{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36627/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36627","id":"gutenberg_36627","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36627","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Jonathan Ingram, Martin Pettit and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"Not to Undeceive is to Deceive\"\n\nHow the Bible Was Invented\n\nA Lecture Delivered\nBefore the Independent\nReligious Society\nOrchestra Hall\nChicago, Illinois\nSunday at 11 A. M.\n\n[Illustration: Logo]\n\nTenth Edition\n\nBy\nM. M. MANGASARIAN\n\n\n\n\nHow the Bible Was Invented\n\n\nMany good people believe that the Bible was given by inspiration of God.\nThe wording of my subject suggests that it is the work of men, and not\nalways of honest men, either. Am I trying to offend people by intimating\nthat the Bible was _invented_? On the contrary, I am exposing myself to\ncriticism by telling these good people the truth about the Bible, which\ntheir own preachers, for some reason or other, have withheld from them.\n\nOne of the texts in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, says that, It were\nbetter for a man to have a millstone tied about his neck, and he were\ncast into the sea, than that he should offend, that is to say, unsettle\nthe faith of, \"one of these little ones.\" According to this saying of\nJesus, a man must keep his questionings and his doubts to himself. He\nshall not talk where he is liable to upset the faith of some believing\nsoul,--some aged mother, some Sunday-school lad or lassie. The man who\nwill go about disturbing people's religious peace, deserves to be\ndrowned with a millstone about his neck! What is your opinion of such a\nsuggestion?\n\n\nIf you approve of this sentiment, attributed to the founder of\nChristianity, then the work which we are doing here, every Sunday, is\nquite wicked; a millstone around our necks is what we deserve, and the\nbottom of the sea is where we belong.\n\nPsychologists tell us that there is great power in suggestion. With all\nmy love and reverence for whatever is sweet and sane in the Gospels, I\nmust protest against this text, because it is a suggestion to violence\nand persecution. If Jesus suggests a millstone for the neck of the\nheretic who upsets people's illusions and makes inquirers out of\nbelievers, and intimates further that drowning is too good for them, why\nnot take the hint and act upon it? He expresses a wish, shall we not\nfulfill it? Alas, we know, too well, that in less enlightened ages, the\nsuggestion of Jesus was not only carried out, but vastly improved\nupon--by the Spanish Inquisition, for instance.\n\nLet us be fair. When a man is accused, it is his privilege to defend\nhimself. If Jesus suggests that the investigator who unsettles people's\nbeliefs should be drowned, before the suggestion is acted upon, the\ndisturber should be given a chance to be heard. Would that be asking too\nmuch? Let us see, then, just what it means to command a man to suppress\nwhatever might disturb a neighbor's faith: It means that if I am\nannounced to speak on the Bible, I must say nothing to which the weakest\nor the most credulous among my hearers might object. If I do, I shall\ndeserve to be tied to a millstone and drowned! But let us turn this\nproposition about to see how it would work: Having discovered a truth,\nand yearning in my soul to express it, suppose I were to say, that if\nany man in this audience shall scare me into silence,--shall cheat me\nout of the joy and duty of imparting that truth to my world, by\nthreatening to be offended, or to be unsettled by it,--he ought to have\na millstone tied to his neck and be cast into the sea. How would that\ndo?\n\nAgain, an illustration, which I have used before, can with great aptness\nbe repeated here: A woman is given a ring with a stone in it. Not being\nherself a _connaisseur_ of precious stones, she is easily made to\nbelieve that her jewel is the most costly in the world. This is told her\nin order to make her happy, and to fancy herself as the possessor of a\ngem of great value. Observe, now, how much it costs to keep up this\ndeception. All her friends have to agree to say nothing that may\nunsettle her faith in her imitation jewel. Indeed, they must pretend not\nto know the difference between the genuine and the sham stone. To\npreserve this woman's illusion, they must prevaricate and even openly\nlie, if pressed to do so, lest the poor woman's eyes should open, or her\nfaith in her jewel be lost. Is it fair to demand so great a sacrifice to\nprolong the fantasy of a foolish woman?\n\nApply this illustration now to the Bible. Here are some people who have\nbeen told when they were young, that this book, which is placed in their\nhands, is a personal message to them from God. This makes the book,\ncertainly, more precious than any jewel. God, the owner and disposer of\neverything, with his own hand has inscribed an epistle to them, and this\nis it! What joy! What a treasure! Now these people, not being students\nthemselves, accepted implicitly what they were told by their teachers,\njust as the woman, not being an expert herself, took her jeweler's word\nabout the value of the stone in her ring. In order not to offend this\nchild-like faith in the Bible, word is sent out to everybody to hush.\nHush! not a word! not a whisper!--Hush! hush! is the cry of all. To\nuphold this conspiracy of silence, arrangements are made to dictate what\nmay and what may not be said in public. A preacher in praying or\npreaching might give away the secret,--he might inadvertently say\nsomething which may prick this pretty bubble of illusion. Hence, in the\nCatholic and Episcopal Churches, all the prayers are printed, and the\npreachers pray according to the book. Do you think the Church will let a\nman close his eyes and open his mouth and say whatever comes into his\nhead? Indeed, not! He must pray by the book. In the protestant\ndenominations there is the creed, to which you swear your allegiance\nbefore you can open your mouth in one of their churches, and the moment\nyou are caught talking beyond what the creed allows, your ordination is\ntaken from you and your mouth is shut. Dear me! all this regime is for\nthe purpose of encouraging the conceit that man has been favored with a\nhand-written, personal message, from the Creator of the universe.\n\nIf this were all, we, ourselves, would not take notice of it. But we,\ntoo, are compelled to join this conspiracy of silence and suppression,\nand to lie in the interests of the delicate believers whose faith cannot\nstand the least strain. Darwin must beware how he writes about the\norigin of species, or the descent of man. Some believer, hugging\necstatically his Bible to his bosom, might read his books and lose his\nblissful conceit. Do not think, do not invent, do not announce your\ntruth, ye philosophers, scientists and reformers! without first\nconsulting the prejudices of the \"little ones\" in the faith; for if you\nunsettle the faith of a single believer, it were better that you were\nweighted down into the sea by a millstone hanging about your necks. And\nyou, whose love and genius give us our daily victory over disease and\nerror,--whose thought is our daily bread and beauty,--you, too, must\nhush, you must become sterile, or be content to speak by rote, lest you\nshould disturb the repose of the believer who has laid himself down to\nsleep. The theological babe must not be awakened. It will bawl and cry\nif aroused, and better than cause one of these babes to cry, let there\nbe no intellectual life in the world!