago. He is evidently 
 a gentleman of good ability and well educated. He is a 
 ready speaker, rather of the declamatory than of the 
 logical and argumentative order, but his ready wit gives 
 him a good advantage with the audience in a debate of 
 this kind. Mr. Underwood is more cool and argumenta- 
 tive, and has evidently well mastered the arguments 
 used in behalf of Atheism. 
 
THE 
 
 UNDER WOOD-MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 FIBST NIGHT. 
 
 Fiest Peoposition.— " That Atheism, Materialism and Modern Skep- 
 ticism are illogical, and contrary to reason." 
 
 The Eev. Mr. Harpies affirms, and Mr. B. F. Under- 
 wood denies. 
 
 He. Maeples. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: —As there has 
 been much misunderstanding as to the position which I 
 occupy, and also as to my reason for opposing my 
 friend, I deem it appropriate to spend a few moments 
 in explaining how the debate originated. My friends and 
 opponents, Mr. Pringle and Mr. Underwood, and myself 
 were strangers unto each other until this evening, and 
 but some four or five months ago I had not heard of 
 their names. One Saturday evening', some months ago, 
 I was going to light the fire in my sitting-room, at 
 Bracebridge, with a piece of the "National " newspaper. 
 I saw on the paper the Eev. John Carroll's rrame in 
 connection with a written discussion on the subject to 
 be brought before your notice this evening. In lookiug 
 over the letters, I discovered that the person who was 
 opposing the Eev. John Carroll was in error. I then 
 made some enquiries as to whom this Mr. P., the author 
 
10 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 of these letters was, and it turned out to be Mr. Allen 
 Pringle, of Lennox County. I sent a challenge to Mr. 
 Pringle to meet me in debate. That challenge was ac- 
 cepted for a substitute, and the result is our appearance 
 before you this evening to discuss this great and solemn 
 question. I hope that these explanations will be suffic- 
 ient to show that there was no collusion between my 
 opponent and myself. From my acquaintance with Mr. 
 Pringle I respect him very much, and have had some 
 correspondence with him, and during the whole of that 
 correspondence he has conducted himself as a gentle- 
 man, and with all the earnestness and culture that I 
 could wish. I have had no previous correspondence or 
 acquaintance with Mr. Underwood, but from what I 
 have heard and seen of him, I believe that he will 
 behave as gentlemanly and courteously as Mr. Pringle 
 has done. Now, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentle- 
 men, I appear before you with a conscious feeling of 
 the weight and responsibility which rests upon me. I 
 come before you as a very humble advocate of the divine 
 truth, and also of Christianity, and it will be my busi- 
 ness during the time I have to occupy, to endeavor to 
 affirm the proposition which the chairman has read in 
 your hearing, " That Atheism, Materialism, and Modern 
 Skepticism arc illogical, and contrary to reason." Before 
 going fully into the matter, it would be just as well to 
 define terms. I understand that Atheism is a denial of 
 a personal God ; Materialism to be an affirmation that 
 there is nothing in the universe o:her than matter; Skep- 
 ticism to be universal and general doubt. And, under- 
 s'anding these terms in that sense, I suppose that by 
 and by we shall come to understand each other. By 
 your permission, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentle- 
 men, I will proceed farther with the definitions, and as 
 
. THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. H 
 
 this is the opening speech, and as there are certain 
 laws, and rules, and regulations, by which we are to be 
 governed, it is important that Ave should understand 
 what those laws are. •The first point to be discussed is, 
 What is reason ? Eeason I understand to be rationality, 
 or in other words, human consciousness, arising first 
 from intuition, secondly from analysis, and finally from 
 induction. The next question is, What is logic? Logic 
 is the art of using reason well in our enquiries after 
 truth. Thinking that the audience understands so far, 
 f will not dwell further upon those points. Logic, or 
 the science and art of consciousness, I understand to 
 imply, 1. Conception; 2, Definition; 3. Proposition; 4. 
 Argumentation. I now proceed to another point of the 
 definitions, and before proceeding further will define 
 with regard to truth. The question is, what is truth? 
 No doubt you have thought about it often, and have 
 heard it used. I answer that truth in the abstract is 
 the agreement of our ideas with the real in all cases. 
 Having, by way of introduction pointed out the subject, 
 and placed before the audience the rule by which this 
 discussion is to be guided, I will now proceed to say 
 that truth is of three kinds: 1. Physical; 2. Mathemat- 
 ical; 3. Moral. 
 
 Physical, mathematical and moral are the three kinds 
 of truth prevalent in the world, and each is a standard 
 for its own type, and each differs from the other. What 
 is physical truth ? It is truth or evidence made patent 
 to one of the five senses, such as the sight, hearing, 
 smelling, tasting or touching. These are the five senses 
 of the human mind. And by the use of them we reason 
 the truth or falsehood of certain material ideas. The 
 great failure with the Infidels in England, that I have 
 seen, was this, that they take the physical tett and apply 
 
12 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 it to the moral subject. So with the mathematical test; 
 and because the moral does not agree with the physical 
 or mathematical, they say that it is not true. With 
 regard to the first kind of truth, or evidence, that is phys- 
 ical truth or evidence made patent to one of the five 
 senses, such as I see the book or hear the sound of 
 stamping. If I took up a rose and smelt it I receive 
 the truth. If I took a piece of beef and put it into my 
 mouth, I should taste it. Then again, by the sense of 
 feeling I can determine the truth of the hardness or the 
 softness of metals, and these senses are the inlets of the 
 soul. When I was a student at college, and an agent of 
 the Sheffield Town Mission, there was a gentleman in 
 that town who became the leading skeptic or Infidel in 
 the place. One day I was engaged in a conversation 
 with him, and I asked him Avhat he thought of the men, 
 women and children around him. He replied that he 
 had never met a man or woman equally as good as him- 
 self. I frequently discussed with this gentleman, and 
 one day he had in his hands two pieces of iron, which 
 he knocked together. He said I can see, hear and feel 
 that those are two pieces of iron, and if your God 
 existed, I could hear, see or feel him, and because I 
 can do nothing of this, I therefore conclude there is no 
 God. I replied, You suppose that conclusive, Mr. Dod- 
 worth? He said, Yes. I again replied, if my God was 
 iron, I could hear, see or feel him, but as he is not, but 
 is spirit, I can neither see him nor hear him, nor feel 
 him. I said, do you understand logic. He said that lie 
 understood reasoning most thoroughly. I then told him 
 that there were three kinds of logic — the physical, the 
 mathematical and the moral, and if you will take the 
 moral standard and apply that to the existence of God, 
 and if the subject will not come up to it, I will give up 
 
THE UNDEEWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 13 
 
 Theism and take up Atheism, and from that day to this 
 he has never taken up the gauntlet. The second kind 
 of truth is mathematical, and that is obtained by demon- 
 stration, such as two and two make four; they do not 
 make six, and are more than three. Any school boy 
 will tell you that mathematical demonstrations belong 
 to mental or to abstract subjects. Bishop Colenso is a 
 mathematician and a good authority on mathematics, 
 but in applying mathematics to the divine truth, he has 
 let his mathematics run away with him. He takes the 
 Bible, which is a moral subject, and lays his rule across 
 the Pentateuch; and because the moral subject does 
 not come up to the mathematical rule, he says that the 
 Bible is not true. If Bishop Colenso will take the moral 
 standard and apply that to the Bible, and if it does 
 not come up to the standard I will give_up the Bible 
 and become a Colensoite. I now come to the moral test 
 or to the moral standard by which we test evidence or 
 truth. Or, in other words, I now come to moral truth. 
 By moral truth I understand the truth of I he word of 
 God. This truth was in opposition to the truth received 
 by the senses, in opposition to the truth received by 
 mathematical demonstration. I have to observe that 
 moral truth is supported by testimony. Here we have 
 a court of law, a judge to decide, counsel to plead or to 
 affirm, a jury; and witnesses are brought forward in 
 cases of a criminal kind or otherwise. Those who are 
 criminals are placed in the dock, and one after another 
 is brought up to attest against the criminal. Having 
 heard the whole case, the judge and the jury decide 
 according to the preponderance of evidence. That is 
 moral testimony. Of course there will be a great dif- 
 ference of testimony in the witnesses. Some will have 
 one part of the statement, and another another, and so 
 
L4 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 on. Some witnesses are perjured, and others stutter and 
 do not understand the case, and you have to argue out 
 the evidence, and then the jury go aside to discuss it, 
 and after their agreement deliver a verdict. The same 
 rule obtains in our ecclesiastical courts. We have a 
 number of officials, and when the case is brought before 
 the court of God, and when the case is properly sifted, 
 then the court decides according to the amount or to 
 the preponderance of evidence. I will now, once more, 
 go to another court, and that is the court of conscience. 
 That is a special court. What is conscience? My oppo- 
 nents contend that it is a rule. Mr. Dodworth and 
 other Atheists say: — "My conscience tells me there is 
 no God." And in reply I state that mine says, there is 
 a God. Now, the question comes who is in the right. 
 Conscience is not a rule, it is a power by which we 
 judge all our actions whether they be right or wrong, 
 and therefore in order to have a right view of matters 
 there must be a rule to guide you. Conscience is one 
 thing, and a rule to guide it is another thing. What is 
 the rule of conscience. Conscience is a power, it is 
 said to be the natural friend of God, and it will speak 
 if you do not sear it with a hot iron. It will speak if 
 you do not throttle it. Now I maintain that the rule 
 and law of conscience is the law of God. Therefore, 
 conscience placed in connection with this is your judge 
 of moral truth. It is the law by which the conscience 
 is regulated, and let us apply that law. Well now, does 
 law itself regulate conscience? I have endeavored to 
 lay before you some of the leading theories and princi- 
 ples by which I will establish the position that there is 
 in existence a personal Being — self-existent and there- 
 fore God. Wc will take this moral standard, not the 
 mathematical nor the physical, and apply it to the 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 15 
 
 question of a God, and if it turns out by this that my 
 opponent can prove that there is no self-existent, per- 
 sonal Being, then I will give up Theism and become an 
 Atheist. Now, I will just occupy the remainder of my 
 time in placing before you the leading points by which 
 I will establish my position. Taking the moral standard 
 and placing this to the subject, I can prove that there 
 is in existence the eternal God. First, from the mate- 
 rial universe; secondly, from the animal and the vegeta- 
 ble life in the world, and the principles and power in 
 operation there; and finally, from the position of man, 
 his possession of an intellect and great power, the grand 
 organization of his physical, mental and moral system, 
 and that is a grand proof to him that there is an ever- 
 lasting Being, that there is a self-existent and intelli- 
 gent Power, and that power is God— Jehovah. I, as an 
 individual, am dependent upon this power for all that I 
 enjoy; because, from Jehovah I believe that everything 
 springs. 
 
 Mr. Underwood. * 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen: — It is gratify- 
 ing to me to have an opportunity to stand upon this 
 platform and discuss with Mr. Marples a question which 
 throughout Christendom is regarded as one of greater 
 importance than any other that can engage the atten- 
 tion of man. I am pleased to find that my opponent is 
 a kind, sincere, and earnest man. With such a repre- 
 sentative of Christianity it is a pleasure to engage in a 
 public debate. 
 
 The defini.ions that my opponent has given in the 
 somewhat desultory remarks of his opening speech are 
 not very exceptionable, although I must criticize his deli- 
 
16 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 nition of the word Atheism, which he says is a denial of 
 a God. Now, I have had intercourse with Atheists from 
 my boyhood, and ought to know what their positions 
 are. Although they do not believe in the existence of a 
 personal God, I know of none who deny the being of 
 God. To illustrate. A person may believe that on the 
 planet Jupiter there are rational beings sixty feet high, 
 with wings like eagles. In the absence of evidence we 
 do not believe it, but, when we have no data, why should 
 we deny it? We disbelieve what is unproven. We deny 
 only what we can demonstrate to be false. Lest it should 
 be said that I take a position which is exceptional among 
 Atheists, I will read what Charles Bradlaugh, who is one 
 of the leading and most radical Atheists of England, 
 says in lys little work, "A Plea for Atheism": — 
 
 " The Atheist does not say, 'There is no God/ but he says, 
 1 1 know not what you mean by God. The word God is to me 
 a sound, conveying no clear or distirct affirmation. I do not 
 deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no con- 
 ception, and the conception of which "ay its affirmer is so imper- 
 fect that he is unable to define it to me. ' " 
 
 This passage gives the position of the Atheist. I am 
 not here to defend what any person may choose to call 
 Atheism. My opponent undertakes to show that "Athe- 
 ism, Materialism, and Skepticism, are illogical, and con- 
 trary to reason." To do this he must grapple with what 
 Atheists teach, and not with what is put forth by some 
 individual of whom we have never heard, and of whom 
 the world knows nothing. We need accuracy in this 
 debate. My opponent says "Atheists believe in noth- 
 ing but matter," but I may here remark that we are 
 not to be confined to the theologian's narrow definition 
 of mat' or. We must bo permitted to believe in space, 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 17 
 
 concerning the nature of which, metaphysicians, from 
 Pythagoras to Mill, have puzzled their minds. If it be 
 said, 'Space is nothing,' I reply that there are four feet 
 of space between my friend and myself, and by approach- 
 ing toward him I can reduce it to two feet. Can we divide 
 nothing ? or make it more or less than it is ? That space 
 exists no one will deny. It must have existed as long 
 as matter has existed, or a God — supposing one — has 
 existed ; for if he has not existed in space, he cannot 
 have existed anywhere. Matter, as viewed by modern 
 scientists — Huxley and Tyndall, for instance — is not a 
 mere inert, motionless substance, but in the definition 
 must be included all the forces and activities which fill 
 the world. The word matter must not be limited in sig- 
 nification to a piece of rock or iron. It must include 
 the force which is the synthesis of all the activities of 
 the universe. This is scientific Materialism, as I under- 
 stand it; and I state this in correction of my friend's 
 erroneous statement as to the position of the Materialist. 
 He tells us that skepticism is universal, or general, 
 doubt. Its obvious meaning in this discussion is doubt 
 as to religion. Surely the intended meaning of the term 
 as employed in the proposition is not general doubt or 
 skepticism regarding everything, including the intel- 
 lectual capacity of man, the moral influences which' 
 actuate his mind, the existence of an eternal world, etc. 
 I understand it to mean, I repeat, doubt as to religion, 
 or theological dogmas and theories. I offer this defini- 
 tion in opposition to that of my friend, and I think it 
 will be accepted as more fair and accurate than the one 
 he has presented. Truth, he says, is conformity or 
 agreement of our ideas with the nature of things. That 
 is an unexceptionable definition, and one which I am 
 willing to accept. But let it be remembered that things 
 
18 THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 do not always exist as they seem to exist. For instance, 
 it is known to all that a rod in the water seems to be 
 benfc, when, in reality it is straight. That is an illusion 
 that may be corrected by further observation, or by the 
 application of tests. There are a great many phenom- 
 ena the appearance of which is quite illusory. Our an- 
 cestors thought the universe* as flat as a pancake, and 
 there was an agreement of their ideas with what seemed 
 to be the nature of things. 
 
 Now with regard to truth, of which my opponent has 
 spoken at some length. For our own convenience we di- 
 vide it into departments and subject it to classifications. 
 These divisions, let it be remembered, are arbitrary and 
 artificial, having no existence outside of our own minds. 
 Or, as is often the, case, our divisions of truth are simply 
 different aspects of the same thing. But comprehen- 
 sively considered, truth is one and is not divided into de- 
 partments. My opponent says he met an Atheist sev- 
 eral years ago, with whom he had a conversation, and 
 that during the conversation the Atheist said he had 
 never met a man or woman better than himself, or even 
 as good, and that he would not believe in a God because 
 he could not hear, see, or feel him. Well, I must say 
 that fellow cannot be accepted as authority. A man with 
 the arrogance and vanity to say he had never met his 
 equal, was simply insane ; and anybody who says he dues 
 not believe in a God simply because he cannot see or 
 feel him, talks very foolishly. That is not intelligent 
 Atheism. I disbelieve in a personal, intelligent Deity, not 
 because I am unable (o see him — I am unable to see 
 many things which exist— but for the reason that the 
 alleged proofs of his existence are to my mind unsatis- 
 factory, and because there seems, to be evidence against 
 the existence of such a being. I do not deny the exist- 
 
ftHE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 19 
 
 ence of an absolute reality of which we cannot know 
 anything only as affected by our consciousness, which 
 is from everlasting to everlasting, and of which all 
 knowledge must be relative. Call it God if you choose, 
 but then the word is only a symbol of ignorance — the 
 letter x in algebra that stands for the unknown quan- 
 tity. Any person who attempts to define the absolute, 
 to describe that which lies below phenomena, attempts 
 the impossible. My opponent speaks of God as a spirit. 
 Will he tell us what a spirit is ? He will say it is not 
 matter. Well, then, what is it? The fact is, the word 
 spirit, instead of conveying an idea, stands for the ab- 
 sence of one, represents human ignorance regarding the 
 nature of intellectual power. And so in regard to the 
 word God. When my opponent says God it is equiva- 
 lent only to my affirmation that I do not know. You 
 witness the movement of a table in a spiritual circle, 
 so-called, and not believing in Spiritualism, perhaps 
 explain the phenomenon by using the word electric- 
 ity, not because you understand it, but because it is 
 easier to assign some imaginary cause, to invent a name 
 to hide human ignorance than to confess modestly that 
 you do not comprehend it. In regard to that which is 
 beyond human comprehension, I confess my ignorance, 
 while my worthy opponent covers his with a word and 
 personifies it. 
 
 We are told that when we discuss the Bible, we must 
 treat it as a moral subject, and my opponent remarks 
 that Colenso has failed to apply to that volume moral 
 tests. We shall be pleased to act upon our opponent's 
 hint, but must remark that he is mistaken in regard 
 to Colenso, who — to refer to but one case — takes the 
 thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and argues against the 
 notion that God ordered Moses to destroy the Midian- 
 
20 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 ites, and especially those whose helplessness and inno- 
 cence had even touched the heart of the Jewish soldiers. 
 Before this debate ends I may be able to read what 
 Bishop Colenso does say, and since he tells us that if 
 Colenso will test th9 Bible by the moral standard, and 
 they do not agree, he will give up the book, he may 
 have a chance to come out as an advocate of Free- 
 thought. 
 
 Now in regard to conscience. He says it is a power, 
 and if not throttled it will speak out and say there is a 
 God. It is not necessary to go into a consideration of 
 the nature of what is called conscience, to-night, but we 
 can safely say it is no safe guide except it is enlighten- 
 ed and educated. In matters of religion reason is the 
 highest and best standard we possess; conscience is "a 
 creature of education." What it shall "speak out" de- 
 pends upon what the individual has been taught. There 
 are some here to-night whose conscience would trouble 
 them if they had not been plunged under the water in 
 baptism, while others are just as well satisfied with hav- 
 ing been sprinkled. Some believe it is necessary to bap- 
 tize in fonts; others think it very foolish. Nobody here 
 believes it would be right to sacrifice our lives in order 
 to propitiate Deity, but it is said that in some countries 
 thousands have thrown themselves under chariot wheels 
 that they might appease God. Conscience being thus 
 changed by education, is no infallible guide. Conscience 
 approves certain acts and condemns others, but it does 
 not give ideas nor furnish proofs. In a certain sense it 
 is on the side of neither Theism nor Atheism. In an- 
 other sense it is on the side of both. Its dictates being 
 different in different persons, why appeal to it as evi- 
 dence in a discussion of this character? 
 
 My opponent says the existence of God has nothing 
 
THE UNDEEWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 21 
 
 to do with physics or mathematics. Before he gets 
 through with this debate he may be glad to appeal to 
 both in order to make out his case. He says the exist- 
 ence of a personal God is taught by the frame of nature. 
 Well, if he will bring forward his evidence we will take 
 the pains to examine it. Let him by induction or deduc- 
 tion, show how it proves the existence of a Deity. He 
 remarks that the existence of animal and vegetable life 
 proves the existence of a God. Since he sees fit to make 
 the statement, he should give some proof of it. He says 
 there must be a self-existent, independent God, and that 
 God is Jehovah. We want these statements accompa- 
 nied by argument, or our opponent's reasons for his be- 
 lief. It must not be taken for granted that there is a 
 personal God in a debate in which this is the very ques- 
 tion in dispute. We know that we exist, and that outside 
 of us is an external universe. There is no evidence that 
 there was ever a time when the universe in its entirety 
 did not exist. Nature, full of motion and throbbing with 
 life, impresses us all ; but of a great Being, with anthro- 
 pomorphic qualities, who awoke from a slumber of ages 
 sometime in the past, and created Nature out of noth- 
 ing, I know nothing, and in his existence I have no 
 belief. 
 
 Mr. Marples. 
 
 I suppose now, it will fall to my lot to take up most 
 or all the points placed before you by my opponent. In 
 the first instance, he paid me a great compliment by 
 acknowledging my conduct to be courteous. Next he said 
 that my speech was somewhat desultory; I leave the 
 audience to judge whether it was desultory or consecu- 
 tive. The third point was in regard to Atheism. Athe- 
 
22 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 
 
 ism, he contended, was not a denial of the existence of 
 a personal God. I hold in my hand a periodical just 
 started, called "Both Sides." This paper has just been 
 published at Aylmer, and is to be devoted to the publica- 
 tion of debates of this kind, and for written discussions 
 on the same subject. It is a very useful little paper. In 
 the first number of this periodical is a short article by 
 Warren Chase. The question is, " What is Science Do- 
 ing?" The writer names a number of things, and says 
 that some years ago the Bible account of the creation was 
 overthrown with a number of other opinions. He also 
 says, "Now comes Tyndall sweeping away Jehovah with 
 the other heathen gods." I ask if Mr. Tyndall has swept 
 away Jehovah, does not Mr. Chase bring this as an idea 
 that Jehovah is not in existence ? If not, then I ask in 
 the name of common sense, what does he mean ? My 
 opponent says he does not deny the existence of a God ; 
 he only says that he cannot see sufficient evidence to 
 believe there is a God. Is Mr. Underwood sincere when 
 he says that he is ignorant, and blind, and cannot see ? 
 Can we believe that, Mr. Charman, and ladies and gen- 
 tlemen ? Supposing now that I am spared until to-mor- 
 row morning, and until noon, and if it be not cloudy 
 we shall see the sun. Suppose I shut my eyes, and I 
 say I cannot see the sun, you would say, open your eyes 
 and then you can. I do so and immediately see the 
 sun. I will say to Mr. Underwood, open your eyes to 
 the light which shines all around. 
 
