If there be a good God, the story is not true. If there be a wise God, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to the penitentiary for simply telling the truth? Suppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at science--whoever by profane language should bring the rule of three into contempt, or whoever should attack the proposition that two parallel lines will never include a space, should be sent to the penitentiary--what would you think of it? It would be just as wise and just as idiotic as this. And what else says the defendant? "_The Bible-God says that his people made him jealous." "Provoked him to anger._" Is that true? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous? Let us read another line-- "_And now he will raise the mischief with them; that his anger bums like hell_." That is true. The Bible says of God--"My anger burns to the lowest hell." And that is all that the defendant says. Every word of it is in the Bible. He simply does not believe it--and for that reason is a "blasphemer." I say to you now, gentlemen,--and I shall argue to the Court,--that there is not in what I have read a solitary blasphemous word--not a word that has not been said in hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world. Theodore Parker, a Unitarian, speaking of this Bible-God said: "Vishnu with a necklace of skulls, Vishnu with bracelets of living, hissing serpents, is a figure of Love and Mercy compared to the God of the Old Testament." That, we might call "blasphemy," but not what I have read. Let us read on:-- "_He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the wrath of the enemy_." That is in the Bible--word for word. Then the defendant in astonishment says: "_The Almighty God afraid of his enemies!_" That is what the Bible says. What does it mean? If the Bible is true, God was afraid. "_Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy?_" Is not that true? If God be infinitely good and wise and powerful, is it possible he is afraid of anything? If the defendant had said that God was afraid of his enemies, that might have been blasphemy--but this man says the Bible says that, and you are asked to say that it is blasphemy. Now, up to this point there is no blasphemy, even if you were to enforce this infamous statute--this savage law. "_The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals, the most foul and bestial instances of fornication, incest, and polygamy, perpetrated by God's own saints, and the New Testament indorses these lecherous wretches as examples for all good Christians to follow_.". Now, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does uphold polygamy? Abraham would have gotten into trouble in New Jersey--no doubt of that. Sarah could have obtained a divorce in this State--no doubt of that. What is the use of telling a falsehood about it? Let us tell the truth about the patriarchs.