\n\nOur American author, Thoreau, was right when he said that, \"The modern\nChristian is a man who has consented to say all the prayers in the\nliturgy, provided you will let him go straight to bed and sleep quietly\nafterward.\" That is to say, he does not wish to be disturbed. \"All his\nprayers begin with,\" says Thoreau, \"Now I lay me down to sleep.\"\n_Sleep_, seems to be his quest, intellectual as well as physical, \"and\nhe is forever looking forward to the time when he shall go to his\n'_long_ rest.'\" He looks forward to a future of inactivity. All effort,\nespecially intellectual effort, is distasteful to him, and is apt to\noffend and unsettle him. Hence the intellectual life must not be real;\nwhat must be real is the _sleep_.\n\nThose of you who support these lectures, as well as those of you who\nonly hear them, know that our position is the very reverse of what Jesus\nand the Church recommend. We do not believe in persecution. We do not\neven suggest that anybody should be drowned; but if our human nature is\nso depraved that persecution and murder are inevitable, then, in our\nhumble opinion, it will be more economical to drown the people who will\nnot permit a Darwin to give his thought to the world, than to drown a\nDarwin. The man who is offended at freedom of speech, can be dispensed\nwith more safely than the man who avails himself of this divine\nprivilege. If my freedom of speech offends my neighbor, his fear of\nfreedom is a greater offense to me. Which of us deserves most to be\ndrowned?\n\nBut in the next place the suggestion that people who rob their weaker\nfellows of their illusions should be drowned, even when it does not lead\nto persecution, is an encouragement to _hypocrisy_ and _imposture_, as\nthe story of the composition of the Bible which will now be told, shows.\n\nYou have to listen as closely as you can, if you do not wish to do me\nthe injustice of misrepresenting me. I have traveled extensively in the\nOrient, and have conversed with and read the works of eminent scholars\nwho have enjoyed a first-hand acquaintance with eastern people, and the\nunanimous testimony is that one of the besetting sins of Oriental races,\nis lying. It is not because the Asiatics are wickeder than European\nnations, for in other respects they are as good, if not better, than\nourselves. The average of morality is perhaps about the same in all\ncountries. But the notorious vice of all Asiatic peoples is lying. They\nlie with a freedom and a fluency,--with such plausibility and so\nstraight a face,--that one can hardly distinguish their lie from their\ntruth. Curious though it may seem, people who are given to lying are\noften the first to be deceived by their own lies. They\n\n\n     \"Keep on till their own lies deceive them.\n     And oft' repeating, at length believed 'em.\"\n\n\nNow, then, I am going to look this audience in the face, and then I am\ngoing to say just this:\n\n_The Bible is an Oriental book._\n\nWhen, in reading the Bible, I find in it exaggeration, invention, and\neven unscrupulous misrepresentation, I am not astonished, because I know\nthat it is an Oriental book. But the orthodox believer, in order to\nexcuse or explain away, for instance, these violations of the law of\nveracity, resorts frequently to sophistry, subterfuge, and even, alas,\nto lies more unscrupulous than any found in the Bible. This is as sad as\nit is true. But to defend one lie, or to make it look like the truth,\nmore lying becomes necessary.\n\nThere are numerous instances of the Oriental practice of lying in the\nBible. Abraham suppressed the truth about his wife, and declared she was\nhis sister. Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, and made him believe he\nwas Esau, and stole his blessing. The same patriarch deceived his\nfather-in-law, and stole his gods. God himself instructs Samuel to tell\na falsehood to Saul, to whom he is sent on a mission. \"I will send them\na lying spirit,\" threatens Jehovah, when he is out of temper. And, in\nthe New Testament, the Apostle Paul is Oriental enough, though in many\nrespects a great soul, to resort to \"craft and guile,\" and to be \"all\nthings to all men,\" and even to lie for the glory of God. Aside from\nthis being his own policy, he imagined that it was also the policy of\nGod. \"And for this cause,\" he says in his Epistle to the Thessalonians,\n\"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe in a\nlie.\" Reflect upon that. To send a delusion to people means to trip or\ntrap them,--to catch them in a snare. People tell a falsehood, either to\nprotect themselves, or to hurt others. God needed not to resort to this\nmeans to protect himself. Paul tells us he does this to hurt others.\n\"God shall send them strong delusion, that they might believe a lie that\n_they all might be damned_.\" How could Paul, an exceptionally\nintelligent man, be guilty of such blasphemy? How could he so damage the\ncharacter of the God he loved? My answer is that he was an Asiatic, and\nhe did not look upon lying in the same light that Europeans do. The\nAsiatic conscience for veracity has never enjoyed a very high\nreputation. The Apostle Paul even boasts that, \"being crafty, I caught\nyou with guile.\"\n\nA very curious controversy took place some years ago, between Herbert\nSpencer and a religious Weekly. Quoting the words of Paul to the Romans,\nwhere he says, \"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my\nlie unto his glory, etc.,\" Spencer condemned Paul for this; the\nreligious Weekly objected that Paul was only speaking ironically. And\nMr. Spencer generously admitted that such a supposition was quite\npossible. We are ourselves willing to give Paul every opportunity to\nexonerate himself, and will not press the charge too vehemently against\nhim. But whatever Paul may have meant in his argument with the Romans,\nwhat shall we say about his defense of \"guile and craft,\" in his Epistle\nto the Thessalonians? And what about his general policy, to be all\nthings to all men,--that is to say, to trim and compromise?\n\nMoreover, the practice of the Church during the early centuries,\nconfirms the criticism of such representative writers as Mosheim,\nEllicott, Warburton, Lecky, Gibbon, Jortin, Gieseler, and other equally\nreliable authorities, that \"The pernicious maxim that those who make it\ntheir business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth,\nwere deserving rather of commendation than of censure.\"\n\n\"History forces upon us,\" writes Bishop Ellicott, \"the recognition of\npious fraud as a principle which was by no means inoperative in the\nearliest ages of Christianity.\" It reflects credit upon this\nBishop,--this European,--to admit that the early Christians cultivated\nthe Oriental practice of \"lying for the glory of God.