 Mr. Underwood takes exception to my definition of 
 matter. I asserted that Materialists believe, and Materi- 
 alism asserts, that there is nothing in the universe but 
 matter. But my opponent says that they believe in 
 something else — they believe in space. Then I would 
 ask what is space; and if he is so blind and ignorant 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE, 23 
 
 how does he know what is space? If space is in exist- 
 ence, then it is something, and if it be something it is 
 either physical, mathematical, or moral. . And if my 
 friend says he knows there is space because he can see 
 it, then it is matter. Because anything that is patent to 
 any of the five senses must be material. If it is not 
 matter, then it does not exist, and if it cannot be sub- 
 jected to a moral or mathematical test, then it is phys- 
 ical. My opponent says that my definition of skepticism 
 was not quite sound, and said that skepticism had always 
 reference exclusively to religion. Does he mean to say 
 that there are no skeptics on certain of the sciences, 
 and many other subjects which have been presented to 
 the human mind ? Skepticism, I contend, is moral doubt, 
 whether applied to physical or to moral subjects. My 
 opponent granted in substance the soundness of my defi- 
 nitions of truth, but seemed to forget the adjective which 
 qualified the noun Nature. He says that I said " truth 
 was an agreement of our ideas with the nature of things ;" 
 and says that "it was an agreement of our ideas with 
 the real nature of things." I could show that there are 
 three kinds of logicians if I had the time .to go into an 
 argument. All fallacies arise from one of two things, 
 either from correct argument from false premises, or false 
 argument from correct premises. I would say that my 
 definition was 'an argeement with the real nature of 
 things.' He referred to the rod in the water appearing 
 bent, and yet not being bent. It does not affect me, for 
 it is the real that I referred to, not the supposition. 
 Then in regard to physical, mathematical, and moral 
 truth. My friend said that I made a distinction when 
 there was no difference. Would he say that there is no 
 difference between a piece of iron and an abstract thought 
 in my brain ? The fact is, that in truth there is a phys- 
 
24 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 ical truth according to physical subjects. There is a 
 mathematical truth, according to abstract or mathemat- 
 ical subjects. There is a mcral truth according to the 
 word of God, and that is the truth of the Bible. My 
 opponent referred to Mr. Dodworth, and I thank him 
 for the opinion he expressed and believe the same. The 
 old book, which is so much abused, has a passage, " the 
 fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." None but 
 a fool like Mr. Dodworth would look among all the men, 
 women, and children in the world, gods and angels, and 
 say that he had never met a person superior to himself 
 or equal to himself. I asked him, if I were to under- 
 stand him to say that he was the best man in the uni- 
 verse, and he answered in the affirmative in reference 
 to his goodness, and set himself up as a god, and said, 
 " Glory be to myself." And my friend says he was a 
 great fool, even if he did have the form of a man. My 
 allegation of matter was opposed. "Well, here is an ab- 
 stract from the " Logic of Atheism," three lectures deliv- 
 ered by Henry Bachelor, in reply to George Jacob Hol- 
 yoake, the great English Atheist, of a few years ago:— 
 
 " Preliminary to our undertaking, let me request your at- 
 tention to one remark on the medium of mind and matter. 
 What matter is, or what mind is, in itself, beyond the qualities 
 or properties of either, or whatever you may call their powers, 
 I cannot tell. All that I can say is matter is that something 
 which makes itself known to either of my five senses, or to all 
 put together — namely, to my sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch. 
 Now mind has not qualities with which these five senses can 
 communicate. You never saw, heard, tasted, smelt, touched 
 your will, your consciousness, your reason, your memory, your 
 conscience, your emotions, your love of the beautiful, the 
 picturesque, the sublime. When Mr. Holyoake affirms that 
 'spirit is only the negation of matter,' he asserts what is false. 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 25 
 
 That spirit is the negation of matter I allow. That it is only the 
 negation of matter I deny. It is perfectly philosophical to say 
 that mind is not matter, because matter never showed to us an 
 attribute of mind, and mind never exhibited an attribute of 
 matter. I never saw, heard, smelt, touched or tasted a thought, 
 a remembrance, a mental sorrow, or a pang of consciousness; 
 and no man has ever rendered it the most remotely probable 
 that matter can think, reason, remember, fear, hope, agonize, or 
 rejoice, be miserable or happy. If, therefore, anyone tells me 
 of something that reflects, argues, recollects, suffers, enjoys, 
 every principle of philosophy demands from me that I declare 
 that that something is not matter; but to affirm that that some- 
 thing is only the ' negation of matter,' and is therefore nothing, 
 is worse than ignorance. Are consciousness, reason, under- 
 standing, memory, moral emotion, will, nothing ? That some- 
 thing is not only ' the negation of matter,' but is the positive 
 subject of all the collective attributes which we name mind. It 
 would be equally philosophical to say that matter is only the 
 negation of spirit, and therefore nothing, as that spirit is only 
 the negation of matter, and therefore nothing. The majority 
 of the students of Nature would rather accept the former con- 
 clusion; and if there were any radical contradiction between 
 consciousness and sense, consciousness being the more authori- 
 tative, would constrain me to deny the existence of matter, 
 rather than the existence of mind. But matter and mind 
 are both made known to us by evidence of equal weight and 
 potency. Our nature constrains us to regard matter as the 
 positive something which is not mind, and to regard mind as 
 the positive something which is not matter. Mind and matter 
 are alike positive realities considered apart, or negative of each 
 other when brought into comparison, and both for the same 
 fundamental reasons. Their existence and their differences are 
 testified by the same laws of evidence, and their acceptance or 
 rejection must philosophically stand or fall together." 
 
 To-morrow night I will proceed to establish the ex- 
 istence of an .omniscient and all-powerful Jehovah. 
 
26 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 Mr. Underwood. 
 It will be remembered that the proposition is that 
 " Atheism, Materialism and Modern Skepticism are illog- 
 ical and contrary to reason." I submit to you whether 
 this has been proven, or whether there is any promise 
 of it in what you have heard. I wish my opponent 
 would leave unimportant matters and go right into the 
 subject and show what it is that demonstrates the exist- 
 ence of a personal, intelligent Deity. Will he bring 
 forward the " design " argument or some other argument 
 for such a being, that I may have an opportunity to 
 refute it, if it be fallacious, and that we may all have 
 the benefit of it if it be sound and logical. In reply to 
 my statement that Atheism does not deny the existence 
 of God, he quotes an article from " Both Sides " as saying 
 that Tyndall has swept away Jehovah with the other 
 heathen gods. It is true that science has destroyed the 
 crude notions of the old Hebrew in regard to creation, 
 and shown the childishness of believing in such a God 
 as the Old Testament represents. A recognition of this 
 fact does not involve a denial of God. Indeed, Mr. 
 Chase — from whom the quotation is made — is himself 
 a Theist and a Spiritualist. My opponent compares me 
 to a blind man, and says I have but to open my eyes 
 and see the light that shines all around me. He thus 
 assumes that his position is the true one — that it is self- 
 evidently true. Why go into a debate on a subject, and 
 when asked for proof of the proposition he has chal- 
 lenged Freethinkers to discuss, instead of giving them 
 the arguments of which he raised such expectations, tell 
 them that they cannot see as he does simply because 
 they keep their eyes closed! I think I have pretty fair 
 eyesight and can see what can be seen about as readily 
 as my opponent. 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 27 
 
 He speaks of an infinite God one moment, and the 
 next he refers to him as though he were an individual 
 very much Ike man. He ascribes to God all the qual- 
 ities—the chief qualities of the human mind. The very 
 thought of personality is inconsistent with infinity. 
 Personality implies, as Paley says, "a centre in which 
 perceptions unite and from which volitions flow." A 
 Being that feels, thinks, reasons, is a being that has an 
 organism that is acted upon and responds to the move- 
 ments of an external world. Personality implies organ- 
 ism and environment. A being that reasons, perceives 
 relations, compares ideas and deduces conclusions, and 
 thereby gets an addition to his knowledge. And so hope 
 is made up of uncertainty and desire. Imagination is 
 possible only when there is something invisible to the 
 mind. Even benevolence implies sympathy, the capacity 
 and experience of suffering, emotion, imagination and 
 discontent. Can my opponent fail to see that in giving 
 to the power behind phenomena, the qualities that con- 
 stitute intelligence, he simply projects himself into objec- 
 tive form, and creates an ideal being that must neces- 
 sarily be finite, limited, imperfect and, as a God, there- 
 fore impossible. 
 
 I am asked how I know space exists. Of course our 
 cognitions of space are through the senses. We have 
 aptitudes, in common with all sensitive beings, by which 
 we adjust ourselves to space relations. These, I hold 
 with Herbert Spencer, are the experiences of centuries 
 organized into the race. But this is a subject we need 
 not discuss here. Space exists. Our knowledge of that 
 fact comes from experience. If we had no sight, no 
 feeling, no other senses, we could have no knowledge of 
 space. Attaching great importance to his classification 
 of truths he argues that space is either moral, mathe- 
 
28 THE UNDERWOOD - MABPLES DEBATE. 
 
 matical or physical. Perhaps according to his definition 
 we should say it is "mathematical," as we can subject 
 it to measurement. If he chooses to call space matter 
 he is at liberty to do so, although it is evident to my 
 mind that space would exist if there were no matter, 
 since it is that which holds all matter, and that if, as 
 my opponent believes, there was a time when no mat- 
 ter existed still there was space. Had there been no 
 space matter could not have been made since the:e 
 would not have been place or room in which to produce 
 it. If this world were struck out of existence — suppos- 
 ing it possible — still we can suppose imaginary points 
 a mile or ten miles apart, a hundred miles apart. Be- 
 tween these supposed points there would be no worlds, 
 no air, no ether, but still there would be space. 
 
 My opponent says there are all kinds of skepticism. 
 Very true, but by " Modern Skepticism " is meant teach- 
 ings or speculations that call in question revelation and 
 religion. 
 
 SECOND NIGHT, 
 
 Mr. Marples. 
 
 It will be my business this evening, in opening this 
 discussion, to endeavor to place before you some of the 
 points made in support of the proposition read before 
 you. I endeavored last night, for the most part, to place 
 before the audience the law and the rule by which this 
 debate should be conducted, and the source and the 
 authority for part of the subjects under consideration. 
 In the first instance I endeavored to define reason as 
 rationality or human consciousness; next, I defined logic 
 as the art of using reason well in our enquiries after 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 29 
 
 truth, In addition to that I endeavored to define truth 
 as being, in the abstract, an agreement of our ideas 
 with the real nature of things. These definitions were, 
 for the most part, accepted by my opponent. The truth, 
 then, I intimated, to be in accordance with logic should 
 bo of three kinds. 1. The physical; 2. Mathematical; 
 3. Moral. The physical truth is that which is patent to 
 one of the five senses — anything material. You have 
 the knowledge that you are sitting here ; that knowledge 
 is physical truth. The second, being mathematical, is 
 made patent, or demonstrated, to our minds by means 
 of measurement or calculation. Moral truth is sup* 
 ported by testimony; it accords with our consciousness, 
 with spiritual inspiration, with true analogy. 
 
 These are some of the leading points of the law of 
 appeal in this debate, and now it will be my business 
 this evening to place before the audience, in the time 
 allotted to me, some of the arguments upon which I 
 found the belief in the existence of a God. I will state 
 at the start w r hat is known as a very old argument, and 
 called the design argument. It is the one used by Paley, 
 by Butler, and the modern theologians, and is the chief 
 means by which we prove the existence of a God. Now 
 it is important to have authorities sometimes, even upon 
 matters of this kind; and I will look for authorities 
 from all sources. I will look for it equally among our 
 friends as ^imong our opponents. I will appeal to an 
 authority that may surprise some present, and that is 
 the great and noted Infidel, Voltaire, of France. He 
 says, "I shall always be of the opinion that a clock 
 proves a clock-maker; and a universe, proves a God." 
 I am not afraid to say this evening that, in that re- 
 spect, the sentiment of that great man, though he was 
 an Infidel, thoroughly accords with my own. I will not 
 
30 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 only affirm, but will endeavor to show to you that there 
 is reason and evidence for the existence of a divine, 
 supreme, personal, self -existent, infinite, and eternal 
 God. I believe that there is: 1. From the frame of the 
 material universe; 2. From the principles of Biology, or 
 of life; 3. From the intelligence of the human mind. 
 First of all, I will endeavor to establish this position, 
 and I think I shall be perfectly able to do so. There is 
 a necessity for a personal, independent, self-existing, and 
 infinite being, called Jehovah or Cod. With my eyes I 
 can see matter; with my ears hear its sound. With my 
 five senses, one and all of thein, I can observe the 
 air, space, and the world called the universe. In look- 
 ing at the subject of philosophy, apart from the Bible, 
 and in examining the opinions of man in ancient and 
 modern times, on the subject of causation, or the begin- 
 ning of things, I have found a book published in the 
 year 1810, (this book is an enquiry into the peculiar- 
 ities of physical and metaphysical sciences, intended 
 principally to illustrate the principles of causation and 
 the opinions of philosophers, ancient and modern, in 
 relation to the causation of the universe,) describing 
 the characteristics of the German, French and British 
 schools. I would just say that as to the cause of the 
 universe, there are three different opinions extant. The 
 first is, ' that the universe is eternal ; ' for that I would 
 say we have not a particle of evidence. We have no 
 physical evidence for believing that ever any man in the 
 world lived through eternity, and cannot say that he 
 saw the world from everlasting. There is no evidence- 
 no ma-thcmatical demonstration, that any man can meas- 
 ure infinitude. If my opponent, in speaking of space, 
 wished us to believe it to be matter, and proves it to be 
 matter, he can measure it. Last night he said that he 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 31 
 
 could measure space, and if he can do that he is an 
 infinite person, and we have present this evening a God 
 upon the platform. In opposition to that I maintain 
 that space is not infinite; that it is finite, or else it can 
 never be measured at all. No living being has lived 
 from eternity, and could not tell us that he had seen 
 the world from everlasting. "We have just another 
 point, and that is whether we believe that any person 
 ever yet lived from everlasting and could have seen the 
 world forever. If not. we have no evidence to our 
 senses that matter is eternal. In the second place, no 
 mathematician existed from all eternity, consequently 
 we have no mathematical evidence that matter is eter- 
 nal. Now we come to the moral point. The question 
 is, can we, by a preponderance of evidence, or inductive 
 or deductive evidence, really make it out to be true that 
 matter has existed from everlasting? Could we, I ask 
 you ? Does your consciousness rise up and say, Yes, we 
 can prove by a preponderance of evidence that matter 
 is eternal. Matter is not eternal ; that is to say, we have 
 no evidence that it is. Next, Mr. Chairman, and ladies 
 and gentlemen, the question is, if matter is not eternal, 
 is it self-caused ? Have you evidence either physical, 
 mathematical or. moral, to prove that there are any ele- 
 ments in matter that can cause themselves to separate 
 into existences without the application of external power. 
 Did you ever see or read of such a thing ? If you have 
 testimony to such a statement as that of matter spring- 
 ing from nothing at all, and rising to individual exist- 
 ences, it is a wonder we do not have new worlds rising 
 up on the streets as we walk. The matter that we see 
 around us is not able to arise itself into existence. If 
 you believe that it can, you believe more than I do. 
 The third point is, that we account for the existence of 
 
32 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 a universe by the existence of a personal, independent, 
 omnipotent, eternal Being, who is not of matter but of 
 spirit, who exists and existed from everlasting. He 
 created the universe. That is the cause. We have mill- 
 ions in the universe who believe that they were created 
 by some wise and intelligent power. We now come to 
 Voltaire, and "I shall always be of the opinion that a 
 clock proves a clock-maker, and a universe a God." 
 Look at, the sun, it shines at mid-day, and the moon 
 that casts forth her light at night and all the mighty 
 orbs ! Look at the earth and all creation, and these all 
 stand as proof that God lives, and that they are the 
 works of his hand. _ 
 
 *' The spacious firmament on high, 
 With all the blue ethereal sky, 
 And spangled heavens and shining frame 
 Their great original proclaim. 
 The unwearied sun from day to day, 
 Doth his Creator's power display, 
 And publishes to every land 
 The work of an Almighty hand. 
 
 Soon as the evening shades prevail 
 The moon takes up the wondrous tale, 
 And nightly to the lessening earth 
 Repeats the story of her birth; 
 Whilst all the stars that round her burn, 
 And all the planets in their turn 
 Confirm the tidings as they roll, 
 And spread the truth from pole to pole. 
 
 What, though in solemn silence all 
 Move round this dark terrestrial ball ? 
 What, though no real voice nor sound 
 Amid their radiant orbs be found ? 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 33 
 
 In reason's ear they all rejoice, 
 And utter forth a glorious voice, 
 For ever singing as they shine 
 ' The hand that made us is divine. ' " 
 
 Now, I suppose, dear friends, that I have said suffi- 
 cient just to place the subject before you in a tangible 
 shape, that you can see and understand the ground upon 
 which we found our faith in God. We now come to the 
 second point, and will argue the existence of a God 
 from the principles of Biology or from the principles of 
 life. 1. Vegetable; 2. Animal; 3. Rational life. Vegeta- 
 ble life is that of the plants, herbs, trees, fruits. The 
 animal life is that which promotes all locomotion in 
 beasts; besides tills we have the life that exists in all 
 intelligent beings, in fact the life of the soul of man. 
 For God breathed into man the breath of life. In rela- 
 tion tathe knowledge respecting this life much has been 
 done of late, such as to distinguish certain forms of it. 
 Professor Huxley has written largely upon ."Biology, and 
 no doubt has done good service to the world, and aided 
 much in the progression of science. I would help it 
 much in this way; but when science is applied to reve- 
 lation, I will say that it is invading another province. 
 When they take science and set it up in opposition to 
 revelation, then I will defend revelation, will defend it 
 as being the elements of all true science, which is the 
 knowledge of principles. Another gentleman who has 
 done a dood deal in this way is Professor Tyndall, who 
 has been very much misrepresented and set forth as an 
 Atheist. He says that he is not an Atheist, and there- 
 fore declared that he believed in the princples that 
 were divine and omnipotent. Whether he went so far 
 as to express a belief in a personal Deity I do not know, 
 
34 THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 bat he does not believe in the self-causation of matter. 
 Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, here is the 
 sum and substance of Professor Tyndall's theory. 
 
 The London Globe says: — "Prof. Tyndall's laborious ad- 
 dress to the British Association may be readily summed up by 
 the simple re-statement of a very old argument. An egg con- 
 tains all the material necessary to form a chick. It holds also, 
 for a time at least, the force requisite to construct the animal 
 out of its component elements. The only thing needed is to set 
 the formative process in action by another form of force, or 
 motion, called heat. But this last must be supplied from with- 
 out. The sum of Professor Tyndall's researches is precisely 
 analogous. He finds in matter the promise and potency of 
 every form and quality of life, just as the naturalist and the 
 organic chemist finds the organic materials of a chick, and the 
 promise and potency to form one within the egg-shell. But 
 neither the philosopher nor experimentalist can go one step 
 beyond the facts. They are wholly unable to explain the some, 
 thing from without in whose absence neither an egg full, nor a 
 world of life can be called into palpable existence. This i3 the 
 point at which philosophy again arrives — the old point at which 
 it has been arriving by various paths ever since the first effort 
 to penetrate an inscrutable mystery. The Egyptians symbol- 
 ized the difficulty, and their inability to surmount it by offer- 
 ing the mysterious egg reverently to their gods. They laid the 
 unsolved problem of the finite at the feet of the infinite. Prof. 
 Tyndall and the British Association might learn wisdom, with- 
 out humiliation, from the ancient idolaters, and emulate their 
 not ignoble submission." 
 
 I will go into the third argument in proof of the 
 existence of God, and reason from the intelligence of a 
 human being. This intelligence includes three points. 
 1, A personal identity ; 2. The varied formations or form- 
 ulata in the mind; 3. The great power of the freedom of 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 35 
 
 will. Pat them all together and I ask you if you be- 
 lieve that anything but a personal, intelligent God could 
 give all these existence and operation ? If all the 
 beauty and exquisiteness of formation are but self-cre- 
 ated, then I have nothing further to say. 
 
 Mb. Underwood. 
 
 Through a littte mistake of the chairman, my time 
 last evening was cut short several minutes, and I did 
 not answer some of the statements of my opponent. I 
 will, therefore, before proceeding to examine his argu- 
 ments of this evening, notice briefly what I was pre- 
 vented examining. 
 
 In regard to the different kinds of truth, he asked, is 
 there no difference between a piece of iron and an ab- 
 stract thought in his brain? Yes; and there is a differ- 
 ence between a piece of iron and the heat "in it," as 
 he would express it. But both the iron and the brain 
 are material physical objects. Heat is one form of force 
 and thought another form of force. Heat is a kind of 
 molecular motion. Thought is a still more complex 
 molecular motion. Now^to call one physical and the 
 other mental, or to say that the conformity of our ideas 
 with one class of facts is physical truth and the con- 
 formity of our ideas with the other class of facts is 
 moral truth, is to make distinctions that may serve us 
 in our grouping of phenomena, but that has no founda- 
 tion in nature. 
 
 He seemed to endorse heartily what I said about his 
 strange Atheist, and saw fit to to quote the Psalmist: 
 "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." 
 With as much courtesy I might say: The fool hath said 
 
36 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 
 
 there is a God. If my opponent thinks the words of 
 David applicable to all those who do not believe in a 
 personal, anthropomorphic JBeing who created the world 
 from nothing, he must be surprised at the number of 
 fools in the world. But then let me offer him a little 
 consolation by a quotation from Paul : "God hath chosen 
 the foolish things of this world to confound the wise." 
 Perhaps that explains why there are so many Atheistic 
 fools, and why they are able to produce such terrible con- 
 fusion among theologians — the wise men of the world. 
 
 I again ask my friend to give something like evidence 
 that there is a real spirit, something that is intelligent 
 and rational, and yet is without the characteristics of 
 material organized beings. Affirming or reading the 
 opinions of somebody else is not proving. 
 
 I now come to the design argument, and will give it 
 all the consideration it deserves. I do not think that 
 he gave it satisfactorily. That there is an intelligent 
 Being who created and governs the universe, it is said, 
 is evident to every thinking mind. "The heavens de- 
 clare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his 
 handiwork." The order, harmony, and adaptation ob- 
 servable in nature, it is said, prove design; design is 
 evidence of a designer, and a designer must be an intel- 
 ligent being. It is absurd, we are told, to suppose that 
 this orderly world, containing such admirable adapta- 
 tions of means to ends, can exist independently of a 
 Being who made and governs it. Nothing could have 
 come by chance, it is said, and therefore it is inferred 
 that this universe must have been created by a God. 
 
 Let us view this famous argument for a moment. 
 God is something or nothing. To say he is nothing is 
 to say there is no God. If he is something, he is not 
 merely a, property or quality, but an existence per se — 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 37 
 
 an entity, a substance, whether material or immaterial 
 is unimportant. If he is a substance, a material, or 
 Spiritual Being, there must be order, harmony, and 
 adaptation, or fitness, in his divine nature, to enable him 
 to perceive, reflect, design, and execute his plans, If 
 Deity does not reason, does not cogitate, but perceives 
 truth without the labor of investigation and contriv- 
 ance, he must still possess an adaptation or fitness thus 
 to perceive, as well as to execute his design. 
 
 To say God is without order, harmony, and adapta- 
 tion, or fitness, is to say he is a mere chaos — worse 
 than that imaginary chaos that theologians tell us 
 would result if divine agency were withdrawn from the 
 universe. If a being without order, harmony, and adap- 
 tation, or a divine chaos, can create an orderly universe 
 then there is no consistency in saying that unintelligent 
 matter could not have produced the objects that we be- 
 hold. If order, harmony, and adaptation do exist in 
 the Divine mind (or in the substance which produces 
 thought, power, and purpose in the Divine mind) they 
 must be eternal, for that which constitutes the essential 
 nature of a God must be the eternal basis of his being. 
 If* the order, harmony, and adaptation in God are co- 
 existent with him, are eternal, they must be independ- 
 ent of design, for that which never began to exist could 
 not have been produced, and does not therefore admit 
 *f design. If order, harmony, and adaptation are inde- 
 pendent of design in the Divine mind, it is certain that 
 order, harmony, and adaptation exist, and are no evi- 
 dence of a preexistent, designing intelligence. 
 
