You admitted to two of our young men who called on you a few days ago, that you had never read anything about us except from our enemies. Solomon says he that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not wise. How Solomon-like you are. You felt very badly because I did not break the law, so you could prosecute me for teaching polygamy, didn't you? You remind me of a booby, who, in playing with his big brother, cried out, "Ma, he won't let me hit him." Solomon and David both sinned, we admit, but you took special pains not to tell the audience "when" they transgressed. But then this was necessary in order to keep your "clay brick" logic from going to pieces. Does the fact that God has a body, parts and passions, debar Him from being an intelligent being, omnipresent, etc.? The glory of God is intelligence, and He, being a real live God, and not a nonentity, would His materiality prohibit Him from controlling the intelligences for the just governing of His children and the universe? Let us look at your syllogism. "A brick is made of clay, a man is made of clay, therefore a man is a brick." Now let us construct one from the Bible, taking care to have our premises correct. "All sons are in the image of their fathers, Jesus was a Son, therefore He was in the 'express' image of His Father." Now, Brother Brougher, what was the image of His Father? Jesus had a body of flesh and bones--can you explain or ridicule it away? If the words "God is a spirit" mean that He has neither body, parts or passions, then are we to dispense with our body, parts and passions in order to worship Him in "spirit" and in truth? When you find some quotation in the Bible that suits your idea, you seem to be willing to take the words literally. If the symbolical or figurative parts of the Bible are so plain, why is there such a wide difference of opinion, among the learned even, as to its teachings? I remember that Peter declared that "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." I do not mention this by way of belittling your great knowledge of interpretation and for calling me a fool for taking the book literally, but speak of it that the public might know how ignorant and how very little Peter really knew about how to read the Bible.