afraid. Matthew contradicts this by saying: "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word." Luke also says that "the women told these things unto the disciples." The women who are said to have visited the tomb are, according to Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome. According to Luke they are: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them. According to Matthew they are: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. According to John, Mary Magdalene went alone.

As to their object in going to the tomb, Matthew says that it was in order "to visit the sepulchre." According to Mark and Luke they went to anoint the body.

Matthew tells us that when the women arrived at the tomb they found it closed, and that "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." Mark, Luke, and John say that when they reached there they found the stone rolled away.

Mark and Luke say that the women entered into the tomb. John, who speaks of Mary Magdalene only, says that she remained outside.

According to Matthew, the angel spoke to the women. Mark simply states that they saw a "young man sitting on the right side." Luke says: "Two men stood by them." John states that Mary Magdalene saw "two angels in white," etc.

Matthew tells us that Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee. But in Luke and in the Acts we are told that his disciples were requested "to tarry in the city," and were "charged not to depart from Jerusalem," and that it was there where the appearances took place.

Here, certainly, is conflicting testimony. If belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is as important a thing as Father Cummins would have us believe, then the best that one can say is that the Almighty has in this instance placed a mighty big premium upon credulity.

FRANCIS WATRY.

A Kentucky brother sends the following, which well fits in here, after the above letters:

DR. C. F. TAYLOR; DEAR DOCTOR:-Your September WORLD was the straw that broke the camel's back. When you deny that Jesus arose from the dead, you assail the fundamental principle of Christian belief; you pluck the very keystone from the arch of God's plan for the world's salvation. I cannot countenance any longer, much less aid in a material way, such onslaughts on the Book of Books.

general way why, in our larger cities, the Sabbath has come to be used for a day of recreation. It may be the only day in the week which a man can spend with his family, the only day that he can accompany them to any place of amusement or otherwise. The cities are providing parks for this very purpose. The present means of transportation makes them easy of access, and I don't see how people can be blamed for going. But these things all detract from the church.

Again, this is an age of money-making. It has been my observation as a medical man, that most of the people who employed me when they were poor forgot me when they became prosperous. I, in some way, was associated with their days of poverty and distress. This is too frequently the same in matters of religion. Sam Jones once said that "as a means of grace, prosperity is not much of a success." No man can practise medicin or preach the gospel for very many years, before finding this to be true. This is an age of prosperity. Old

things are too slow.

Again, mankind for years has been trying to do away with some things in the Bible; one of them is, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." This thought has never been popular. It has never been attractiv even to me-but I have found it from observation and experience to be true.

Again, it is an age of formalism. "Act as tho you have it" and don't be found out. Some years ago a man askt me, "Which is the most popular church in your town?" Said he had just moved here and wanted to "start right.' I, of course, said my church. Popularity is the shrine that is being worshiped at, and restrictions are unwelcome and a bore. Not long ago, a wealthy man said to me that he had submitted to the ordinance of baptism the same as he would to the goat in joining a lodge. The ordinances of the churches no longer stand for much. The restrictions of the churches, real or implied, are irksome. Respect for sacred things as well as for authority in general is on the wane. In order to hold their congregations, churches have been turned into places of amusement, and ministers are preaching sensational sermons. It has become the fad among the better educated class to doubt all things. "To be skeptical," or "you must show me," is considered a mark of superior intelligence. To quote scripture to men of your class is to get "the glassy eye, or the "look of pity." It is worse than useless You can only meet them with argument or philosophy of their kind. In your case am sorry not to be able to do I believe you to be a thoroly good man, honest in your belief, but wrong.

Questions and Answers.

It is very hard to go over a lot of letters and discard many that really ought to be publisht; but that is what I am doing-and I have not yet toucht the pile of letters of hearty congratulation that support modern as against ancient theology. Here is a letter, rather long, but very candid, and I feel that I ought to present it:

NORTHWOOD, Iowa, September 8, 1909. DEAR DR. TAYLOR:-Have long admired the practical way that you edit your journal. You have always seemed to anticipate the troubles of the general practician, and in my own case have many times been the "friend in need. Your theological observations have also been read with interest; and trusting that your correspondence in this new line may not become burdensome, I venture to add my mite.