\" Eusebius, the\nsaint who invented Constantine's vision of the cross, boasted that \"_he\nhad written what redounded to the glory_ and suppressed whatever tended\nto the disgrace of religion.\"\n\n\"No faith with the heretics,\" was the cry of the Christian church for\ncenturies.\n\nMy object in speaking of this is to show that even as our Oriental-born\nreligion, brought over into Europe the germ of monasticism, religious\nintolerance, the practise of burning men and women alive,--absolutism in\nmatters of faith, determining by authority of councils what shall and\nwhat shall not be the truth,--not one of which institutions previously\nexisted in Europe; it also brought over, the Oriental practice of pious\nlying, and gave it a vogue which it had never before enjoyed in Europe.\n\nIt is universally admitted that beside the four Gospels which the\nchurches believe to be genuine, there were, in the early centuries,\nhundreds of Gospels which have been rejected as spurious. Pause for a\nmoment, and think of what that means. Why were there so many lying\nGospels? The very fact that our four Gospels were chosen from a pile of\nmanuscripts, everyone of which claimed to be genuine, is a sad\ncommentary upon the morality of the early churchmen. I trust you duly\nappreciate the significance of this. What was it that gave an impetus to\nthe industry of imposture? How explain the vogue which lying for\nreligion enjoyed after the conversion of the Roman Empire? Was it so\nprofitable to manufacture Gospels that everybody tried his hand at it? I\ncannot get away from the tremendous fact that by the admission of the\nchurches themselves, there were a great number of apocryphal Gospels\nthrown upon the religious market as soon as Christianity became well\nestablished in Europe. What made lying so popular and profitable all at\nonce? If it is true, and it is, that our four Gospels had to be voted\nupon from among a heap of other manuscripts; and if it is true, as one\nChurch father reports, that a great number of manuscripts were placed\nunder a table, and that prayers were then offered to induce the genuine\nGospels to jump upon the table, and that four of them did so, while the\nrest, failing to jump upon the table, were disowned; and if it is also\ntrue, and we know it is, that some of the Christian fathers claimed that\nonly four Gospels could be genuine because the earth has four corners,\nand four winds. If all this is true--then, speaking as a student of\nhistory, whether it unsettles you or not, I am constrained to say that\nthis Oriental religion, as soon as it set foot in Europe, lifted both\nsuperstition and lying to the dignity of a vocation.\n\nBut when we come to the four Gospels themselves, pronounced to be\ncanonical, do you know, my hearers, that there are upwards of 150,000\ndifferent readings of these same Gospels? That is to say, the same\npassages read one way in one manuscript, and another, in another, while\nthey may be absent altogether from a third, etc. In view of all these\nfacts, reflect upon the intelligence of the man who, Sunday after\nSunday, holds up the Gospels as the infallible word of God. He does so\nbecause he is speaking by the creed, to which he has sworn allegiance\nfor the rest of his life. One hundred and fifty thousand various\nreadings of the New Testament! And think of the centuries of bloodshed\nand controversy over these various readings!\n\nOpen, if you please, your New Testaments and read the seventh verse of\nthe fifth chapter of the first epistle of John, then look for the same\nverse in the Revised Version, and you will not find it there. After\nbeing regarded as the word of God for two thousand years, it has been\nexpurgated. Today, according to one Bible (the King James Version), this\npassage is inspired; according to another Bible (the Revised Version),\nit is an imposture. Let me quote the text:\n\n\n      \"For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the\n      Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.\"\n\n\nWhat better proof of the Trinity do we need? On black and white, in the\nBible, John, the Apostle, declares by the power of the Holy Ghost, that\nthere are three in heaven, gives their names, and adds that these three\nare one.\n\nSome lying scribe, some crabbed sectarian, some unconscionable copyist,\nbribed by his party, must have invented this text, which, for twenty\ncenturies, has been worshiped as the word of God. Wicked sceptics, two\nthousand years ago, denounced the clumsy imposture, but they were\nsilenced by the halter and the sword. It has taken the Christian Church\nnearly two thousand years to discover that the sceptics were right. It\nhas taken the church two thousand years of evolution in honesty and\nintelligence to throw out this spurious text. It has taken the church,\nclaiming to be under the guidance of the Spirit of God, twenty hundred\nyears in which to acquire the courage and love of truth of the wicked\nsceptics who first called attention to this lie hiding behind an\napostle's name. Reflect upon this! After using every means, even the\nmost cruel, to force this Trinitarian text upon the world, the Revised\nVersion blushes with shame to retain it any longer.\n\nIt would be unnecessary to multiply illustrations, but let my readers\nalso consult the words in the margin of the last chapter of the Gospel\nof Mark, in the Revised Bible. Eleven entire verses of this chapter\nafter having been palmed off for two thousand years as the word of God;\nafter being repeatedly quoted as representing God's mind on matters of\nfaith; after causing untold misery, cruel wars, persecutions, diabolical\ntortures, and more than all these, such mental anguish in millions of\nsensitive minds as no repentance can atone for,--these verses, among\nwhich is the following: \"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel\nto the whole Creation.... He that believeth and is baptised shall be\nsaved, _but he that believeth not shall be damned_,\"--has been placed\nunder an interrogation mark. Ah, for how much misery is the above\ndamnatory clause responsible! How many lives this leprous falsehood has\nblasted! How this cruel imposture, like a malignant cancer, ate away the\nsound parts in human nature, for twenty long centuries!\n\nAmong these eleven verses are also Jesus' promise of miraculous power to\nhis disciples, such as casting out devils, juggling with live serpents,\ndrinking deadly poisons, laying hands on the sick,--which has filled our\nworld with charlatans without number. But now comes the Revised Version,\nand quietly dismisses from the Word of God these eleven Verses, with\nthese words in the margin: \"The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some\nother authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end (verse 20). Some other\nauthorities have a different ending to the Gospel.\" Read the above\ncarefully and reflect. The old translators suppressed all this\ninformation, and gave us to believe that we were not only reading the\nword of God, but the only word of God in existence. The revisers say,\n\"Some other authorities have a _different_ ending to the Gospel.