{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38802/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38802","id":"gutenberg_38802","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38802","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL\n\n\"THE CLERGY KNOW, THAT I KNOW, THAT THEY KNOW, THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW.\"\n\nIN TWELVE VOLUMES, VOLUME II.\n\nLECTURES\n\n1900\n\nTHE DRESDEN EDITION\n\n\nTO\n\nMRS. SUE. M. FARRELL,\n\nIN LAW MY SISTER,\n\nAND IN FACT MY FRIEND,\n\nTHIS VOLUME,\n\nAS A TOKEN OF RESPECT AND LOVE, IS DEDICATED.\n\nCONTENTS OF VOLUME II.\n\nSOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.\n\n(1879.)\n\nPreface--I. He who endeavors to control the Mind by Force is a\nTyrant, and he who submits is a Slave--All I Ask--When a Religion\nis Founded--Freedom for the Orthodox Clergy--Every Minister an\nAttorney--Submission to the Orthodox and the Dead--Bounden Duty of\nthe Ministry--The Minister Factory at Andover--II. Free Schools--No\nSectarian Sciences--Religion and the Schools--Scientific\nHypocrites--III. The Politicians and the Churches--IV. Man and Woman the\nHighest Possible Titles--Belief Dependent on Surroundings--Worship of\nAncestors--Blindness Necessary to Keeping the Narrow Path--The Bible the\nChain that Binds--A Bible of the Middle Ages and the Awe it Inspired--V.\nThe Pentateuch--Moses Not the Author--Belief out of which Grew\nReligious Ceremonies--Egypt the Source of the Information of Moses--VI.\nMonday--Nothing, in the Light of Raw Material--The Story of Creation\nBegun--The Same Story, substantially, Found in the Records of Babylon,\nEgypt, and India--Inspiration Unnecessary to the Truth--Usefulness of\nMiracles to Fit Lies to Facts--Division of Darkness and Light--VII.\nTuesday--The Firmament and Some Biblical Notions about it--Laws of\nEvaporation Unknown to the Inspired Writer--VIII. Wednesday--The Waters\nGathered into Seas--Fruit and Nothing to Eat it--Five Epochs in the\nOrganic History of the Earth--Balance between the Total Amounts of\nAnimal and Vegetable Life--Vegetation Prior to the Appearance of the\nSun--IX. Thursday--Sun and Moon Manufactured--Magnitude of the Solar\nOrb--Dimensions of Some of the Planets--Moses' Guess at the Size of Sun\nand Moon--Joshua's Control of the Heavenly Bodies--A Hypothesis Urged\nby Ministers--The Theory of \"Refraction\"--Rev. Henry Morey--Astronomical\nKnowledge of Chinese Savants--The Motion of the Earth Reversed by\nJehovah for the Reassurance of Ahaz--\"Errors\" Renounced by Button--X.\n\"He made the Stars Also\"--Distance of the Nearest Star--XI.\nFriday--Whales and Other Living Creatures Produced--XII.\nSaturday--Reproduction Inaugurated--XIII. \"Let Us Make Man\"--Human\nBeings Created in the Physical Image and Likeness of God--Inquiry as\nto the Process Adopted--Development of Living Forms According to\nEvolution--How Were Adam and Eve Created?--The Rib Story--Age of\nMan Upon the Earth--A Statue Apparently Made before the World--XIV.\nSunday--Sacredness of the Sabbath Destroyed by the Theory of Vast\n\"Periods\"--Reflections on the Sabbath--XV. The Necessity for a Good\nMemory--The Two Accounts of the Creation in Genesis I and II--Order\nof Creation in the First Account--Order of Creation in the Second\nAccount--Fastidiousness of Adam in the Choice of a Helpmeet--Dr.\nAdam Clark's Commentary--Dr. Scott's Guess--Dr. Matthew Henry's\nAdmission--The Blonde and Brunette Problem--The Result of Unbelief and\nthe Reward of Faith--\"Give Him a Harp\"--XVI. The Garden--Location of\nEden--The Four Rivers--The Tree of Knowledge--Andover Appealed\nTo--XVII. The Fall--The Serpent--Dr. Adam Clark Gives a Zoological\nExplanation--Dr. Henry Dissents--Whence This Serpent?--XVIII.\nDampness--A Race of Giants--Wickedness of Mankind--An Ark Constructed--A\nUniversal Flood Indicated--Animals Probably Admitted to the Ark--How Did\nThey Get There?--Problem of Food and Service--A Shoreless Sea Covered\nwith Innumerable Dead--Drs. Clark and Henry on the Situation--The Ark\nTakes Ground--New Difficulties--Noah's Sacrifice--The Rainbow as a\nMemorandum--Babylonian, Egyptian, and Indian Legends of a Flood--XIX.\nBacchus and Babel--Interest Attaching to Noah--Where Did Our First\nParents and the Serpent Acquire a Common Language?--Babel and the\nConfusion of Tongues--XX. Faith in Filth--Immodesty of Biblical\nDiction--XXI. The Hebrews--God's Promises to Abraham--The Sojourning\nof Israel in Egypt--Marvelous Increase--Moses and Aaron--XXII.\nThe Plagues--Competitive Miracle Working--Defeat of the Local\nMagicians--XXIII. The Flight Out of Egypt--Three Million People in a\nDesert--Destruction of Pharaoh ana His Host--Manna--A Superfluity of\nQuails--Rev. Alexander Cruden's Commentary--Hornets as Allies of the\nIsraelites--Durability of the Clothing of the Jewish People--An Ointment\nMonopoly--Consecration of Priests--The Crime of Becoming a Mother--The\nTen Commandments--Medical Ideas of Jehovah--Character of the God of\nthe Pentateuch--XXIV. Confess and Avoid--XXV. \"Inspired\" Slavery--XXVI.\n\"Inspired\" Marriage-XXVII. \"Inspired\" War-XXVIII. \"Inspired\" Religious\nLiberty--XXIX. Conclusion.\n\nSOME REASONS WHY.\n\n(1881.)\n\nI--Religion makes Enemies--Hatred in the Name of Universal\nBenevolence--No Respect for the Rights of Barbarians--Literal\nFulfillment of a New Testament Prophecy--II. Duties to God--Can we\nAssist God?--An Infinite Personality an Infinite Impossibility-Ill.\nInspiration--What it Really Is--Indication of Clams--Multitudinous\nLaughter of the Sea--Horace Greeley and the Mammoth Trees--A Landscape\nCompared to a Table-cloth--The Supernatural is the Deformed--Inspiration\nin the Man as well as in the Book--Our Inspired Bible--IV. God's\nExperiment with the Jews--Miracles of One Religion never astonish the\nPriests of Another--\"I am a Liar Myself\"--V. Civilized Countries--Crimes\nonce regarded as Divine Institutions--What the Believer in the\nInspiration of the Bible is Compelled to Say--Passages apparently\nwritten by the Devil--VI. A Comparison of Books--Advancing a Cannibal\nfrom Missionary to Mutton--Contrast between the Utterances of Jehovah\nand those of Reputable Heathen--Epictetus, Cicero, Zeno,\nSeneca--the Hindu, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius--The Avesta--VII.\nMonotheism--Egyptians before Moses taught there was but One God\nand Married but One Wife--Persians and Hindoos had a Single Supreme\nDeity--Rights of Roman Women--Marvels of Art achieved without the\nAssistance of Heaven--Probable Action of the Jewish Jehovah incarnated\nas Man--VIII. The New Testament--Doctrine of Eternal Pain brought to\nLight--Discrepancies--Human Weaknesses cannot be Predicated of\nDivine Wisdom--Why there are Four Gospels according to Irenaeus--The\nAtonement--Remission of Sins under the Mosaic Dispensation--Christians\nsay, \"Charge it\"--God's Forgiveness does not Repair an Injury--Suffering\nof Innocence for the Guilty--Salvation made Possible by Jehovah's\nFailure to Civilize the Jews--Necessity of Belief not taught in the\nSynoptic Gospels--Non-resistance the Offspring of Weakness--IX. Christ's\nMission--All the Virtues had been Taught before his Advent--Perfect and\nBeautiful Thoughts of his Pagan Predecessors--St. Paul Contrasted\nwith Heathen Writers--\"The Quality of Mercy\"--X. Eternal Pain--An\nIllustration of Eternal Punishment--Captain Kreuger of the Barque\nTiger--XI. Civilizing Influence of the Bible--Its Effects on the\nJews--If Christ was God, Did he not, in his Crucifixion, Reap what\nhe had Sown?--Nothing can add to the Misery of a Nation whose King is\nJehovah\n\nORTHODOXY.\n\n(1884.)\n\nOrthodox Religion Dying Out--Religious Deaths and Births--The Religion\nof Reciprocity--Every Language has a Cemetery--Orthodox Institutions\nSurvive through the Money invested in them--\"Let us tell our Real\nNames\"--The Blows that have Shattered the Shield and Shivered the Lance\nof Superstition--Mohammed's Successful Defence of the Sepulchre of\nChrist--The Destruction of Art--The Discovery of America--Although\nhe made it himself, the Holy Ghost was Ignorant of the Form of this\nEarth--Copernicus and Kepler--Special Providence--The Man and the Ship\nhe did not Take--A Thanksgiving Proclamation Contradicted--Charles\nDarwin--Henry Ward Beecher--The Creeds--The Latest Creed--God as\na Governor--The Love of God--The Fall of Man--We are Bound\nby Representatives without a Chance to Vote against Them--The\nAtonement--The Doctrine of Depravity a Libel on the Human Race--The\nSecond Birth--A Unitarian Universalist--Inspiration of the\nScriptures--God a Victim of his own Tyranny--In the New Testament\nTrouble Commences at Death--The Reign of Truth and Love--The Old\nSpaniard who Died without an Enemy--The Wars it Brought--Consolation\nshould be Denied to Murderers--At the Rate at which Heathen are being\nConverted, how long will it take to Establish Christ's Kingdom on\nEarth?