ideas, no matter how distorted, in order that the final conclusion will simulate what he deliberately sets out to prove."
Mr. Belloc's statement, "How many men will agree that wanton cruelty, treason to family or the state, falsehood for private gain, breach of faith, are admirable?" strikes the Martian as absurd when viewed in the light of the historical annals of the Church itself. Mr. Belloc's creed must have considered these very vices as virtues, judging from the actions of his Church.
In calling the Roman Catholic Church the witness to revelation, the author continues with, "Yet, that it should suffer from men's hatred and persecution." If God has divinely ordained this institution as His Church on earth, and in His omnipotence and omniscience allows this Church to be hated, then how do the religionists assume that their god is a god of love? The author tells "us that He is a god of hate, such a god as was conceived of by the barbarians and the Hebrews cruel, vengeful, and monstrous. Does not this apologist confuse his god with his devil? Then again, has it not occurred to this apologist that he is in all futility attempting to prove something which is a contradiction within itself? If God is, and is benevolent, is it not logical to assume (since the theologians assume all sorts of attributes to this deity) that he would not have constructed the minds of men when He created them so as to desire to doubt His being; would not have tortured the minds of men with cruel doubt as to His existence?
If He is omnipotent, it would have been just as easy to instill into the minds of men only the strongest desire to believe in His reality ; and even that would not be necessary had He so arranged matters that by His everlasting presence He would reveal Himself or His deeds to man in, such a conclusive manner that even the feeblest of
