{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38093/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38093","id":"gutenberg_38093","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38093","summary":null,"tags":["Agnosticism","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nAN\n\nENQUIRY\n\nBy R. G. Ingersoll\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nENGLAND is now for the first time offering to the toiling portion of\nits people a fair modicum of the education which was in old time the\nexclusive privilege of the rich. In doing so it has acted with a keen\neye to self-preservation, for the history of every fallen nation shows\nthat the unaided ignorance of the masses has been a principal and fatal\nelement in its downfall.\n\nThis truth would seem to be not yet fully realized by all of higher\neducation in the country; for the teaching that many of them counsel\nfor the poor is clogged with ignorance and clouded with error from which\ntheir own higher culture has long been free. It is distressing to see\nmen who no longer regard the Bible as anything more than a curious\nand interesting record, a compound of reflections of ancient myths and\npoetry, commingled with a considerable amount of fabulous history and\nabsurd theology--to see any such man still arguing that for the poor\nand for the young it is a necessary subject of study, and (for them) a\nuseful article of belief!\n\nDo those who argue thus deem the light of reason too clear, too pure,\ntoo delightful, for mankind at large; or is it that they trust that\nthe useful ignorance of the workers will continue to supply them with\nunmerited or unworthy luxuries?\n\nIn neither case can the position endure. The refinement of Rome might\nloftily echo\n\n     Odi profanum vulgus et arceo:\n\nbut Rome has herself fallen; and not on the portals of future science or\nof humanity shall any such motto be written. Freedom of Knowledge is\nthe corollary to Freedom of Thought: in the society of the future\nno hierarchy or oligarchy of intellect will close its doors upon the\nmasses; none will find delight in either sensuous or intellectual\npleasure obtained at the cost of the baser condition of others.\n\nThe following Reprint will be found a clear exposition of the\nincongruities of creed and record and dogma taught to the poor as a\nsystem of ethics for the whole of their life; and held as a convenient\nthing up to a certain age for the young, and especially the female\nyoung, of the moneyed classes.\n\nIt is time that such warfare as this should be aggressive; that such\nbooks as the present should be part of the food of our children. Our\ntruest feelings and our tenderest years have been enslaved to blind\nfaith, unreasoning credulity and degrading fear; our infant lips have\nbeen trained to link in loving accents the gentle and holy names of\nMother and of Father with that of a God of jealousy, of vengeance, and\nbrutality; our growing mind has been warned to look to a Hebrew ascetic\nas the noblest type of the divine, and to a Hebrew profligate and\nmurderer as the highest type of the human. As the opening thought of\nyouth has striven to turn to the light of reason, it has been constantly\nthreatened back and thrust back into the dark of superstition. It has\nbeen told that eternal misery is the doom of those who leave the\npaths of dogma; and it has been falsely and persistently taught that\nFree-thinkers are evil and unclean, men without care for right, scoffers\nat every good thing.\n\nBut it is not scoffers who wage this war of the rational against the\nsupernatural: let none deceive themselves with that vain thought, or\nperpetuate the incorrect assertion. Of such books as the present, such\nwritings as the present, some at least are the words of men and women\nwho have been born to, and striven toward a godly life, with intense\neffort, with groanings not to be uttered: who, nursed in the bosom of\nthe Church, and partakers in all her most sacred ordinances, crushed\ndown as unholy the first and the repeated breathings of doubt and\nof reasoning their minds; who held to the falseness of their early\nteachings,--till there came that final struggle, when they wrestled with\nGod,--to hold him,--not to lose him; gasping with fevered lips and shut\nteeth and scalding eyelids, \"I will not let thee go \": and who won a\nblessing they knew not of in that they proved the Jehovah of Hebraism,\nthe God of Christianity, to be an Apollyon of Superstition: who cast him\noff in disgust, in loathing, in half despair; who lay faint and bleeding\nthrough a night of darkness: but to whom, with the dawn, has come the\nfree and bracing air of reason, and then the deep warm glow of true\nlife, and humanity, and universal love,--love given this time not to a\nfetish, but to every fellow being, to man and beast, to tree and moss,\nto stone and star.\n\nWith a great price obtained we this freedom, and we will that our Sons\nand that our Daughters be free born. To such a liberator as Robert G.\nIngersoll the thanks of present parents are lovingly offered; his\nname will be cherished by our children, and his memory hallowed in the\ngratitude of generations yet unborn.\n\nB. E.\n\nRudyard:\n\n9th Month, 1881.\n\n\n\n\nBOUQUET GARNI.\n\n     It is the curse of England that its intellect can see truths\n     which its heart will not embody.\n     --Laurence Oliphant\n\n     The root of all tyranny and oppression, of all social and\n     human ills, is found in witholding from the masses of each\n     community mental culture, or knowledge that may be conferred\n     on all.\n     --Rd. Carlile.\n\n     Atheism leaves to man reason, philosophy, natural piety,\n     laws, reputation, and every thing that can serve to conduct\n     him to virtue; but superstition destroys all these, and\n     erects itself into tyranny over the understandings of men.\n     --Bacon.\n\n     A healthy poetic nature wants, as you yourself say, no Moral\n     Law, no Rights of Man, no Political Metaphysics. You might\n     have added as well, it wants no Deity, no Immortality, to\n     stay and uphold itself withal.\n     --Letter from Schiller to Goethe.\n\n     Never to blend our pleasure or our pride With sorrow of the\n     meanest thing that feels.\n     --Wordsworth.\n\n          * A Bouquet Garni is a little bundle of herbs, some bitter\n          some sweet, but all salutary.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN RELIGION\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nA PROFOUND change has taken place in the world of thought, The pews are\ntrying to set themselves somewhat above the pulpit. The layman discusses\ntheology with the minister, and smiles. _Christians_ excuse themselves\nfor belonging to the Church, by denying a part of the creed. The idea\nis abroad that they who know the most of nature believe the least about\ntheology. The sciences are regarded as infidels, and facts as scoffers.