\" Is not\nthat edifying? How did they decide which \"ending of the Gospel\" to print\nas the Word of God? And why did the translators of the Bible wait two\nthousand years before they gave out this information? Is it to their\nincreasing honesty that we owe this admission, or is it the increasing\npower of the non-churchgoing world which has compelled this admission\nfrom their lips? Yes, yes, pause and think of how an organization must\nhave become gangrened with imposture to have successfully resisted every\nclaim of truth and honor for two thousand years! This is a question of\nconscience as well as a question of knowledge. Why did the translators\nsuppress the fact until a few years ago that, \"Some other authorities\nhave a different ending to the Gospel\"?, and that \"the _two oldest_\nGreek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the\nend\"? Time forbids me to give other illustrations of the--I regret to\nsay it--manipulations of the Word of God by its custodians. The heart\nbleeds with mingled pain and indignation at the temerity and effrontery\nof the pious crew, who, to advance their \"ism\" or to make converts, did\nnot hesitate to pervert history.\n\nFor two thousand years, for anyone to dare breathe a word against this\nBible-inventing party, meant hell here and hereafter. Mark Antony\ninvited Rome to weep over the prostrate form of assassinated Caesar. I\nwish I could provoke you to a burning blush of indignation over the\nprostrate majesty of Europe and America at the feet of these\nunconscionable inventors of inspired texts. Blessed be the day which\nhumbled the pride of the ecclesiastic, and wrested from his hands the\npower to suppress the truth!\n\nBut aside from doctoring their own Gospels, the early Christians did not\nhesitate to submit the writings of the great pagans,--Seneca, Pliny,\nTacitus, Suetonious, Marcus Aurelius and the Jewish historian, Josephus,\nto the same indignity, by slipping passages into their works favorable\nto the Christian religion. Perhaps I am to be blamed for taking this\nmatter so seriously, but how can I help it? I feel the wrong, the shame,\nand the crime of it, deep in my bones--when I picture to myself an\nAsiatic scribbler, a sectarian, a clown, a rogue, a cheat, tampering\nwith the works of a dead master,--pushing and squeezing his imposture\ninto the mouth of the mighty dead,--defiling the thought of the\nphilosopher with the foulness of his superstition! It makes my heart\nrise and knock with vehemence against my ribs until I feel as if they\nwould break. Not only were individual passages invented and slipped into\nthe Pagan writings, but a number of books were written and attributed to\nthe greatest shining lights of the old Roman world. Dr. Gieseler, a\nprominent Christian historian of modern Germany, who has made, as most\nGerman students do, a painstaking study of the early centuries, says\nthat, when the Christians were accused of inventing manuscripts, they\n\"quieted their consciences respecting the forgery with the idea of their\ngood intentions.\" \"It was an age of literary fraud,\" declares Bishop\nEllicott.\n\nThere is shown at the library in Jena, a letter purported to have been\nwritten by Publius Lentulus, the supposed predecessor of Pontius Pilate.\nThe impostor who concocted this epistle and affixed the signature of a\nRoman governor to it, makes him tell the Roman Senate, \"that there had\nappeared (in Judea) a man endowed with great powers, whose name is Jesus\nChrist.\" The earmarks of fraud are so plain that even the orthodox are\nashamed of this clumsy manufacture. Another Gospel is attributed to\nPontius Pilate. Nicodemus is made the author of still another. The\nEmperor Aurelius, is made to recommend the Christians to the Senate for\ntheir valor; Tiberius even gives his testimony in their favor; Jesus,\nhimself, is made the author of a treatise in his own behalf; the Virgin\nMary writes the story of her wonderful child; Adam, even, testifies to\nthe truth of the Christian religion, though he is supposed to have lived\nnearly four thousand years before Jesus. There is no end to the list of\ninventions.\n\nBut one of the most daring forgeries is the following passage in\nJosephus:\n\n\n      \"About that time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be\n      right to speak of him as a man, for he was a performer of\n      wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with\n      pleasure. He drew after him many of the Jews as well as of the\n      Gentiles. _This same was the Christ._ And though Pilate, by the\n      judgment of the chief rulers among us, delivered him up to be\n      crucified ... he showed himself alive on the third day....\"\n\n\nThat this famous passage in Josephus is an interpolation, is now\ngenerally admitted. Breaking suddenly in the midst of a paragraph, the\ngreat Jewish historian pauses to announce that Jesus was the Christ, and\nthat he really rose from the dead, etc., etc. This, if true, makes\nJosephus a Christian, which he was not. The early fathers, Justin\nMartyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, never referred to this famous\npassage, which they certainly would have done, had such a passage\nexisted. What better evidence could they desire in their controversy\nwith the Jews than to point to this wonderful confession of their\nprincipal author and historian, that the Jesus whom they crucified was\nthe Christ, and that he rose from the dead! But in the Josephus with\nwhich they were acquainted there was no such text. Origen, the Christian\nFather, admits in his writings that Josephus was not a believer in\nChrist. How, then, did this passage creep into the works of the Jewish\nhistorian? The man who discovered this passage in Josephus was the same\nman who invented Constantine's vision, and the fable of the Seventy,\nwho, he says, shut up in seventy separate cells, produced the Septuagint\ntranslation of the Old Testament, a translation, which, he adds, was\nsurely the work of the Holy Ghost, because when the Seventy separate\ntranslations were compared, they were found to be in every detail alike,\nwithout even the difference of a punctuation mark in them all. To\nfurther prove this story, Eusebius tells us that he himself saw the\nseventy cells which the translators had occupied four hundred years\nbefore. This is the kind of churchman who first discovered the Josephus\npassage. After quoting the interpolated passage, Eusebius wonders how\nany Jew can have the impudence not to believe that Jesus was the Christ.\nIn one of his essays, De Quincy says that only lunatics now believe in\nthe genuineness of this passage, while a bishop of the Anglican\nChurch,--Warburton--calls it \"a stupid forgery.\"\n\nBut the early Christians made even the pagan gods to testify for Jesus.\nThey composed verses in praise of the Christian religion and attributed\nthem to the pagan Sibyls. The oracles of Rome were made to prophesy the\ncoming of Christ,--his passion, and resurrection, and to admit their\ninferiority to him. For many hundred years these Sibylline verses were\nquoted as genuine, until the advancement of education laughed the\ndisgraceful fabrication out of existence.