 If order, harmony and adaptation exist, which were 
 not-produced by design, which are therefore no evidence 
 of design, it is unreasonable and illogical to infer de- 
 signing intelligence from the fact alone that order, har- 
 
38 THE UNDERWOOD - MA.RPLES DEBATE. 
 
 inony and adaptation exist in nature. Therefore an 
 intelligent Deity cannot be inferred from the order, 
 harmony and adaptation in nature. If the order, "har- 
 mony and adaptation in Deity, to produce his thoughts, 
 and to execute his plans, are eternal, why may not the 
 formation of matter into worlds, and the evolutions of 
 the various forms of vegetable and animal life on this 
 globe be the result of the ceaseless action of self-exist- 
 ent matter in accordance with an inherent eternal prin- 
 ciple of adaptation ? Is it more reasonable to suppose 
 the universe was created, or constructed by a being in 
 whom exists the most wonderful order and harmony, 
 and the most admirable adaptation to construct a uni- 
 verse (which order, harmony and adaptation could have 
 had no designing cause), than to suppose that the uni- 
 verse itself in its entirety is eternal, and the self-pro- 
 ducing cause of all the manifestations we behold ? 
 
 Is a God uncaused, and who made everything from 
 nothing, more easy of belief than a universe uncaused 
 and existing according to its own inherent nature? Is it 
 wonderful that matter should be self-existent; that it 
 should possess the power to form suns, planets, and con- 
 struct that beautiful ladder of life that reaches from the 
 lowest forms of the vegetable kingdom up to man? 
 How much more wonderful that a great being should 
 exist, without any cause, who had no beginning, and who 
 is infinitely more admirable than the universe itself. 
 
 Again, the plan of a work is as much evidence of in- 
 telligence and design as the work which embodies the 
 plan. The plan of a steam engine in the mind of Fitch— 
 the plan of the locomotive in the mind of Stephenson— 
 was as much evidence of design as the piece of machin- 
 ery alter its m chanical construction. If God be an 
 omniscient being -a being who knows everything ; to 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 39 
 
 whose knowledge no addition can be made— his plans 
 must be eternal — without beginning, and therefore un- 
 caused. If God's plans are not eternal ; if from time to 
 time new plans originate in his mind, there must be an 
 addition to his knowledge, and if his knowledge admits 
 of addition, it must be finite. But if his plans had no 
 beginning; if, like himself, they are eternal, they must, 
 like him, be independent of design. Now, the plan of a 
 thing, we have already seen, is as much evidence of 
 design as the object which embodies the plan. Since the 
 plans of deity are no proof of design that produced them 
 (for they are supposed to be eternal), the plan of this 
 universe, of course, was no evidence of a designing 
 intelligence that produced it. But since the plan of the 
 universe is as much evidence of design as the universe 
 itself, and since the former is no evidence of design, it 
 follows that design cannot be inferred from the exist- 
 ence of the universe. 
 
 The absurdity of the a posteriori argument for a God 
 consists in the assumption that what we call order and 
 adaptation in nature are evidence of design, when it is 
 evident that whether there be a God or not, order and 
 adaptation must have existed from eternity, and are not 
 therefore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The 
 reasoning of the theologian is like that of the Hindoo in 
 accounting for the position of the earth. "Whatever 
 exists must have some support," said he. The earth 
 exists, and is therefore supported. He imagined it rest- 
 ing on the back of an elephant. The elephant needing 
 some support, lie supposed rested on the back of a huge 
 tortoise. He forgot that according to his own premise, 
 that whatever exists must have some support, required 
 that the tortoise should rest on something. The incon. 
 clusiveness of his reasoning is apparent to a child. "What 
 
40 TI1E UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 ever exists is supported. The earth exists, Therefore, 
 the earth is supported; it rest on an elephant; the ele- 
 phant rests on a tortoise; the tortoise exists, but noth- 
 ing is said about its support. 
 
 The theologian says order, harmony and adaptation 
 are evidence of a designing intelligence that produced 
 them. The earth and its productions show order, har- 
 mony and adaptation. Therefore, the earth and its pro- 
 ductions have been produced by an intelligent designer. 
 Just as the Hindoo stopped reasoning when he imagined 
 the earth on an elephant, and the elephant on a tor- 
 toise, so the theologian stops reasoning when he says, 
 God made the world. But as surely as from the premise 
 that whatever exists must have some support, follows 
 the conclusion that the tortoise rests on something, as it 
 rests on the elephant, does it follow from the proposition 
 that order, harmony and adaptation are proof of an intel- 
 ligent designer, that the order, harmony and adaptation 
 in the Deity to produce the effects ascribed to him are 
 evidence of an intelligent designer who made him, as 
 the various parts of Nature, adapted to one another, are 
 evidence of an intelligent designer that produced them. 
 This reasoning leads to the conclusion that there has 
 been an infinite succession of creative and created Gods, 
 which is inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause, the 
 creator of the universe. Then why attempt to explain 
 the mysteries of the universe by imagining a God who 
 produced everything but himself, and why argue from 
 the order and fitness in the world the existence of a 
 designer. It reminds me of the ostrich, that having 
 buried its head in the sand, so as to render invisible its 
 pursuers fancies there is no further need of exertion to 
 escape from the dangers and difficulties which surround it 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 41 
 
 " Design represented as a search after final cause, until we 
 come to a first cause, and then stop," says F. N. Newman, " is 
 an argument I confess which in itself brings me no satisfac- 
 tion." "The attempt," says Buckle, "which Paley and others 
 have made to tolve this mystery by rising from the laws to the 
 cause are evidently futile, because to the eye of reason the solu- 
 tion is as incomprehensible as the problem, and the arguments 
 of the natural theologian, in so far as they are arguments, must 
 depend on reason." 
 
 Design implies the use of means for the attainment 
 of ends. Man designs, plans, contrives and uses second- 
 ary agencies to accomplish his purposes, because unable 
 to attain his ends directly. But how-absurd to speak of 
 contrivance and design in a being of infinite power and 
 knowledge. Man, to build a steamship has to fell trees 
 and hew them into various shapes, get iron from the 
 earth and smelt it in furnaces, and work it into bolls* 
 braces, nails, etc., hundreds of workmen, carpenters, join- 
 ers, blacksmiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers, rig- 
 gers, etc., labor for months before the vessel can be 
 launched. If man possessed the power to speak into ex- 
 istence a steamship, would he contrive, plan and use 
 means to construct it ? On the contrary, would it not 
 come instantly into existence as a complete, perfect 
 whole ? 
 
 But the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means 
 to an end, would be inconsistent with unlimited power 
 in man. If he were able to effect his purposes why 
 should he construct a vessel with which to visit far off 
 lands ? Infinite power would enable him to "cross the 
 ocean by the mere exercise of his will. It is evident at 
 a glance that the use of means is incompatible with infi- 
 nite knowledge and infinite power. This argument of my 
 friend in proving too much proves nothing, and demon- 
 
42 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 strafes its own worthlessness, and therefore we cast it 
 aside. Design implies finiteness; man designs and has 
 to calculate and use means to accomplish his end. If he 
 were all powerful would he use that power to construct 
 ships to cross the ocean, or armies to win battles, when 
 he could accomplish his end without, and by those means 
 demonstrate that he is infinite in power? An infinite 
 being would not have to employ means to complete his 
 works; he would not have to doubt and cogitate before 
 he accomplished his design ; that would be the method 
 of man. It is absurd to suppose that a God did all 
 those things. He supposed God infinite in everything 
 in his power, in his love and kindness. He has power to 
 do everything. And yet the world is so constructed that 
 at every step we take we crush to death creatures as 
 minutely and curiously formed as ourselves. They kill 
 one another in numerous struggles, and life has been 
 such a series of bloody battles, resulting in destruction 
 of life, that the Waterloos and Solferinos of history are 
 nothing in comparison. Where is the design in the vol- 
 cano that belches forth its fiery billows and buries in 
 ruins a Pompeii and a Ilerculaneum ? Where is the 
 design in the tornado that sends a fleet with its precious 
 freight of humanity beneath the remorseless waves ? 
 Where is the design in the suffering and torture that 
 thousands feel this very moment in the chambers of sick- 
 ness, and in the hospitals full of diseases ? Where is 
 the evidence of a great Being who has the power to 
 make men happy, and yet allows the world to go on in 
 all its misery— such misery as it makes one's heart ache 
 to see, and which we, imperfect creatures as we are, 
 would gladly stop if we could? 
 
 And where is the design in the thousands of facts 
 which science has brought to light, showing that there 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 43 
 
 are organs and parts that serve no purpose at all, but 
 on the contrary, are injurious to their possessors? Why 
 do some animals, like the dugong, have tusks that never 
 cut through the gums ? Why has the guinea pig teeth 
 that are shed before it is born? Science tells us these 
 rudimentary structures are the remnants of a former 
 state, in which these parts were of service ; but theology 
 which requires us to believe that a God made all these 
 animals as we now see them, cannot possibly reconcile 
 these facts with infinite wisdom and goodness. 
 
 Adaptation in organisms instead of ha: ing been pro- 
 duced by a Deity, we hold is largely the result of nat- 
 ural selection. Adaptation must exist as the adjustment 
 of objects to their environments. If a flock of sheep be 
 exposed to the weather of a severe climate, those of them 
 having the thinnest wool, affording the least protection 
 from the cold, will perish. Those with the thickest wool 
 and hardiest nature will survive every year, and by the 
 law of heredity, transmit their favorable variations. By 
 this process those best adapted to the climate live, and 
 the others perish. Thus in the struggle for life we have 
 the "survival of the fittest," without any design what- 
 ever. But the theologian comes along and lookiDg at 
 the sheep, says: "See how God has adapted these sheep 
 to the climate." He forgets the thousands that have 
 shivered and perished in winter's cold as the condition 
 of tnis adaDtation. So animals change the color of their 
 coverings in accordance with their environments. The 
 bears among the icebergs of the North are white, because 
 in the struggle for life every light variation has been 
 favorable to the animal— has facilitated its escape from 
 the hunter and its preying upon the living things on 
 which it subsists. Those with darker coverings have 
 gradually become extinct, leaving in undisputed posses- 
 
44 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 sion of the snow banks and icebergs this species, which 
 in color resemble the general aspect of its surroundings. 
 Look at the rabbits. Some change their color every 
 year; some are brown in the summer and white like the 
 snow in winter. Those with this tendency to change 
 their color during the 3 T ear, having the most favorable 
 variation, have persisted, and this tendency, by heredity, 
 has been accumulated, until it has become a part of the 
 nature of the animal. 
 
 These are but illustrations of a principle discovered 
 by Darwin and Wallace, and which explains largely 
 how, not only color and thickness of coverings, but 
 speed, strength and suppleness of body, keenness of sight 
 and hearing, and all other parts and powers of organ- 
 ism have been developed in adaptation to. their environ- 
 ment, without any special design whatever. 
 
 My friend says we have no evidence of the eternal 
 existence of the universe, because we have no personal 
 observation of it. But has he any personal observation to 
 prove the existence of an eternal God ? Yet he believes 
 in it. We believe the universe always has existed in 
 the past, because we see no trace of a beginning; we 
 believe it will always exist in the future, because we 
 see no prospect or possibility of an end. Worlds have 
 their formation and dissolution; but the substance is 
 neither augmented nor diminished. Matter is inde- 
 structible and eternal. We are not, therefore, in need 
 of a creator. 
 
 My opponent says I declared space was matter. But 
 I did not. I simply said, in giving an illustration, that 
 we can measure space; that if it were nothing, if it had 
 no existence, it would not admit of measurement; but 
 since our knowledge of the eternal world is by .compar- 
 ison of objects, or since our explanations consist in 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 45 
 
 showing what a thing is by designating qualities which 
 it has in common with other things we have seen or 
 known, it is impossible to define or classify space, for 
 the reason that we know of nothing which it resembles. 
 My friend says we cannot measure space, but wo can. 
 Is not the science of trigonometry founded on the meas- 
 urement of space? I admit, of course, that we cannot 
 measure the infinity of space, but we can measure so 
 much as may be included between two points. 
 
 Voltaire is quoted to prove the being of a God, but 
 Voltaire was a Theist like my opponent, and his state- 
 ment counts for nothing as affecting me, even if in his- 
 tory, I accept him as an authority. But, exclaims my 
 friend, look at the stars, and the sun and the moon and 
 the beautiful planets! Yes, look at them, but how are 
 you going to prove by looking at them, the existence of 
 a creator ? Sc'ence has demonstrated that worlds are 
 evolved by a process just as independent of a creator as 
 is the formation of rain by the condensation of vapor in 
 the atmosphere. I am told farther by this representa- 
 tive of theology, that life, vegetable, animal and intel- 
 lectual, is a general outline of a God. 
 
 He tells you truly that Huxley has added materially 
 to our knowledge of biology. I am glad to hear a good 
 word from a theologian of this Province for Prof. 
 Huxley. But our friend forgot to point out how life is 
 a proof of a God. He appeals to the Bible and says he 
 will defend the teachings of that book from the assaults 
 made in the name of science. But he should familiar- 
 ize himself with the teachings of science, compare them 
 with the Bible, accept the true, and cast aside the false, 
 however consecrated by the faith and piet}- of ages. A 
 mere appeal to the Bible, in matters of science, proves 
 nothing. 
 
46 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 
 
 We are told that Tyndall is not an Atheist. Well, in 
 what sense? In his reply to his critics, TyndaH cour- 
 ageously says: "I do not fear the charge of Atheism, 
 nor should I ever disavow it, in reference to any defini- 
 tion of the Supreme, which he or his order would be 
 likely to frame." 
 
 Tyndall is not an Atheist according to the narrow 
 definition of my opponent, but certainly is in the sense 
 of recognizing no personal intelligent Being that created 
 and governs the universe. Quoting from somebody, my 
 friend brings the authority of Tyndall to the purport 
 that, to the forces in the egg must be added another 
 form of force, called heat, before the chicken is devel- 
 oped. But why take the trouble to quote that? We 
 all know that there are certain forces in the egg, which 
 by the amplication of heat, are by the law of correla- 
 tion converted into life, intelligence, and consciousness. 
 This admits not of a doubt. But how does it prove a 
 God or a designer? Life exists so homogeneously that 
 there is not sufficient differentiation for us to discover 
 any difference in the parts of the living substance which 
 is but a mass of jelly or a speck of albumen. There is 
 nothing in its origin more wonderful than in the phe- 
 nomena of crystalization. And from these low homogen- 
 eous forms of life, by causes entirely natural we be- 
 lieve, have been in the course of ages, developed higher, 
 more specialized, and more complex organisms. We 
 hold with Tyndall that "as far as the eye of science 
 has hitherto ranged through Nature, no intrusion of 
 purely creative power into any series of phenomena has 
 ever been observed." 
 
 " The assumption of such a power to account for special 
 phenomena has always proved a failure. It is opposed to the 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 47 
 
 very spirit of science, and I therefore assumed the responsibil- 
 ity of holding up in contrast with it, that method of nature 
 which it has been the vocation and triumph of science to dis- 
 close, and in the application of which we can alone hope for 
 further light. Holding, then, that the nebular and all subse- 
 quent life stand to each other in the relation of the germ to the 
 finished organism, I re-affirm here, not arrogantly or defiantly, 
 but without a shade of indistinctness, the position laid down in 
 Belfast." 
 
 Me. Maeples. 
 
 I would ask this audience whether my opponent 
 knew at all what was said in the article I read about 
 the egg ? It was said that the egg combined everything 
 necessary to form the chick but heat, and that must be 
 applied from the outside. That heat must come nat- 
 urally or artificially. If naturally, the hen must sit upon 
 it and hatch the egg into a chicken. God established 
 the instinct which makes the hen do that, and watches 
 over her. The egg is hatched by heat, iu accordance 
 with his law. You can actually heat an egg without the 
 hen sitting upon it, and keep it warm until the shell 
 breaks and the chicken pops out. One of those things 
 is in the order of Nature, which God has established. 
 But suppose you wished to do the same thing artific- 
 ially. What heats the egg then ? It is a wonder that 
 stones do not roll upon eggs and hatch them artificial- 
 ly. It is the intellect of man which directs him to 
 apply heat to hatch the egg, and that intellect is from 
 God. Now, in regard to Mr. Tyndall. My respected 
 friend declared that Mr. Tyndall was as much of an 
 Atheist as he was. We will hear what Mr. Tyndall says 
 upon this F.ubject. This is from "Prayer in Relation to 
 
48 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBxiTE. 
 
 Natural Law," by the Eev. Prof. Wallace. It speaks of 
 Mr. Tyndall as saying: — 
 
 " The theory that the system of Nature is under the control 
 of a*being who changes phenomena dn compliance with the 
 prayers of men, is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate one. 
 It ma} r , of course, be rendered futile by being associated with 
 conceptions which contradict it; but such conceptions form no 
 necessary part of the theory. It is a matter of experience that 
 an earthly father, who is at the same time wise and tender, list- 
 ens to the requests of his children, and, if they do not ask 
 amiss, takes pleasure in granting their requests. We know, 
 also, that this compliance extends to the alteration, within cer- 
 tain limits, of the current of events on earth. With this sug- 
 gestion offered by our experience, it is no departure from sci- 
 entific method to place behind natural phenomena a universal 
 father, who, in answer to the prayers of his children, alters the 
 currents of these phenomena." 
 
 Does any Christian man want any more proof than 
 that? Is not that sufficient without a word more? I 
 will just take up another point, about the statement 
 w T ith regard to the creation of light. Of course I should 
 not have brought in the Bible to-night, but as he has 
 referred to it, I am perfectly justified in doing so my- 
 self. I find that, in the account of the creation, 
 God created a universe in six days, or periods called 
 days. On the first he created light; on the second the 
 firmament; and on the third the earth; on the fourth 
 the sun, moon and the stars, or rather made or formed 
 them; on the fifth day he created the fishes of the sea 
 and the fowls of the air; arid on the sixth clay, in the 
 morning, he created the animals, and, in the evening, 
 he made man; and having finished his work, he sat 
 down and took his rest on the seventh. I think that it 
 ii not very hard to explain that which appears to my 
 
THE UNDERWOOD MAEPLES DEBATE. 49 
 
 opponent a difficulty. He says that it -is strange that 
 God created light before he created the sun. The sun 
 is scientifically a source of light. My explanation is 
 that God on the first day said "Let there be light," and 
 light sprang into existence. I understand that God cre- 
 ated globules or the atoms of light, which were scat- 
 tered all throughout the chaotic mass of darkness, and. 
 there you have the first beginning of light. On the 
 fourth day the Bible does not say that God created fresh 
 light, but he collected these globules into a globe, and 
 that is the sun. He then made the moon, and she 
 reflects the light of the sun ; and created the stars, and 
 that was the work of the fourth day. YVhat I believe is 
 in accordance with science and the scriptures. My friend 
 stated that I said that science was setting itself in op- 
 position to revelation. If I said that, I did not intend 
 to say it. I think that I said, it was science falsely so 
 called. I maintain that science is not in opposition to 
 revelation; I maintain that it is in accordance with rev- 
 elation ; and is useful to help us to understand revela- 
 tion, and I therefore take it as a hand-maid to truth, 
 as a help to God's Word to light us to glory- I will 
 make this admission, Tom Paine wrote two books, one 
 of them called the "Age of Keason " — a politico-irre- 
 ligious book. Will you pardon me if I endorse! he title 
 of the book, but not the contents. I believe that this 
 is the Age of Reason, and that it is a work of wisdom 
 to take —reason not as Tom Paine did, to oppose revela- 
 tion; he did wrong to oppose it to revelation — but we 
 should take reason and apply it to understand revela- 
 tion, to interpret it, to explain it, as I am trying to do 
 to-night; to prove the existence" of God, and show that 
 skepticism is in opposition to reason. I will tell you 
 that God expects you to take reason, and by its light 
 
50 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE, 
 
 to endeavor to understand his word. In regard to time. 
 Did you understand Mr. Underwood to assert that time 
 is eternal ? If he can make out time to be eternity, 
 then I do not know the meaning of time. Did you ever 
 hear anything like that before? Eternity is something 
 that you cannot measure, and time and space are some-' 
 thing that can be measured. Time is distinct from eter- 
 nity. My friend said that one truth must be in harmony 
 with another. Now, I admit that all truth is one, and 
 -whatever form it assumes, it comes from God, and is 
 like him. My opponent said, that I said last night that 
 the horse was above a man. Of course, if he wishes to 
 have it that way I have no objection. I had a great 
 horse once called Le Morgan ; it was above me, because 
 it was higher than I. I said that because man -had a 
 mind, an intellect, and a will, he was far superior to 
 the horse. 
 
 My friend possesses a good deal of descriptive power, 
 and I was much interested in the grand description 
 he gave us in regard to the order of nature, and at the 
 same time I thought that he was actually proving the 
 existence of a God. He uses his descriptive power, aud 
 I my logical power, and between the two we shall es- 
 tablish the existence of God beyond a doubt. I did not 
 admire my friend's illustration about the Hindoo, who 
 takes up the idea of the elephant and the tortoise. 
 We have from him one moment the height of rhetorical 
 power, and then the depths of elephantine power and 
 physical power in a paragon, There was a man in Scot- 
 land who tried to prove that his forefather was a mon- 
 key. Of course I do not envy him his ancestors, nor 
 my respected friend and opponent his. If he says that 
 I came from a monkey, then I must join issues with 
 him, for I believe that I sprang from a higher source. 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 51 
 
 I do not believe that monkeys changed into men; I 
 .believe that they never did, and I believe that they 
 never will. I believe that God is self-existent and eter- 
 nal; that he fills the immensity of space; that he crea- 
 ted the universe and sustains it. My friend does not 
 entertain this idea, and gives us a lengthy argument 
 against it. But I say that when God comes down from 
 heaven in physical form, and uses the hammer, and 
 commences to make men and worlds, then I say that 
 there is some sense in the argument of my opponent. 
 What has all the misery spoken of to do with the ques- 
 tion in. hand ? Of. course, if we come to the fact of mis- 
 ery, we have it laid down a,s clearly as possible in the 
 Bible. Man was created in the image of God. all per- 
 fect. Satan, in the form of a serpent, tempted Eve, and 
 we fell. This, instead of proving the non-existence of 
 God, proves the existence of human depravity. I believe 
 in the existence of God. I never said that I believe that 
 God will always exist, because he always existed. I gave 
 as a reason for the existence of God, that there was 
 sufficient evidence coming up from the moral standard 
 to prove it. If my friend supposes that I said that, he 
 made a great mistake. My friend intimated that I had 
 spoken of a being that was organized, if he were a per- 
 son at all; and that he was a long way from being per- 
 fect. I rather spoke of God as a being who was possessed 
 of all power — of all wisdom. There is an attribute of 
 God, which cannot be touched, and that is his mercy. 
 See the manifestation of it in the gift of Christ. I would 
 say, taking this standard (the moral), it supplies me 
 with a vast preponderance of evidence that there is not 
 only a being in existence, but that he is perfect in 
 power, in wisdom, in kindness, in justice, in conscious- 
 ness, in truth, in love, in every sense absolutely perfect, 
 
52 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 and the only absolutely perfect be*ng in existence. 
 T.iere are some points which I should have liked to 
 have shown to prove the existence of the human soul, 
 that its existence is logically true. This book, as I have 
 intimated, is on the varied theories of philosophy as 
 attained in ancient and modern times; it treats of phi- 
 los >phy in all ages and countries. The sum and sub- 
 stance of philosophy on the subject under consideration 
 is implied in these points. It is concerning the freedom 
 of the will. Is God only possessed of absolute freedom 
 of will? That is, is he never incited by a motive? That 
 God is perfect in will, that will with him is law, and 
 whatever seemeth good unto him, he has a prerogative 
 to do. Secondly, man possesses a comparative freedom 
 of will. That is, he never acts unless influenced by a 
 motive. Go I holds that man, as man is a responsible 
 moral agent, and influenced by motives, and that is 
 Comparative freedom of will. I say that substantially, 
 matter is inert, and has not will. I tell you as intelli- 
 gent and moral and responsible beings, that you have 
 the grand possession of a mind, which is superior to all 
 monkeys, all pigs, all cows, all animals, and that God 
 placed you at the head of creation, and God in his book 
 tells you that he placed you there. 
 