--The Resurrection--The Judgment Day--Pious Evasions--\"We shall\nnot Die, but we shall all be Hanged\"--\"No Bible, no Civilization\"\nMiracles of the New Testament--Nothing Written by Christ or his\nContemporaries--Genealogy of Jesus--More Miracles--A Master of\nDeath--Improbable that he would be Crucified--The Loaves and Fishes--How\ndid it happen that the Miracles Convinced so Few?--The Resurrection--The\nAscension--Was the Body Spiritual--Parting from the Disciples--Casting\nout Devils--Necessity of Belief--God should be consistent in the\nMatter of forgiving Enemies--Eternal Punishment--Some Good Men who are\nDamned--Another Objection--Love the only Bow on Life's dark Cloud--\"Now\nis the accepted Time\"--Rather than this Doctrine of Eternal Punishment\nShould be True--I would rather that every Planet should in its Orbit\nwheel a barren Star--What I Believe--Immortality--It existed long before\nMoses--Consolation--The Promises are so Far Away, and the Dead are so\nNear--Death a Wall or a Door--A Fable--Orpheus and Eurydice.\n\nMYTH AND MIRACLE.\n\n(1885.)\n\nI. Happiness the true End and Aim of Life--Spiritual People and\ntheir Literature--Shakespeare's Clowns superior to Inspired\nWriters--Beethoven's Sixth Symphony Preferred to the Five Books of\nMoses--Venus of Milo more Pleasing than the Presbyterian Creed--II.\nReligions Naturally Produced--Poets the Myth-makers--The Sleeping\nBeauty--Orpheus and Eurydice--Red Riding Hood--The Golden Age--Elysian\nFields--The Flood Myth--Myths of the Seasons--III. The Sun-god--Jonah,\nBuddha, Chrisnna, Horus, Zoroaster--December 25th as a Birthday of\nGods--Christ a Sun-God--The Cross a Symbol of the Life to Come--When\nNature rocked the Cradle of the Infant World--IV. Difference between\na Myth and a Miracle--Raising the Dead, Past and Present--Miracles\nof Jehovah--Miracles of Christ--Everything Told except the Truth--The\nMistake of the World--V. Beginning of Investigation--The Stars as\nWitnesses against Superstition--Martyrdom of Bruno--Geology--Steam and\nElectricity--Nature forever the Same--Persistence of Force--Cathedral,\nMosque, and Joss House have the same Foundation--Science the\nProvidence of Man--VI. To Soften the Heart of God--Martyrs--The God was\nSilent--Credulity a Vice--Develop the Imagination--\"The Skylark\" and\n\"The Daisy\"--VII. How are we to Civilize the World?--Put Theology out\nof Religion--Divorce of Church and State--Secular Education--Godless\nSchools--VIII. The New Jerusalem--Knowledge of the Supernatural\npossessed by Savages--Beliefs of Primitive Peoples--Science is\nModest--Theology Arrogant--Torque-mada and Bruno on the Day of\nJudgment--IX. Poison of Superstition in the Mother's Milk--Ability\nof Mistakes to take Care of Themselves--Longevity of Religious\nLies--Mother's religion pleaded by the Cannibal--The Religion of\nFreedom--O Liberty, thou art the God of my Idolatry\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nFor many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply as a record of a\nbarbarous people, in which are found a great number of the ceremonies\nof savagery, many absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas\ninconsistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it seemed almost\na crime to teach that this record was written by inspired men; that\nslavery, polygamy, wars of conquest and extermination were right, and\nthat there was a time when men could win the approbation of infinite\nIntelligence, Justice, and Mercy, by violating maidens and by butchering\nbabes. To me it seemed more reasonable that savage men had made these\nlaws; and I endeavored in a lecture, entitled \"Some Mistakes of Moses,\"\nto point out some of the errors, contradictions, and impossibilities\ncontained in the Pentateuch. The lecture was never written and\nconsequently never delivered twice the same. On several occasions it was\nreported and published without consent, and without revision. All these\npublications were grossly and glaringly incorrect As published, they\nhave been answered several hundred times, and many of the clergy are\nstill engaged in the great work. To keep these reverend gentlemen from\nwasting their talents on the mistakes of reporters and printers, I\nconcluded to publish the principal points in all my lectures on this\nsubject. And here, it may be proper for me to say, that arguments cannot\nbe answered by personal abuse; that there is no logic in slander, and\nthat falsehood, in the long run, defeats itself. People who love their\nenemies should, at least, tell the truth about their friends. Should it\nturn out that I am the worst man in the whole world, the story of the\nflood will remain just as improbable as before, and the contradictions\nof the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation.\n\nThere was a time when a falsehood, fulminated from the pulpit, smote\nlike a sword; but, the supply having greatly exceeded the demand,\nclerical misrepresentation has at last become almost an innocent\namusement. Remembering that only a few years ago men, women, and even\nchildren, were imprisoned, tortured and burned, for having expressed\nin an exceedingly mild and gentle way, the ideas entertained by me, I\ncongratulate myself that calumny is now the pulpit's last resort. The\nold instruments of torture are kept only to gratify curiosity; the\nchains are rusting away, and the demolition of time has allowed even the\ndungeons of the Inquisition to be visited by light. The church, impotent\nand malicious, regrets, not the abuse, but the loss of her power, and\nseeks to hold by falsehood what she gained by cruelty and force, by\nfire and fear. Christianity cannot live in peace with any other form of\nfaith. If that religion be true, there is but one savior, one inspired\nbook, and but one little narrow grass-grown path that leads to heaven.\nSuch a religion is necessarily uncompromising, unreasoning, aggressive\nand insolent. Christianity has held all other creeds and forms in\ninfinite contempt, divided the world into enemies and friends, and\nverified the awful declaration of its founder--a declaration that\nwet with blood the sword he came to bring, and made the horizon of a\nthousand years lurid with the fagots' flames.\n\nToo great praise challenges attention, and often brings to light a\nthousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never see. Were we\nallowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its\nbeauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd,\ngrotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude,\nbarbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men;\nthat it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in\nall its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth;\nthat it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for\nman, the only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance\nwith every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free\nunbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.\n\nWe read the pagan sacred books with profit and delight. With myth and\nfable we are ever charmed, and find a pleasure in the endless repetition\nof the beautiful, poetic, and absurd. We find, in all these records of\nthe past, philosophies and dreams, and efforts stained with tears,\nof great and tender souls who tried to pierce the mystery of life and\ndeath, to answer the eternal questions of the Whence and Whither, and\nvainly sought to make, with bits of shattered glass, a mirror that\nwould, in very truth, reflect the face and form of Nature's perfect\nself.\n\nThese myths were born of hopes, and fears, and tears, and smiles, and\nthey were touched and colored by all there is of joy and grief between\nthe rosy dawn of birth, and deaths sad night. They clothed even the\nstars with passion, and gave to gods the faults and frailties of the\nsons of men. In them, the winds and waves were music, and all the lakes,\nand streams, and springs,--the mountains, woods and perfumed dells were\nhaunted by a thousand fairy forms. They thrilled the veins of Spring\nwith tremulous desire; made tawny Summer's billowed breast the throne\nand home of love; filled Autumn's arms with sun-kissed grapes, and\ngathered sheaves; and pictured Winter as a weak old king who felt,\nlike Lear upon his withered face, Cordelia's tears. These myths, though\nfalse, are beautiful, and have for many ages and in countless ways,\nenriched the heart and kindled thought. But if the world were taught\nthat all these things are true and all inspired of God, and that eternal\npunishment will be the lot of him who dares deny or doubt, the sweetest\nmyth of all the Fable World would lose its beauty, and become a scorned\nand hateful thing to every brave and thoughtful man.