\nThousands of most excellent people avoid churches, and, with few\nexceptions, only those attend prayer-meetings who wish to be alone. The\npulpit is losing because the people are growing.\n\nOf course it is still claimed that we are a _Christian_ people, indebted\nto something called _Christianity_ for all the progress we have made.\nThere is still a vast difference of opinion as to what _Christianity_\nreally is, although many warring sects have been discussing that\nquestion, with fire and sword, through centuries of creed and crime.\nEvery new sect has been denounced at its birth as illegitimate, as a\nsomething born out of orthodox wedlock and that should have been allowed\nto perish on the steps where it was found. Of the relative merits of the\nvarious denominations, it is sufficient to say that each claims to be\nright Among the evangelical churches there is a substantial agreement\nupon what they consider the fundamental truths of the _Gospel_. These\n\"fundamental truths,\" as I understand them, are:\n\nThat there is a personal _God_, the creator of the material universe;\nthat he made man of the dust, and woman from part of the man; that the\nman and woman were tempted by the _Devil_; that they were turned out\nof the garden of _Eden_; that, about fifteen hundred years afterward,\n_God's_ patience having been exhausted by the wickedness of mankind, he\ndrowned his children with the exception of eight persons; that afterward\nhe selected from their descendants _Abraham_, and through him the\n_Jewish_ people; that he gave laws to these people, and tried to govern\nthem in all things; that he made known his will in many Ways; that he\nwrought a vast number of miracles; that he inspired men to write the\n_Bible_; that, in the fulness of time, it having been found impossible\nto reform man, this _God_ came upon earth as a child born of the _Virgin\nMary_; that he lived in _Palestine_; that he preached for about three\nyears, going from place to place, Occasionally raising the dead, curing\nthe blind and the halt; that he was crucified--for the crime of\nblasphemy, as the _Jews_ supposed, but that, as a matter of fact, he was\noffered as a sacrifice for the sins of all who might have faith in him;\nthat he was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven where he now\nis, making intercession for his followers; that he will forgive the sins\nof all who believe on him, and that those who do not believe will be\nconsigned to the dungeons of eternal pain. These--it may be with the\naddition of the sacraments of _Baptism_ and the _Last\nSupper_--constitute what is generally known as the _Christian_ religion.\n\nIt is most cheerfully admitted that a vast number of people not only\nbelieve these things, but hold them in exceeding reverence, and imagine\nthem to be of the utmost importance to mankind. They regard the Bible as\nthe only light that God has given for the guidance of his children; that\nit is the one star in nature's sky--the foundation of all morality, of\nall law, of all order, and of all individual and national progress. They\nregard it as the only means we have for ascertaining the will of God,\nthe origin of man, and the destiny of the soul.\n\nIt is needless to enquire into the causes that have led so many people,\nto believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. In my opinion, they\nwere and are mistaken, and the mistake has hindered, in countless ways,\nthe civilization of man. The Bible has been the fortress and defence of\nnearly every crime. No civilized country could re-enact its laws, and in\nmany respects its moral code is abhorrent to every good and tender man.\nIt is admitted that many of its precepts are pure, that many of its laws\nare wise and just, and that many of its statements are absolutely true.\n\nWithout desiring to hurt the feelings of anybody, I propose to give\na few reasons for thinking that a few passages, at least, in the _Old\nTestament_ are the product of a barbarous people, In all civilized\ncountries it is not only admitted, but it is passionately asserted, that\nslavery is and always was a hideous crime; that a war of conquest\nis simply murder; that polygamy is the enslavement of woman, the\ndegradation of man, and the destruction of home; that nothing is more\ninfamous than the slaughter of decrepit men, of helpless women, and of\nprattling babes; that captured maidens should not be given to soldiers;\nthat wives should not be stoned to death on account of their religious\nopinions, and that the death penalty ought not to be inflicted for\na violation of the _Sabbath_. We know that there was a time, in the\nhistory of almost every nation, when slavery, polygamy, and wars of\nextermination were regarded as divine institutions; when women were\nlooked upon as beasts of burden, and when, among some people, it was\nconsidered the duty of the husband to murder the wife for differing\nwith him on the subject of religion. Nations that entertain these views\nto-day are regarded as savage, and, probably, with the exception of the\n_South Sea Islanders_, the _Feejees_, some citizens of _Delaware_, and\na few tribes in _Central Africa_, no human beings can be found degraded\nenough to agree upon these subjects with the _Jehovah_ of the ancient\n_Jews_. The only evidence we have, or can have, that a nation has ceased\nto be savage is the fact that it has abandoned these doctrines. To every\none, except the theologian, it is perfectly easy to account for\nthe mistakes, atrocities, and crimes of the past, by saying that\ncivilization is a slow and painful growth; that the moral perceptions\nare cultivated through ages of tyranny, of want, of crime, and of\nheroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the eyes of\nself and hold in lofty and in equal poise the scales of justice;\nthat conscience is born of suffering; that mercy is the child of the\nimagination---of the power to put oneself in the sufferer's place, and\nthat man advances only as he becomes acquainted with his surroundings,\nwith the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take advantage of the\nforces of nature.