 Mr. Underwood. 
 
 My opponent says I charged him with saying the 
 horse is higher than the man. If: I said that, it was, of 
 course, a slip of the tongue. What he did say is that 
 man is above the h u'se because man possesses reason, 
 will, and mind. That remark implies what is obviously 
 >mt-M"\ that the horse does not possess these qualities. 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 53 
 
 The horse has perception and reflection; it remembers 
 and reasons as certainly, although not to the same ex- 
 tent, that man does. Will an old horse attempt to jump 
 over a fence which he is incapable of leaping? Can you 
 deceive a horse with an empty measure after the trick 
 has been played on him several times? Does he not 
 perceive, reason, and act from definite conclu ions ? 
 Strike a dog, and will he not the next time get out of 
 your way when you meet him ? He certainly goes through 
 a mental process and exhibits the power of perceiving 
 relations, comparing impressions, and deducing conclu- 
 sions ? Man, with a higher organization, is capable of 
 higher and more complex reasoning. My friend's asser- 
 tions, many of them, will not bear the test of scrutiny 
 or logic. 
 
 He says the egg is hatched by external heat, that 
 God has arranged the method by which it is done, that 
 either the heat of the fowl's body or artificial heat, 
 under the direction of man's intelligence, is necessary 
 to develop the egg into a living organism. Indeed! 
 What will he say of the millions of eggs hatched in the 
 sand of the desert, under the rays of the sun, where 
 neither the body of the bird or animal, nor the intelli- 
 gence of man has anything to do with the hatching? 
 How the forces of the egg are converted into the life 
 and intelligence of the animal is one of those mysteries 
 before which we all stand dumb. He quotes from Wal- 
 lace to show that Tyndall believes in the existence of a 
 God who could change the order of the universe. But 
 he believes in nothing of the kind. Tyndall has said 
 there may be such a being, but there is no evidence of 
 it. If my opponent had read the whole of " TyndaU's 
 Essay," instead of quoting a few sentences second-hand, 
 he would have seen that Tyndali's posiiion is the one 
 
54 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 I am maintaining in this debate. Those who applauded 
 my friend's inaccurate statements on this point showed 
 their entire unacquaintance with Tyndall's position. He 
 is no dogmatist, but a scientist. 
 
 My opponent says God created originally atoms of 
 light. Modern science demonstrates that light is not a 
 substance, composed of atoms, but a mode of motion. 
 We can convert motion into heat, heat into light, light 
 into electricity. Some days after the creation of these 
 globules or atoms of light, he says God collected them 
 together. This is strange talk. Where does he get his 
 information ? The Bible has not a word of reference to 
 that. He says that science and revelation agree. Do 
 they? We shall see by and by! He says that Paine 
 did wrong in deifying reason ; but he should have quoted 
 from Paine's book to have shown that Paine did so. 
 Paine, instead of deifying reason, alludes to an Almighty 
 thus: 
 
 " I believe in one God and no more ; and I hope for happi- 
 ness beyond this life. 
 
 " I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that relig- 
 ious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeav- 
 oring to make our fellow creatures happy. 
 
 "Do we want to contemplate his power ? We see it in the 
 immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his 
 wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the in- 
 comprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contem- 
 plate his munificence ? We see it in the abundance with which 
 he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? 
 We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the 
 unthankful. " 
 
 There is no use of making unfounded charges against 
 individuals. He says that time is not eternal. Time is 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 55 
 
 a term used to designate duration : theologians use it 
 to designate the duration of the world. Time is but a 
 portion of eternitj", and stretches indefinitely either way. 
 Time without beginning and without end is eternity. 
 There never could have been a time when there was no 
 time, nor can there be a time when there will be no 
 time. He says that eternity cannot be measured, but it 
 is a portion that we measure — an hour, a day, a year, or 
 a century. Further he says that my argument against 
 design was very argumentative and very oratorical, etc. 
 He was much pleased with it, but why does he not meet 
 it? He must remember that this debate is to be pub- 
 lished, and that that argument is to appear with it. 
 Then it will be tested whether that outburst of merriment 
 at the close of his speech will be received as an answer to 
 my refutation of the a posteriori argument. I say with 
 Huxley, I would rather believe that I had advanced from 
 the condition of a monkey up to my present state, than 
 to be a theologian and put my talent to no better use 
 than to ridicule science. He says that God is omnipo- 
 tent, and omnipresent; again, and the next moment, says 
 that he is personal. How can he be both ? It will appear 
 that Theism is contrary to reason, and not Atheism and 
 skepticism, which as yet he has made no attempt to dis- 
 prove. He says that mischief and misery come from 
 sir*. That is one way to get out of the difficulty! I say 
 that there cannot be infinite love in God to allow all 
 the misery with which we are surrounded, when it is in 
 his power to prevent it, and to make us happy. If he 
 were so full of love he would relieve our sufferings if 
 he had the power. If he were so merciful and so kind, 
 and yet unlimited in power, he would not have consti- 
 tuted this world in such a manner that our every step 
 means death — that in breathing we convert our body 
 
56 THE UNDERWOOD - MAHPLES DEBATE. 
 
 into a tomb, for thousands of creatures as minutely and 
 curiously formed as ourselves. In his story about the 
 cause of sin, I suppose he refers to the Devil, who 
 tempted Eve. God made this angel who became a devil : 
 God made him a perfect being. If he were made a per- 
 fect being and has fallen, what assurance have I that 
 God Almighty will not fall and become a devil? God 
 having made man and. everything in existence, he must 
 be responsible for everything that exists. I ask, if the 
 world is so bad, and the depravity of man so great, why 
 does he not blot the w T orld out of the universe? Why did 
 this Being of infinite power and love allow the world to be 
 created with such misery and sin, so as to cause mankind 
 to endure eternal punishment ? I say that while this 
 doctrine prevails, it makes God worse than any human 
 fiend. I said that he probably believed that God always 
 w r ould exist because he always had; I supposed it to be 
 so because the most of the theologians believe it. If you 
 prove that God always will exist, you prove that he 
 always did exist. I did not ascribe this to him as his 
 statement, but as the only reason he can prove for the 
 eternity of God. My friend says that man has compar- 
 ative freedom of will. I do not think that that is nec- 
 essary to this discussion. I do not believe, that man 
 has. I can raise my hand if I choose, but whether I 
 will so choose depends upon a number of circumstances. 
 Remember the proposition. It is that "Atheism, Mate- 
 rialism, and Modern Skepticism are illogical and con- 
 trary to reason." What has been done to establish it? 
 I asked him to prove it, and he overlooked it, and we 
 have heard no more about it. He has made no at- 
 tempt to show any kind of skepticism, logical or illog- 
 ical. He said that Materialism is a system which de- 
 nied the existence of anything excepting matter. I 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 57 
 
 called his attention to space; the infinitude of which 
 we could not measure. Did he correct himself? No! 
 He says how do you get your knowledge that there 
 is space. That is irrelevant. Then he goes on making 
 his definitions, and dividing truth into department s. He 
 lays down his position and says that the main argument 
 will come the next evening. He gave a repetition this 
 evening of that laid down last evening, and folio we I 
 with the design argument. I replied to it, and contend 
 t i 1 at. it was overwhelmingly refuted. He made a ,ktle 
 merriment of it, but made no attempt to defend it. 
 Then he gave us an essay on light, to which I replied, 
 and to my reply he made no rejoinder. He said in ref- 
 erence to the egg, that to beiiatched it needed the heat 
 from the hen, or artificial heat; and that if artificial 
 heat be applied, man's intelligence must direct it. I 
 referred him to the millions of eggs hatched in the 
 sands underneath the rays of the sun. I will simply 
 repeat the argument tl at I used in refuting the argu- 
 ment on the grounds of design. It is based on the sup- 
 position that order and adaptation in nature could only 
 come from intelligence, and I replied by showing that 
 if there is a deity he must possess order and adaptation 
 (or fitness) or he would be a mere chaotic mass. He 
 must have greater harmony than the universe, and there 
 could have been no beginning in his harmony, and having 
 no beginnings to his order and harmony, they could not 
 have been designed, and must be independent of design. 
 And then we come to the conclusion that adaptation and 
 harmony exist without design. Therefore if there be or- 
 der, and harmony and adaptation in the universe that 
 never had a beginning, it is illogical and contraiy to rea- 
 son to say that order and harmony are evidence of design. 
 Our plans are as much evidence of design as the object 
 
58 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 that we construct from them. In the mind of Elias Howe 
 the plan of the sewing-machine was as much evidence 
 of design as when he constructed it. So with the Deity; 
 if his plans exist they must have always existed, for he 
 was the same yesterday, to-day and forever. If these 
 plans exist and are no evidence of design, then we 
 declare that this universe is no evidence of design, and 
 all this argument of Paley's is wasted. We have endeav- 
 ored to show that the adaptation in nature has resulted 
 from the environments around it; and when you see 
 one thing adapted to another, you say, see the wonder- 
 ful power of God to provide for all things, when actu- 
 ally it is the result of entirely natural causes. In that 
 way I have, I think, refuted the theory of design. 
 
 THIRD NIGHT. 
 
 Second Pkoposition— " That the Bible, consisting of the Old and 
 New Testaments, contains ovidence beyond all other books of 
 its divine origin." 
 
 Mr. Marples affirms, and Mr. Underwood denies. 
 
 Me. Maeples. 
 
 As you have heard from the Chairman, we have 
 arrived at the stage when we discuss the second propo- 
 sition agreed upon for the last two of the four nights. 
 Before proceeding to direct your attention to the book, 
 I deem it wise to mention the law of appeal. It has 
 been repeated and referred to more than once on the 
 two former evenings. I intend to abide by the law of 
 reason, logic and truth. Reason and logic have been 
 defined, and it is unnecessary to repeat it. I now 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 59 
 
 come to truth, and will repeat that which I have said 
 respecting that point. In truth as I have previously- 
 stated, there are three divisions. 1. Physical, or truth 
 made patent to one of the five senses; 2. Mathematical, 
 or that made patent by demonstration, and refers to 
 space and to principles; 3. Moral truth — that which is 
 sustained by testimony; that is to say, is sustained by 
 a preponderance of evidence. This is the standard we 
 apply to the subject under consideration. In addition to 
 the definitions given, we have had some reference to 
 what is termed a syllogism. One of the divisions of 
 logic treats of argumentation. The mode of reasoning 
 to be adopted this evening is that termed the syllogistic, 
 or consisting of three propositions. 1. A major ; 2. A 
 jninor; 3. An inference. These are the three points of a 
 syllogism. Apply this to the subject under considera- 
 tion to-night; and I notice this as the major one. That 
 all subjects under that category that can be supported 
 by a preponderance of evidence are authentic, and proved 
 by the laws of logic. I will repeat so that you may 
 understand it. That all subjects supported by a pre- 
 ponderance of evidence are considered authentic accord- 
 ing to the laws of logic. That is the major proposi- 
 tion. In connection with that we must have a minor 
 proposition, and that is that the subject under consider- 
 ation this evening is capable of producing a preponder- 
 ance of evidence, and therefore must be in accordance 
 with logic. If I apply that standard, I believe I can 
 gain the battle. The question to be discussed is this : 
 " That the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, contains evidence beyond all other books of its 
 divine origin." That is the proposition. Allow me to 
 explain that the term Bible comes from a Greek word 
 which signifies "a book;" and which is applied to the 
 
60 THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 
 
 Bible, by way of eminence, and sets it forth as the best 
 book in the world. Scripture is derived from the Latin 
 word scriptura, and means a writing. Inspiration is 
 derived from inspiro, meaning to breathe, and I main- 
 tain that this book (the Bible) is given by inspiration of 
 God, and written by men of God, who spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost. What do we understand 
 by the term inspiration ? Here we have a definition that 
 refers to the inspiration of the Bible. It may be defined 
 as 
 
 "Any supernatural influence of God upon the mind of a 
 rational creature, whereby it is formed to any degree of intel- 
 lectual improvement beyond what it would at that time, and 
 under those circumstances have attained in a natural way, that 
 is, by the usual exercise of those faculties unassisted by any 
 special divine interposition." 
 
 I maintain that this book (the Bible) contains that, 
 and offers evidence for it. Then I would say, as I be- 
 lieve -that the inspiration of the Bible can be_ejst ablished 
 from y other points. Notice the standing of Christians, 
 in connection with this. The evidence is internal, ex_ 
 •ternal and ■ collateral. First, I would notice the fulfil- 
 ment of its prophecies ; second, the performance of 
 : miracles; third, the effects produced by it upon the 
 world. As I will not have time' this evening to take up 
 ihe whole argument, I will, of course, by your permis- 
 sion, fix upon one point : ; that is the fulfilroent of diving 
 prophecies. I will proceed to establish that Qo<\, in his 
 providence and wisdom— ^ who foresaw everything from 
 the beginning — caused through a succession of ages the 
 fulfilment of prophecy to be a sign, and events were 
 prophesied that otherwise could not have been known. 
 Before I proceed further, I would remark, by the way, 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBAlE. 6S 
 
 in regard to the Bible, and the necessity of its inspira- 
 tion. I would say, first of all, that I i\o not believe in 
 the literal inspiration of the English Version of the 
 Bible. That was simply a work of man, in translating 
 the Bible from the original. I do not believe in what 
 is c lied the verbal inspiration of even the original. I 
 do not believe that every word in the original was given 
 literally as by inspiration. I would also admit, Mr, 
 Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, that there are cer- 
 tain human elements in the Bible as well as divine; 
 and the human are those which are our opinions, and 
 the divine are those comprising the spiritual revelation 
 of God. For instance, take the genealogical record of 
 the Jews. That record could be known without a divine 
 revelation. These are not in themselves, abstractly sap- 
 posed to be inspired; but form elements through which 
 God speaks to mankind, which, under other circum- 
 stances, -would not have been made known to the world. 
 Having made this admission, and having qualified our 
 position so far, we now proceed to assert that divine 
 inspiration is not only of God; but God has inspired 
 men to write great truths in his book, and has made 
 known to the world that which never could have been 
 obtained by man, by the use of science ot search. Of 
 course in making this known he has made man the 
 medium. God was the inspirer, God was the teacher, 
 and the source of truth, and the great being who, 
 through man, communicated his thoughts and will unto 
 the world. "God -who at sundry times and in divers 
 manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
 prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by 
 his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of 'all things, by 
 wliom also he made the world " (Hebrews i. 1, 2). Age 
 after age has be3n employed; prophet after prophet has 
 
62 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 been used; the same spirit moved all of them, and these 
 men were moved of the Holy Ghost. In regard to proph- 
 ecies to establish this point, this is the position I take: 
 That those prophets foretold certain things, and that 
 those things were foretold long ages before the events 
 took place, and in some cases even hundreds of years 
 passed away before the events transpired. This would 
 prove that there was no collusion, and that the event 
 did not take place before the prophecy. These predic- 
 tions have reference to two points; they have reference, 
 first, to cities and countries, and in the second place, to 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the great object and sub- 
 ject of prophecy. We shall not have time this evening 
 to point out all the cities and all the countries, circum- 
 stances concerning which were foretold in ancient times. 
 We will therefore make selections and seize upon a few 
 of the most salient, and also prominent cities and coun- 
 tries relative to this subject. First, I would refer to that 
 of Jerusalem, which was the most remarkable and 
 wonderful city the world has ever seen. This city has 
 had more occurrences of vast importance in connection 
 with it than any other city that ever was built, or caused 
 its towers to ascend towards the sky. While the Lord 
 Jesus Christ was tabernacling on this earth, and had 
 commenced his public ministry, he was once coming 
 towards Jernsalem, and knowing its past and all the 
 circumstances in which it was placed, and being ac- 
 quinted with all her conduct and crimes and disobedi- 
 ence, he gazed on the city. Musing upon the circum- 
 stances of history in the past, of guilt and condemnation 
 in the present, and looking forward to the future, his 
 heart was touched, and his eyes filled with tears, and 
 he wept. Then he said unto her, "If thou hadst known, 
 even thou, at least in this, thy day, the things which 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MABPLES DEBATE. 63 
 
 belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thy 
 eyes" (Luke xix. 42). That is a prediction. Again Christ 
 said: "O Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and 
 stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would 
 I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doih 
 gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not. 
 Behold, your home is left unto you desolate. And verily, 
 I say unto you, ye shall not see me, until the time come 
 when ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the 
 name of the Lord " (Luke xiii. 34-35). Turning to an 
 earlier prophecy in the Book of Deuteronomy, xxviii. 
 49-57, we have an exact description' of the calamities 
 which should befall that city. 
 
 " The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from 
 the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation 
 whose tongue thou shalt not understand. A nation of fierce 
 countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, 
 nor shew favor to the young; And he shall eat the fruit of 
 thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed 
 — which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or 
 the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have 
 destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, 
 until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou 
 trustedst, throughout all thy land, and he shall besiege thee 
 in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which, the Lord thy 
 God hath given thee. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine 
 own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which 
 the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the 
 straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: So that 
 the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye 
 shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his 
 bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall 
 leave; So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh 
 cf his children whom he shall eat— because he hath nothing 
 left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine 
 
64 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 e ;emies shall distress thee in all thy gates. The tender and 
 delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set 
 the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and 
 tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her 
 bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, And 
 toward her young that cometh out from between her feet, and 
 toward her children which she shall bear— for she shall eat 
 them J or want of all things secretly in the seige and strait- 
 ncss, Wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates." 
 
 All those circumstances had a literal fulfilment, as 
 described a thousand years before, and this is one of 
 the points by which 1 seek to establish that there is in 
 the world an omnipresent and omnipotent power, con- 
 troiin^- all events, and bringing to pass all circumstances 
 which had literally been foretold by his prophets 
 
 That prediction was uttered more than a thousand 
 years before the time came that it had literal fulfilment, 
 and here you have the circumstances of the Roman army, 
 as led forth by Titus, the Roman General, after the Lord 
 was crucified; after the spirit was poured out, and after 
 the Christians had commenced to publish the gospel, 
 and a thousand years after the prediction. The follow- 
 ing testimony is from Jo^ephus, in his description of 
 the wars of the Jews, Book vi, 3 chap. sec. 3: 
 
 "Now of those that perished by famine in the city, the num- 
 ber was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were 
 unspeakable; for if so mu'.h as the shadow of any kind of food 
 did anywhere appear a war was commenced presently, and the 
 dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatch- 
 ing from each ether the most miserable supports of life. Nor 
 would men believe that those who were dying hid no food; 
 but the robbers would search them when they were expiring 
 lest any one should have concealed food in their bosoms, and 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. 65 
 
 counterfeited dying; ray, these robbers gaped for want, and 
 r n about stumbling and staggering along like mad clogs, and 
 reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men: 
 they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into 
 the very same houses two or three times in one and' the same 
 day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it ob- 
 liged them to chew everything, while they gathered such 
 things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and 
 endured to cat them; nor did they at length abstain irom gir- 
 dles and shoes, and the very leather which belonged to thdr 
 shields they pulled ell and gnawed; the very wisps of old hay 
 became food to some, and some gathered up fibres end hold 
 a very small weight of them for four Attic (drachms). But 
 why should I describe the shameless impudence that the fam- 
 ine brought on men in their eating inanimate things while I 
 am going to relate a matter of fact, the like to which no his- 
 tory relates, either among the Greeks or Barbarians! It is hor- 
 rible to speak of it, and incredible when heard. I had indeed 
 willingly omitted this calamity of ours, that I might not seem 
 to deliver what is so portentous to posterity, but that I have 
 innumerable witnesses to it in my own age; and besides, my 
 country would have had little reason to thank me for sup- 
 pressing the miseries that she underwent at this time." 
 
 The second case to which I shall refer is Egypt. It 
 was established by the posterity of Ham, and was thou- 
 sands of years ago in great prosperity, and her friends 
 thought that she never should be destroyed^ but owing 
 to her sins and crimes, judgment hung over her, and 
 evil, like a vulture,. consumed her greatness, her power, 
 and her glory, and she to-day is but an obscure country. 
 
 Ezekiel says: "Egypt shall be a base kingdom— the 
 basest of the kiogdoms.; neither shall it exalt i:self 
 any more above the nations. I will sell the land into the 
 hand of the wicked. I will make it waste and ail that 
 
66 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 is therein by the hand of strangers. There shall be no 
 more a prince of the land of Egypt" (Ezekiel, xxix, 14, 
 15). To prove this statement to be true, I will call into 
 court certain witnesses, and among them even Infidels. 
 Hogg says : 
 
 " The entire country and all that it contains belongs to the 
 Government. The people are mere appendages of the soil— 
 their labors and lives equally subject to his arbitrary will. 
 Like the Israelites of old, groaning under the burden, and 
 smarting under the lash, their resources are unfeelingly dimin- 
 ished yet they are compelled to supply the insatiable demands 
 of an inexorable task-master." 
 
 " Such is the state of Egypt. Deprived twenty -three centu- 
 ries ago of their natural proprietors, she had seen her fertile 
 fields successively a prey to the Persians, the Macedonians, the 
 Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Georgians, and at length, 
 the race of Tartars, distinguished by the name of Ottaman 
 Turks. The Mamelukes, purchased as slaves and introduced as 
 soldiers, soon usurped the power and elected a leader. If their 
 first establishment was a singular event, their continuance is not 
 less extraordinary. They are replaced by slaves, brought by 
 the original country. The system of oppression is methodical. 
 Everything the traveler sees or hears reminds him he is in the 
 country of slavery and tyranny " (Volney's Travels, "Vol. I). 
 
 " The traveler meets with nothing but misery, resulting from 
 the rapacity of oppression; its inhabitants are profoundly ignor 
 ant, both in moral and physical knowledge; nothing is talked 
 of but intestine troubles, the public misery, pecuniary extor- 
 tions, bastinadoes and murders. Justice herself puts to death 
 without formality." 
 
 I will now turn to Edom, or Iduamea, and show you 
 that the prophecies uttered 588, 590 and 758 years before 
 Christ have had a literal fulfilment. 
 
 " From generation to generation it shall lie waste " (Isaiah, 
 xxxiv, 10). 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 67 
 
 "Upwards of thirty ruined towns absolutely deserted " 
 (Volney, Vol. ii, p. 344); 
 
 "None shall piss through it forever and ever" (Isaiah 
 xxxiv). 
 
 " This country Ins not been visited by any traveler " (Vol- 
 ney, Vol. ii, p. 344). 
 
 ' : It shall be a habitation for dragons " (Isaiah, xxxiv). 
 
 "The Arabs in general avoid them, on account of the enor- 
 mous scorpions with which they swarm " (Volney's Travels). 
 
 " I have made Esau bare " (Jer. xlix). 
 
