the word "flat," in the "Hebrew," did not mean quite flat, but just a little rounded; what would we think of their honesty? The first astronomer in- sisted that the sun and moon and stars revolved around this earth--that this little earth was the centre of the entire system. Suppose that the astronomers of to-day should insist that that astronomer was in- spired, and should try to explain, and say that he simply used the language of the common people, and when he stated that the sun and moon and stars re- volved around the earth, he merely meant that they "apparently revolved," and that the earth, in fact, turned over, would we consider them honest men? You might as well say that the first painter was in- spired, or that the first sculptor had the assistance of God, as to say that the first writer, or the first book- maker, was divinely inspired. It is more probable that the modern geologist is inspired than that the an- cient one was, because the modern geologist is nearer right. It is more probable that William Lloyd Gar- rison was inspired upon the question of slavery than that Moses was. It is more probable that the author of the Declaration of Independence spoke by divine authority than that the author of the Pentateuch did. In other words, if there can be any evidence of 342 "inspiration," it must lie in the fact of doing or saying the best possible thing that could have been done or said at that time or upon that subject. To make myself clear: The only possible evidence of "inspiration" would be perfection--a perfection ex- celling anything that man unaided had ever attained. An "inspired" book should excel all other books; an inspired statue should be the best in this world; an in- spired painting should be beyond all others. If the Bible has been improved in any particular, it was not, in that particular, ''inspired." If slavery is wrong, the Bible is not inspired. If polygamy is vile and loathsome, the Bible is not inspired. If wars of extermination are cruel and heartless, the Bible is not "inspired." If there is within that book a contradiction of any natural fact; if there is one ignorant falsehood, if there is one mistake, then it is not "inspired." I do not mean mistakes that have grown out of translations; but if there was in the original manuscript one mistake, then it is not "inspired." I do not demand a miracle; I do not demand a knowledge of the future; I simply demand an absolute knowledge of the past. I demand an ab- solute knowledge of the then present; I demand a knowledge of the constitution of the human mind-- of the facts in nature, and that is all I demand. 343 _Question_. If I understand you, you think that all political power should come from the people; do you not believe in any "special providence," and do you take the ground that God does not interest himself in the affairs of nations and individuals?