\n\nBut the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to declare\nthat there was a time when slavery was right--when men could buy, and\nwomen could sell, their babes. He is compelled to insist that there\nwas a time when polygamy was the highest form of virtue; when wars\nof extermination were waged with the sword of mercy; when religious\ntoleration was a crime, and when death was the just penalty for having\nexpressed an honest thought. He must maintain that Jehovah is just as\nbad now as he was four thousand years ago, or that he was just as\ngood then as he is now, but that human conditions have so changed that\nslavery, polygamy, religious persecutions, and wars of conquest are now\nperfectly devilish. Once they were right--once they were commanded by\nGod himself; now, they are prohibited. There has been such a change in\nthe conditions of man that, at the present time, the Devil is in favour\nof slavery, polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That\nis to say, the Devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah\nheld four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained\nexactly the same--changeless and incapable of change.\n\nWe find that other nations beside the Jews had similar laws and ideas;\nthat they believed in and practised slavery and polygamy, murdered women\nand children, and exterminated their neighbours to the extent of their\npower. It is not claimed that they received a revelation. It is admitted\nthat they had no knowledge of the true God. And yet, by a strange\ncoincidence, they practised the same crimes, of their own motion, that\nthe Jews did by the command of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man\ncan do wrong without a special revelation. It will hardly be claimed,\nat this day, that the passages in the Bible upholding slavery, polygamy,\nwar, and religious persecution are evidences of the inspiration of that\nbook. Suppose that there had been nothing in the Old Testament upholding\nthese crimes, would any modern Christian suspect that it was not\ninspired, on account of the omission? Suppose that there had been\nnothing in the Old Testament but laws in favour of these crimes, would\nany intelligent Christian now contend that it was the work of the\ntrue God? If the Devil had inspired a book, will some believer in the\ndoctrine of inspiration tell us in what respect, on the subjects of\nslavery, polygamy, war, and liberty, it would have differed from some\nparts of the Old Testament? Suppose that we should now discover a Hindu\nbook of equal antiquity with the Old Testament, containing a defence\nof slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious persecution,\nwould we regard it as evidence that the writers were inspired by an\ninfinitely wise and merciful God? As most other nations at that time\npractised these crimes, and as the Jews would have practised them all,\neven if left to themselves, one can hardly see the necessity of any\ninspired commands upon these subjects. Is there a believer in the Bible\nwho does not wish that God, amid the thunders and lightnings of Sinai,\nhad distinctly said to Moses that man should not own his fellow-man;\nthat women should not sell their babes; that men should be allowed to\nthink and investigate for themselves, and that the sword should never be\nunsheathed to shed the blood of honest men? Is there a believer in\nthe world, who would not be delighted to find that every one of these\ninfamous passages are interpolations, and that the skirts of God\nwere never reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe? Is there a\nbeliever who does not regret that God commanded a husband to stone his\nwife to death for suggesting the worship of the sun or moon? Surely,\nthe light of experience is enough to tell us that slavery is wrong, that\npolygamy is infamous, and that murder is not a virtue. No one will now\ncontend that it was worth God's while to impart the information to Moses\nor to Joshua, or to anybody else, that the Jewish people might purchase\nslaves of the heathen, or that it was their duty to exterminate the\nnatives of the Holy Land. The deists have contended that the Old\nTestament is too cruel and barbarous to be the work of a wise and loving\nGod, To this, the theologians have replied, that nature is just as\ncruel; that the earthquake, the volcano, the pestilence and storm,\nare just as savage as the Jewish God; and to my mind this is a perfect\nanswer.\n\nSuppose that we knew that after \"inspired\" men had finished the Bible,\nthe Devil got possession of it, and wrote a few passages; what part of\nthe sacred Scriptures would Chris-tians now pick out as being probably\nhis work? Which of the following passages would naturally be selected as\nhaving been written by the Devil--\"Love thy neighbour as thyself,\" or,\n\"Kill all the males among the little ones, and kill every woman; but all\nthe women children keep alive for yourselves\"?\n\nIt may be that the best way to illustrate what I have said of the Old\nTestament is to compare some of the supposed teachings of Jehovah with\nthose of persons who never read an \"inspired\" line, and who lived and\ndied without having received the light of revelation. Nothing can be\nmore suggestive than a comparison of the ideas of Jehovah--the inspired\nwords of the one claimed to be the infinite God, as recorded in the\nBible--with those that have been expressed by men who, all admit,\nreceived no help from heaven.\n\nIn all ages of which any record has been preserved, there have been\nthose who gave their ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love, and\nlaw. Now, if the Bible is really the work of God, it should contain the\ngrandest and sublimest truths. It should, in all respects, excel the\nworks of man. Within that book should be found the best and loftiest\ndefinitions of justice; the truest conceptions of human liberty; the\nclearest outlines of duty; the tenderest, the highest, and the noblest\nthoughts,--not that the human mind has produced, but that the human mind\nis capable of receiving. Upon every page should be found the luminous\nevidence of its divine origin. Unless it contains grander and more\nwonderful things than man has written, we are not only justified in\nsaying, but we are compelled to say, that it was written by no being\nsuperior to man. It may be said that it is unfair to call attention\nto certain bad things in the Bible, while the good are not so much as\nmentioned. To this it may be replied that a divine being would not put\nbad things in a book. Certainly a being of infinite intelligence,\npower, and goodness could never fall below the ideal of \"depraved and\nbarbarous\" man. It will not do, after we find that the Bible upholds\nwhat we now call crimes, to say that it is not verbally inspired. If the\nwords are not inspired, what is? It may be said that the thoughts are\ninspired. But this would include only the thoughts expressed without\nwords If ideas are inspired they must be contained in and expressed only\nby inspired words; that is, to say, the arrangement of the words, with\nrelation, to each other, must have been inspired For the purpose of\nthis perfect; arrangement, the writers, according to the Christian\nworld, were inspired. Were some sculptor inspired, of God to make a\nstatue perfect in its every part, we would not say that the marble was\ninspired, but