 "The depth of sand precludes all vegetation" or herbage" 
 (Brickhardt's Travels, p. 442). 
 
 In that we have almost an exact and a literaV fulfil- 
 ment, and that could be done by nothing else than the 
 power of a divine Jehovah. The second point is those 
 references to the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the great 
 object and subject of prophecy. Concerning him I find 
 that there are no less than thirty-eight predictions, some 
 of which were uttered two thousand years before his in- 
 carnation, and some a great number of years before that. 
 And yet before he came into the world, and in his incar- 
 nation, every one of these prophecies had a fulfilment, 
 and therefore I maintain that no book in the world can 
 produce such an array of prophecy, and such a distinct 
 and undeniable fulfilment as in this case. Secondly, at 
 this stage of the proceedings, I maintain that the Bible 
 has evidence, above all the other books in the world, of 
 its divine origin. 
 
 Mr. Underwood. 
 
 I will first, this evening, refer to the preliminary re- 
 marks of my opponent. He says he will abide by the 
 laws of reason and the laws of truth. That is good, 
 
68 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 but I cannot forget that those who indulge in such ex- 
 pressions, who make such fair and pleasant promises 
 are sometimes the last to abide by them. He gives his 
 so-called logical definition of truth for the third time, 
 and perhaps three times three he will tell you that truth 
 is of three kinds, physical, mathematical and moral. 
 He tells you what a syllogism is, but we have not yet 
 seen an application of it. "We may before the debate is 
 through. We will be pleased to see him employ any 
 method of reasoning that suits him, and we will be sat- 
 isfied with good evidence to whichever department of 
 truth it belongs, " physical,, mathematical, or moral. " 
 He says h.3 Will bring to the support of his position in- 
 ternal, external and collateral evidence, and then tells 
 you that he will bring forward prophecies, miracles, etc., 
 in demonstration of his position. We will try to be 
 patient waiting for him to do all this. 
 
 In regard to the Bible as we have it, is it probable 
 God would make his will known in such a way that it 
 would be subject to errors and misinterpretations? 
 Would he not rather inscribe it on the vault of heaven 
 in characters of living light, so that all could under- 
 stand it, or rather would he not have impressed it on 
 the mi d and implanted it in the consciousness of man? 
 The very idea of an objective revelation implies that 
 God made a mistake in man, that he had to supply the 
 original defect by work of a supplementary character. 
 
 We are told that the prophecies of the Bible were 
 uttered or written hundreds of years before the events 
 occurred.. Does a prophecy imply divine inspiration? 
 By lnirai.n judgment and sagacity we foretell various 
 events. The weather, the result of wars, peace policies 
 and various plans and measures, changes in govern- 
 ment, are foreseen and foretold with more or less accu- 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 69 
 
 racv. Philosophers and politicians are prophets in their 
 clay. Abraham Lincoln sad — speaking of my own 
 country — ''This nation cannot remain permanently half 
 s'ave and half free." Rousseau predicted the French 
 Revolution. The Empress Josephine, when a girl, was 
 told by an old negress the high position she would 
 occupy. A ison, the historian, gave this, and it is sus- 
 taine I by good authority. Josephine told the same 
 story, and it made a deep impression on her mind. 
 While in the convent she related her experience and 
 promised positions of honor to her companions, which 
 she actually lived to bestow upon some of the number. 
 Was that old negress inspired? My friend will say no! 
 yet he will rind it difficult to explain the coincidence, as 
 well attested and quite as remarkable as any in the 
 Bib e. 
 
 Prophecies of a general character can safely be made. 
 I might say that in the cour-e of time New York city 
 will be destroyed, and it is probable that such will be 
 the case, as aggregation implies segregation, formation 
 implies dissolution; beginning implies end. Cities in 
 lime decay, and other places become the centres of pop- 
 u'ation. But if I were to say that at a definitely-named 
 time New York city would go down amidst the thunders 
 of an earthquake, and three persons only would survive, 
 and I should give their names, that would be a prophecy 
 worthy of special notice, for it would possess what but 
 few of the Bible prophecies possess, circumstantiality of 
 event and definiteness of statement. Those who call 
 our attention' to the prophecies of the Bible should show 
 that they coincide with the events prophesied, that they 
 have not been tampered with to correspond with the 
 occurrence, that the event was real and the narration o*' 
 it corrct, and that it could not have been foreseen by 
 
70 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 
 
 human sagacity. Will not my opponent admit these 
 criteria are reasonable and just? But, tested by them, 
 where is the prophecy in the Bible that can be adduced 
 in proof of its divinity? I affirm that the prophecies 
 upon which so much stress is laid are a rope of sand. 
 My opponent has selected a few, but not those the most 
 generally referred to. The latter I have lately examin- 
 ed, and the demonstrations of their weakness, as shown 
 in my lectures, have been published in " Both Sides," 
 and perhaps he does not think it wise to bring them 
 forward. He refers to Jerusalem. Allow me to remark 
 that almost all the cities of the East have gone through 
 similar revolutions, and not a fate similar to that which 
 has befallen the "Holy City." In Deuteronomy there 
 is a long array of curses, and the writer goes on to say 
 "if they would serve God and obey the law, they should 
 be prosperous; if not, God would send inflictions." 
 Some of the threatenings have been, some clearly have 
 not been realized. But this cannot be denied : when the 
 Jews set up idols, and Solomon was an idolater, the 
 land of Judea was in the beauty and grandeur of her 
 palmiest days. In the days when Judea was pious and 
 humble, her children were carried into captivity. She 
 worshiped Jehovah most faithfully when she was carried 
 into a strange land. When sh« worshiped Baal she was 
 at the zenith of her glory, and then the temple was 
 built of which we have such a grand account in the 
 Bible. How will my friend get over this fact? There 
 are a number of predictions in reference to Judea, some 
 of which say that it shall be destroyed and some that 
 it shall endure for ever. It is impossible that both can 
 be fulfilled. The fact is that Jerusalem, like other 
 cities, has played her part in the history of the world, 
 and shared the fate of other cities. These are some of 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 71 
 
 the prophecies in the Bible, in respect to the children 
 of Israel, which were never fulfilled : 
 
 " For the Lord will have mercy on Jacoh, and set them in 
 their own land; and the strangers shall be joined with them, 
 and they shall cleave to the house .of Jacob. And the people 
 shall take them, and bring them to their place, and the house of 
 Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord, for servants 
 and handmaids; and they shall take them captives whose cap- 
 tives they were ; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 
 And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall give 
 thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from thy 
 hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve" (Isaiah, 
 xiv. 1-3). 
 
 "Thus said the Lord God: Behold I will take the children of 
 Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will 
 gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. 
 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the moun- 
 tains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all, and they 
 shall be no more two -nations, neither shall they be divided in!o 
 two kingdoms any more at all. And David my servant shall be 
 king over them, and they shall have one shepherd. They shall 
 also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do 
 them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto 
 Jacob, my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they 
 shall dwell therein, even they and their children, and their chil- 
 dren's children forever, and my servant David shall be their 
 prince forever " (Ezekiel xxxii, 21-26). 
 
 The preceding are the Bible prophecies which have 
 never been fulfilled, and are as clear and unequivocal 
 in their language as any which the gentleman has al- 
 luded to. Here are more: 
 
 " Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and 
 will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own 
 and move no more, neither shall the children of wickedness 
 
72 THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 
 
 afflict thee any more as afore'ime. . . . And when thy 
 clays be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I wil 1 
 set i;p thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowils, 
 and I will establish his kingdom. lie shall build an house for 
 my name, and I will establish the tlironc of his kingdom for- 
 ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. If he com- 
 mit iniquity. I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with 
 the stripe of the children of men. But my mercy shall not 
 depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put 
 away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be 
 established forever, before thee, thy throne shall be established 
 forever. According to all this vision, so did Nathan speak 
 unto David" (2. Sam., vii, 10-16). 
 
 " At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the 
 Lord, and all nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of 
 the Lord, to Jerusalem. ... In those days the house of 
 Judith s!:all walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come 
 together out of the land of the north to the land that I have 
 giveu for an inheritance unto your father'.' (Jer. iii, 17-18). 
 
 These predictions are as clear as possible that the 
 throne of David should be perpetual, and that the city 
 of Jerusalem was to be the headquarters of the world. 
 But theologians have given a recondite or spiritual 
 meaning to them. My friend refers to the eating of 
 children by their mothers, in Jerusalem. It often oc- 
 curred in antiquity when cities were besieged and the 
 people were almost starving. It has taken place in 
 modern sieges. It would have been true if predicted of 
 almost any aucient nation. We now come to the proph- 
 ecy respecting Egypt. Does it say the time that Egypt 
 shall be a place of darkness and desolation? No! It 
 merely gives a general statement that she shall be des- 
 olate and unfortunate. The old Egyptian power had 
 beon brought in opposi ion to Judea, and these proph- 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 73 
 
 ets, to suit the popular idea, hurled their maledictions 
 against it. What are the facts ? Egypt has undergone 
 the same changes that other countries have. Look at 
 Greece, the land of poetry, the land of learning, admired 
 for her love of the beautiful, and her gifts of intellectual 
 endowments to posterity. Look at her, where is she 
 to-day? Trodden beneath the heel of the Turk she has 
 been reduced to a slavery that is almost unknown in 
 any other part of the world. See Koine, that city which 
 sits upon the seven hills, and which has hardly been 
 equaled by any recent collection of people, now it is 
 inhabited by a most degenerate race. This prophecy 
 respecting Egypt, however, has never been fulfilled; it 
 has been falsified in regard to several particulars. Here 
 are the words of Ezekiel from the 29th chapter and 9th 
 to 11th verses. 
 
 "And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste, and they 
 shall know that I am the Lord. ... 1 will make the land 
 of Egypt utterly waste and desolate from the tower of Syrene 
 even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass 
 through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years." 
 
 I say that there is not a reliable scholar or any his- 
 torian who will say that there was for forty years after 
 the time the prophecy was uttered a time when the foot 
 of man did not tread upon it. Look at Alexandria, the 
 revolution she has undergone, and yet her importance 
 in the East. Some of those Egyptians are a very shrewd 
 people, and know enough to cheat the Yankees and 
 Britishers who go there to see curiosities of that mys- 
 terious land. Egypt, in the last few years, has been 
 undergoing such rapid changes, that she looms up, and 
 promises to be a great country in the future. Well 
 then my friend says there are some thirty-eight proph- 
 
74 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE, 
 
 ecies that foretell the appearance of Christ. That is an 
 old statement, and what he is here to do is not to in- 
 dulge in that kind of statements, bnt bring the proof 
 fo war I wish that he would bring them forward, so 
 that I can subject them to an examination. The Christ 
 is not the person at all expected by the Jews. The Old 
 Testament predicts a royal Messiah of the house of 
 David. According to the New Testament, Jesus was the 
 son of a Jewish maiden, whose Davidical blood is no- 
 where declared, either directly or by implication. The 
 Old Testament Messiah was to sit upon the throne of 
 David, and all nations were to serve and obey him. The 
 Jews were to make captives those (the Babylonians) 
 whose captives they were. The heathens were to be 
 their servants. Jesus declared his kingdom was not of 
 the world. He once rocle into Jerusalem in a ridiculous 
 style, but never sat on David's throne, and the Jews, 
 instead of making the Assyrian captives, were subjuga- 
 ted and dispersed. The Jewish Messiah was to be a 
 mighty prince, a universal potentate. Jesus was poor, 
 lived upon alms, was persecuted, and died the death of 
 a malefactor, crucified between two thieves. The reign 
 of the Jewish Messiah was to be followed by universal 
 peace. Jesus said: "Think not that I came to bring 
 peace on earth, but a sword." In the time of the Mes- 
 siah, wars were to cease, righteousness w T as to nourish, 
 and mankind to be made happy. Whether this has 
 taken place, the experience of almost nineteen centuries, 
 and the present state of the world, can enable every 
 one to determine for himself. In the times of the Mes- 
 siah, Israel was to be gathered and planted in his own 
 land in honor and prosperity. Cut soon after the death 
 of Jesus, the Jewish nation underwent the most dread- 
 ful calamities, and the Jews are now scattered to the 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 75 
 
 four querters of the globe. With the advent of the old 
 Testament Messiah, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt and 
 beautified, and to be forever the capital of the world. 
 A few years after the death of Jesus, it was totally de- 
 stroyed, and has not been rebuilt. The Messiah of the 
 Old Testament was to reign in glory without end. Jesus 
 died ignominiously 1800 years ago, and has never been 
 heard from since the death of his disciples, up to the 
 present time, Thursday, July 22, 1875. Here are proph- 
 ecies also bearing on the advent of the Messiah, none 
 of which have been fulfilled. 
 
 "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke 
 many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, 
 and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation, shall not lift up 
 sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more " 
 (Isaiah ii. 4). 
 
 " And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard 
 shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and 
 the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. * * 
 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the 
 weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den." (Isaiah 
 xi, 6). 
 
 I say that we have a contrast between them too great 
 to admit of their identity. I know the passages com- 
 monly cited very well. He can bring you the passages 
 in Isaiah, the liii, ix, v, xi, vii and a number of others, 
 where it says, "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." 
 Let him quote them so that I shall be able to examine 
 and show that they refer to events that transpired long 
 before Jssus was born. You may say that that is a bold 
 position to take, but it is an honest one at least, and I 
 believe that I can maintain it. The Messianic prophe- 
 cies are among those admitted to have a historic sig- 
 
76 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 nification. The theologians say that they have two mean- 
 ings—an obvious and a recoadite meaning. A further 
 instance is, that when the children were slain, they say 
 it was to fulfill that which was spoken of by "Jeremy 
 the prophet, In Kama was there a voice heard, lamenta- 
 tion, and weeping, and great mourning: Kachel weeping 
 for her children, and would not be comforted, because 
 they are not." (Mat. ii, 17-18). We turn to Jeremiah 
 and we find that it has no such meaning— it is only the 
 prophet trying to console the people who are in captiv- 
 ity. He tells them to stop weeping for they •' shall yet 
 come up from the land of the enemy." The story of the 
 slaughter of the infants is a revamp of the Hindoo tale 
 of Christna whom the tyrant Cansa sought to destroy. 
 Some of the clergy know these facts cannot be met, and 
 they would prefer not to have the people attend a debate 
 of this kind ; tell the ladies, that if they come here, 
 they will hear something to shock their modesty because 
 they are afraid if they come here they will become con- 
 vinced, and teach their children that these stories are 
 false. 
 
 Mr. Marples. 
 
 My opponent admitted the sense and truth of the law, 
 to which I said I should appeal, though, at the same 
 time, he slightly demurred. If he does not wish to 
 stand by the law of logic and reason, why did he sign 
 the document to stand by it? It is not a matter of 
 opinion as to what is logic, but it is a matter of con- 
 sciousness. If I understand the law at all, then the law 
 by which this discussion is to be governed is to decide 
 by the preponderance of evidence. I will submit his 
 statement to that examination, aud if it fails to come up 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 77 
 
 to the standard, then the truth lies on the Christian 
 Bide. He said that in order to have a revelation from 
 God, it should be in such a form that it would never 
 change in anything, and always be the same, and that 
 only would be revelation. I will ask this audience if 
 they believe that there is an educated man at this debate, 
 who would set up a variety of opinions in refutation of 
 a statement by God, viz: that there can be no revela- 
 tion while there is a variety of opinions in the world. 
 If so, why study at all ? Why become scholars ? why 
 search to get opinions ? why study logic ? why not go 
 back to monkeys ? and from monkeys to pigs, and from 
 pigs to birds, and from birds to fishes, and wake up a 
 nonentity ? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
 gander ! Then he objected to the Bible predictions, and 
 said that predictions equally as great had been made in 
 comparatively modern times.— Keferred to Abraham Lin- 
 coln, who gave his life in behalf of the abolition of 
 slavery. If we have a vast amount ef evidence to prove 
 it, I ask him to give it in his next reply. Now about the 
 weather. Is there any man here who will look forward 
 with any degree of certainty and say we shall have a 
 certain kind of weather for some time ? How often does 
 it come true ? It is pure nonsense to bring forward such 
 evidence as that. Then he turns to a number of other 
 stories. Could you really give any credence* to such pre- 
 diction as these ? Then he goes on to point out certain 
 elements as necessary to a fulfillment of a genuine 
 prophecy. I ask will any of these predictions which he 
 has named bear this test ? If so, I ask him to do so in 
 his next speech. The first thing necessary, he said, was 
 circumstantiality. I was afraid to weary you with that, 
 as I had given you so many to show you that the pre- 
 dictions were actually fulfilled, by the evidence of per- 
 
78 THE UNDERWOOD -MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 sons who did not believe in the Bible at all. I gave you 
 the statement of Volney relative to Egypt, and the 
 accompanying prediction. The next point that he makes 
 is priority of time. I have shown that some of those 
 predictions were uttered thousands of years before they 
 took place, and that in every case the prediction was 
 uttered, the prophet gave it before the event took place. 
 Then my friend goes on to say, that "coming events 
 cast their shadows before them." I admit that, and 
 maintain that that was not the kind of prediction as 
 given in the word of God. Mr. Brindley, in reply to the 
 Infidelity and Atheism of Socialism, says: 
 
 " But suppose that, instead of the spirit of prophecy breath- 
 ing more or less in every book of Scripture, predicting events 
 relative to a great variety of general topics, and delivering be- 
 sides almost innumerable characteristics of the Messiah, all 
 meeting in the person of Jesus, — there had been only ten men in 
 ancient times who pretended to be prophets, each of whom 
 exhibited only five independent criteria as to place, government, 
 comitant events, doctrine taught, effects of doctrine, character, 
 sufferings, or death, the meeting of all which, in one person, 
 should prove the reality of their calling as prophets, and of his 
 mission in the character they have assigned him. —Suppose, 
 moreover, that all events were left to chance merely, and we 
 were to compute from the principles employed by mathemati- 
 cians in the investigation of such subjects, the probabilty of 
 these fifty independent circumstances happening at all. Assume 
 that there is, according to the technical phrase, an equal chance 
 for the happening or the failure of any one of the specified par- 
 ticulars, then the probability against the occurance of all the 
 particulars in any way, is that of the fiftiQth power of two to 
 unity, that is the probability is greater than 11,250,000,000,- 
 000,000 to one, or greater than eleven hundred and twenty five 
 millions of millions to one, that all these circumstauces do 
 not turn up, even at distinct periods." 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 79 
 
 You have forty-eight against two, and is not that a 
 majority? This book shows that the chances are eleven 
 hundred and twenty millions of millions to one, that all 
 those circumstances do not turn out as predicted, and 
 yet these have come up true. Then those other events 
 will bear no comparison to these. With regard to 
 Egypt, or rather to Jerusalem, to which his remarks had 
 reference, he went on to show, speaking of the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, that another prophecy said it was to 
 be a prosperous city, and that could not be with a judg- 
 ment coming. I will appeal to history whether or net 
 the whole of those prophecies did not have their fulfill- 
 ment. First, the city was in a properous condition, and 
 then, after it had fallen into an idolatrous worship it 
 was destroyed and visited by those calamities. My op- 
 ponent spoke about the cockatrice den and the throne 
 of David. I will refer to that by-and-bye. He says that 
 this prediction may as well have been applied to Greece, 
 and did so, to show that countries arose and fell with- 
 out any predictions. With regard to Greece, I will say 
 that in the divine providence of God, she performed a 
 great work ! But, where is her glory now ? like that of 
 many other countries it is departed. He says that Egypt 
 has falsified the statement but did not say what was the 
 passage or whether he was referring to Egypt or some 
 other place. I read to you the words of the prediction 
 and then gave the testimony of Infidels and Sceptics, 
 and ancient travelers, in the very words of the predic- 
 tion — I find it was fulfilled literally. Then sometimes 
 the evidence of a foe is considered superior to that of a 
 friend, and I hope that by such evidence, I have estab- 
 lished the proposition that the Bible is the word of 
 God t I am sorry that my time has gone so quick. The 
 last remark put down, is in regard to ancient religions. 
 
80 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 I have no time to refer to that now, but will take up the 
 one in reference to Jesus Christ, and if he likes I will 
 give him those passages, provided the proceedings be 
 suspended for five minutes. My friend maintained that 
 Christ was born of a peasant woman, and maintains that 
 he was not of the seed of David. I maintain that by his 
 supposed father he sprang from the seed of David. That 
 by the the mother he sprang from the seed of David. 
 Further, both were in the royal line, and Jesus sprang 
 through them from the house of David. I will to-mor- 
 row evening place the evidence before you, and estab- 
 lish the position that Christ was of the seed of David. 
 
 Me. Undekwood. 
 
 My opponent commenced by asking why I signed a 
 paper to stand by what I deny. I have never signed 
 any such paper. What I ask is that the gentleman will 
 discuss the proposition he has attempted to defend, and 
 not take up time with irrelevant or unimportant mat- 
 ters. I have not receded nor given any intention that I 
 desire to recede from anything I have signed. The in- 
 sinuation is unworthy of my friend. 
 
 Now, in regard to the revelation considered from an 
 a priori standpoint, I repeat, I should suppose if it 
 were to be made, and of an objective character, it would 
 be written on the canopy of heaven, so that it would 
 not need a priest to explain it. But I said I thought 
 any kind of objective revelation implied that God omitted 
 something from the original constitution of man. Why 
 not, if all-powerful and wise, put into the mind of man 
 all necessary knowledge or the capacity, ability and dis- 
 position to acquire it, instead of leaving man defect ivo 
 
TEE UNDERWOOD ~ MARPLES DEBATE. 81 
 
 and then making a revelation to him in book form, with 
 all the liabilities of suppression, misinterpretation, mis- 
 translation, etc., and entrusting it to an obscure, igno- 
 rant people, that perished, as a nation, centuries ago ? 
 To add to the absurdity, we must believe that millions 
 will be damned for not believing in this book — revela- 
 tion ! 
 
 My opponent sees fit to make use of the usual talk 
 about cattle, monkeys, pigs, etc., as the ancestors and 
 relatives of man according to the theory of Darwin. It 
 will do well enough to excite a laugh among the igno- 
 rant, but it is out of place in a debate like this, when 
 the speakers are supposed to be able and disposed to 
 state fairly all the positions they oppose or criticize. 
 
 I will refer again, now, to the subject of prophecy. 
 We have a number of prophecies in the Bible falsified 
 by history and experience. 
 
 I quote from Mark xvi. 17, 18: 
 
 "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my 
 name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new 
 tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any 
 deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the 
 sick and they shall recover." 
 
 Would our friend dare take prussic acid into his 
 stomach ? Can he handle poisonous reptiles and receive 
 no hurt? Can he restore health to the dying man by 
 the potency and power of his touch? Can he speak in 
 languages in which he has never been taught? 
 
 Again, Jesus is represented as predicting the end of 
 the world: "There be some standing here that shall 
 not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming 
 in his kingdom." As Gibbon remarks: "The revolu- 
 tions of eighteen centuries have taught us not to press 
 too closely the language of prophecy." 
 
82 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 It is not my duty to guide my opponent in a debate 
 in which he has the affirmative. But I notify him. that 
 I am ready any time to take many Biblical prophecies, 
 including those concerning Babylon, Tyre, Damascus, 
 and Egypt, and show how they fail to correspond with 
 the events of history. In regard to the permanency of 
 the Israelitish throne, too, the Bible contains many 
 erroneous predictions, fond but illusive anticipations of 
 the ancient Hebrew mind. 
 