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n\nWashington, D. C., Oct. 7th, 1879.\n\n\n\n\nSOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.\n\nHE WHO ENDEAVORS TO CONTROL THE MIND BY FORCE IS A TYRANT, AND HE WHO\nSUBMITS IS A SLAVE.\n\nI.\n\nI want to do what little I can to make my country truly free, to broaden\nthe intellectual horizon of our people, to destroy the prejudices born\nof ignorance and fear, to do away with the blind worship of the ignoble\npast, with the idea that all the great and good are dead, that the\nliving are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs\nand groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dangerous, that\nintellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice is a virtue, that a\ncertain belief is necessary to secure salvation, that to carry a cross\nin this world will give us a palm in the next, and that we must allow\nsome priest to be the pilot of our souls.\n\nUntil every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and\ncreed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be\nenslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have\nhis thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon\nall these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends.\nIt is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we\nknow nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and\ndespise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination,\nor the Trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other\nseems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where\nChristians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact\nextent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist?\nSurely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable\nof joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be\nfar better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?\n\nChristians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask\nis--not that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends\neven, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple\nfairness.\n\nWe do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we\nwill not have to forgive them.\n\nIf all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the\nquestion is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful\nchurches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every\nperson as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies\ntheir authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To\nhate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds.\n\nThat which has happened in most countries has happened in ours. When\na religion is founded, the educated, the powerful--that is to say, the\npriests and nobles, tell the ignorant and superstitious--that is to\nsay, the people, that the religion of their country was given to their\nfathers by God himself; that it is the only true religion; that all\nothers were conceived in falsehood and brought forth in fraud, and that\nall who believe in the true religion will be happy forever, while all\nothers will burn in hell. For the purpose of governing the people, that\nis to say, for the purpose of being supported by the people, the priests\nand nobles declare this religion to be sacred, and that whoever adds to,\nor takes from it, will be burned here by man, and hereafter by God. The\nresult of this is, that the priests and nobles will not allow the people\nto change; and when, after a time, the priests, having intellectually\nadvanced, wish to take a step in the direction of progress, the people\nwill not allow them to change. At first, the rabble are enslaved by the\npriests, and afterwards the rabble become the masters.\n\nOne of the first things I wish to do, is to free the orthodox clergy.\nI am a great friend of theirs, and in spite of all they may say against\nme, I am going to do them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks\nare visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those of the\nlash. They are not allowed to read and think for themselves. They are\ntaught like parrots, and the best are those who repeat, with the fewest\nmistakes, the sentences they have been taught. They sit like owls upon\nsome dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old hoots\nthat have been hooted for eighteen hundred years. Their congregations\nare not grand enough, nor sufficiently civilized, to be willing that\nthe poor preachers shall think for themselves. They are not employed for\nthat purpose. Investigation regarded as a dangerous experiment, and the\nministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be tolerated.\nThey are notified to stand by the old creed, and to avoid all original\nthought, as a mortal pestilence. Every minister is employed like an\nattorney--either for plaintiff or defendant,--and he is expected to\nbe true to his client. If he changes his mind, he is regarded as\na deserter, and denounced, hated, and slandered accordingly. Every\northodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts not to find new\nfacts, and makes a bargain that he will deny them if he does. Such is\nthe position of a Protestant minister in this nineteenth century. His\ncondition excites my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what\nlittle I can.\n\nSome of the clergy have the independence to break away, and the\nintellect to maintain themselves as free men, but the most are compelled\nto submit to the dictation of the orthodox, and the dead. They are\nnot employed to give their thoughts, but simply to repeat the ideas of\nothers. They are not expected to give even the doubts that may suggest\nthemselves, but are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path\ntrodden by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on either\nside are nothing to them. They must not even look at the purple hills,\nnor pause to hear the babble of the brooks. They must remain in the\ndusty road where the guide-boards are. They must confine themselves\nto the \"fall of man,\" the expulsion from the garden, the \"scheme of\nsalvation,\" the \"second birth,\" the atonement, the happiness of the\nredeemed, and the misery of the lost. They must be careful not to\nexpress any new ideas upon these great questions. It is much safer for\nthem to quote from the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe\nthe sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended theatres and\nballs, and drank wine in summer gardens on the Sabbath-day, and laughed\nat priests, the better ministers they are supposed to be. They must show\nthat misery fits the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad\nfor hell; that the wicked get all their good things in this life, and\nthe good all their evil; that in this world God punishes the people he\nloves, and in the next, the ones he hates; that happiness makes us bad\nhere, but not in heaven; that pain makes us good here, but not in hell.\nNo matter how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind, they\nmust be preached and they must be believed. If they were reasonable,\nthere would be no virtue in believing. Even the publicans and sinners\nbelieve reasonable things. To believe without evidence, or in spite of\nit, is accounted as righteousness to the sincere and humble Christian.\n\nThe ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intellectual pride, and\nshow that we are never quite so dear to God as when we admit that we are\npoor, corrupt and idiotic worms; that we never should have been born;\nthat we ought to be damned without the least delay; that we are so\ninfamous that we like to enjoy ourselves; that we love our wives and\nchildren better than our God; that we are generous only because we are\nvile; that we are honest from the meanest motives, and that sometimes we\nhave fallen so low that we have had doubts about the inspiration of the\nJewish Scriptures. In short, they are expected to denounce all pleasant\npaths and rustling trees, to curse the grass and flowers, and glorify\nthe dust and weeds. They are expected to malign the wicked people in the\ngreen and happy fields, who sit and laugh beside the gurgling springs or\nclimb the hills and wander as they will. They are expected to point out\nthe dangers of freedom, the safety of implicit obedience, and to show\nthe wickedness of philosophy, the goodness of faith, the immorality of\nscience and the purity of ignorance.