\n\nAgain, pious ecclesiastics in their zeal for their \"ism,\" invented also\nan _Apostles' Creed_, which the apostles never saw, and an _Apostolic\nConstitution_, containing directions how a Christian Church or State\nshould be governed. They invented also the _Decretal Epistles_, by which\nConstantine transfers all his property to the Bishop of Rome,--his\nsword, his diadem, his throne,--and makes a prince of the pope, and an\nempire of his church. Here is the passage which was forged into\nConstantine's mouth by the Spanish priest Isidore:\n\n\n      \"We ascribe to the See of St. Peter all dignity, all glory, all\n      imperial power.... Besides, we give to Sylvester (bishop of Rome)\n      and his successor, our palace of the Lateran which is beyond\n      question the most beautiful place on earth. We give him our crown,\n      our mitre, our diadem, and all our imperial vestments; we remit to\n      him the imperial dignity. We give as a pure gift, to the holy\n      pontiff, the city of Rome and all the Western cities of Italy, as\n      well as the Western cities of other countries. In order to give\n      place to him, we yield our dominion over all these provinces by\n      removing the seat of our empire to Byzantium, considering it not\n      right that a terrestrial emperor should preserve the least power\n      where God had established the head of religion.\"\n\n\nHow lovely! No wonder that Cardinal Newman regarded Constantine as a\npattern for all future monarchs.\n\nBut enough! Let us draw the curtain upon that early Christian age of\ninvention and imposture. Why was it, we ask again, that Europe became a\nmarket for forgeries, immediately after its conversion to the Asiatic\ncult?\n\nYet we must not forget that hand in hand with this dishonest work of\ninvention, went the shameful destruction of whatever was deemed\nunfavorable to the new religion. Many of the masterpieces of pagan\nliterature were destroyed when they could not be tampered with. The rare\nvolumes of history, philosophy and poetry were reduced to ashes, that\nthey might not live to bear witness to the greatness of the\npre-Christian world. Even as they destroyed the monuments and temples of\nAthens and Rome, they destroyed also the precious manuscripts of Greek\nand Roman authors. From the following confession of St. Ambrose, Bishop\nof Milan, we may gauge the temper of the early Christian Church: \"I\nmyself would willingly assume the guilt (of destroying pagan buildings)\nand say that 'I have set them in flames that there may be not a place\nleft in which Christ is denied.'\"\n\n\nLet us now briefly, tell the story of the invention of the Old\nTestament: When Moses finished writing the book of the law, he called\nthe elders of the people before him and commanded them to \"_take the\nbook of the law_ and put it into the side\" or the inside \"of the ark of\nthe covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness.\"\nThe ark was a chest or box constructed after specific directions from\nGod, and was placed in the holy place in the temple, under or behind a\nveil, which also covered the mercy seat upon the ark. As you must know,\neven Aaron the high priest was cautioned against approaching this place\ntoo often, for it was very holy. According to this account, God gives a\nbook to his people, but he locks it up in a box, and places the box\nbehind a veil, then fixes a seat upon the box which He Himself,\noccupies. How could the people, under these circumstances, get at the\nbook? But it was not meant that they should. Ah, we have here a fine\nillustration of what we may call the craft of the priest, or\npriestcraft. They announce a revelation from God, but they will not\npermit anyone to take it home and read it. It is locked up in a box, and\nGod himself is made to sit on the box.\n\nThe grass dies without air and light. The birds pine away in a cage.\nEven the worms which creep in damp holes, come out for a glimpse of the\nlight, now and then; but the word of God hides in the darkness of the\nark, and fears the searching gaze of man! Was it born to be buried in a\nwooden tomb,--born to be locked up in a shittim-wood chest,--born to\nblink at the light! Ah, the precious priests! The sun may be seen by\neverybody, the stars shine in the open, but the Word of God, like a\nbashful maid, shrinks from observation, and sneaks into a closet. To\nthis day, the Catholics have to go to a closet--that is to say they have\nto secure permission, before they can read the Word of God.[1]\n\nTo show that we have Bible authority for the statements made above, we\nwill quote from the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter xxxi, verse 24, etc:\n\n\n      \"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the\n      words of this law in a book, until they were finished. That Moses\n      commanded the Levites which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the\n      Lord, saying: Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of\n      the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, your God, that it may be\n      there for a witness against thee.\"\n\n\nThe directions are specific. And the people's reverence for the ark or\nthe chest containing the inspired words of God increased a thousandfold.\n\nLet us continue: The book of the law is now in the box, with the lid\nclosed, and the deity sitting on the lid. Surely, it will be impossible\nfor the book ever to get lost. But it did get lost. We will tell its\nstory presently. But first let us speak of the jealousy with which the\npriests watched the ark. In times of war when the Jews were compelled to\nmove the ark from one place to another, everybody was strictly forbidden\nfrom touching it, or looking into it. On one occasion, while they had\nthe chest containing the two tables of stone and the Book of the Law, on\nan ox-cart, moving it to a place of safety, the cart jostled and the ark\ntipped. One of the drivers, Uzzah, instinctively, put forth his hand to\nsteady the sacred chest. He was instantly killed. He touched the ark,\nand that was a crime. One must not even touch the box to save it from\nfalling, much less read and investigate the book hidden therein. Every\nprecaution was taken to protect the Bible from being investigated. God\ndid not guard the tree of knowledge more zealously than did the priests\nthe book of the law.\n\nThere were some people, however, who were curious enough to peep into\nthe ark, in spite of the threats of the rabbis. To scare these people,\nthe awful words,--sacrilege, impiety, profanity,--_blasphemy_,--were\ninvented. When these failed, murder was resorted to. Listen to this\nstory: The people of Beth-Shemesh, being of an inquiring mind, one day,\nthey approached the ark and peeped into it, or tried to. Well; riot and\nmassacre followed! The Lord \"smote the men of Beth-Shemesh because they\nhad looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty\nthousand and three score and ten men,\"--fifty thousand and seventy. The\nrabbis charged this wholesale massacre to the deity. All successful\nmurderers do the same. But we must admit the priests took excellent care\nof the ark and its contents. Unfortunately, however, it is now nearly\nthree thousand years since the ark was last heard of. Where is it now?