the statue--the relation of part to part, the married;\nharmony of form and function. The language, the words, take the place\nof the marble, and it is the arrangement of these words that Christians\nclaim to be inspired. If there is one uninspired word,--that is, one\nword in the wrong place, or a word that ought not to be there,--to that\nextent the Bible is an uninspired book. The moment it is admitted that\nsome words are not, in their arrangement as to other words, inspired,\nthen, unless with absolute certainty these words can be pointed out, a\ndoubt is cast on all the words the book contains. If it was worth God's\nwhile to make a revelation to man at all, it was certainly worth his\nwhile to see to it that it was correctly made. He would not have allowed\nthe ideas and mistakes of pretended prophets and designing priests to\nbecome so mingled with the original text that it is impossible to tell\nwhere he ceased and where the priests and prophets began. Neither\nwill it do to say that God adapted his revelation to the prejudices of\nmankind. Of course it was necessary for an infinite being to adapt\nhis revelation to the intellectual capacity of man; but why should God\nconfirm a barbarian in his prejudices? Why should he fortify a heathen\nin his crimes? If a revelation is of any importance whatever, it is\nto eradicate prejudices from the human mind. It should be a lever\nwith which to raise the human race. Theologians have exhausted their\ningenuity in finding excuses for God. It seems to me that they would be\nbetter employed in finding excuses for men. They tell us that the Jews\nwere so cruel and ignorant that God was compelled to justify, or nearly\nto justify, many of their crimes, in order to have any influence with\nthem whatever. They tell us that if he had declared slavery and\npolygamy to be criminal, the Jews would have refused to receive the ten\ncommandments. They insist that, under the circumstances, God did the\nbest he could; that his real intention was to lead them along slowly,\nstep by step, so that, in a few hundred years, they would be induced to\nadmit that it was hardly fair to steal a babe from its mother's breast.\nIt has always seemed reasonable that an infinite God ought to have\nbeen able to make man grand enough to know, even without a Special\nrevelation, that it is not altogether right to steal the labour, or the\nwife, or the child, of another. When the whole question is thoroughly\nexamined, the world will find that Jehovah had the prejudices, the\nhatreds and the superstitions of his day.\n\nIf there is anything of value, it is liberty. Liberty is the air of the\nsoul, the sunshine of life, Without it the world is a prison and the\nuniverse an infinite dungeon.\n\nIf the Bible is really inspired Jehovah commanded the Jewish people to\nbuy the children of the strangers that sojourned among them, and ordered\nthat the children thus bought should be an inheritance for the children\nof the Jews, and that they should be bondmen and bondwomen forever. Yet\nEpictetus, a man to whom no revelation was ever made, a man whose soul\nfollowed only the light of nature, and who had never heard of the Jewish\nGod, was great enough to say: \"Will you not remember that your servants\nare by nature your brothers, the children of God? In saying that you\nhave bought them, you look down on the earth, and into the pit, on the\nwretched law of men long since dead, but you see not the laws of the\ngods.\"\n\nWe find that Jehovah, speaking to his chosen people, assured them that\ntheir bondmen and their bondmaids must be \"of the heathen that were\nround about them.\" \"Of them,\" said Jehovah, \"shall ye buy bondman\nand bondmaid.\" And yet Cicero, a pagan, Cicero, who had never been\nenlightened by reading the Old Testament, had the moral grandeur to\ndeclare: \"They who say that we should love our fellow-citizens, but not\nforeigners, destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, with which\nbenevolence and justice would perish forever.\"\n\nIf the Bible is inspired, Jehovah God of all worlds, actually said: \"And\nif a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die-under his\nhand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day\nor two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\" And yet Zeno,\nfounder of the Stoics, centuries before Christ was born, insisted\nthat no man could be the owner of another, and that the title was bad,\nwhether the slave had become so by conquest, or by purchase. Jehovah\nordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others, this\ncommand: \"When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou shalt\nsmite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with\nthem, nor show mercy unto them.\" And yet Epictetus whom we have already\nquoted, gave this marvellous rule for the guidance of human conduct:\n\"Live with thy inferiors as thou wouldst have thy superiors live with\nthee.\"\n\nIs it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and wisdom\nsaid: \"I will heap mischief upon them; I will send my arrows upon them;\nthey shall be burned with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and\nwith bitter destruction. I will send the tooth of beasts among them,\nwith the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror\nwithin, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling,\nalso, with the man of grey hairs;\" while Seneca, an uninspired Roman,\nsaid: \"The wise man will not pardon any crime that ought to be\npunished, but he will accomplish, in a nobler way, all that is sought\nin pardoning. He will spare some and watch over some, because of their\nyouth, and others on account of their ignorance. His clemency will not\nfall short of justice, but will fulfil it perfectly.\"\n\nCan we believe that God ever said of any one: \"Let his children be\nfatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually\nvagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate\nplaces; let the extortioner catch all that he hath and let the stranger\nspoil his labour; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither\nlet there be any to favour his fatherless children.\" If he ever said\nthese words, surely he had never heard this line, this strain of music,\nfrom the Hindu: \"Sweet is the lute to those who have not heard the\nprattle of their own children.\"\n\nJehovah, \"from the clouds and darkness of Sinai\" said to the Jews: \"Thou\nshalt have no other gods before me.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself\nto them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God,\nvisiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third\nand fourth generation of them that hate me.\" Contrast these with the\nwords put by the Hindu in the mouth of Brahma: \"I am the same to all\nmankind. They who honestly serve other gods, involuntarily worship me.