 My opponent characterizes my reference to certain 
 remarkable prophecies outside of the Bible, as trifling 
 stories. I will quote from the historian, Alison, in 
 regard to one of these: 
 
 " The history of Josephine had been very remarkable. She 
 was born in the West Indies; and it had early been prophesied 
 by an old ncgress that she should lose her first husband, be ex- 
 tremely unfortunate, but that she should at* terwasds be greater 
 than a queen. This prophecy, the authenticity of which is 
 placed beyond a doubt, was fulfilled in the most singular man- 
 ner. Her first husband, Alexander Beauharnais, a general in 
 the army of the Rhine, had been guillotined during the French 
 "Revolution ; and she, who was also imprisoned at the same 
 time, was only saved from death by the fall of Robespierre. §o 
 strongly was the prophecy impressed on her mind that whiic 
 lying in the dungeon of the Conciergerie, expecting every hour 
 to be summoned to the Revolutionary Tribunal, she mentioned 
 it to her fellow prisoners, and to amuse them named some of 
 them as ladies of the bed-chamber — a jest which she afterwards 
 lived to realize to one of their number." In a note, Alison 
 adds: "The author heard of this prophecy long before Napo- 
 leon's elevation to the throne, from the late Countess of Bath 
 and the Countess of Aucram, who were educated in the same 
 convent with Josephine, and had heard her repeatedly mention 
 the circumstance in early youth." 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 83 
 
 I have also the statement of Josephine. It is thus : 
 
 " One day, sometime before my first marriage, while taking 
 my usual walk, I observed a number of negro girls assembled 
 around an old woman, engaged in telling their fortunes. I 
 drew near to observe their proceedings. The old sybil, on be- 
 holding me, uttered a loud exclamation, and almost by force 
 seized my hand. She appeared to be under the greatest agita- 
 tion. Amused at these absurdities, as I thought them, I allow- 
 ed her to proceed, saying, ' So you discover something extraor- 
 dinary in my destiny?' ' Yes.' ' Is happiness or misfortune to 
 be my lot?' 'Misfortune. Ah, stop! and happiness too.' 'You 
 take care not to commit yourself, my dame. Your oracles are 
 not intelligible.' 'I am not permitted to render them more clear,' 
 said the woman, rising her eyes with a mysterious expression to- 
 wards heaven. 'But to the point,' I replied, for nay curiosity be- 
 gan to be excited. ' What read you concerning me in futurity?' 
 'What do I see in the future? You will not believe me if I 
 speak.' ' Yes, indeed, I assure you. Come, my good mother, 
 what am I to fear and hope?' ' On your head be it then; lis- 
 ten: You will be married soon; that union will not be happy. 
 You will become a widow and then — then you will be queen of 
 France. Some happy years will be yours. But you will die in 
 a hospital amid civil commotion.' " 
 
 Trifling stories that he will not bother with! There 
 are a good many other things that have been presented 
 for his consideration that he will not bother with. He 
 says he has mentioned predictions that have been ful- 
 filled. He does not tell when the account was written, 
 does not show the condition of the country when the 
 prediction was made; does not point out anything fore- 
 told beyond the sagacity of man to foresee, but jumps 
 to the conclusion that the Bible must be inspired be- 
 cause he finds two or three verses referring to a region 
 corresponding, in several particulars, with certain locali- 
 
84 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 ties that are now found. To how large, or what partic- 
 ular region is referred to? He reads from some clergy- 
 man who has taken an extract from Ezekiel, or Isaiah, 
 or Jeremiah, or some other writer, and then one from 
 the voluminous works of Volney or Eollin, and then 
 by the smallest kind of special pleading, makes out his 
 coincidences. Why does he not read from Volney's own 
 works, instead of reading from some brother minister 
 who knows less about the subject than himself? Why 
 docs he not take a whole chapter from the Bible, and 
 test it by reference to ungarbled accounts of travelers 
 or narratives of historians. For instance, Ezekiel de- 
 clared no foot should pass through Egypt in forty 
 years. Can he quote from any author to show that pre- 
 diction has been fulfilled ? We know the contrary is 
 true. Let him quote the Bible fairly, and then read 
 reliable travelers, and in some places one will be like 
 the other, about as the moon is like green cheese. 
 
 He says when the Jews worshiped the Lord they 
 were in their greatest prosperity. He is mistaken. It 
 was in the days of Solomon, when king and people 
 alike were in idolatry, that Israel was in her glory. It 
 was not in these days that she worshiped Jehovah and 
 knew no other gods. Human sacrifices then were com- 
 mon, and even by approval of the highest national au- 
 thority. 
 
 I have but little more to answer. The gentleman tells 
 you he will not trouble you with details about Jerusa- 
 lem, but appeals to your common sense! How can you 
 pass a decision without being acquainted with the de- 
 tails on a subject of this kind, whether a prophecy 
 shows inspiration. He says Greece did her work, and 
 her glory departed. The same is true of Judea. W T hero 
 to-day is Jerusalem, the pride of Israel ? So not un- 
 
THE UNDEKWOOD-MARPLES DEBATE. 85 
 
 likely, England and the United States will in time have 
 performed their work, although upon the ruins of the 
 existing governments, we fondly hope others greater 
 and grander may rise. My friend says in regard to 
 Egypt he has given the prophecy. I have already told 
 how. He may learn even from Bishop Watson that the 
 prophecy regarding Egypt has not been fulfilled. He 
 assumes that Christ was of the seed of David. He can- 
 not trace him to David by the genealogies of Matthew 
 and Luke, who deal with Joseph and not with Mary, and 
 as Joseph is said not to be the father of Jesus, how 
 can his royal blood be inferred ? He says Mary is of 
 the House of David. Will he give us his proofs of 
 that ? If he will prove it I abandon my position and 
 give up the debate. I know he cannot do it. You will 
 observe that I labor under one disadvantage. This gen- 
 tleman has had the entire day — indeed has had weeks 
 — in which to prepare his arguments, while I have only 
 the moment to adduce authorities in refutation of his 
 wild and undisciiminating remarks. 
 
 I claim to have brought forward Pagan and other 
 prophecies which are more wonderful than any in the 
 Bible, and those he has brought forward have not in all 
 respects been fulfilled. There being no evidence what- 
 ever for the inspiration of the Bible, the statement that 
 the Bible contains evidence of inspiration above all 
 other books, is contrary to the facts of the case. 
 
86 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 FOURTH NIGHT. 
 
 Mr, Marples. 
 
 As you are all aware, this evening is the second of 
 the second proposition — the opening having been placed 
 before the audience last evening. First, allow me to 
 repeat one thing, and that, in regard to the syllogism 
 which was given last evening, forming a rule for our 
 debate to-night. The syllogistic mode of argument im- 
 plies three propositions: 1. A major; 2. A minor; 3. An 
 inference. The amount of evidence to be brought to 
 bear this evening, and the standard by which that evi- 
 dence is to be tried, is by the moral part of logic. The 
 major proposition is, any subject or proposition having 
 a preponderance of evidence is considered thoroughly 
 established and authenticated. The minor proposition is 
 as follows, which I propose to maintain, viz: that the 
 Bible is divine above all books, and contains evidence in 
 preponderance that such is the case, and the inference 
 is, that the Bible is divine. Before I proceed to go into 
 the second point, that of miracles, I may as well give 
 you to understand what the three points of the discus- 
 sion are. 1. The fulfillment of prophecy; 2. The per- 
 formance of miracles ; 3. The effects of the Bible upon the 
 world. The first point was taken up last eveoing, when 
 we went into some of the points relative to the fulfill- 
 ment of prophecy when I proved that the prophecies - of 
 the Bible were fulfilled. The first was in regard to certain 
 cities and countries, and that I established thoroughly. 
 The second was the prophecies in regard to the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, as found in the Old Testament. I main- 
 tain that there are no less than thirty-eight prophecies, 
 some delivered four thousand years before the events 
 took place, and all of them more than four or five 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 87 
 
 hundred years before their fulfillment. When you con- 
 sider that during the period of four thousand years pre- 
 dictions uttered by different persons in different count- 
 ries and ages, all culminating and converging in one 
 point— in the history of one person, it is certainly estab- 
 lishing the existence of a supreme, divine and spec- 
 ial power. The prediction first given was that the 
 seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head and 
 the serpent should bruise his heel (Gen. iii, 15). Then 
 follows the promise of the Lord to Abraham (Gen. xxii, 
 18); the coming of the Shiloh (Gen. xlix, 10); the great 
 prophet (Deut. xviii, 15). He was also to be of the seed 
 of David, to be born in the town of Bethlehem, and of 
 a virgin, as well as a host of other prophecies which 
 have special reference to Christ and his kingdom. Can 
 you suppose that all these predictions, uttered during 
 the course of four thousand years, could ever have been 
 fulfilled by chance ? I have evidence this evening, did 
 the time permit, concerning each passage, which I could 
 place before this audience, and prove to the satisfaction 
 of all reasonable persons that they were actually fulfilled. 
 Now, dear friends, objection was taken last night, con- 
 cerning the statement I made in regard to the fact that 
 the Lord Jesus Christ should be of the seed cf David. 
 My opponent took exception to this and maintained that 
 inasmuch as Joseph who was said to be of the seed of 
 David, was not the real but the supposed father of 
 Christ, and Mary being only a peasant woman, and hav- 
 ing no connection with the royal house of David, and 
 she being the actual mother of Christ, he was therefore 
 not of the seed of David. I understand that to be the 
 objection. I came forward at the close of the meeting, 
 and engaged to prove, first, that Joseph was of the seed 
 of David, and that Mary also was of the seed of David. 
 
88 THE TJXBERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 Now, I just take the word of God itself and by a simple 
 explanation; I think I shall succeed in making this sub- 
 ject rise up before the audience, as clear as that two and 
 two make four. Well now 3 take the New Testament, and 
 look at the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ as to 
 his ancestry, and also the root from which he sprang, 
 and you find that Matthew gives the genealogy, and the 
 order which he observes is this : He commences with 
 Abraham and traces down through David, and through 
 Solomon until at last he comes to Matthan who begat 
 Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of 
 whom was born Jesus, called the Christ. But now, dear 
 friends, I want you to turn unto Luke, and there in the 
 third chapter you will find the genealogy of Jesus. 
 This takes a different direction and commences with the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and goes on through Seth to Adam, 
 and then to God who is the source of all life. Now, I 
 want you to note, that whilst Matthew traces the gen- 
 ealogy of Joseph through David and Solomon unto the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and Luke traces it backward through 
 Mary, the wife of Joseph who was the son (son-in-law) 
 of Heli, and descended from Nathan, another of the 
 sons of David, Luke gives the genealogy of Mary and 
 not of Joseph. Solomon was one of the sons of David, 
 and there was another named Nathan, and it is from 
 him that Mary sprang. Secondly, both come to the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and Christ was therefore, on both sides, the 
 son of David, I know that my worthy opponent will 
 take exception to this, as a mere statement and wanting 
 proof. I want just to note that we have it stated thus 
 in the twenty-third verse of the third chapter of the 
 gospel by Luke, ''And Jesus himself began to be about 
 thirty years of age, being, (as was supposed) the son of 
 Joseph, who was the son of Heli." And in this passage 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 89 
 
 I maintain that Heli was the natural father of Mary, and 
 Joseph having married the daughter of Heli, who was 
 called Mary, therefore became the son of Heli; really 
 not being the son of Heli, but the son-in-law. So that 
 Christ instead of not having been as stated by the prophe- 
 cies of the Bible, of the seed of David, was of that line, 
 first by his supposed father Joseph, and also through his 
 mother, who was the daughter of Heli, and who came from 
 David through Nathan. My opponent may ask for author- 
 ity, and, supposing that he objects to my statement and 
 says that Heli was not the father of Mary, then T will 
 ask him who was her father? That is fair, is it not? 
 Fair play is a jewel, you know! Well, we understand 
 that Heli was the father of Mary, and that Joseph mar- 
 ried Mary, and secondly being the son-in-law of Heli, 
 the father of Mary, and Heli sprang from David through 
 Nathan, and consequently our position is established. 
 I suppose this may be called an "ipse dixit," and my 
 opponent may want authority on the subject. My word, 
 I suppose, is worth comparatively little. This is a 
 statement by the Eev. J. C. Kyle in his " Expository 
 thoughts on the Gospel": 
 
 " The third and most probable explanation of the difficulty 
 is to regard Luke's genealogy as the genealogy of Mary and not 
 of Joseph. Heli was the father of Mary, and the father-in-law 
 by his marriage, of Joseph. It is not said that Heli 'begat' 
 Joseph, and that the Greek does not necessarily mean that 
 Joseph was 'his son' is clear from the expressions used about 
 Mary and Jude in the other places of the New Testament. It 
 is Mary's family therefore, and not Joseph's, that Luke de- 
 scribes, and Joseph's family and not Mary's that is described 
 by Mathew. In leaving this question I may be allowed to 
 remark that the view I venture to maintain is that of Brentius, 
 Gemarus, Chemnitius, Spanhekn, Surenbusino, Poole, Bengel, 
 
90 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 Pardeus, Lightfoot, Clovius, Gill, Burkett, Henry, Scott and 
 Clark, among Protestants; and of Janrenius, Barradius, Stella 
 and others, amorg Roman Catholics: and it is also a remark- 
 able fact that Rabbinical writers, speaking of Mary in very 
 reproachful terms, distinctly call her 'the daughter of Heli.'" 
 
 Mr. Ryle goes on through other details, and admits 
 that there are some difficulties in the way of this expla- 
 nation, but there are far greater in the way of the other, 
 and our argument is to be decided by a preponderance 
 of evidence. The Jewish writers, as you will perceive, 
 who do not believe in Christ, refer to Mary as the 
 ''daughter of Heli." But you may ask why does not the 
 genealogy give her name ? I answer that it was not the 
 custom of the Jews to record their wife's name, but 
 always to record the wife's name in her husband's name. 
 The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Ecclesiastical and other his- 
 tory by McClintock, mentions the fact that the Jews 
 recorded merely by the names of the males; therefore 
 Joseph would be accounted the son of Heli. I should 
 have taken up the subject of miracles, but find that I 
 shall not be able to do so just at present, but will detain 
 you a little while longer on the present point, and upon 
 tiie person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The 
 influence he has had and will have upon men, the great 
 good he has accomplished and will accomplish in this 
 world, and that the grand salvation will ultimately be 
 brought down to all mankind. I am going to bring into 
 this meeting no less a person and no less distinguished 
 in the world of logic, than that of the name and work 
 of John Stuart Mill, the so-called Atheist. It is a work 
 entitled " Three Essays upon Religion." Concerning the 
 Lord Jesus Christ he says: 
 
 "Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the 
 
THE UNDEBWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 91 
 
 character which Christianity has produced by holdiDg up in 
 a DKine Person, a standard of excellence, and a model of im- 
 itation, is available even to the absolute unbeliever, and can 
 never more le lost to humanity. For it is Christ rather than 
 God, whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern 
 of perfection for humanity. It is the God Incarnate, more 
 than the God of the Jews or of Nature, who being idealized 
 has taken so great and salutary a hold on the modern mirrd. 
 And "whatever else may be taken away from us by rational 
 criticism, Christ is still left a unique figure, not more unlike all 
 his precursors than all his followers, even those who had the 
 direct bemfit of his personal teaching. 
 
 4 ' It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the gospels 
 is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is 
 admirable has been superadded by the tradition of his follow- 
 ers. The tradition of followers suffices to insert any number 
 of marvels, and may have inserted all the miracles which he 
 is reputed to have wrought. But who among his disciples or 
 amoDg their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings 
 ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character 
 revealed in the gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of 
 Galilee, as certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyn- 
 crasies were of a totally different sort, still less the early Chris- 
 tian writers in whom nothing is more evident than that the 
 good which was in tbem was all derived, as they always pro- 
 fessed that it was derived, from a higher source." 
 
 Is not that a magnificent extract to prove the Bible 
 contains evidence above all other book in the world, of 
 its divine origin? If I do not misunderstand my worthy 
 opponent, he pledged himself, if I succeeded in proving 
 the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was of the seed of 
 David, and Mary was his mother, he would at once 
 abandon this debate. I should be extremely sorry if he 
 were to fulfil that promise, and abandon this debate, 
 but I think that, inasmuch as he did voluntarily make 
 
92 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 this pledge, he should acknowledge he is beaten. I ask 
 the audience if that is not fair ? I will now say a word or 
 two on that upon which we found the divine inspiration of 
 the Bible, and that is miracles. Now, what is a mira- 
 cle? A miracle I suppose to be a supernatural effect 
 produced for the purpose of confirming a mission and 
 its divinity. In the performance of miracles in ancient 
 times we have two objects. 1. Of mercy; 2. Of divine 
 evidence. A proof that the performer was sent of God. 
 Now, had I time, I would review some of the leading 
 miracles in the Bible, and endeavor to answer some of 
 the objections to them. I will say that in the Old 
 Testament, we have miracles wrought by Moses and the 
 prophets. In the New Testament as wrought by Christ 
 and his apostles. We have no miracles now, because 
 this is the age of reason, and I stand upon this platform, 
 and repeat that Tom Paine and myself are as one as to 
 the title of his book; but we are opposite in the object 
 of his book. He wrote it to deify reason, and set 
 it up in opposition to revelation. I believe this is 
 the age of reason, and would use it not to oppose reve- 
 lation, but to understand it. I know that in this book 
 there are apparent difficulties. I bring my reason to 
 bear, and by its guidance understand them. If they do 
 not yield to my reason, then my reason is defective, 
 and I say let God's word be true, if every man be a 
 liar. This is the age of reason and not of miracles. The 
 age of miracles closed with the book of revelation. 
 We have the Lord Jesus Christ as the great medium 
 interceding with God — he is the great sum and sub- 
 stance of the gospel,— he is the great medium through 
 which we can inherit life hereafter. 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 93 
 
 Me. Underwood. 
 
 With great pleasure, so far as I am concerned, I 
 resume this debate this evening; but judging from the 
 demonstrations, there are some here this evening who 
 think that I have no right to make my address during 
 this debate. And perhaps some here are in the condi- 
 tion of the judge who., having heard the argument on 
 one side, said, "Let us hear no more, gentlemen, be- 
 cause if I hear the other side I may change my mind." 
 My opponent said that I had promised, if he proved 
 that Christ was of Levitical blood, and that if Mary 
 was his mother, I would abandon the debate. My state- 
 ment was that if this gentleman proved that Mary was 
 of Davidical blood I would abandon this debate. 
 Mr. Marples.— That is not the point at issue. 
 
 [Mr. Underwood's reply became inaudible, but it was evi- 
 dent, from a few words we were enabled to distinguish, that 
 Mr. Marples had mistaken the word " Levitical " for the word 
 " Davidical," used by Mr. Underwood. A perfect babel ensued, 
 mingled with yells, hisses and various cries. It was feared that 
 some of the rasher portion of the orthodox party present would 
 resort to force, but to tbe credit of the Rev. Mr. Marples, it must 
 be said that he used his utmost endeavors to prevent a disturb- 
 ance, and eventually soothed the audience down, acknowledging 
 that he had mistaken the word " Levitical " for "Davidical." 
 We cannot refrain from here making the remark that too much 
 praise cannot be bestowed upon Mr. Marples for his gentlemanly 
 conduct atvthis juncture of the proceedings, when, through a 
 supposed wrong, the more rash portion of both parties would 
 probably have resorted to blows, in which the Christian side 
 would have won. Instead of allowing this to be done, Mr. Mar- 
 ples acted in a manner that should gladden the heart of every 
 Christian, that they have in their ranks such a uoble-minded 
 champion, and that of every Freethinker, that they had such a 
 justice loving and fair opponent. — Reporter. 
 
94 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 Mr. Underwood resumed. The words that I have 
 down here are, that if he succeeded in establishing Mary 
 was of Davidical blood I would abandon the debate. I 
 maintain that the point at issue is whether Mary was 
 of lineal descent from the house of David. I made that 
 statement not rashly, but with a full understanding of 
 all its issues. If you turn to the genealogies you will 
 find in Luke what appears like an after thought, and 
 in Matthew a list of names, commencing with Abraham 
 (for they commenced recording that way), down to Abia, 
 of whom it is said that Zacharias, the husband of Eliz- 
 abeth, was descended. Now, suppose we turn to this 
 gentleman's theory. He says that there are two geneal- 
 ogies, and that they are different. That is very true, 
 and it has been a source of annoyance to many theolo- 
 gians. He says that Heli is the father of Mary, when 
 there is not the slightest intimation of the kind. Even 
 Luke says Joseph was of the house of David. Nothing 
 of the kind is said of Mary. 
 
 " To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of 
 the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary " (Luke 
 i. 27). "And Joseph went up from Galilee out of the city of 
 Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called 
 Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David " 
 (Luke ii. 4). 
 
 Nothing whatever is said about Mary's Davidical 
 descent. Mary was cousin of Elizabeth. Elizabeth was 
 of the daughters of. Aaron, but not of the house of 
 David, as can be seen from Luke, chap. i. verse 5. The 
 husband of Elizabeth was of the course of Abia, which 
 was in the lino of David, as given in the genealogy of 
 Matthew (Matt. 1. 7), but it is nowhere said that Eliza- 
 beth was of royal blood. We will turn to some author- 
 ity on the subject, since my opponent thinks a little 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 95 
 
 reading from somebody else will settle the matter. Here 
 is the opinion of the Eev. Dr. McNaught, from his 
 "Doctrine of Inspiration," page 28, where, speaking of 
 the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, he says : 
 
 "On the first glance these genealogies, as given by Matthew 
 and Luke, are so evidently different that it has been the ordi- 
 nary, if not invariable practice of Christian harmonists and 
 commentators to represent the former Evangelist as recording 
 the descent of Joseph, while the latter Evangelist is said to 
 have given the pedigree of Mary. We will say nothing of the 
 plausibility of this explanation, which acknowledges the gene- 
 alogies to be wholly different, and supposes they belong to two 
 persons. Oar questions must rather affect the truthfulness of 
 this mode of explaining away the difficulty. Let the reader 
 bear in mind how Matthew states that ' Jacob begat Joseph the 
 husband of Mary,' and how Luke's words are 'Joseph which 
 was the son of Heli,' and then let the reader say whether it is 
 truthful to allege that these different genealogies belong to dif- 
 ferent individuals. Is it not plain that each of them professes 
 to trace the lineal descent of one and the same man, Joseph ? 
 If we are still to be told that when Matthew professes to give 
 the descent of Joseph, he is to be understood as giving the de- 
 scent of Mary, then we simply rejoin that such an explanation 
 is nothing more nor less than an abandonment of the idea of 
 inspirational infallibility; for it represents the Bible as saying 
 one thing and meaning another." 
 
 When a distinguished clergyman and author like Mc- 
 Naught declares there is no evidence that either gene- 
 alogy is that of Mary; when he is compelled to concede 
 from the standpoint of a Christian that there is no evi- 
 dence that Mary is of the house of David, I may surely 
 say, "Not proven!" I may add the statement of an 
 able and candid English writer, John Scott (Life of 
 Christ, p. 20): 
 
96 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 " Paul lays great stress on the circumstance that the promise 
 given to Abraham was made, not to his seed, as of Mary, but 
 to his 'seed which is Christ.' To whatever passages in the 
 Psalms or elsewhere Peter rxsaybe supposed to refer, to the Jews 
 unquestionably the words meant, vrhat they appear to mean, 
 that such anticipations could be fulfilled by a preternatural 
 birth, without any known father, from a virgin of whose Da- 
 vidic descent there is the slenderest possible evidence, or rather 
 no evidence at all, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to 
 those onl y who believe in alleged historical narratives on no 
 other grounds than that they wish them to be true, and dare not 
 call them in question." 
 