\n\nBut to return to our story:\n\nMany years after the time we are now speaking of, when King Solomon\nfinished his magnificent temple, in Jerusalem, he ordered the ark to be\nopened. How he dared to disobey the priests, I cannot tell, but kings\nenjoy special privileges, and perhaps, he had never heard that there was\na prohibition against even touching the ark. When the ark was opened,\nlo! and behold! the Book of the Law which Moses had commanded to be put\ninside the ark was not there.\n\n_It was not there!_\n\nIn 2nd Kings, eighth chapter, ninth verse, we read that when they opened\nthe ark:\n\n\n      \"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone.\"\n\n\nIn other words, the book which we read about in the former quotation\nfrom the Bible, and which contained most valuable divine instructions to\nthe people, had disappeared. The ark contained only two stones, which\ntoo, in due time, went the way of the book, and no one knows where they\nare at the present time. Ark and stones and book, as they are nowhere\nto be found, there is a bare possibility that they have returned to\nheaven whence they came.\n\nBut let us follow the story: The book was not in the ark.\n\nWhat fate had befallen it? Was it never put there? When Uzzah, and the\nfive thousand and seventy men were killed for touching the ark, was it\nempty? Solomon had the lid of the chest removed, and he found therein no\n\"Book of the Law,\" which was ordered to be placed there \"as a witness.\"\n\nThen followed a stretch of centuries in which the Book of the Law is not\nheard of. Oblivion now began to spread its dusty wings upon the memory\nof it. Yet, suggests Saladin, the old world jogged along as usual; the\nsun rose and set; the moon, as ever before shed its romantic light upon\nsea and shore. Lovers paired, and children, like a flock of swallows,\nvisited our earth. They toiled, grew old and died--without any Book of\nthe Law.\n\nThere is a third chapter in the biography of the Bible. Three hundred\nand fifty years after Solomon had fallen asleep with his fathers, one\nmorning,--I cannot tell whether it was on a fair or on a foul day,\nHilkiah,--remember that name,--Hilkiah! the high priest, knocked on the\ndoor of Shaphan, King Josiah's private secretary, and begged for a\nprivate interview,--a _tete-a-tete_, as the French would say. Leaning\nover, he whispered in the ears of the King's minister, slowly and\nsolemnly, as one who is burdened with some compelling\nnews,--that--he--had--just--found--\"The Book of the Law\" which had been\nlost for three hundred and fifty years!\n\nThe two men paused and looked at each other for a moment. Yes, Hilkiah,\nthe high priest, had found the book which had been lost for three\nhundred and fifty years! And where? In the Temple! Had the king's\nminister been in an inquiring mood, he might have asked some questions:\nWas the book lying there all these years and not a man stumbled upon it?\nOr was it just put there for Hilkiah to find it? If it had been lost for\nthree hundred years or more, how could Hilkiah tell that the book he\nfound was the same that Moses wrote and ordered kept in the shittim-wood\nchest? If Hilkiah made any changes in the book, how is the world to know\nwhich is Hilkiah's and which is Moses' contribution to the Bible? But\nthe questions were not asked. Besides, faith can shut its small eye to\neven greater difficulties than are involved in Hilkiah's discovery.\n\nWhen the King heard this extraordinary news, he must have doubted the\nword of the high priest, for he appointed a committee, whose names are\ngiven in the Bible, to present a report on this newly-found book. What\ndid the committee do? Did it study the book? Did it invite native and\nforeign scholars to pronounce upon it? Did it encourage the noblest,\nbravest, most truthful men and women in the world to express their free\nopinion about it, or to cross-examine the high priest? Indeed not! The\ncommittee took the book and went to a medium. They believed that the\nprophetess Huldah, the medium, or the witch, was the sole person capable\nof passing upon the genuineness of inspired documents. No thinker, no\nconscientious student, patiently collecting facts, and fearlessly\nexposing error, could compare with the witch Huldah in inspiration. She\nwas to the Jewish nation, at this time, what Plato and Aristotle were to\nthe heathen Greeks. Huldah, the medium, represented the highest culture\nof the country and its people. She was the one light in Jerusalem. The\nconfidence of Minot, Savage, Heber, Newton and publisher Funk, in Mrs.\nPiper, is not a circumstance to the faith of King Josiah's committee in\nprophetess Huldah. And she did not require time to study the book, or to\nmake investigations. What kind of a prophetess would she have been if\nshe could not answer any questions offhand?\n\nOf course, Huldah's opinion was the Lord's opinion, because she began\nher decision with the words, \"Thus saith the Lord.\" And although, like\nall mediums, she is very careful not to commit herself, she seems to\nhave satisfied the delegation from the King that the priest, Hilkiah,\nhad found the lost book of the law. For some reason which we are unable\nto divine the book was not put back into the Ark. Perhaps they had found\na safer place.\n\nHow do Christian scholars explain this Hilkiah episode? Let us quote\nfrom the _Encyclopedia Biblica_, one of the best known commentaries on\nthe Bible:--\"What led Hilkiah to say that he had found the Book of the\nLaw is not recorded.\" Perhaps it was not convenient to do so: \"He may\nmerely have meant,\" adds the commentator, feeling fearfully the strain\nof his orthodoxy, \"Here is the best and fullest law-book, about which\nthou hast been asking.\" Is not this ingenious? \"I have found the Book of\nthe Law,\" may only have meant, according to this clergyman's\ninterpretation, \"Here is the best and fullest law-book about which thou\nhast been asking.\" But why should Hilkiah have meant one thing and said\nanother? And what about the fact that Solomon failed to find the Book of\nthe Law in the Ark, and that for three hundred and fifty years there is\nsilence about this same book? And why did they go to medium Huldah, if\neverybody knew what the book was? But the explanations of the orthodox\nscholars which I have quoted prove what I said about the believer being\ncompelled to twist and cramp his conscience even worse than the reputed\nauthors of the Scriptures have done, in order to smooth over the\noffenses against truth and honor in the Bible.\n\nThe authors of the _Encyclopedia Biblica_ are among the most scholarly\nand progressive of the Christian clergy, and their answer to questions\nabout the High Priest Hilkiah is as good as can be expected, under the\ncircumstances. But we know of a safer answer than that--_silence_.\n\nThere is a concluding chapter in the history of the Bible. It appears\nthat when Jerusalem fell into the hands of the Persians, the city was\npillaged, the temple destroyed, and the Book of the Law which Hilkiah\nhad discovered, was burned. Once more, Israel is without a book. Driven\ninto captivity, the Jews lived among the heathen without a temple and\nwithout a bible. Then Cyrus, the King of Persia, is represented in the\nbook of Ezra, as issuing a proclamation to the Jews to return to their\ncountry and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. At this time, Cyrus,\ngraciously delivered to the Jews \"the vessels of the house of the Lord,\nwhich Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem, and had put them in\nthe house of his gods.