AN INFIDEL LECTURE by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 16, 1880

AN INFIDEL LECTURE.

By Editor

A. A. Phelps, A. M., editor of the Bible Banner, in his issue of Dec. 2, gives an interesting notice of a lecture to which he listened about a year ago, in Little Rock, Ark. The lecture was delivered by one B. F. Underwood, who, he states, "is on essentially the same track with Robert G. Ingersoll. He is a man of fine abilities and pleasing address, saying many good things which are well calculated to conceal the poison that lurks in his system. This effect is still further secured by the gleams of pleasantry and sallies of wit with which his periods are frequently pointed. It is often the case that a smiling sophism, in a promiscuous crowd, outweighs the most solid argument.

"We heard his first lecture. The meeting was not opened by singing, prayer, or reading of the Scriptures, but by an opera band, whose music was applauded by clapping hands and stamping feet. He announced as his subject, the following question: 'What has Liberalism to offer in the place of Christianity?'

"His first effort was to exhibit the false principles and absurdities of the Bible. Some of his statements were such as to suggest the thought that he was not as familiar with that Book as a man ought to be who attempts to criticize it."

Mr. Phelps here notices a few of his sample statements, and then concludes his article as follows:—

"Concerning the existence of God, he said: 'Something exists, and has existed from eternity. Theology tells us what kind of a being God is; Liberalism says we cannot know him. The idea of a personal God of infinite intelligence, is impossible. The universe always existed and always will, essentially as it is. Matter being eternal, there was no need of a God.'

"It seems strange that people should consider personality incompatible with intelligence. We affirm, on the contrary, that an impersonal God could not possess a particle of intelligence. The very fact of intelligence implies personality. Suppose we decide that God is an impersonal, etherial, all-prevading element, like electricity. Could he see, hear, or understand? Would it be of any possible use to pray to such a God? While we contend that intelligence implies personality, we do not say that God must be grossly material like ourselves—much less that he must be personally present in every part of the universe in order to know all the existing facts. We believe the Bible gives us the true philosophy of Deity—a personal God, of infinite perfections, with a central residence in Heaven, whose Spirit pervades universal space.

"How, then, do you account for the origin of life?" To this question he replied as follows: 'The effect often greatly differs from the cause. Because there is pepper in the soup, it does not follow that there was pepper in the cook who made the soup. As another example, take water. It is composed of oxygen and hydrogen. Neither of these gases bears any resemblance to water; but when combined, their nature becomes radically changed. Why not admit that in the former fiery state of earth there were elements which, combined, might produce a living protoplasm—the incipient form of life? And so, may not the evolution theory be true after all? Possibly 400,000 or 500,000 years ago man was as much lower than he now is as we can well conceive. At all events, I would rather think that I came from a monkey or even a tadpole, and have developed and improved into my present position, than to think that I came down from a glorious being, called God, and have degenerated till I am fit only for hell.'

"Probably this is as well as any one can do who rejects the Bible account of man's creation, and undertakes to run this universe without an intelligent Head. He may multiply conjectures and manufacture fanciful theories, but he can never satisfactorily solve the problem of life, so long as he denies the intervention of a personal God. While we reject the Platonic theory of natural immortality, we are glad to believe that all life is a direct emanation from Jehovah; that 'the breath of life' originally breathed into man's nostrils constituted him a 'living soul;' and that, though man by rebellion rendered himself fit only for hell, yet a wonderful plan has been devised for his re-instatement to the divine favor, and for his elevation to an immortal life.

"But it is this very plan of redemption which Mr. Underwood particularly dislikes. He says that 'Christianity damns such men as Emerson, Huxley, and others, just because they do not believe, while it crowns an ignoramus who takes advantage of a great bankrupt scheme, by which he hopes to get rid of paying his debts. The idea that we can be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, is all nonsense!'

"Thus infidels scoff at the atonement, and set up the banner of independence. 'We do not believe in prayer,' said the lecturer, 'but we teach self-reliance. The Bible teaches that if a man has faith as a grain of mustard-seed he can remove a mountain; but experience teaches that if he has faith as a mountain he cannot remove a mustard-seed, without personal effort. All evils depend for their removal upon human effort, and cannot be averted by prayer.'

"So people think and talk who have never had any experience of another kind. But while prayerless infidels ridicule the idea of any changes being effected by petitioning Heaven, thousands bow in lowliness at Jehovah's feet, and bear away such blessings as they can find nowhere else. They have proved that prayer is a moral power in the universe. The church of God is full of the most positive demonstrations on this line.

"I have often thought," said Mr. Underwood, "that I would rather go to hell with such men as Tyndale, Huxley, and Spencer, than go to Heaven with the other class; for the presence of such men would make hell so congenial that the better class would try to emigrate from the other place. But so far as the popular idea of hell is concerned, I would rather the whole race should sink into oblivion, than that a portion of it should suffer eternal torment."

"With the last sentiment we fully concur. And we could but think that it was probably a perversion of Bible doctrine, rather than anything else found in the Bible itself, that had transformed the speaker into an open enemy of Christianity. Mistaking the theological hell of tradition for the Bible hell of destruction, he had become soured toward a system which was built, as he supposed, upon such outrageous cruelties. The dogma of eternal torment has probably made more infidels than any other sentiment that was ever promulgated. So long as Christian ministers couple such horrid cruelty with the Bible and its Author, they may expect thinking men of generous impulses to turn away from the whole system in skeptical disgust. Let us never be guilty of contributing to so damaging a result."