 That is all there is about it, and you must now judge 
 for yourselves. There is not a single word in the Bible 
 which says that Mary is of royal blood. We come to 
 the next point — the Messianic prophecies. He says 
 there are prophecies spreading over four thousand years ; 
 that I call upon him to prove. He referred to the ser- 
 pent and seed of the woman as typical of Christ, and 
 here are the exact words:' 
 
 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and 
 between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and 
 thou shalt bruise his heel " (Gen. iii. 15). 
 
 There is no more reference to Christ than there is to 
 me. The verse only expresses what was forced upon the 
 observation of all, by reason of the structure of the ser- 
 pent and the disposition of man to kill whatever is 
 hurtful to him. Let us now look to Isaiah vii. 14,— 
 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; be- 
 hold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and sha'l 
 call his name Immanuel." At that time the Ling of 
 Judea, Ahaz, was being warred against by Rezin, the 
 king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, and the 
 prophet told Ahaz that his enemies would be overthrown. 
 
THE UNDEBWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 97 
 
 Ahaz asked for a sign, and that respecting the virgin 
 was given to him, and in the sixteenth verse it sa3 r s : 
 
 " For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and 
 choose the good, the land that thou ab ho rest shall be forsaken 
 of both her kings." 
 
 In the next chapter Ave are told that the prophet 
 went in unto the prophetess (virgin, meaning simply a 
 damsel or young woman) and she conceived and bore a 
 son. This has no teference to Jesus. Then we were 
 told he was to be of the House of David. I leave it to 
 you to determine whether that portion has been estab- 
 lished or not. The Messiah of the Old Testament, was 
 to be a different person altogether, and was to restore 
 the ancient prosperity of Israel, and the Jews should 
 go unto Jerusalem and serve God. A prophet shall 
 come up after Moses like uuto him! Was Jesus Ike 
 Moses '? He never slew an Egyptian. Moses was a war- 
 rior, a conqueror, commence 1 public life as a murdeLer, 
 and slaughtered women and children. Christ is named 
 the Prince of Peace. If these prophecies w T ere taken up 
 individually we could do jnsiicc to them. I have only 
 had time to take up one- or two simply as specimens. I 
 need not have done this, for he has not read to you one 
 of the so-called Messianic prophecies. Tie quotes from 
 John Stuart Mill, and I am no 1 disposed to complain of 
 that. There is much in Jesus Christ that John j tua.it 
 Mill and all Freethinkers admire. We all admire some 
 of the teachings of Christ, though some of them are 
 impracticable. Max Miiller will tell you that Buddha 
 taught the purest morals bet'o.e the coming of Christ. 
 Some of his parables have the appearance of being bor- 
 rowed from Christ, but such could not have been the 
 case as he lived long antecedent to Christ. There are 
 
98 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 none of the morals of Christ which are not preexistent. 
 See the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter. The doc;rine of 
 the brotherhood of man was a prominent doctrine iu 
 the East, and the doctrine of self-examination was 
 taught by Plato and Pythagoras. Christ never claimed 
 to have originated them; that claim has been made by 
 his followers. The golden rule was taught by Confucius 
 B. C. 500. Mill, in his work on "Liberty," criticises 
 and condemns such teachings as "Take no heed for the 
 morrow," etc., and at the same time admits there is 
 much else we can admire. 
 
 I will now give you the creed of Bible believers, 
 which will sufficiently explain why I disbelieve in it. "I 
 believe there is a God, who made the universe out of 
 nothing. I believe he knew everything, before there 
 was anything, save himself to know. I believe he made 
 everything, yet is not the author of evil. I believe that 
 imperfection (sin) came from perfection. I believe that 
 a being of infinite power and infinite love made a being 
 who, from a state of innocence, became a devil, and 
 through the strategy of this devil I believe sin entered 
 the world. I believe, that in consequence, the whole 
 human race became reduced to a lost, fallen condition. 
 To remedy the wrong done, I believe that God "took 
 on flesh and dwelt among men," was "born of woman, 
 nursed at her breast and nestled in her arms." I be- 
 lieve that after many hardships and much persecution, 
 he was arrested, tried, condemned, nailed to a cross, 
 and died in excruciating agony. I believe that his last 
 words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
 me ? " I believe that in spite, of the great sacrifice ren- 
 dered necessary by the strategy of the devil, but com- 
 paratively few will be saved, while the majority of man- 
 kind will be damned forever. I believe that the Jewibh 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 99 
 
 and Christian Scriptures are a revelation from God. I 
 believe all that these books relate. I believe that light 
 was made the first day, the firmament the second, grass 
 and fruit trees the third, the sua, moon and stars the 
 fourth, fowl and fish the fifth, cattle, creeping things 
 and man the sixth day; and after these six days' work 
 I believe God "rested and was refreshed" (Ex. xxxi. 
 18). I believe that ail the animals of the earth were 
 once brought to Adam to be named. I believe that a 
 serpent talked, that the same reptile was made to run 
 on its belly, because of the part it took in the garden 
 of Eden; that the reptile was made to act in a certain 
 way and then cursed for what it could not help doing. 
 I believe that the ground was cursed for man's sake. I 
 believe that death, although it seems as natural as life, 
 resulted from sin. I believe that there was a tree of 
 knowledge of good and evil. I believe that partaking 
 of its fruits or getting knowledge under the circum- 
 stances was sinful. I believe that God in ancient times 
 appealed to men, showed his back to Moses and his 
 face to Israel. I believe, nevertheless, that "no man 
 hath seen God at any time." I believe that God con- 
 verted a woman into a pillar of salt, because she looked 
 back upon her home. I believe that he stopped the sun 
 on a mountain, and the moon in a valley, that one na- 
 tion might have sufficient daylight to enable it to finish 
 butchering another nation. I believe that he caused a 
 fish to swallow a man, to keep him in his belly three 
 days and three nights, and finally to spew him on the 
 land, high and dry, safe and sound. I believe that to 
 prevent men building a tower that should reach unto 
 heaven, God confounded their languages. I believe that 
 he destroyed all mankind, one family excepted, by a 
 flood, because of the wickeduess upon the earth, and 
 
100 THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 
 
 then re-peopled the world with a race quite as bad as 
 the first. I believe that once there were crowded into 
 an ark, pairs and septules of all the species of animals 
 on the globe, with food for the same for more than a 
 year. I believe that God selected one nation from all 
 others, and made it his special favorite. I believe that 
 he commissioned and commanded said nation to exter- 
 minate by the sword all the nations whose territory 
 they wished to occupy or pass through. I believe that 
 he ordered mothers and their new born babes to be 
 butchered. I believe that he authorized Jewish soldiers 
 to kill fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, and 
 then to force the virgin daughters to marry the murder- 
 ers of their relatives (Numbers, xxxi). I believe that 
 God once killed more than 50,000 Israelites for looking 
 into an old ark. I believe that he destroyed 70,000 Is- 
 raelites, because a king took a census of his peoi>le. 
 beLeve God put a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's 
 prophets and sent them out on a lying mission. I be- 
 lieve that he commanded the destruction of the Amal- 
 ekites for what their ancestors had done four hundred 
 years previously. I believe that God is a being of in- 
 finite perfection, and yet is pleased and displeased every 
 day. I believe he is unchangeable and yet a "prayer- 
 answering God." I believe he has infinite power and 
 desires all men to be saved, yet nearly all men will be 
 damned. I believe that he is the author of all things, 
 and " doeth all things well," and yet I think it is right 
 to kill the bugs, insects, and vermin that destroy my 
 grain, my trees and plants, or annoy myself. I believe 
 it is sinful and dangerous not to believe these things. 
 "He that believes and is baptized" I believe, "shall be 
 saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." "lie 
 that doubteth is damned already." "I believe, O Lord 
 
THE UNDERWOOD -MAEPLES DEBATE. 101 
 
 help thou my unbelief." Is there anything more mon- 
 strous, absurd or ridiculous than this, the whole of 
 which is in the Bible ? 
 
 Christianity is based upon a dream, upon the murder 
 of an innocent person who died to save men who are 
 criminals, and I sometimes call it the bankrupt scheme 
 of salvation. It is sustained by miracles which have no 
 evidence, which have no support in history. We are 
 called bad men because we will not make Christ a scape- 
 goat for our sins. We say if we are wrong, let us bear 
 our wrongs ourselves, and not heap them upon the 
 shoulders of an innocent person. I have as great a 
 veneration for the Bible as I have for the Vedas ; but 
 when you c aim for the one that which you do not claim 
 for the other — inspiration and divine origin — I differ 
 from you. All these ideas originated in different coun- 
 tries, just the same as the other religions did. Max 
 Mtiller gives us an account of how the Canon originated 
 in the Hindoo religion, and shows us how it fostered a 
 number of sects the same as Christianity did. I think 
 that my friend's position has not been established, and 
 there has been general evidence furnished by the failure 
 of the prophecies and other sources that the Bible is of 
 human origin and therefore stands on a par with other 
 works in that respect. Here is a prophecy in the Bible 
 that has never been fulfilled. The second coming of 
 Christ. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians, i. 17, "Then w r e 
 which are alive and remain shall be caught up together 
 with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." 
 The early Christians believed that the end of the world 
 was at hand, but the revolution of centuries has shown 
 the fallacy of the notion. To go back and twist the 
 language out of its natural meaning, and say that it 
 does not mean what it says, is to take a liberty with 
 
102 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 the book that would not be allowed in anything else. 
 I do not ascribe dishonesty to my friend or to parties, 
 but they have a peculiar way of acting that would not 
 be consistent with fairness and honesty in any other 
 profession. We have the prophecies given by a woman 
 years ago, several of which have come true. The verses 
 are positively known to have existed a number of years 
 before many of the events in it transpired. It is called 
 Mother Shipton's prophecy: 
 
 Carriages without horses shall go. 
 
 And accidents fill the world with woe; 
 
 Around the world thought shall fly 
 
 In the twinkling of an eye; 
 
 Water shall yet more wonders do, 
 
 Now strange, but yet they shall be true; 
 
 The world upside down shall be, 
 
 And gold be found at the root of a tree- 
 
 Through the hills man shall ride, 
 
 And horse nor ass be at his side; 
 
 Under water men shall walk, 
 
 Shall ride, shall sleep, shall talk; 
 
 In the air shall men be seen 
 
 In white, in blue, in green; 
 
 Iron in the water shall float 
 
 As easy as a wooden boat; 
 
 Gold shall be found and shown 
 
 In land that's now not known; 
 
 Fire and water shall wonders do; 
 
 England shall at last admit a Jew; 
 
 The end of the world shall come 
 
 In eighteen hundred and eighty-one. 
 
 I will not answer for the last of it. This, if found in 
 the Bible, would be appealed to in proof of its divine 
 origin. Berkeley, in his poem, predicted that "Westward 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 103 
 
 the course of empire takes its way." We have a num- 
 her of prophecies, but they are all ignored. But this 
 gentleman rushes to the Bible and brings up a story 
 about a serpent as a wonderful prediction in regard to 
 Jesus Christ! 
 
 Me. Makples. 
 
 Just at the outset, will my opponent permit me to 
 ask him for the name of the person who uttered the 
 prophecy which he gives ? 
 
 Mr. Underwood — Mother Shipton. 
 
 In my country there was a story of that kind which 
 passed under the name of Nixon, and now it has got to 
 Mother Shipton. First, the genealogy of Christ. My 
 opponent has endeavored to make out that Mary was 
 not the daughter of Heli, but he does not say whose 
 daughter she was, and consequently I still maintain 
 that Mary was in point of fact the daughter of Heli, and 
 consequently of the seed of David. He says that she 
 was the cousin of Elizabeth, but does he not know that 
 they apply that term sometimes to friends. That is the 
 abstract meaning of the word cousin. He will have yet 
 to prove that the term cousin there refers to a relative 
 and not to a neighbor or friend. I have been exceed- 
 ingly struck during this debate, and have noticed that 
 my friend's logic is rather lame, it limps; and is lame 
 in this sense: While he seems to have some kind of evi- 
 dence in aid of the position he takes, he always takes 
 that possessing a minority of evidence instead of a 
 majority. The terms of the debate were to be that he 
 was to get a preponderance of evidence, or fail. The 
 whole thing*is a failure, and logic knocks it down. Well 
 now, what is the fact? I will show you. We have this 
 
104 THE UNDERWOOD -M1KPLE3 DEBATE. 
 
 statement here, and brought forward no less than twenty- 
 persons to establish this statement. My friend brought 
 two. Would you say that two form a majority? I 
 would not expect that a reasonable people and persons 
 of intellect would be gulled in that way. Our agree- 
 ment requires a preponderance of evidence, and we re- 
 ject the whole as no proof. The Messianic prophecies. 
 Now, on that subject, my friend is a very good scriptu- 
 rian, but to-night he was not very clever in getting out 
 his passages. We ought to sympathize with our friend 
 in his difficulties, and yet at the same time I thought 
 that as ho was going on and trying to explain about the 
 subject, and the passage in Isaiah, I thought that if he 
 could bring it out as it is, what grand truths he would 
 represent. There are circumstances which in their ful- 
 fillment in the Lord Jesus Christ have afforded consola- 
 tion to millions in the past and present, and will con- 
 tinue to do so in the future. My opponent stated that 
 Moses commenced his public life by committing a mur- 
 der. Is there a Bible reader here who believes that 
 Moses commenced his public lire by committing a mur- 
 der, or killing the Egyptian? It was just human im- 
 pulse that led him on, and he went astray — it was just 
 like something that took place in Sheffield once. I was 
 preaching out doors and a man said to me: "If you 
 have a church, why not preach in your church?" I 
 replied that as an Englishman, I had a right to preach 
 anywhere, as long as the owner did not object. This 
 man still continued to interrupt me, when another per- 
 son in the audience, in a rough, zealous way, said: "If 
 you tlo not stop, I will black your eyes." That was the 
 spirit of Moses. Moses commenced the great life when 
 called by God some time after the periocf referred to. 
 My friend said that the teachings of Buddha could never 
 
THE UNDERWOOD -MARPLES DEBATE. 105 
 
 have been obtained from Christ, because Buddha existed 
 hundreds of years before Christ. I would remark that 
 Max Muller is a great linguist, and en the subject of 
 language is the greatest authority in the world, and I 
 saw some time ago that he had published a work on 
 comparative language, which I felt would be a very use- 
 ful and valuable work; but when I saw some time since 
 that he had also taken up the subject of comparative 
 religion, I felt that he would make just as great a mess 
 upon that subject as Profs. Huxley and Tyndall had. 
 When he touches that subject he touches something 
 upon which he knows comparatively nothing. Professor 
 Max Muller as an authority on language is powerful 
 and authentic, but on the subject of religion is no au- 
 thority at all. In opposition to his statement I make 
 this statement, that anything and everything that is 
 good in all the Pagan religions has been obtained from 
 the revelation of God in the Bible. It was easily ob- 
 tained from the promise of the seed of the woman, up 
 to those ideas of a later date, and their claiming to have 
 originated them is simply an illustration of the fallen 
 state of humanity, which would turn the truth of God 
 into a lie. The first proposition discussed in this debate 
 was that "Atheism, Materialism, and Modern Skepti- 
 cism are illogical and contrary to reason," and I believe 
 that I most thoroughly established my position, what- 
 ever my opponent may say. The second proposition was, 
 "That the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, contains evidence beyond other books of its 
 divine origin," and I leave it to you whether I have not 
 established that also. I will ju?t say that when I saw 
 the communication of my respected friend, Mr. Allen 
 Pringle, in the National newspaper, and the name of the 
 Rev. John C.irroll, I ma le inquiries as to where I could 
 
106 THE UNDERWOOD - MAEPLES DEBATE. 
 
 get their addresses, and said that I was disposed to 
 challenge Mr. Pringle to debate on the subjects which 
 I had seen him defend in those communications. And 
 now, my friends, my time has expired, and I must con- 
 clude, believing I have done my best as the instrument 
 in God's hand to defend this book, which has withstood 
 far more vigorous assaults than received in this debate, 
 and will yet withstand them. I reverence this book as 
 containing a divine revelation of God's will to us, and 
 love to read and study it, for 
 
 " A glory gilds the sacred pags, 
 Majestic like the sun; 
 It gives a light to every age — 
 It gives, but borrows none. 
 
 The hand that gave it still supplies 
 
 The gracious light and heat; 
 Its truths upon the nations rise — 
 
 They rise, but never set. 
 
 Then, clasping the book to my heart, I would exclaim: 
 
 Should all the forms that men devise, 
 Assault this book with treacherous art, 
 
 I'd call them vanity and lies, 
 And bind the Bible to my heart." 
 
 Mr. Underwood. 
 
 Instead of taking advantage of my opponent, as he 
 anticipated, perhaps, from the practice. of some debators, 
 that I would, I shall now content myself with review- 
 ing the last statements he has offered. I trust I am 
 enough of a gentleman not to take unfair advantage of 
 an opponent, especially in a speech that is to close the 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MAKPLES DEBATE. 107 
 
 debate, and when I have had so honorable and courte- 
 ous an opponent as Mr. Marples, whose treatment of 
 me has been in pleasant contrast to that I have receiv- 
 ed from a portion of the audience. 
 
 My opponent says that Mother Shipton's prophecy 
 has been ascribed to some other person. It is unimpor- 
 tant who wrole it. That it was written many years ago, 
 that it dates back a few centuries, probably even to the 
 days of Charles the First, is pretty evident. He says 
 that cousin means a friend. He does not venture to say 
 positively, nor is there any reason for saying it means 
 friend in the passage quoted. It means nothing of the 
 sort. A nice way to get out of the difficulty ! He tells 
 you about his logic. I admit he has talked the most 
 about logic, but I hope this debate will show that I 
 have observed its rules the most strictly. He seems to 
 mistake the technicalities of logic for its principles and 
 power. 
 
 He gave us a syllogism the first evening, but what 
 valuable application of it has he made in this debate ? 
 He says the debate must be decided by the preponder- 
 ance of evidence. But the most valuable evidence should 
 preponderate. Truth does not always lie on the side of 
 the majority. We value evidence by its quality, as much 
 as by its quantity — indeed, far more. He says he has 
 given you a number of prophecies in regard to Christ. 
 The fact is, he has read none, but told you there are 
 such and such prophecies in the Bible. I took up two 
 or three of the pretended prophecies and showed their 
 worthlessness, not because I was bound to by the laws 
 of debate, but to induce my opponent to go into an 
 examination of the Bible prophecies. He says I was 
 unfortunate the other evening as a Scripturian. I leave 
 the audience to judge whether I have not evinced as 
 
108 THE UNDEKWOOD-MARPLES DEBATE. 
 
 much readiness to quote passages from the Bible, on 
 the spur of th« moment, as he has with all his months 
 of preparation for this debate. I knew nothing until I 
 appeared on the platform, as to the particular position 
 he would take, or the particular arguments he would 
 use. I mentioned that Moses started out on his public 
 career by murdering the Egyptian. I make all due 
 allowance for his rash act, but I say that it is contrary 
 to Jesus, who said, " I say unto you, that ye resist not 
 evil " (Matt. v. 39). The prophecy was that another 
 should arise up like Moses, and I strove to demonstrate 
 the failure of that prophecy. Moses was a man of blood 
 and war, and Jesus is represented as the harbinger and 
 embodiment of peace. Moses carried war in all direc- 
 tions, and killed, by the command of God, women and 
 children. Christ is represented as revoking the old 
 Mosaic system. The one is not a type of the other. He 
 says that it was an impulse on the part of Moses. Quite 
 likely. He says that Max Muller is great on philology, 
 but not on comparative religion. I say that he is most 
 thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and it is by an 
 acquaintance with the language in which the Yedic 
 hymns were written that he is able to know what Buddha 
 did teach- In his "Science of Keligion " (p. 113) he says : 
 
 f? Between the language of Buddha and his disciples, and the 
 language of Christ and his apostles, there are strange coinci- 
 dences. Even some of the Buddhist legends and parables 
 sound as if taken from the New Testament, though we know 
 that many of them existed before the beginning of the Chris- 
 tian era." 
 
 My friend says that whatever is good in those relig- 
 ions is copied from the Bible. I would refer him to the 
 statement made by a Christian minister, the Rev. Georgo 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE. 109 
 
 B. Cocker, a member of the Methodist Church in the 
 United States, and Professor in the Michigan University, 
 who says that it is only the unskilful advocates of Chris- 
 tian iry who try to trace heathen philosophy and morals 
 to the Bible. We have proof that there are books five 
 thousand years old, or pieces of papyrus which contain 
 a morality as good as that found in the Pentateuch. In 
 fact the whole Jewish religion is but an outgrowth of 
 the Egyptian and other religions. The Bible does not 
 contain one single doctrine, one single precept that was 
 not in the other. He says we must have a preponder- 
 ance of evidence. Has he brought any? He has quoted 
 from some books, but what has he accomplished ? He 
 told you in one of his early speeches that he was going 
 to test the Bible by the moral rule, and I mentioned 
 the 31st chapter of Numbers, to entice him to do so. 
 He only glides over it, and never gives an opportunity 
 to demonstrate the failings of the Christian religion. 
 Then his concluding poetry is rather rhymatical and 
 beautiful, but there is no logic in it. I say that he has 
 brought forward no genuine evidence that the Bible is 
 more inspired than other bocks. The Bible has beau- 
 ties, we do not deny, but it has also defects. It has 
 more contradictions, perhaps, than any other book writ- 
 ten — more obscenity than most works. George Francis 
 Train was arrested for publishing in a tract the obscene 
 portions of the Bible. The fact that it contains these 
 indecencies is a proof that' it never came from a divine 
 source. These gentlemen say that it contains two ele- 
 ments, the divine and the human; but they are so 
 mixed up, you cannot tell where the one begins and the 
 other ends. It has no internal or external evidence of 
 its divine origin. He says that miracles form the basis 
 upon which its divine origin is based, and forgets to 
 
110 THE UNDERWOOD - MARPLES DEBATE, 
 
 bring forward even one of tbem to be examined. When 
 these miracles are subjected to criticism they disappear 
 at once. Albert Barnes says : 
 
 "A more material and important question still is, whether 
 there is any stronger evidence in favor of miracles, than there 
 is in favor of witchcraft, of sorcery, of the re-appearance of 
 the dead, of ghosts, of apparitions ? Is not the evidence in 
 favor of these as strong as any that can be adduced in favor of 
 miracles ? Have not these things been matters of universal be- 
 lief ? In what respect is the evidence in favor of the miracles 
 of the Bible stronger than that which can be adduced in favor 
 of witchcraft and sorcery ? Does- it differ in nature and de- 
 grees; and if it differs, is it not in favor of witchcraft and sor- 
 cery ? Has not the evidence in favor of the latter been derived 
 from as competent and reliable witnesses ? Has it not been 
 brought to us from those who saw the facts alleged ? Has it 
 not been subjected to a close scrutiny in courts of justice — to 
 cross-examination — to tortures ? Has it not convinced those 
 of highest legal attainments; those accustomed to sift testi- 
 mony; those who understood the true principles of evidence? 
 Has not the evidence in favor of witchcraft and sorcery had, 
 what the evidence in favor of miracles has not had, the advan- 
 tage of strict judicial investigation, and been subjected to trial, 
 where evidence should be, before court? of Jaw ? Have not 
 the most eminent judges in the most civilized and enlightened 
 courts of Europe and America admitted the force of such evi- 
 dence, and on the ground of it committed great numbers of in- 
 nocent persons to the gallows or to the stake ? 
 