\nI am he who partaketh of all worship, and I am the reward of all\nworshippers.\"\n\nCompare these passages. The first, a dungeon where crawl the things\nbegot of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid\nwith suns.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nWAIVING the contradictory statements in the various books of the New\nTestament; leaving out of the question the history of the manuscripts;\nsaying nothing about the errors in translation and the interpolations\nmade by the fathers; and admitting, for the time being, that the books\nwere all written at the times claimed, and by the persons whose names\nthey bear, the questions of inspiration, probability, and absurdity\nstill remain.\n\nAs a rule, where several persons testify to the same transaction, while\nagreeing in the main points, they will disagree upon many minor things,\nand such disagreement upon minor matters is generally considered as\nevidence that the witnesses have not agreed among themselves upon the\nstory they should tell. These differences in statement we account for\nfrom the facts that all did not see alike, that all did not have the\nsame opportunity for seeing, and that all had not equally good memories.\nBut when we claim that the witnesses were inspired, we must admit that\nhe who inspired them did know exactly what occurred, and consequently\nthere should be no contradiction, even in the minutest detail. The\naccounts should be not only substantially, but they should be actually,\nthe same. It is impossible to account for any differences, or any\ncontradictions, except from the weaknesses of human nature, and these\nweaknesses cannot be predicated of divine wisdom. Why should there\nbe more than one correct account of anything? Why were four gospels\nnecessary? One inspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.\n\nOne great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to have\nbeen commanded by God, but all the cruelties recounted in the Old\nTestament ceased with death. The vengeance of Jehovah stopped at the\nportal of the tomb. He never threatened to avenge himself upon the dead;\nand not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse\nof Malachi, contains the slightest intimation that God will punish in\nanother world. It was reserved for the New Testament to make known the\nfrightful doctrine of eternal pain. It was the teacher of universal\nbenevolence who rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the\nhorrified gaze of man on the lurid gulfs of hell. Within the breast of\nnon-resistance was coiled the worm that never dies.\n\nOne great objection to the New Testament is that it bases salvation upon\nbelief. This, at least, is true of the Gospel according to John, and of\nmany of the epistles. I admit that Matthew never heard of the Atonement,\nand died utterly ignorant of the scheme of salvation. I also admit that\nMark never dreamed that it was necessary for a man to be born again;\nthat he knew nothing of the mysterious doctrine of Regeneration, and\nthat he never even suspected that it was necessary to believe anything.\nIn the sixteenth chapter of Mark, we are told that \"He that believeth\nand is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be\ndamned\"; but this passage has been shown to be an interpolation, and,\nconsequently, not a solitary word is found in the Gospel according to\nMark upon the subject of salvation by faith. The same is also true\nof the Gospel of Luke. It says not one word as to the necessity of\nbelieving on Jesus Christy not one word as to the Atonement, not one\nword upon the scheme of salvation, and not the slightest hint that it is\nnecessary to believe anything here in order to be happy hereafter.\n\nAnd I here take occasion to say, that with most of the teachings of the\nGospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke I most heartily agree. The miraculous\nparts must, of course, be thrown aside. I admit that the necessity of\nBelief, the Atonement, and the scheme of salvation are all set forth\nin the Gospel of John,--a Gospel, in my opinion, not written until long\nafter the others.\n\nAccording to the prevailing Christian belief, the Christian religion\nrests upon the doctrine of the Atonement. If this doctrine is without\nfoundation, if it is repugnant to justice and mercy, the fabric falls.\nWe are told that the first man committed a crime for which all his\nposterity are responsible,--in other words, that we are accountable,\nand can be justly punished for a sin we never in fact committed. This\nabsurdity was the father of another, namely, that a man can be rewarded\nfor a good action done by another. God, according to the modern\ntheologians, made a law, with the penalty of eternal death for its\ninfraction. All men, they say, have broken that law. In the economy of\nheaven, this law had to be vindicated. This could be done by damning the\nwhole human race. Through what is known as the Atonement, the salvation\nof a few was made possible. They insist that the law--whatever that\nis--demanded the extreme penalty, that justice called for its victims,\nand that even mercy ceased to plead. Under these circumstances God, by\nallowing the innocent to suffer, satisfactorily settled with the law,\nand allowed a few of the guilty to escape. The law was satisfied with\nthis arrangement. To carry out this scheme, God was born as a babe into\nthis world. \"He grew in stature and increased in knowledge.\" At the\nage of thirty-three, after having lived a life filled with kindness,\ncharity, and nobility, after having practised every virtue, he was\nsacrificed as an atonement for man. It is claimed that he actually took\nour place, and bore our sins and our guilt; that in this way the justice\nof God was satisfied, and that the blood of Christ was an atonement, an\nexpiation, for the sins of all who might believe on him.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation, there was no remission of sin except\nthrough the shedding of blood. If a man committed certain sins, he\nmust bring to the priest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a pair of\nturtle-doves. The priest would lay his hands upon the animal, and the\nsin of the man would be transferred. Then the animal would be killed in\nthe place of the real sinner, and the blood thus shed and sprinkled upon\nthe altar would be an atonement. In this way Jehovah was satisfied.