\n\nNow and then a few pious people discover some young man of a religious\nturn of mind and a consumptive habit of body, not quite sickly enough\nto die, nor healthy enough to be wicked. The idea occurs to them that\nhe would make a good orthodox minister. They take up a contribution, and\nsend the young man to some theological school where he can be taught to\nrepeat a creed and despise reason. Should it turn out that the young\nman had some mind of his own, and, after graduating, should change his\nopinions and preach a different doctrine from that taught in the school,\nevery man who contributed a dollar towards his education would feel that\nhe had been robbed, and would denounce him as a dishonest and ungrateful\nwretch.\n\nThe pulpit should not be a pillory. Congregations should allow the\nminister a little liberty. They should, at least, permit him to tell the\ntruth.\n\nThey have, in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of\nminister factory, where each professor takes an oath once in five\nyears--that time being considered the life of an oath--that he has not,\nduring the last five years, and will not, during the next five years,\nintellectually advance. There is probably no oath that they could easier\nkeep. Probably, since the foundation stone of that institution was laid\nthere has not been a single case of perjury. The old creed is still\ntaught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise, powerful and\ngood, and that all men are totally depraved. They insist that the best\nman God ever made, deserved to be damned the moment he was finished.\nAndover puts its brand upon every minister it turns out, the same as\nSheffield and Birmingham brand their wares, and all who see the brand\nknow exactly what the minister believes, the books he has read, the\narguments he relies on, and just what he intellectually is. They know\njust what he can be depended on to preach, and that he will continue to\nshrink and shrivel, and grow solemnly stupid day by day until he reaches\nthe Andover of the grave and becomes truly orthodox forever.\n\nI have not singled out the Andover factory because it is worse than the\nothers. They are all about the same. The professors, for the most part,\nare ministers who failed in the pulpit and were retired to the seminary\non account of their deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. As\na rule, they know nothing of this world, and far less of the next; but\nthey have the power of stating the most absurd propositions with faces\nsolemn as stupidity touched by fear.\n\nSomething should be done for the liberation of these men. They should\nbe allowed to grow--to have sunlight and air. They should no longer\nbe chained and tied to confessions of faith, to mouldy books and\nmusty creeds. Thousands of ministers are anxious to give their honest\nthoughts. The hands of wives and babes now stop their mouths. They\nmust have bread, and so the husbands and fathers are forced to preach\na doctrine that they hold in scorn. For the sake of shelter, food and\nclothes, they are obliged to defend the childish miracles of the past,\nand denounce the sublime discoveries of to-day. They are compelled to\nattack all modern thought, to point out the dangers of science, the\nwickedness of investigation and the corrupting influence of logic. It is\nfor them to show that virtue rests upon ignorance and faith, while vice\nimpudently feeds and fattens upon fact and demonstration. It is a part\nof their business to malign and vilify the Voltaires, Humes, Paines,\nHumboldts, Tyndalls, Haeckels, Darwins, Spencers, and Drapers, and\nto bow with uncovered heads before the murderers, adulterers, and\npersecutors of the world. They are, for the most part, engaged in\npoisoning the minds of the young, prejudicing children against science,\nteaching the astronomy and geology of the Bible, and inducing all to\ndesert the sublime standard of reason.\n\nThese orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of knowledge. They\nproduce nothing. They live upon alms. They hate laughter and joy. They\nofficiate at weddings, sprinkle water upon babes, and utter meaningless\nwords and barren promises above the dead. They laugh at the agony of\nunbelievers, mock at their tears, and of their sorrows make a jest.\nThere are some noble exceptions. Now and then a pulpit holds a brave\nand honest man. Their congregations are willing that they should\nthink--willing that their ministers should have a little freedom.\n\nAs we become civilized, more and more liberty will be accorded to these\nmen, until finally ministers will give their best and highest thoughts.\nThe congregations will finally get tired of hearing about the patriarchs\nand saints, the miracles and wonders, and will insist upon knowing\nsomething about the men and women of our day, and the accomplishments\nand discoveries of our time. They will finally insist upon knowing how\nto escape the evils of this world instead of the next. They will ask\nlight upon the enigmas of this life. They will wish to know what we\nshall do with our criminals instead of what God will do with his--how\nwe shall do away with beggary and want--with crime and misery--with\nprostitution, disease and famine,--with tyranny in all its cruel\nforms--with prisons and scaffolds, and how we shall reward the honest\nworkers, and fill the world with happy homes! These are the problems\nfor the pulpits and congregations of an enlightened future. If Science\ncannot finally answer these questions, it is a vain and worthless thing.\n\nThe clergy, however, will continue to answer them in the old way, until\ntheir congregations are good enough to set them free. They will still\ntalk about believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, as though that were the\nonly remedy for all human ills. They will still teach that retrogression\nis the only path that leads to light; that we must go back, that faith\nis the only sure guide, and that reason is a delusive glare, lighting\nonly the road to eternal pain.\n\nUntil the clergy are free they cannot be intellectually honest. We can\nnever tell what they really believe until they know that they can safely\nspeak. They console themselves now by a secret resolution to be as\nliberal as they dare, with the hope that they can finally educate\ntheir congregations to the point of allowing them to think a little for\nthemselves. They hardly know what they ought to do. The best part of\ntheir lives has been wasted in studying subjects of no possible value.\nMost of them are married, have families, and know but one way of making\ntheir living. Some of them say that if they do not preach these foolish\ndogmas, others will, and that they may through fear, after all, restrain\nmankind. Besides, they hate publicly to admit that they are mistaken,\nthat the whole thing is a delusion, that the \"scheme of salvation\" is\nabsurd, and that the Bible is no better than some other books, and worse\nthan most.\n\nYou can hardly expect a bishop to leave his palace, or the pope to\nvacate the Vatican. As long as people want popes, plenty of hypocrites\nwill be found to take the place. And as long as labor fatigues, there\nwill be found a good many men willing to preach once a week, if other\nfolks will work and give them bread. In other words, while the demand\nlasts, the supply will never fail.\n\nIf the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish--if\na little more enlightened, religion would perish!\n\nII. FREE SCHOOLS.\n\nIt is also my desire to free the schools. When a professor in a college\nfinds a fact, he should make it known, even if it is inconsistent with\nsomething Moses said. Public opinion must not compel the professor to\nhide a fact, and, \"like the base Indian, throw the pearl away.\" With the\nsingle exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the United\nStates where truth has ever been a welcome guest. The moment one of the\nteachers denies the inspiration of the Bible, he is discharged. If he\ndiscovers a fact inconsistent with that book, so much the worse for the\nfact, and especially for the discoverer of the fact. He must not corrupt\nthe minds of his pupils with demonstrations. He must beware of\nevery truth that cannot, in some way be made to harmonize with the\nsuperstitions of the Jews. Science has nothing in common with religion.\nFacts and miracles never did, and never will agree. They are not in the\nleast related. They are deadly foes. What has religion to do with\nfacts? Nothing. Can there be Methodist mathematics, Catholic astronomy,\nPresbyterian geology, Baptist biology, or Episcopal botany? Why, then,\nshould a sectarian college exist? Only that which somebody knows should\nbe taught in our schools. We should not collect taxes to pay people for\nguessing. The common school is the bread of life for the people, and it\nshould not be touched by the withering hand of superstition.