Your arguments and your philosophy are not new. Am sorry to admit, tho, that they are becoming more general. Why many of our brightest minds should go off on this tangent is hard to understand. It is getting to be an anxious time with all religious organizations. Many of the better class of young men no longer go into the ministry. The Sabbath day is used for recreation and debauchery. Beer parties. baseball, Sunday theatres, etc., are the usual Sunday attractions. I can see in a

Some years ago an enthusiastic Universalist scattered thru the stores of this place a small book the title of which was "314 Reasons Why There Is No Hell." Picking up one of them and reading the title, I appended thereto, "or Religion Made Easy." That, under the cloak of philosophy, is what you are trying to do. You may lull yourself into fancied security, but be sure of your ground before you induce others to embark on so serious an undertaking. You no doubt are familiar with the history of France. You will recall the time that they abolisht the Sabbath, set apart every tenth day for high carnival, dethroned God, abolisht worship in the churches. set up a dissolute woman as "Goddess of Reason," and you will recall what followed.

Many people, my dear Doctor, are too idealistie to be practical. They seem to live in some mystic sphere apart from the mass of humanity. They dream about things that may possibly be revealed in the world to come. but forget that they are still in the flesh. Now, a certain amount of dreaming is all right. I indulge in the seductiv pastime on certain occasions and rather enjoy it. But dreaming, theorizing, and idealizing never founded an orphans' home, supported a hospital, sent a missionary to a foreign field, or founded one of the thousands of charities that have been undertaken and carried thru by the churches. While, in a general way, I agree with much that you say about creeds, dogmas, etc., yet most of us are still human, and development is not yet, I hope, an impossibility. They were the best for the time, and are hard to improve upon at this date. There is good in all of them. The trouble is not so much with the church as with the fact that religion has become fashionable. It is to a certain extent used as a cloak of respectability. I believe that the most devout Christian that it has been my good fortune to meet was an old Catholic woman who could neither read nor write; yet I never failed to receive an inspiration from her that made me better for days. You know, Doctor, that it is possible to starve in the presence of plenty; and if one chooses to live on angel's food instead of meat and potatoes, who can say that the right is not his to do so? Now a few questions and I close:

1st. Is it not a fact that the ones who have done the most for the uplifting of humanity are those who have held to and believed most firmly in the doctrins and dogmas which you affect to despise?

2d. Did you ever know of any one making shipwreck of

(Continued on page 24.)

his life when he conformed his life to the teaching of that Book which you hold so lightly?

3d. Is it not a fact that "the pride of intellect" is the shrine at which you worship?

4th. Do you know of anything that will compensate for the loss of a believing heart?

5th. Is it not a fact that the greatest loss thus far in your life, is the simple confiding faith of childhood? 6th. Have you ever taken the liberty of entertaining an honest doubt as to the correctness of your present convictions?

I would not have you infer, Doctor, from anything that I have written, that I do not recognize the fact that you are entitled to the same freedom of religious convictions as I.

With kind personal regards and best wishes, I am yours truly, C. A. HURD, M.D.

Doctor, I sympathize with you in much that you say; particularly concerning the coarse and carnal materialism which has come with our "prosperity." I sometimes wonder if our wealth is a blessing or a curse. When we rise from poverty, we are too apt to depart from "the simple virtues of the lowly.' It is only a strong mind, a well-balanced mind, that can stand prosperity and use it wisely. These truths apply as well to a people, a nation, as to an individual.

But to answer your letter: Be careful about assuming that the creedites, the dogmatists, are the only ones who have founded orphans' homes, supported hospitals, etc. I have read of instances, tho I cannot point to them just now, where in the presence of pestilence the "respectables" flew to safety while the women of the town opened their houses and received the stricken, acting the veritable part of angels of mercy, only to be forced back into their unhappy function again (which is such a blot upon our civilization) when the pestilence was over. us give the churches all the credit they deserve, which is much, but let us not exaggerate. us also realize that the churches ought to study the roots of evil in our society, and try to eradicate them.

Now for your questions by number:

Let

Let

1. "Despise" is too strong a word. I merely urge that these ancient doctrins and dogmas should be reverently laid aside, just like our profession lays aside its doctrins and dogmas when they become antiquated. As to the rest of this question, it is a debatable one.

2. I do not hold the Bible "lightly." I can point out many books which, if conformed to, will prevent "shipwreck of life."

3. I despise the "pride of intellect" when not governed by moral and upright principles. Intellect cannot take the place of morality, nor is it an acceptable excuse for immorality.