\nThe greater the crime, the greater the sacrifice--the more blood, the\ngreater the atonement. There was always a certain ratio between the\nvalue of the animal and the enormity of the sin. The most minute\ndirections were given about the killing of these animals, and about\nthe sprinkling of their blood. Every priest became a butcher, and every\nsanctuary a slaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking to\na refined and loving soul. Nothing could have been better calculated to\nharden the heart than this continual shedding of innocent blood. This\nterrible system is supposed to have culminated in the sacrifice of\nChrist. His blood took the place of all other. It is necessary to shed\nno more. The law at last is satisfied, satiated, surfeited. The idea\nthat God wants blood is at the bottom of the Atonement, and rests\nupon the most fearful savagery. How can sin be transferred from men to\nanimals, and how can the shedding of the blood of animals atone for the\nsins of men?\n\nThe Church says that the sinner is in debt to God, and that the\nobligation is discharged by the Saviour. The best that can possibly be\nsaid of such a transaction is, that the debt is transferred, not paid.\nThe truth is, that a sinner is in debt to the person he has injured.\nIf a man injures his neighbour, it is not enough for him to get the\nforgiveness of God, but he must have the forgiveness of his neighbour.\nIf a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives him, his hand will\nsmart exactly the same. You must, after all, reap what you sow. No god\ncan give you wheat when you sow tares, and no devil can give you tares\nwhen you sow wheat.\n\nThere are in nature neither rewards nor punishments--there are\nconsequences. The life of Christ is worth its example, its moral force,\nits heroism of benevolence.\n\nTo make innocence suffer is the greatest sin; how then is it possible to\nmake the suffering of the innocent a justification for the criminal? Why\nshould a man be willing to let the innocent suffer for him? Does not\nthe willingness show that he is utterly unworthy of the sacrifice?\nCertainly, no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an\ninnocent person should suffer for his sin. What would we think of a\nman who would allow another to die for a crime that he himself had\ncommitted? What would we think of a law that allowed the innocent to\ntake the place of the guilty? Is it possible to vindicate a just law\nby inflicting punishment on the innocent? Would not that be a second\nviolation instead of a vindication?\n\nIf there was no general Atonement until the crucifixion of Christ, what\nbecame of the countless millions who died before that time? And it must\nbe remembered that the blood shed by the Jews was not for other nations.\nJehovah hated foreigners. The Gentiles were left without forgiveness.\nWhat has become of the millions who have died since, without having\nheard of the Atonement? What becomes of those who have heard but have\nnot believed? It seems to me that the doctrine of the Atonement is\nabsurd, unjust, and immoral. Can a law be satisfied by the execution\nof the wrong person? When a man commits a crime, the laws demands his\npunishment, not that of a substitute; and there can be no law, human\nor divine, that can be satisfied by the punishment of a substitute. Can\nthere be a Jaw that demands that the guilty be rewarded? And yet, to\nreward the guilty is far nearer justice than to punish the innocent.\n\nAccording to the orthodox theology, there would have been no heaven had\nno Atonement been made. All the children of men would have been cast\ninto hell forever. The old men bowed with grief, the smiling mothers,\nthe sweet babes, the loving maidens, the brave, the tender, and the\njust, would have been given over to eternal pain. Man, it is claimed,\ncan make no Atonement for himself. If he commits one sin, and with\nthat exception lives a life of perfect virtue, still that one sin would\nremain unexpiated, unatoned, and for that one sin he would be forever\nlost To be saved by the goodness of another, to be a redeemed debtor\nforever, has in it something repugnant to manhood.\n\nWe must also remember that Jehovah took special charge of the Jewish\npeople; and we have always been taught that he did so for the purpose\nof civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing the Jews, he would\nhave made the damnation of the entire human race a certainty; because,\nif the Jews had been a civilized people when Christ appeared,--a\npeople whose hearts had not been hardened by the laws and teachings of\nJehovah,--they would not have crucified him, and, as a consequence,\nthe world would have been lost. If the Jews had believed in religious\nfreedom,--in the right of thought and speech,--not a human soul could\never have been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary\\ some\nbrave, heroic soul had rescued him from the holy mob, he would not\nonly have been eternally damned for his pains, but would have rendered\nimpossible the salvation of any human being; and, except for the\ncrucifixion of her son, the Virgin Mary, if the church is right, would\nbe to-day among the lost.\n\nIn countless ways the Christian world has endeavoured, for nearly two\nthousand years, to explain the Atonement, and every effort has ended\nin an admission that it cannot be understood, and a declaration that it\nmust be believed. Is it not immoral to teach that man can sin, that he\ncan harden his heart and pollute his soul, and that, by repenting\nand believing something that he does not comprehend, he can avoid the\nconsequences of his crimes? Has the promise and hope of forgiveness ever\nprevented the commission of a sin? Should men be taught that sin gives\nhappiness here; that they ought to bear the evils of a virtuous life in\nthis world for the sake of joy in the next; that they can repent between\nthe last sin and the last breath; that after repentance every stain\nof the soul is washed away by the innocent blood of another; that the\nserpent of regret: will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the saved\nwill not even pity the victims of their own crimes; that the goodness\nof another can be transferred to them; and that sins forgiven cease to\naffect the unhappy wretches sinned against?\n\nAnother objection is that a certain belief is necessary to save the soul\nIt is often asserted that to believe is the only safe way. If you wish\nto be safe, be honest. Nothing can be safer than that. No matter what\nhis belief may be, no man, even in the hour of death, can regret having\nbeen honest. It never can be necessary to throw away your reason to save\nyour soul. A soul without reason is scarcely worth saving. There is no\nmore degrading doctrine than that of mental non-resistance. The soul has\na right to defend its castle--the brain, and he who waives that right\nbecomes a serf and slave. Neither can I admit that a man, by doing me\nan injury, can place me under obligation to do him a service. To render\nbenefits for injuries is to ignore all distinctions between actions. He\nwho treats his friends and enemies alike has neither love nor justice.