\" Among the articles restored to the Temple, no\nmention is made of the Book of the Law. But Ezra, who is called \"a\nscribe of the words of the commandment of the Lord,\" appears to have not\nonly rebuilt the temple, but also to have restored the burned Book of\nthe Law. In forty days, by the help of forty associates, everything that\nwas ever reported to have been done of the Lord was put to writing and\nread aloud to the congregation which kept standing as Ezra read to\nthem. Such is the story in the Book of _Esdras_.\n\nThat Ezra was the restorer of the destroyed law seems to have been the\nopinion of almost all the early church Fathers. \"Whether you choose to\ncall Moses the author of the Pentateuch, or Ezra the restorer of the\nsame book, I make no objection,\" wrote St. Jerome. Clement, of\nAlexandria, another church Father, writes, that, \"The writings having\nbeen destroyed, Ezra, the Levite, having become inspired, prophesied,\nrestoring again all the old writings.\" Eusebius and Irenaeus seem to be\nof the same opinion, and the famous Tertullian, a pillar of the church,\ngives his testimony that, \"Jerusalem having been destroyed by the\nBabylonian siege, it appears that every instrument of Jewish literature\nwas restored by Esdras.\"\n\nIf Esdras, indeed, restored the burned book, which Hilkiah had found in\nthe Temple after it had been lost for three hundred and fifty years,\nthen, the question whether Moses was inspired or not,--a question which\nhas vexed the world so much--loses all its importance. Was Ezra\ninspired? That is the crucial question? If he was not, how can Moses'\ninspiration help us since his writings were burned by the Persians, even\nif they were not stolen from the ark and revised by Hilkiah? The\ninventor of the Old Testament was Ezra, \"a scribe of the words of the\ncommandment of the Lord,\" that is to say, the clerk or amanuensis of\nGod, a title which aptly describes not the interpreter, but the author\nof the Book of the Law. What kind of a man was this compiler or inventor\nof the Book of the Law? What does Christian Scholarship think of his\ncharacter? Let us hear the doctors of divinity on Ezra.\n\nThe authors of the _Encyclopedia Biblica_ whom we nave already quoted,\nadmit that the man who bears the name of Ezra manipulated, if he did not\ninvent, the narrative which he tells in the Bible:--\"He partly mutilates\nit by removing a portion, partly makes it almost unintelligible by\nplacing it in a connection to which it does not belong, and by making\ninterpolations, etc.\" Could we ask for a stronger proof that the Bible\nis the work of men--and not of honest men, at that? But is it fair to\ninclude the whole Bible in this accusation? I wish I could feel that\nsome portions of the Bible are free from suspicion, but I cannot. Alas!\nit is impossible to point to a single book in the Bible of the\nauthorship of which we may speak with assurance. The marks of political\nand theological imposture in the Bible are like leopard's spots, they\ncannot be removed.\n\nWell! It must not be thought that we have now disarmed the bibliolaters.\nThey have still a powerful weapon left with which to defend the Bible:\nSuppose Ezra did compose or compile the Book! Is it not, nevertheless,\ntrue that the Bible teaches righteousness? The argument is something\nlike this: The Bible may not be true, but it is very moral. In our\nopinion, however, it is even less moral than it is true. A book which\ncommands murder, plunder, persecution for opinion sake, slavery and\ncredulity of the most abject kind, can not very well be recommended as a\nmoral text-book. Of course, there are in the Bible, as also in the Vedas\nor the Koran, splendid passages of truth and beauty, but by selecting\nonly one set of passages and ignoring the rest any book could be made\npure.\n\nMatthew Arnold professes to have discovered in the Old Bible \"the\nEternal, not ourselves, making for Righteousness,\" one of his proofs\nbeing Ps. 50:23: \"To him that ordereth his conversation _right_ shall be\nshown the salvation of God.\" But the Revised Version has robbed the\nOxford professor of his text by completely changing its meaning: \"Whoso\noffereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving glorifieth me, and prepareth a\nway that I may show him the salvation of God\" (See margin of Revised\nVersion). There is nothing in the original about \"ordering one's conduct\nor conversation right,\" it was put there by the translators whose moral\nculture was far superior to the authors they were rendering into\nEnglish.\n\nMoreover, Matthew Arnold, fully conceding the conclusions of the \"higher\ncritics,\" e. g., that the events narrated in the Bible are in most cases\npure fabrications; that they are the work of myth-mongers who sought to\npass as genuine and divine, documents which they had themselves forged\nfor partisan purposes--who plagiarized from Assyrian liturgies, and\nwilfully misrepresented as well as interpolated the history of their\nnation--asks us, nevertheless, to look upon these political schemers and\n_poseurs_, as having but one all-consuming passion--_righteousness_!\n\nIn conclusion: The inspiration of the Bible is not a question of\nbelief, it is a question of evidence. If believing a book inspired could\nmake it so, then, the books of Mohammed and Buddha, of Confucius and\nZoroaster, must be inspired too. In fact, any book could be made\ninfallible, if believing it to be so, were all that was required. But\ndoes the evidence which I have offered prove that the Bible was\ninvented? I sincerely believe it does, but still, I may be mistaken, and\nam therefore open to any evidence which may be furnished that the four\ngospels, for instance, were not invented by religious partisans, who,\nwhile suppressing their own names, paraded those of the apostles as\ntheir real authors, notwithstanding that the apostles had been dead long\nago. I shall consider, conscientiously, any evidence which might be\nfurnished that Ezra was not the real reproducer, if not the original\nauthor of the Jewish code, after his return from Babylonia. And, I\npromise to retract and apologize for the position I have maintained in\nthis lecture, if the theologians, who are at home on this subject, will\nprove that there were no spurious gospels, no impostures, no lying\nmanuscripts thrown upon the religious market as soon as the pagan state\nembraced Christianity, I will also listen to any arguments which may be\nproduced to show that _the Apostles' Creed_ was written by the apostles;\nthat Constantine abdicated in favor of the pope; that the Pagan Sibyls\nprophesied of Christ, and that Josephus acknowledged Jesus to have been\nthe Messiah.