\n\nOur country will never be filled with great institutions of learning\nuntil there is an absolute divorce between Church and School. As long\nas the mutilated records of a barbarous people are placed by priest and\nprofessor above the reason of mankind, we shall reap but little benefit\nfrom church or school.\n\nInstead of dismissing professors for finding something out, let us\nrather discharge those who do not. Let each teacher understand that\ninvestigation is not dangerous for him; that his bread is safe, no\nmatter how much truth he may discover, and that his salary will not be\nreduced, simply because he finds that the ancient Jews did not know the\nentire history of the world.\n\nBesides, it is not fair to make the Catholic support a Protestant\nschool, nor is it just to collect taxes from infidels and atheists to\nsupport schools in which any system of religion is taught.\n\nThe sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute each other on\naccount of disagreements in mathematics. Families are not divided about\nbotany, and astronomy does not even tend to make a man hate his father\nand mother. It is what people do not know, that they persecute each\nother about. Science will bring, not a sword, but peace.\n\nJust as long as religion has control of the schools, science will be an\noutcast. Let us free our institutions of learning. Let us dedicate them\nto the science of eternal truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascertain\nall the facts he can--to give us light, to follow Nature, no matter\nwhere she leads; to be infinitely true to himself and us; to feel that\nhe is without a chain, except the obligation to be honest; that he is\nbound by no books, by no creed, neither by the sayings of the dead nor\nof the living; that he is asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for\nhimself without fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to\nbring us the fruit of all his work.\n\nAt present, a good many men engaged in scientific pursuits, and who\nhave signally failed in gaining recognition among their fellows, are\nendeavoring to make reputations among the churches by delivering weak\nand vapid lectures upon the \"harmony of Genesis and Geology.\" Like all\nhypocrites, these men overstate the case to such a degree, and so\nturn and pervert facts and words that they succeed only in gaining the\napplause of other hypocrites like themselves. Among the great scientists\nthey are regarded as generals regard sutlers who trade with both armies.\n\nSurely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be\nwasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes.\nThe time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the\nuse of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the\nliving of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths\nof Nature will outrank the \"sacred\" falsehoods of the past, and when a\nsingle fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ.\n\nWho can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money\nwasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize\nmankind?\n\nWhen every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every\nclergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest\nthinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot,\nphilanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth.\n\nIII. THE POLITICIANS.\n\nI would like also to liberate the politician. At present, the successful\noffice-seeker is a good deal like the centre of the earth; he weighs\nnothing himself, but draws everything else to him. There are so many\nsocieties, so many churches, so many isms, that it is almost impossible\nfor an independent man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are\nforced to pretend that they are Catholics with Protestant proclivities,\nor Christians with liberal tendencies, or temperance men who now and\nthen take a glass of wine, or, that although not members of any church\ntheir wives are, and that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of\nall this is that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute of\nreal principle; and this will never change until the people become grand\nenough to allow each other to do their own thinking, our Government\nshould be entirely and purely secular. The religious views of a\ncandidate should be kept entirely out of sight. He should not be\ncompelled to give his opinion as to the inspiration of the Bible, the\npropriety of infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these\nthings are private and personal. He should be allowed to settle such\nthings for himself, and should he decide contrary to the law and will of\nGod, let him settle the matter with God. The people ought to be wise\nenough to select as their officers men who know something of political\naffairs, who comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the\nfuture grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at sea, with deck\nwave-washed and masts strained and bent with storm, and it was necessary\nto reef the top sail, we certainly would not ask the brave sailor who\nvolunteered to go aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of\nCalvinism. Our Government has nothing to do with religion. It is neither\nChristian nor pagan; it is secular. But as long as the people persist in\nvoting for or against men on account of their religious views, just so\nlong will hypocrisy hold place and power. Just so long will the\ncandidates crawl in the dust--hide their opinions, flatter those with\nwhom they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they despise; and\njust so long will honest men be trampled under foot. Churches are\nbecoming political organizations. Nearly every Catholic is a Democrat;\nnearly every Methodist in the North is a Republican.\n\nIt probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply\nupon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes,\nif there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this\nGovernment will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the\nhands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership,\nman is a slave.\n\nAll laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same\nspirit that kindled the fires of the _auto da fe_, and lovingly built\nthe dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing\nblasphemy--making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible,\nor to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself\non the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by\nimpudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An\ninfinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in\npartnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act\nthat laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one\nthinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine\nand imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would\nnot necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think\nit would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would\nexcite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better\nemployed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the\nJewish God.\n\nIV. MAN AND WOMAN\n\nLet us forget that we are Baptists, Methodists,\n\nCatholics, Presbyterians, or Freethinkers, and remember only that we are\nmen and women. After all, man and woman are the highest possible titles.\nAll other names belittle us, and show that we have, to a certain extent,\ngiven up our individuality, and have consented to wear the collar of\nauthority--that we are followers. Throwing away these names, let us\nexamine these questions not as partisans, but as human beings with hopes\nand fears in common.\n\nWe know that our opinions depend, to a great degree, upon our\nsurroundings--upon race, country, and education. We are all the result\nof numberless conditions, and inherit vices and virtues, truths and\nprejudices. If we had been born in England, surrounded by wealth and\nclothed with power, most of us would have been Episcopalians, and\nbelieved in church and state. We should have insisted that the people\nneeded a religion, and that not having intellect enough to provide one\nfor themselves, it was our duty to make one for them, and then compel\nthem to support it. We should have believed it indecent to officiate in\na pulpit without wearing a gown, and that prayers should be read from\na book. Had we belonged to the lower classes, we might have been\ndissenters and protested against the mummeries of the High Church.