\nThe idea of non-resistance never occurred to a man with power to protect\nhimself. This doctrine was the child of weakness, born when resistance\nwas impossible. To allow a crime to be committed when you can prevent\nit, is next to committing the crime yourself. And yet, under the banner\nof non-resistance, the Church has shed the blood of millions, and in the\nfolds of her sacred Vestments have gleamed the daggers of assassination.\nWith her cunning hands she wove the purple for hypocrisy, and placed\nthe crown upon the brow of crime. For a thousand years larceny held the\nscales of justice, while beggars scorned the princely sons of toil, and\nignorant fear denounced the liberty of thought.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him, like a\npanorama, moved the history yet to be. He knew exactly how his words\nwould be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies\nwould be committed in his name. He knew that the fires of persecution\nwould climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that brave\nmen would languish in dungeons, in darkness, filled with pain; that the\nChurch would use instruments of torture, that his followers would appeal\nto whip and chain. He must have seen the horizon of the future red with\nthe flames of the Auto-da-Fe. He knew all the creeds that would spring\nlike poison fungi from every text. He saw the sects waging war against\neach other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests,\nbuilding dungeons for their fellow-men. He saw them using instruments\nof pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white with agony, the tears,\nthe blood--heard the shrieks and sobs of all the moaning, martyred\nmultitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words\nwith swords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the\n_Inquisition_ would be born of teachings attributed to him. He saw all\nthe interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and\ntell. He knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these\nburnings, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the\ncross. He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human\nflesh, that cradles would be robbed, and women's breasts unbabed for\ngold, and yet he died with voiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak?\nWhy did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world, that man\nshould not persecute, for opinion's sake, his fellow-man? Why did he not\ncry, You shall not persecute in my name; you shall not burn and torment\nthose who differ from you in creed? Why did he not plainly say, I am the\nSon of God? Why did he not explain the doctrine of the Trinity? Why did\nhe not tell the manner of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he\nnot say something positive, definite, and satisfactory about another\nworld? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven to the glad\nknowledge of another life? Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving\nthe world to misery and to doubt?\n\nHe came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal?\n\"Love thy neighbour as thyself\"? That was in the Old Testament, \"Love\nGod with all thy heart\"? That was in the Old Testament, \"Return good\nfor evil \"? That was said by _Buddha_ seven hundred years before he was\nborn, \"Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you\"? This\nwas the doctrine of _Laotse_. Did he come to give a rule of action?\n_Zoroaster_ had done this, long before: \"Whenever thou art in doubt as\nto whether an action is good or bad, abstain from it.\" Did he come to\nteach us of another world? The immortality of the soul had been taught\nby _Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans_ hundreds of years before he\nwas born. Long before, the world had been told by _Socrates_ that: \"One\nwho is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it\nbe right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or\nto do evil to any man, however much we may have suffered from him.\" And\n_Cicero_ had said: \"Let us not listen to those who think that we ought\nto be angry with our enemies and who believe this to be great and manly:\nnothing is more praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble\nsoul, as clemency and readiness to forgive.\"\n\nIs there anything nearer perfect than this from _Confucius_: \"For\nbenefits return benefits; for injuries return justice without any\nadmixture of revenge\"?\n\nThe dogma of eternal punishment rests upon passages in the _New\nTestament_, This infamous belief subverts every idea of justice. Around\nthe angel of immortality the Church has coiled this serpent. A finite\nbeing can neither commit an infinite sin, nor a sin against the\ninfinite. A being of infinite goodness and wisdom has no right,\naccording to the human standard of justice, to create any being destined\nto suffer eternal pain. A being of infinite wisdom would not create\na failure, and surely a man destined to everlasting agony is not a\nsuccess.\n\nHow long, according to the universal benevolence of the New Testament,\ncan a man be reasonably punished in the next world for failing to\nbelieve something unreasonable in this? Can it be possible that any\npunishment can endure forever? Suppose that every flake of snow that\never fell was a figure nine, and that the first flake was multiplied by\nthe second, and that product by the third, and so on to the last flake.\nAnd then suppose that this total should be multiplied by every drop of\nrain that ever fell, calling each drop a figure nine; and that total by\neach blade of grass that ever helped to weave a carpet for the earth,\ncalling each blade a figure nine, and that again by every grain of sand\non every shore, so that the grand total would make a line of nines so\nlong that it would require millions upon millions of years for light,\ntravelling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles per\nsecond, to reach the end. And suppose, further, that each unit in this\nalmost infinite total stood for billions of ages--still that vast and\nalmost endless time, measured by all the years beyond, is as one flake,\none drop, one leaf, one blade, one grain, compared with all the flakes,\nand drops, and leaves, and blades, and grains.\n\nUpon love's breast the Church has placed the eternal asp. And yet, in\nthe same book in which is taught this most infamous of doctrines, we are\nassured that \"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over\nall his works.\"\n\nSO FAR as we know, man is the author of all books. If a book had been\nfound on the earth by the first man, he might have regarded it as the\nwork of God; but as men were here a good while before any books were\nfound, and as man has produced a great many books, the probability is\nthat the Bible is no exception.