\n\nI sincerely trust some learned divine into whose hands this lecture\nmight fall, will present the other side, if he thinks there is another\nside, of the story I have presented. By the word invented it is not\nmeant that the names, events, etc, were all manufactured, but that\nstories borrowed largely from mythical sources were edited and altered\nto serve partisan and political purposes.\n\nAnd why have I told this story?\n\nDo you know of any good reason, reader, why every other subject may be\nindependently discussed or investigated, except religion? And do you\nknow why, if Shakespeare can stand criticism, the Bible should shrink\nfrom it?\n\nIf it is possible to disagree with, or to advance beyond, Plato,\nSocrates, Spencer, Darwin, Goethe, Emerson,--please! why is it a heresy\nto differ from Moses, Solomon, Jonah or Jesus? Why is it proper to\ndisagree with a Greek or a Roman, but blasphemy to disagree with a Jew?\n\nThe Bible has for centuries blocked the way of progress. As an\ninfallible book it has enslaved conscience, and encouraged intolerance.\nTo defend its many puerilities, and even immoral tales, men have\nresorted to casuistry and dissimulation. I believe that men will be more\nhonest, more tolerant, more progressive, more independent and more\nmanly, if they could be delivered from the bondage of the Bible. To\noverthrow its tyranny and to prove that a book can not be the master of\nliving and growing men, to make man free, to raise him from his knees,\nto bring back the color to his cheeks white with fear, and to give to\nhis arrested mind movement--is my aim and my joy![2]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See Saladin's _God and His Book_.\n\n[2] Those who wish to read further on this subject should consult the\nauthor's _The Truth About Jesus--Is He a Myth?_\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPublications by the Same Author\n\n\n      A NEW CATECHISM. Fifth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with\n      Portrait of Author, $1.00.\n\n      THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS: IS HE A MYTH? A new book of 295 pages.\n      Illustrated. Cloth $1.00. Paper $0.50.\n\n      MANGASARIAN-CRAPSEY DEBATE ON THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. 25c.\n\n      PEARLS. (New Edition) Brave Thoughts from Brave Minds. Selected\n      and arranged by M. M. Mangasarian. 25c.\n\n\nLectures\n\n10 cents a Copy\n\n\n      THE CHURCH IN POLITICS--AMERICANS BEWARE!\n\n      WOMAN SUFFRAGE, OR THE CHILD-BEARING WOMAN AND CIVILIZATION.\n\n      THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN GENEVA UNDER CALVIN.\n\n      THE MARTYRDOM OF HYPATIA.\n\n      MORALITY WITHOUT GOD.\n\n      WHAT WAS THE RELIGION OF SHAKESPEARE.\n\n      CHRISTIAN SCIENCE ANALYZED AND ANSWERED.\n\n      THE RELIGION OF WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN.\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS OF M. M. MANGASAMAN Orchestra Hall Building\n\n\nA NEW CATECHISM\n\nContaining six new chapters, making altogether 22 chapters, with an\nintroduction, and a photograph of the author, bound in cloth, 270 pages.\nFourth edition. Price, one dollar.\n\n\nAN OPINION\n\nSir. George Jacob Holyoake, of England, the friend and neighbor of the\nlate Herbert Spencer, says this of \"A New Catechism\":\n\n\n      \"+It is the boldest, the brightest, the most varied and informing\n      of any work of the kind extant. The book is a cyclopedia in a\n      nutshell.+\" --+_Literary Guide, London, Eng._+\n\n\nProf. C. S. Laisant, one of the leading educators of France, and a\nmember of the faculty of the College of France, says:\n\n\"Admiration is too feeble a word to express my opinion of 'A New\nCatechism.' It is a marvelous manual of rationalistic philosophy and\nscientific morality. To disseminate this book is to aid the cause of\nEuropean democracy--the emancipation of the people. We congratulate\nFrenchmen for the opportunity of reading in their own language so\nbeautiful and beneficent a book.\"\n\nM. Vandervelde, member of the Parliament of Belgium, says:\n\n\"I know of no other work of its kind which is as lucid, as loyal to\ntruth, and as attractive to the daily toiler, as it is to the\nphilosopher.\"--_In Introduction to French Edition._\n\nMr. Geo. W. Foote, of England, in _The Freethinker_:\n\n\"Mr. Mangasarian's well-known 'Catechism' promises to have a great sale\nin France and Belgium. The English edition ought to be widely circulated\nin this country. It is written with power, knowledge, and dexterity.\nPlaced in the hands of young people, in particular, it should do a world\nof good for Free-thought.\"\n\n\nWHAT THE EUROPEAN PAPERS SAY OF \"A NEW CATECHISM\"\n\n\n      \"Grapples with the problems that underlie all the creeds and all\n      the systems of science and philosophy.\"--_Glasgow Herald._\n\n      \"The author shows good judgment in devising questions and great\n      fertility of resource in answering them. The book is well worth a\n      perusal.\"--_Educational News, London._\n\n      \"Mr. Mangasarian seems to us to have hit upon a happy union of the\n      brevity which is the soul of wit with the amplitude which conduces\n      to enlightenment.... It is acute, stimulating and suggestive....\n      It is eminently readable, and we trust it will have the extensive\n      sale which its intrinsic merit deserves.\"--_Literary Guide,\n      London._\n\n\nCHRISTIAN SCIENCE A Comedy in Four Acts\n\nThe book is meant for those in whom the spirit of inquiry is not\nhopelessly stifled. People who enjoy doing their thinking, will relish\nreading this comedy. The motto of the book is: \"The light is known to\nhave failed against folly sometimes, the laugh never.\" 80 pages. Cloth\n25c, paper 10c.\n\nThe above should be read in connection with the author's pamphlet\nlecture on Why Mrs. Eddy's Teachings Appeal to Women, or _Christian\nScience Analysed_. Price, 10c.\n\n\nA FEW OF THE PRINTED LECTURES Of M. M. Mangasarian\n\n\n      \"HOW THE BIBLE WAS INVENTED.\"\n\n      \"MORALITY WITHOUT GOD.\"\n\n      \"SUNDAY SERMONS AND SUNDAY SPORTS\"\n\n      \"ORTHODOX ATTACKS\" (Mr. Mangasarian's answer to _The Outlook's_\n      attack on \"A New Catechism\").\n\n      \"PRAYER.\"\n\n      \"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AMERICA\" (Being a reply to the Archbishop\n      of Chicago).\n\n      \"CHRISTIAN SCIENCE ANALYZED AND ANSWERED,\" 2nd Edition.\n\n      \"CHRISTIAN SCIENCE--A COMEDY.\"\n\n      \"BRYAN ON RELIGION.\"\n\n      \"WHAT WAS THE RELIGION OF SHAKESPEARE?\"\n\n      \"SHAKESPEARE, THE RATIONALIST.\"\n\n\n10c per copy. Orchestra Hall Building, Chicago.\n\n\nThe Independent Religious Society\n\nLectures are delivered every Sunday morning at 11 by M. M. Mangasarian,\nin Orchestra Hall, Michigan Avenue and Adams Street.\n\nThe aim, spirit, and fellowship, of the Society, are clearly expressed\nin the following selection from Ralph Waldo Emerson:\n\n\"The new church will be founded on moral science. Poets, artists,\nmusicians, philosophers, will be its prophet teachers. The noblest\nliterature of the world will be its bible. Love and labor, its holy\nsacraments--and instead of worshipping one saviour, it will gladly build\nan altar in the heart for every one who has suffered for humanity.\"","title":"How the Bible was Invented: A Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9730}