\nHad we been born in Turkey, most of us would have been Mohammedans and\nbelieved in the inspiration of the Koran. We should have believed that\nMohammed actually visited heaven and became acquainted with an angel by\nthe name of Gabriel, who was so broad between the eyes that it required\nthree hundred days for a very smart camel to travel the distance. If\nsome man had denied this story we should probably have denounced him as\na dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to undermine the foundations\nof society, and to destroy all distinction between virtue and vice. We\nshould have said to him, \"What do you propose to give us in place\nof that angel? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that size for\nnothing.\" We would have insisted that the best and wisest men\nbelieved the Koran. We would have quoted from the works and letters of\nphilosophers, generals and sultans, to show that the Koran was the best\nof books, and that Turkey was indebted to that book and to that alone\nfor its greatness and prosperity. We would have asked that man whether\nhe knew more than all the great minds of his country, whether he was so\nmuch wiser than his fathers? We would have pointed out to him the fact\nthat thousands had been consoled in the hour of death by passages from\nthe Koran; that they had died with glazed eyes brightened by visions of\nthe heavenly harem, and gladly left this world of grief and tears.\nWe would have regarded Christians as the vilest of men, and on all\noccasions would have repeated \"There is but one God, and Mohammed is his\nprophet!\"\n\nSo, if we had been born in India, we should in all probability have\nbelieved in the religion of that country. We should have regarded the\nold records as true and sacred, and looked upon a wandering priest as\nbetter than the men from whom he begged, and by whose labor he lived.\nWe should have believed in a god with three heads instead of three gods\nwith one head, as we do now.\n\nNow and then some one says that the religion of his father and mother\nis good enough for him, and wonders why anybody should desire a better.\nSurely we are not bound to follow our parents in religion any more than\nin politics, science or art. China has been petrified by the worship\nof ancestors. If our parents had been satisfied with the religion of\ntheirs, we would be still less advanced than we are. If we are, in any\nway, bound by the belief of our fathers, the doctrine will hold good\nback to the first people who had a religion; and if this doctrine is\ntrue, we ought now to be believers in that first religion. In other\nwords, we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect to your\nparents by perpetuating their errors. Good fathers and mothers wish\ntheir children to advance, to overcome obstacles which baffled them, and\nto correct the errors of their education. If you wish to reflect credit\nupon your parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems that\nthey could not understand, and build better than they knew. To sacrifice\nyour manhood upon the grave of your father is an honor to neither. Why\nshould a son who has examined a subject, throw away his reason and adopt\nthe views of his mother? Is not such a course dishonorable to both?\n\nWe must remember that this \"ancestor\" argument is as old at least as\nthe second generation of men, that it has served no purpose except to\nenslave mankind, and results mostly from the fact that acquiescence\nis easier than investigation. This argument pushed to its logical\nconclusion, would prevent the advance of all people whose parents were\nnot Freethinkers.\n\nIt is hard for many people to give up the religion in which they were\nborn; to admit that their fathers were utterly mistaken, and that the\nsacred records of their country are but collections of myths and fables.\n\nBut when we look for a moment at the world, we find that each nation has\nits \"sacred records\"--its religion, and its ideas of worship. Certainly\nall cannot be right; and as it would require a life time to investigate\nthe claims of these various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man\nforever, simply because he happens to believe the wrong one. All these\nreligions were produced by barbarians. Civilized nations have contented\nthemselves with changing the religions of their barbaric ancestors, but\nthey have made none. Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish.\nEach one was made by some contemptible little nation that regarded\nitself as of almost infinite importance, and looked upon the other\nnations as beneath the notice of their god. In all these countries it\nwas a crime to deny the sacred records, to laugh at the priests, to\nspeak disrespectfully of the gods, to fail to divide your substance\nwith the lazy hypocrites who managed your affairs in the next world upon\ncondition that you would support them in this. In the olden time\nthese theological people who quartered themselves upon the honest\nand industrious, were called soothsayers, seers, charmers, prophets,\nenchanters, sorcerers, wizards, astrologers, and impostors, but now,\nthey are known as clergymen.\n\nWe are no exception to the general rule, and consequently have our\nsacred books as well as the rest. Of course, it is claimed by many of\nour people that our books are the only true ones, the only ones that the\nreal God ever wrote, or had anything whatever to do with. They insist\nthat all other sacred books were written by hypocrites and impostors;\nthat the Jews were the only people that God ever had any personal\nintercourse with, and that all other prophets and seers were inspired\nonly by impudence and mendacity. True, it seems somewhat strange that\nGod should have chosen a barbarous and unknown people who had little or\nnothing to do with the other nations of the earth, as his messengers to\nthe rest of mankind.\n\nIt is not easy to account for an infinite God making people so low in\nthe scale of intellect as to require a revelation. Neither is it easy to\nperceive why, if a revelation was necessary for all, it was made only\nto a few. Of course, I know that it is extremely wicked to suggest these\nthoughts, and that ignorance is the only armor that can effectually\nprotect you from the wrath of God. I am aware that investigators with\nall their genius, never find the road to heaven; that those who look\nwhere they are going are sure to miss it, and that only those who\nvoluntarily put out their eyes and implicitly depend upon blindness can\nsurely keep the narrow path.\n\nWhoever reads our sacred book is compelled to believe it or suffer\nforever the torments of the lost. We are told that we have the privilege\nof examining it for ourselves; but this privilege is only extended to\nus on the condition that we believe it whether it appears reasonable or\nnot. We may disagree with others as much as we please upon the meaning\nof all passages in the Bible, but we must not deny the truth of a single\nword. We must believe that the book is inspired. If we obey its every\nprecept without believing in its inspiration we will be damned just as\ncertainly as though we disobeyed its every word. We have no right to\nweigh it in the scales of reason--to test it by the laws of nature, or\nthe facts of observation and experience. To do this, we are told, is to\nput ourselves above the word of God, and sit in judgment on the works of\nour creator.\n\nFor my part, I cannot admit that belief is a voluntary thing. It seems\nto me that evidence, even in spite of ourselves, will have its weight,\nand that whatever our wish may be, we are compelled to stand with\nfairness by the scales, and give the exact result. It will not do to say\nthat we reject the Bible because we are wicked. Our wickedness must be\nascertained not from our belief but from our acts.\n\nI am told by the clergy that I ought not to attack the Bible; that I am\nleading thousands to perdition and rendering certain the damnation of my\nown soul. They have had the kindness to advise me that, if my object is\nto make converts, I am pursuing the wrong course. They tell me to use\ngentler expressions, and more cunning words. Do they really wish me\nto make more converts? If their advice is honest, they are traitors to\ntheir trust. If their advice is not honest, then they are unfair with\nme. Certainly they should wish me to pursue the course that will make\nthe fewest converts, and yet they pretend to tell me how my influence\ncould be increased. It may be, that upon this principle John Bright\nadvises America to adopt free trade, so that our country can become a\nsuccessful rival of Great Britain. Sometimes I think that even ministers\nare not entirely candid.\n\nNotwithstanding the advice of the clergy, I have concluded to pursue my\nown course, to tell my honest thoughts, and to have my freedom in this\nworld whatever my fate may be in the next.\n\nThe real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of the people is the Bible.\nThat book is the chain that binds, the dungeon that holds the clergy.