 "I confess that of all the questions ever asked on the sub- 
 ject of miracles, this is the most perplexing and the mest diffi- 
 cult to answer. It is rather to be wondered at, that it Las not 
 been pressed with more zeal by those who deny the reality of 
 miracles, and that they have placed their objections so exten- 
 sively on other grounds " (pp. 1C1. 162). 
 
 Thus if we examine the Bible we discover that it con- 
 
THE UNDERWOOD - HARPLES DEBATE. m 
 
 tains a mixture of good and evil. If we should try to 
 practice some of its precepts, we would be arrested as 
 vagrants or" sent to a lunatic -asylum as lunatics. The 
 Old Testament teaches a barbarous morality. A God of 
 infinite love and purity could never have ordered little 
 children to be murdered upon the breasts of their moth- 
 ers, and the young virgins to be reserved for a fate to 
 which death would be preferable* 
 
WORLD'S SAGES, INFIDELS AID THINKERS, 
 
 A. Crown-Octavo Volume of over 1100 pages. 
 
 Being the biographies and important doctrines of the mostdistiu- 
 g lished Teachers, Philosophers, Reformers, Innovators, Founders 
 of New Schools of Thought and Religion, Disbelievers in current 
 Theology, and the deepest Thinkers and most active Humanitarians 
 of the world, from Menu down through the following three thousand 
 years to our own time. It is believed that the work fills a want long 
 fel", and adds materially to (he general information touching the 
 characters treated, affording a succinct and correct account of the 
 be.^t and truest persons who have lived in the world, and concerning 
 whom large numbers of volumes would have to bi consulted to 
 de;ive this information: and all in a convenient and economical 
 form. It is divided into four parts. Pa; t oat- From Menu to Christ. 
 Part two-*-From Christ to Thomas Paine. Part three— From Taomas 
 Paine to Lord Amberley. Part four— Living Characters. To all of 
 whom the world owes much for the progress it has made in the evo- 
 lution of Thought, Truth, and Reason. 
 
 By D. M. BENNETT, Editor of The Truth Seeker. 
 
 With a steel -plate engraving of the author. 
 
 Among the three hundred, and more, characters treated in 
 the work are Christna, Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lycurgus. 
 Solon, Pythagoras, Democritus. Socrates, Piato, Aristotle, Carneades- 
 Cicero, Apollonius, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcos Aurelius, Porphyry' 
 Proclus, Mohammed. Averroes, Copernicus, Roger Bac n, Bruno, 
 Yanini, Lord Bacon. Shakspere, Galileo. Spinoza. Bolingbroke, Vol- 
 taire, Benjamin Franklin, Buffon, Kant, D'Holbaeh. George Wash- 
 ington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Goethe, Talleyrand, Yol- 
 ney.Dr. Gall, Mary Wollstonecraft.Thorild.Fiehte, Humboldt, Hegel, 
 Godfrey Higgins, Fourier, George Combe, Shelley, Frances Wright, 
 Thomas Buckle. Charles Lyell, Dr. Inman, Lord Amberley, Darwin, 
 Spencer, T ndall, Huxley, Wallace, Crookes, Haeckel, Buechner, 
 Max Muller, Prof. Draper, John Fiske, Bradlaugh, and many others. 
 
 Cloth, good binding, . - . . . . $3.00 
 
 Arabesque, colored leather, red burnished edges, . 4.00 
 Morocco, gilt edges, worked head-band, . . . 4.30 
 
 Sent, post-paid, by mail, on receipt of price, Published by 
 
 I). M. BEXXETT, 
 
 Liberal and Scientific Publishing House, 
 111 Eighth Street, New York, 
 
CHAMPIONS OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Biographical Sketches of Eminent Christians. 
 
 A COMPANION BOOK OB COUNTEBPABT TO " THE WOBLD'S 
 SAGES, INFIDELS AND THINKEBS. 
 
 Will be issued early in 1877. Containing a correct history of such 
 distinguished ornaments ot the Church as Sr. Paul, Eusebius, Con- 
 stan ine, St. Cyril. Clovis. Pepin, Charlemagne, Irene, Pope Joan. 
 John XII., John Xlir., Alexander I.. Alexander III.. Inuocent III. 
 Boniface Vill,. Benedict XII., John XXlL.John XX11L, Alexander 
 VI., and some fifty o. hers of the Popes; Godfrey of Bouillon. Guy 
 Lusi«nan. Simon Montfort.St. Dominic, Peter the Cruel, Sigismund, 
 L >uis XI. of F.ance, Loyola. Ojeda, Torque nada. Lutaer, Calvin, 
 Munzftr, Ferdinand and Isabel'a. C >rtez, Pizarro. Henry VIII. of 
 England, B;o 'dy Mary, Alva. Cain me r. Elizabeth, Charles IX. of 
 France, Catherine de Medici, Philip II. of Spain, Guy Fawk s. Oliver 
 Cromwell, Jeffrey, Charles II., Lou's XIV. of France, John Graham, 
 (Claverhruise), James II.. Parris, Cotton Matter, Lphraira K. Avery. 
 Bishop Onderdonk, L. D, Huston. Henry Ward Beeeher, Anthony 
 Comstock. and hosts of others of tue same fra ernity. including wily, 
 desiguiug, libidinous, lecherous fathers, bUhops, pries-.s ana pastors 
 for many •enturies. 
 
 A full history is given of the bloody wars of Christianity, which 
 have been inhumanly wnged to spread its rule. The wars of the 
 Crusades; the ten ible o Derations for hundreds of years of the Holy 
 Inquisition with its auto-da-fe; the merciless pers«cu ions and 
 exterminations of the Vaudois, the Albigense*. the Waldonses, the 
 Moors audJewsof Spain, the Huguenots of France, the P<ote*>tant 
 Netheilan i^rs. the Independents. Quakers and Dissenters of E ig- 
 land; the Quakers and witches of New England. It contains a his- 
 tory of Jesuiiism for three centuries; of the granting and selling 
 of indulgences bythe Church, to commit all kinds of crimes and 
 immoralities, as well as culpable defections of recent date. The bio- 
 graphical portion is pr^eed^d by a historical examination into the 
 authenticity of ancient Jewish History, showing that the parr of it 
 anterior to the Babvloni^h captivity, is wholly unauthentic and 
 rny:hical; of Primitive Christianity— its origin, its semblance to 
 pre-e i-tent systems of religion, its adoption of Pagan rites, its 
 political growth and influence. The whole based upon Christian 
 authorities. 
 
 BY D. M. BENNETT, 
 
 Editor of " The Truth Seeker." 
 
 Ono thousand pages or more, making a volume of the size and 
 
 style of " The World's Sages, Infidels, and Thinkers." 
 
 In cloth 3 00 
 
 Arabesque, colored leather and red burnished edges, 4 00 
 
 Morocco, gilt edges and worked head-bands, . . 4 50 
 
 Post-paid, by mail. Those wishing a copy of this volume as soon 
 
 as issued, will please notify the author and publisher at an early 
 
 date. 
 
 D M. BENNETT, 
 
 Liberal and Scientific Publishing House, 
 
 Science Hall. 141 Eighth St., New York. 
 
Lord Amberley's Great Work. 
 
 ANALYSIS S RELIGIOUS BELIEF 
 
 BY VISCOUNT AMBERLEY, 
 
 Son of Lord John Russell, of England. 
 
 Soon to be Reproduced frcm tlie London Edition. 
 
 This remarkable work has attracted very unusual attention in 
 England. It is the work of a brilliant young lord of Christian 
 parents, and who was brought up in tho Christian faith, and who 
 upon investigation and reflection became a decided unbeliever, tho 
 result of which is the elaborate work here named, and which took 
 him several years to prepare. While ho was writing the work his 
 amiable wife was taken away by the hand of death, and to her ho 
 dedicated the forthcoming volumes. Soon after the work was com- 
 pleted, and before it came from the hands of the publisher, Lord 
 Amberley himself closed his eyes in death. He died serenely, with 
 tho full conviction of tho truthfulness of the work he had written. 
 His mother, Countess Russell, although a Christian, was so devoted 
 to her deceased son that she caused his work to be completed, and in 
 her introduction to the book she spoke as follows:— 
 
 " Ere the pages now given to the public had left the press, tho hand 
 that had written them was cold, the neart— >f which few could know 
 the loving depth— had ceased to baa 1 ". The far-ranging raiad was 
 forever still, the fervent spirit at rest. Lit this be remembered by 
 those who read, and add solemnity to the solemn purpose of tho 
 book. May those who fl-id in it their m >st cherished beliefs ques- 
 tioned or condemned, their surest consolation set at nought, lernem- 
 ber that ho had not shrank from pain andaaguish to himself, as one 
 by one he parted wih portions of tnat faiih which, in boyhood and 
 early youth, had been them aaspriog of his life." .... 
 
 The fact that the powerful friends of Lord John Russell, and 
 notably the Duke of Bedford, made many exertions to arrest the pub- 
 lication of Lord Ambedey's work, caused still greater interest in 
 the remarkable book, and this interest has extended to this country. 
 There has been much enquiry for it. 
 
 The undersigned will bring it out as soon as possible. Tho Eng- 
 lish edition is issued in two octavo volumes, containing over l.ooo 
 pages, and sells at $15.00, in cloth. The undersigned will bring it 
 out, unabridged, in one volume of about 1,000 pages, at the very low 
 price of $3.00 in cloth ; $4.00 in colored leather, red burnished edges ; 
 $4.50 in Morocco, gilt edges, etc. 
 
 Those wishing a copy will please notify the publisher, 
 
 D. M. BENNETT, 
 Science Hall, 141 Eighth St., 
 
 New York. 
 
"The Heathens of the Heath" 
 
 A ROMANCE. 
 
 by william McDonnell, 
 
 ATJTHOB OF "EXETEB HALL," ETC. 
 
 This Work is rich in romantic and pathetic incidents and 
 exhibits, with an overwhelming array of facts, the 
 
 TERRIBLE ATROCITIES 
 
 committed by the Church. It shows that the purest morality exists 
 without the Bible, and that many of the heathen philosopher* were 
 lovers of virtue. 
 
 Shocking instances are given of the 
 
 DEPRAVITY OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS, 
 
 and of the prevailing immorality among Christian people. Th« 
 folly of "Christian Missions" is fully portrayed. 
 
 HYPOCRISY AND BIGOTRY 
 
 are clearly exposed, and the road to virtue and true happiness 
 plainly marked out. 
 
 A MOST PLEASING ROMANCE 
 
 is woven into the work in which much chance is afforded for flne 
 descriptions and beautiful sentiments, which the autnor well knows 
 how to give utterance to. 
 
 " On the whole it is the work of a master hand— a work of unaf- 
 fected beauty and the deepest interest." 
 
 " One of the most valuable features of the Work is that its posi- 
 tions are all proved. . . Every thinking, enquiring rr.ind should 
 peruse it. 
 
 PRICE, in paper, $1.00 
 
 " in cloth, 1.50 
 
 Sent postpaid on receipt of price. 
 
 D. M. BENNETT, Publisher, 
 
Sow the Good Seed? 
 
 LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE! 
 
 CIRCULATE TRUTHFUL DOCUMENTS! PASS 
 
 AROUND THE TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS! 
 
 and other Liberal Publications to do missionary work, and to help 
 in opening THE EYES OF THE BLIND! 
 
 THE TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS 
 
 AND 
 
 TRUTH SEEKER LEAFLETS 
 
 are furnished at prices very low, so that Societies and generous 
 individuals can buy them for gratuitous distribution. 
 
 LARGE DISCOUNTS 
 
 TO THOSE WHO PURCHASE BY THE QUANTITY. See price list. 
 
 These Tracts contain from four to seventy-five pages. The 
 prices run from one cent to ten cents. Discount ten per cent, on 
 lots of one dollar's worth, and forty per cent off on five dollars' 
 worth. The Leaflets are two pages each of terse, trenchant reading 
 matter, without redundancy, at four cents per dozen; twenty-five 
 cents per hundred ; two dollars per thousand. Sent by mail, post- 
 age paid. 
 
 Probably a few dollars can be expended for spreading TRUTH 
 and LIGHT in no way so effectually as in dispensing broadcast 
 
 THE TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS AND LEAFLETS. 
 
 Let Liberals exercise liberality enough to give away thousands 
 and ten of thousands of these little evangels. They are well design- 
 ed to do missionary work and in spreading the glad tidings of truth. 
 If a proper enthusiasm is enkindled in the breasts of the lovers of 
 Freethought and Mental Liberty, much good can be accomplished. 
 
 Let friends invest $1, $2, $5, or $10 in this way, and see how much 
 good it will do. "We certainly ought, to be as zealous in promulgating 
 truth as our adversaries are in disseminating error. 
 
 Published by 
 
 D. M. BENNETT, 
 
TRUTH SEEKER TRACTS, 
 
 [REVISED LIST.] 
 
 No. Cts. 
 
 1. Discussion on Prayer, etc. D. M. Bennett and two Clergy- 
 
 men, v 8 
 
 2. Oration on the Gods. B. G. Ingersoll. 10 
 
 3. Thomas Paine. B. G. Ingersoll. 5 
 
 4. Arraignment of the Church, or Individuality, B. G. In- 
 
 gersoll. 5 
 
 5. Heretics and Heresies. B. G. Ingersoll. 5 
 
 6. Humboldt. B. G. Ingersoll. 5 
 
 7. The Story of Creation. D. M. Bennett. 5 
 
 8. The Old Snake Story. " 8 
 
 9. The Story of the Flood. " 8 
 
 10. Tae Plagues of Esypt. " 2 
 
 11. Koran. Datham. and Abiram. D. M. Bennett. 2 
 
 12. Balaam and his Ass. D. M. Bennett. 2 
 
 13. Arraignment of Priestcraft. D. M. Bennett. 8 
 
 14. Old Abe and Little Ike. John Syphers. 3 
 
 15. Come to Dinner. " 2 
 
 16. log Horn Documents. 2 
 
 17. The Devil Still Ahead. " 2 
 
 18. Slipped up Again. " 2 
 
 19. Joshua Stopping the Sun and Moon. D. M. Bennett 2 
 
 20. Samson and his Exploits. D. M. Bennett. 2 
 
 21. The Great Wrestling Match. " 2 
 
 22. Discussion with Elder Shelton. " 10 
 
 23. Beply to Elder Shelton's Fourth Letter. D. M. Bennett 3 
 
 24. Christians at Work. Wm. McDonnell. 6 
 
 25. Discussion with Geo. Snode. D. M. Bennett. 3 
 
 26. Underwood's Prayer. 1 
 
 27. Honest Quesi ions and Honest Answers. Bennett 5 
 
 28. Alessandro -li Cagliostro. Chas. Sotheran. 10 
 
 29. Paine Hall Dedication Address. B. F. Underwood. 5 
 
 30. Woman's Bights and Man's Wrongs. John Syphers. 2 
 
 31. Gods and God-houses. John SyDhers. 2 
 
 32. The Gods of Superstition, and the God of the Universe. 
 
 D. M. Bennett. 8 
 
 33. What has Christianity Done? S. H. Preston. 2 
 31. Tribute to Thomas Paine. S. H. Preston. 2 
 35. Moving the Ark. D. M. Bennett. 2 
 3G. Bennett's Prayer to the Devil. 2 
 
 37. A Short Sermon, No. l. Bov. Theologicus.D.D. 2 
 
 38. Christianity not a Moral System. X. Y. Z. 2 
 
 39. The True Saint. S.P.Putnam. 1 
 
 40. The Bible of Nature us. The Bible of Men. Syphers. 2 
 *'. Our Ecclesiastical Gentry. D. M. Bennett. 
 
 42. Elijah the Tishbite. D. M. Bennett. 4 
 
 43. Christianity a Borrowed System. D. M. Bonnett, 8 
 
 44. Design Argument Befuted. B. F. Underwood. 8 
 
 45. Elisha the Prophet. D. M. Bonnett. 8 
 
 46. Did Jesus Really Exist? D. M. Bennett. 2 
 
 47. Cruelty and Credulity of the Human Baco. Dr. D. Arter. 8 
 
48. Freethought in the West. G. L. Henderson. 6 
 
 49. Sensible Conclusions. E. E, Guild. 5 
 
 50. Jonah and the Big Fish. D. M. Bennett. 3 
 61. Sixteen Truth S-eker Leaflets. No. 1. 5 
 
 52. Marples-Underwood Debate. B. F. Underwood. 3 
 
 53. Questions for Bible Worshipers. B. F. Underwood. 2 
 
 54. An Open Letter to Jesus Christ. D. M. Bennett. 5 
 
 55. Bible God Disproved by Nature. W.E.Coleman. 8 
 
 56. Bible Contradictions. 1 
 
 57. Jesus Not a Perfect Character. B. F. Underwood. 2 
 
 58. Prophecies. B. F. Underwood. 2 
 
 59. Bible Prophecies Concerning Babylon. Underwood. 2 
 
 60. Ezekiel's Prophecies Concerning Tyre. Underwood. 2 
 
 61. History of the Devil. Isaac Paden. 6 
 
 62. The Jews and their God. Isaac Paden. 10 
 
 63. The Devil's Due-Bills. JohnSyphers. 3 
 
 64. The Ills We Endure— their Cause and Cure. Bennett. 5 
 
 65. Short Sermon No. 2. Rev. Theologicus. D.D. 2 
 56. God Idea in History. Hugh Byron Brown. 5 
 87. Sixteen Truth Seeker Leaflets, No. 2. 5 
 
 68. Ruth's Idea of Heaven and Mine. Susan H. Wixon, 2 
 
 69. Missionaries. Mrs. E. D. Slenker. 2 
 
 70. Vicarious Atonement, Dr. J. S. Lyon. 3 
 
 71. Paine's Anniversary. C. A. Codman. 3 
 
 72. Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. D. M. Bennett. 2 
 
 73. Foundations. John Syphers. 3 
 
 74. Daniel in the Lions' Den. D. M. Bennett. 2 
 
 75. An Hour with the Devil. D. M. Bennett. 10 
 
 76. Reply to Erastus F. Brown, Bennett. 5 
 
 77. The Fear of Death. " 9 
 
 78. Chriotmas and Christianity. " 5 
 
 79. The' Relationship of Jesus. Jehovah, and the "Virgin Mary 2 
 
 80. Address on Paine's 139th Birthday. Bennett. 8 
 
 81. Hereafter ; or. The Half-Wav House. John Syphers. 2 
 
 82. Christian Courtesy, Bennett. 2 
 
 83. Revivaiism Examined. A.G.Humphrey. 5 
 8i. Moody's Sermon on Hell. Rev. J. P. Hopps, London. 2 
 
 85. Matter, Motion, Life, and Mind. Bennett. 10 
 
 86. An Enquiry about God's Sons. Bennett. 2 
 
 87. Free' nought. Judged by its Fruits. B. F. Underwood. 1 
 83. David, God's Peculiar Favorite. Mrs. E. D, Slenker. 3 
 89 LDgic of Prayer. Charles Stephenson. 3 
 
 90. Bibio- -Mania. Otter Cordate-. 2 
 
 91. Our Ideas of God. B. F. Underwood. 1 
 
 92. The Bible; Is it Divinely Inspired? Dr. D. Arter. 3 
 
 93. Obtaining Pardon for Sins. Hudson Tuttle, ' 1 
 
 94. The New Raven. Will Cooper. 5 
 
 95. Jesus Christ, Bennett. 10 
 93. Ichabod Crane Papers. 10 
 97. Special Providences. W. S. Bell. 2 
 93. Snakes. Mrs. E. D. Slenker. 2 
 99. D.j the Works of Nature Prove a Creator ? Sciota. 3 
 100 The Old and the Now. R. G. Ingersoll. 5 
 
 Also othcra, and a Last of TEN SCIENTIFIC TRACTS. 
 
THE TRUTH SEEKER, 
 
 A Weekly Journal of Progress and Eeform ; 
 
 DEVOTED TO 
 
 SCIENCE, MORALS, FREETHOUGHT AND 
 HUMAN HAPPINESS. 
 
 D. M. BENNETT, Editor and Publisher. 
 
 Believing there is nothing in the world so valuable as Truth, 
 The Truth Seeker is earnest and constant in search of it, and hes- 
 itates not to fearlessly avow its honest convictions It is outsp >ken 
 in its condemnation of the errors and fallacies of the past, and in 
 holding up in the light of the present era the theological dogmas and 
 the blinding creeds of pagan superstition which had their origin 
 thousands of years ago in the primitive ages of our race. 
 
 The Truth Seeker was started as an eight-pag - Monthly in 
 Paris, 111., in September. 1873. Pour numbers were issued in that 
 locality, when it was decided to remove it to New York, and to double 
 its number of pages. With the beginning of its secondvolume.it 
 became a Semi-Monthly, and the second volume was continued six- 
 teen months, to the close of 1875, when it became a Weekly, steadily 
 growing and increasing in popularity with its readers from its 
 infancy. It is believed The Truth Seeker is destined to become the 
 recognized champion and mouth-piece of the rapidly-growing Lib- 
 eral and progressive element of the country. 
 
 Every lover of Truth: every person favorable to the feirless 
 expression of honest opinions; every individual who wishes to 
 spread broadcast the glad tidings of Right and Reason ; every friend 
 of mental liberty who desires that sectarianism superstition, big- 
 otry and error shall retire to the rear should subscribe for the 
 valiant Truth Seeker, and induce as many others to do so as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 The friends of truth and progress can hardly be said to have dis- 
 charged their full duty who do not lena their support to this merito- 
 rious publication. 
 
 In No. I. Vol. III., is commence! as a serial, that rich, radical 
 romance, The Outcast, by the late Winwood Reade. one of the ablest 
 and most interesting writers this century has produced. Professor 
 Richard A. Proctor's popular course of Lectures on Astronomy, as 
 delivered in Steinway Hall, New York, reported expressly for The 
 Truth Seeker, will be commenced in the same number. As the 
 English edition of The Outcast sells at $2.00. and as Proctor's course 
 of Lectures cost $3.00, and as these together form but a small portion 
 of the valuable reading matter given for $2.00, the reader can easily 
 perceive how reasonable The Truth Seeker is in price. 
 
 Its very moderate terms place it wiihin the reach of all. It is 
 sent, post-paid, 
 
 Twelve Months for $2 00 
 
 Six Months for ...... 1 00 
 
 Three Months for 50 
 
 Sample copies sent upon application. 
 
 The names of all Liberal- minded people are solicited, who would 
 be likely to appreciate a periodical of this character. 
 
 Reader, please decide at once to aid your name to the fortunate 
 thousands who are on The Truth Seeker list. If not already 
 ordered, send for it for either twelve or si.v. or at least three 
 months,, Address 
 
 D. M. BENNETT, Publisher, 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 1 1 1 Thomson Perk Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724) 77 
 
n. 
 
 11 IT 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 774 001 1 
 
 ' ! ■ . 
 
 11 
 
 j 111 J 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 ill 
 
 y 
 
 !lifi' 
 
 5 1 • 
 
 '! 1 
 1 •' 
 
 i 
 
 | 1 j 
 
 1 
 
 ml 
 
 1 
 
 S ! 'i ! 
 
 III \ ! 
 jj! 1W