4. No. Unbelief is very sad. But creedites and dogmatists are not the only believers. My belief is much larger, my faith much deeper and more positiv than when I relied on ancient creeds and dogmas.

5. No. Many a simple faith of confiding childhood must give way, later, to larger views and truths that childhood cannot comprehend. The Santa Claus fiction is one of them. But the larger truth more than compensates for the childish faith, when the child is ready to understand the larger truth.

6. Certainly. Convictions can never become very deep until tested by "honest doubt."

A Liberal Letter from the South.

Now let me introduce one letter on my sideI will ask to present only one from the pile on my side. So many orthodox letters have come from the South that the idea has crept into the minds of some that the South is a 'back number,"

intellectually. I wish to dissipate such an opinion, and will therefore choose from the South. I cannot say that it is the best one, but it is broad and progressiv, and it is from the South. I said that it was on 'my side." I wish to modify that statement, and place the gentleman's letter on the basis of its own merits. Many other letters emphasize congratulation and support; this one goes further-and many of the others do too; but I will ask for space for only one; and for reasons given I choose it from the South. Here it is:

DEAR DR. TAYLOR:-I have been interested in the camp meeting; and it is gratifying to note that some of our Christian friends write in a manner of so much kindness. This shows progress.

In conversation with a school teacher some time ago, I discovered that he did not believe that the world turns on its axis. I askt him what he taught in school. He said he taught it like it was in the book; tho he did not believe it himself. [Maybe he thinks that "axis" is some sort of an axle.-ED.] "Then you taught what you be lieved to be a lie?" I said. "Do you call that honest? Why, in the name of conscience, don't you give some study to the subject, and inform yourself?" The same question might be askt of the believers: Why don't they inform themselves? Is it honest not to do so? Is it impossible for them to do so?

I have often wondered if, of the priests of Galileo's time, some of them knew that he was right, and persecuted him; while others did not try to comprehend t and persecuted him. I feel compelled to answer this in the affirmativ.

Still we must approach this subject reverentially, as we hate to see the old brain-atrophying superstition fade away, the superstition that has murdered millions with excruciating torture.

In rural districts we meet, now and then, persons who believe in witches. When the majority of people believed that way, they murdered those who did not 50 believe. Now, the enlightened majority does not consider the subject worthy of any notice. Why does not the enlightened majority retaliate, and murder those who do believe in witches? The answer to this question can be only this: Because science civilizes men.

In the camp meeting column of September WORLD a brother asks: "Will you kindly tell us why it [the Bible] is in nearly every home (that can be called a home) in the United States?" Yes; for the very same reason that the Koran is in the homes of the Moham medans.

Our civilization is due to many influences; and chief among them the Greek. When the Indians would swoop down upon a settlement and murder men, women, and children, we called them savages. When Joshua and his gang did the same thing, it strikes me that they were savages too. But no; this story is set up as divinely inspired, and so taught to young ladies in denominational schools. Is this honest? Why it should be "higher" criticism to criticise one set of savages more than another set, I fail to see.

called

A comet visited the heavens soon after the death of Julius Caesar; and the world believed it to be Caesar's ghost. Now, science has told us better.

In the Bible we are given an explanation of the rainbow. It is a large striped ribbon hung out of heaven as a sign. Now, science has told us better. It is a higher faith to have confidence in the achievements of science; to appreciate the unchanging laws of nature; to know that every event has its cause.

It is a higher religion that tries to find out the truth; that realizes that error is detrimental to human progress; that, having read the past, would strive not to repeat its mistakes; and for this very reason will never condemn without trial.

Kindness is noble; cruelty is base. For cruelty, every conceivable engine of torture was invented, for the infliction of phyiscal pain. This barbarous theology, which we must handle reverentially, because it has only served to crush us, did nothing to banish these horrible things It was rationalism, not superstition, which laughed them to scorn. Cruelty is cruelty, whether mental or physica You have no more right to inflict one than the other. To take an innocent child, and fill its mind with impossible stories, and insist that they are facts until they have so far coiled themselves around its brain that he dare not think, is cruelty. To demand belief without evidence is cruelty. To offer a reward for belief is hideous. malign, to blast, or try to ruin the reputations of thinking men is cruelty; it is a remnant of the same condition which stretcht men upon the rack, and stands with these gentlemen as an evidence that they would do so now if they only could. P. M. CONNOR

Leesville, S. C.

Το