\nThat book spreads the pall of superstition over the colleges and\nschools. That book puts out the eyes of science, and makes honest\ninvestigation a crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the\npeople. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear.\nIt plays the same part in our country that has been played by \"sacred\nrecords\" in all the nations of the world.\n\nA little while ago I saw one of the Bibles of the Middle Ages. It was\nabout two feet in length, and one and a half in width. It had immense\noaken covers, with hasps, and clasps, and hinges large enough almost\nfor the doors of a penitentiary. It was covered with pictures of winged\nangels and aureoled saints. In my imagination I saw this book carried\nto the cathedral altar in solemn pomp--heard the chant of robed and\nkneeling priests, felt the strange tremor of the organ's peal; saw the\ncolored light streaming through windows stained and touched by blood\nand flame--the swinging censer with its perfumed incense rising to the\nmighty roof, dim with height and rich with legend carved in stone, while\non the walls was hung, written in light, and shade, and all the colors\nthat can tell of joy and tears, the pictured history of the martyred\nChrist. The people fell upon their knees. The book was opened, and the\npriest read the messages from God to man. To the multitude, the book\nitself was evidence enough that it was not the work of human hands. How\ncould those little marks and lines and dots contain, like tombs, the\nthoughts of men, and how could they, touched by a ray of light from\nhuman eyes, give up their dead? How could these characters span the vast\nchasm dividing the present from the past, and make it possible for the\nliving still to hear the voices of the dead?\n\nV. THE PENTATEUCH\n\nThe first five books in our Bible are known as the Pentateuch. For a\nlong time it was supposed that Moses was the author, and among the\nignorant the supposition still prevails. As a matter of fact, it seems\nto be well settled that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and\nthat they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for hundreds\nof years. But, as all the churches still insist that he was the author,\nthat he wrote even an account of his own death and burial, let us speak\nof him as though these books were in fact written by him. As the\nChristians maintain that God was the real author, it makes but little\ndifference whom he employed as his pen.\n\nNearly all authors of sacred books have given an account of the creation\nof the universe, the origin of matter, and the destiny of the human\nrace, all have pointed out the obligation that man is under to his\ncreator for having placed him upon the earth, and allowed him to live\nand suffer, and have taught that nothing short of the most abject\nworship could possibly compensate God for his trouble and labor suffered\nand done for the good of man. They have nearly all insisted that we\nshould thank God for all that is good in life; but they have not all\ninformed us as to whom we should hold responsible for the evils we\nendure.\n\nMoses differed from most of the makers of sacred books by his failure\nto say anything of a future life, by failing to promise heaven, and to\nthreaten hell. Upon the subject of a future state, there is not one\nword in the Pentateuch. Probably at that early day God did not deem\nit important to make a revelation as to the eternal destiny of man.\nHe seems to have thought that he could control the Jews, at least, by\nrewards and punishments in this world, and so he kept the frightful\nrealities of eternal joy and torment a profound secret from the people\nof his choice. He thought it far more important to tell the Jews their\norigin than to enlighten them as to their destiny.\n\nWe must remember that every tribe and nation has some way in which, the\nmore striking phenomena of nature are accounted for. These accounts\nare handed down by tradition, changed by numberless narrators as\nintelligence increases, or to account for newly discovered facts, or for\nthe purpose of satisfying the appetite for the marvelous.\n\nThe way in which a tribe or nation accounts for day and night, the\nchange of seasons, the fall of snow and rain, the flight of birds,\nthe origin of the rainbow, the peculiarities of animals, the dreams\nof sleep, the visions of the insane, the existence of earthquakes,\nvolcanoes, storms, lightning and the thousand things that attract the\nattention and excite the wonder, fear or admiration of mankind, may be\ncalled the philosophy of that tribe or nation. And as all phenomena are,\nby savage and barbaric man accounted for as the action of intelligent\nbeings for the accomplishment of certain objects, and as these beings\nwere supposed to have the power to assist or injure man, certain things\nwere supposed necessary for man to do in order to gain the assistance,\nand avoid the anger of these gods. Out of this belief grew certain\nceremonies, and these ceremonies united with the belief, formed\nreligion; and consequently every religion has for its foundation a\nmisconception of the cause of phenomena.\n\nAll worship is necessarily based upon the belief that some being exists\nwho can, if he will, change the natural order of events. The savage\nprays to a stone that he calls a god, while the Christian prays to a god\nthat he calls a spirit, and the prayers of both are equally useful. The\nsavage and the Christian put behind the Universe an intelligent cause,\nand this cause whether represented by one god or many, has been, in all\nages, the object of all worship. To carry a fetich, to utter a prayer,\nto count beads, to abstain from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an\nenemy, are simply different ways by which the accomplishment of the same\nobject is sought, and are all the offspring of the same error.\n\nMany systems of religion must have existed many ages before the art of\nwriting was discovered, and must have passed through many changes before\nthe stories, miracles, histories, prophecies and mistakes became fixed\nand petrified in written words. After that, change was possible only by\ngiving new meanings to old words, a process rendered necessary by the\ncontinual acquisition of facts somewhat inconsistent with a literal\ninterpretation of the \"sacred records.\" In this way an honest faith\noften prolongs its life by dishonest methods; and in this way the\nChristians of to-day are trying to harmonize the Mosaic account of\ncreation with the theories and discoveries of modern science.\n\nAdmitting that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, or that he gave\nto the Jews a religion, the question arises as to where he obtained\nhis information. We are told by the theologians that he received his\nknowledge from God, and that every word he wrote was and is the exact\ntruth. It is admitted at the same time that he was an adopted son of\nPharaoh's daughter, and enjoyed the rank and privilege of a prince.\nUnder such circumstances, he must have been well acquainted with the\nliterature, philosophy and religion of the Egyptians, and must have\nknown what they believed and taught as to the creation of the world.\n\nNow, if the account of the origin of this earth as given by Moses is\nsubstantially like that given by the Egyptians, then we must conclude\nthat he learned it from them. Should we imagine that he was divinely\ninspired because he gave to the Jews what the Egyptians had given him?\n\nThe Egyptian priests taught _first_, that a god created the original\nmatter, leaving it in a state of chaos; _second_, that a god moulded it\ninto form; _third_, that the breath of a god moved upon the face of\nthe deep; _fourth_, that a god created simply by saying \"Let it be;\"\n_fifth_, that a god created light before the sun existed.\n\nNothing can be clearer than that Moses received from the Egyptians the\nprincipal parts of his narrative, making such changes and additions as\nwere necessary to satisfy the peculiar superstitions of his own people.\n\nIf some man at the present day should assert that he had received from\nGod the theories of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and the\nlaw of heredity, and we should afterwards find that he was not only an\nEnglishman, but had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we certainly\nwould account for his having these theories in a natural way, So, if\nDarwin himself should pretend that he was inspired, and had obtained\nhis peculiar theories from God, we should probably reply that his\ngrandfather suggested the same ideas, and that Lamarck published\nsubstantially the same theories the same year that Mr. Darwin was born.