\n\nMost nations, at the time the Old Testament was written, believed in\nslavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and religious persecution;\nand it is not wonderful that the book contained nothing contrary to such\nbelief. The fact that it was in exact accord with the morality of its\ntime proves that it was not the product of any being superior to man.\n\"The inspired writers\" upheld or established slavery, countenanced\npolygamy, commanded wars of extermination, and ordered the slaughter\nof women and babes. In these respects they were precisely like the\nuninspired savages by whom they were surrounded. They also taught and\ncommanded religious persecution as a duty, and visited the most trivial\noffences with the punishment of death. In these particulars they were in\nexact accord with their barbarian neighbours. They were utterly ignorant\nof geology and astronomy, and knew no more of what had happened than of\nwhat would happen; and, so far as accuracy is concerned, their history\nand prophecy were about equal; in other words, they were just as\nignorant as those who lived and died in Nature's night.\n\nDoes any Christian believe that if God were to write a book now, he\nwould uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has, Jehovah\nimproved? Has infinite mercy become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom\nintellectually advanced? Will any one claim that the passages upholding\nslavery have liberated mankind; that we are indebted for our modern\nhomes to the texts that made polygamy a virtue; or that religious\nliberty found its soil, its light, and rain, in the infamous verse\nwherein the husband is commanded to stone to death the wife for\nworshipping an unknown God?\n\nThe usual answer to these objection is that no country has ever been\ncivilized without the Bible.\n\nThe Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah made his will directly\nknown,--the only people who had the Old Testament. Other nations were\nutterly neglected by their Creator. Yet, such was the effect of the Old\nTestament on the Jews, that they crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly\ninnocent man. They could not have done much worse without a Bible. In\nthe crucifixion of Christ, they followed the teachings of his Father.\nIf, as it is now alleged by the theologians, no nation can be civilized\nwithout a Bible, certainly God must have known the fact six thousand\nyears ago, as well as the theologians know it now. Why did he not\nfurnish every nation with a Bible?\n\nAs to the Old Testament, I insist that all the bad passages were written\nby men; that those passages were not inspired. I insist that a being of\ninfinite goodness never commanded man to enslave his fellow-man, never\ntold a mother to sell her babe, never established polygamy, never\nordered one nation to exterminate another, and never told a husband to\nkill his wife because she suggested the worshipping of some other God.\n\nI also insist that the Old Testament would be a much better book with\nall of these passages left out; and, whatever may be said of the rest,\nthe passages to which attention has been drawn can with vastly more\npropriety be attributed to a Devil than to a God.\n\nTake from the New Testament all passages upholding the idea that belief\nis necessary to salvation; that Christ was offered as an atonement for\nthe sins of the world; that the punishment of the human soul will go\non forever; that heaven is the reward of faith, and hell the penalty of\nhonest investigation; take from it all miraculous stories,--and I admit\nthat all the good passages are true. If they are true, it makes no\ndifference whether they are Inspired or not. Inspiration is only\nnecessary to give authority to that which is repugnant to human reason.\n\nOnly that which never happened needs to be substantiated by miracles.\nThe universe is natural.\n\nThe Church must cease to insist that the passages upholding the\ninstitutions of savage men were inspired of God, The dogma of the\nAtonement must be abandoned. Good deeds must take the place of faith.\nThe savagery of eternal punishment must be renounced. Credulity is not\na virtue, and investigation is not a crime. Miracles are the children\nof mendacity. Nothing can be more wonderful than the majestic, unbroken,\nsublime, and eternal procession of causes and effects.\n\nReason must be the final arbiter, \"Inspired\" books attested by miracles\ncannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A religion that does not\ncommand the respect of the greatest minds will, in a little while,\nexcite the mockery of all. Every civilized man believes in the liberty\nof thought. Is it possible that God is intolerant? Is an act infamous in\nman one of the virtues of the Deity? Could there be progress in heaven\nwithout intellectual liberty? Is the freedom of the future to exist only\nin perdition? Is it not, after all, barely possible that a man acting\nlike Christ can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded for\nbelieving according to evidence, with out evidence, or against evidence?\nAre we to be saved because we are good, or because another was virtuous?\nIs credulity to be winged and crowned, while honest doubt is chained ana\ndamned?\n\nDo not misunderstand me. My position is that the cruel passages in\nthe Old Testament are not inspired; that slavery, polygamy, wars of\nextermination, and religious persecution, always have been, are, and\nforever will be, abhorred and cursed by the honest, the virtuous, and\nthe loving; that the innocent cannot justly suffer for the guilty,\nand that vicarious vice and vicarious virtue are equally absurd; that\neternal punishment is eternal revenge; that only the natural can happen;\nthat miracles prove the dishonesty of the few and the credulity of the\nmany; and that, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, salvation does not\ndepend upon belief, nor the Atonement, nor a \"second birth,\" but that\nthese gospel are in exact harmony with the declaration of the great\nPersian: \"Taking the first footstep with the good thought, the second\nwith the good word, and the third with the good deed, I entered\nparadise.\"\n\nThe dogmas of the past no longer reach the level of the highest thought,\nnor satisfy the hunger of the heart. While dusty faiths, embalmed and\nsepulchered in ancient texts, remain the same, the sympathies of men\nenlarge; the brain no longer kills its young; the happy lips give\nliberty to honest thoughts; the mental firmament expands and lifts; the\nbroken clouds drift by; the hideous dreams, the foul, misshapen children\nof the monstrous night, dissolve and fade.","title":"The Christian Religion: An Enquiry","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":9409}