\n\nNow, if we have sufficient courage, we will, by the same course of\nreasoning, account for the story of creation found in the Bible. We\nwill say that it contains the belief of Moses, and that he received his\ninformation from the Egyptians, and not from God. If we take the account\nas the absolute truth and use it for the purpose of determining the\nvalue of modern thought, scientific advancement becomes impossible. And\neven if the account of the creation as given by Moses should turn out\nto be true, and should be so admitted by all the scientific world, the\nclaim that he was inspired would still be without the least particle\nof proof. We would be forced to admit that he knew more than we had\nsupposed. It certainly is no proof that a man is inspired simply because\nhe is right.\n\nNo one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet all the writers\nof the books of the Old Testament put together, could not have produced\nHamlet.\n\nWhy should we, looking upon some rough and awkward thing, or god in\nstone, say that it must have been produced by some inspired sculptor,\nand with the same breath pronounce the _Venus de Milo_ to be the work\nof man? Why should we, looking at some ancient daub of angel, saint or\nvirgin, say its painter must have been assisted by a god?\n\nLet us account for all we see by the facts we know. If there are things\nfor which we cannot account, let us wait for light. To account for\nanything by supernatural agencies is, in fact to say that we do not\nknow. Theology is not what we know about God, but what we do not know\nabout Nature. In order to increase our respect for the Bible, it became\nnecessary for the priests to exalt and extol that book, and at the same\ntime to decry and belittle the reasoning powers of man. The whole\npower of the pulpit has been used for hundreds of years to destroy the\nconfidence of man in himself--to induce him to distrust his own powers\nof thought, to believe that he was wholly unable to decide any question\nfor himself, and that all human virtue consists in faith and obedience.\nThe church has said, \"Believe, and obey! If you reason, you will become\nan unbeliever, and unbelievers will be lost. If you disobey, you will\ndo so through vain pride and curiosity, and will, like Adam and Eve, be\nthrust from Paradise forever!\"\n\nFor my part, I care nothing for what the church says, except in so far\nas it accords with my reason; and the Bible is nothing to me, only in so\nfar as it agrees with what I think or know.\n\nAll books should be examined in the same spirit, and truth should be\nwelcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter in what volume they may be\nfound.\n\nLet us in this spirit examine the Pentateuch; and if anything appears\nunreasonable, contradictory or absurd, let us have the honesty and\ncourage to admit it. Certainly no good can result either from deceiving\nourselves or others. Many millions have implicitly believed this book,\nand have just as implicitly believed that polygamy was sanctioned by\nGod. Millions have regarded this book as the foundation of all\nhuman progress, and at the same time looked upon slavery as a divine\ninstitution. Millions have declared this book to have been infinitely\nholy, and to prove that they were right, have imprisoned, robbed\nand burned their fellow-men. The inspiration of this book has been\nestablished by famine, sword and fire, by dungeon, chain and whip, by\ndagger and by rack, by force and fear and fraud, and generations have\nbeen frightened by threats of hell, and bribed with promises of heaven.\n\nLet us examine a portion of this book, not in the darkness of our fear,\nbut in the light of reason.\n\nAnd first, let us examine the account given of the creation of this\nworld, commenced, according to the Bible, on Monday morning about five\nthousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago.\n\nVI. MONDAY.\n\nMoses commences his story by telling us that in the beginning God\ncreated the heaven and the earth.\n\nIf this means anything, it means that God produced, caused to exist,\ncalled into being, the heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that\nhe formed the heaven and the earth of previously existing matter. Moses\nconveys, and intended to convey the idea that the matter of which the\nheaven and the earth are composed, was created.\n\nIt is impossible for me to conceive of something being created from\nnothing. Nothing, regarded in the light of a raw material, is a decided\nfailure. I cannot conceive of matter apart from force. Neither is it\npossible to think of force disconnected with matter. You cannot imagine\nmatter going back to absolute nothing. Neither can you imagine nothing\nbeing changed into something. You may be eternally damned if you do not\nsay that you can conceive these things, but you cannot conceive them.\n\nSuch is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot even think of\na commencement or an end of matter, or force.\n\nIf God created the universe, there was a time when he commenced to\ncreate. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In\nthat eternity what was this God doing? He certainly did not think.\nThere was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever\nhappened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd than an\ninfinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?\n\nI do not pretend to tell how all these things really are; but I do\ninsist that a statement that cannot possibly be comprehended by any\nhuman being, and that appears utterly impossible, repugnant to every\nfact of experience, and contrary to everything that we really know, must\nbe rejected by every honest man.\n\nWe can conceive of eternity, because we cannot conceive of a cessation\nof time. We can conceive of infinite space because we cannot conceive\nof so much matter that our imagination will not stand upon the farthest\nstar, and see infinite space beyond. In other words, we cannot conceive\nof a cessation of time; therefore eternity is a necessity of the mind.\nEternity sustains the same relation to time that space does to matter.\n\nIn the time of Moses, it was perfectly safe for him to write an account\nof the creation of the world. He had simply to put in form the crude\nnotions of the people. At that time, no other Jew could have written\na better account. Upon that subject he felt at liberty to give his\nimagination full play. There was no one who could authoritatively\ncontradict anything he might say. It was substantially the same story\nthat had been imprinted in curious characters upon the clay records\nof Babylon, the gigantic monuments of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of\nIndia. In those days there was an almost infinite difference between\nthe educated and ignorant. The people were controlled almost entirely\nby signs and wonders. By the lever of fear, priests moved the world. The\nsacred records were made and kept, and altered by them. The people could\nnot read, and looked upon one who could, as almost a god. In our day it\nis hard to conceive of the influence of an educated class in a barbarous\nage. It was only necessary to produce the \"sacred record,\" and ignorance\nfell upon its face. The people were taught that the record was inspired,\nand therefore true. They were not taught that it was true, and therefore\ninspired.\n\nAfter all, the real question is not whether the Bible is inspired, but\nwhether it is true. If it is true, it does not need to be inspired. If\nit is true, it makes no difference whether it was written by a man or a\ngod. The multiplication table is just as useful, just as true as though\nGod had arranged the figures himself. If the Bible is really true,\nthe claim of inspiration need not be urged; and if it is not true, its\ninspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of fact, the truth\ndoes not need to be inspired. Nothing needs inspiration except a\nfalsehood or a mistake. Where truth ends, where probability stops,\ninspiration begins. A fact never went into partnership with a miracle.\nTruth does not need the assistance of miracle. A fact will fit every\nother fact in the Universe, because it is the product of all other\nfacts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for the express\npurpose of fitting it. After a while the man gets tired of lying, and\nthen the last lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is an\nopportunity to use a miracle. Just at that point, it is necessary to\nhave a little inspiration.\n\nIt seems to me that reason is the highest attribute of man, and that if\nthere can be any communication from God to man, it must be addressed\nto his reason. It does not seem possible that in order to understand a\nmessage from God it is absolutely essential to throw our reason away.\nHow could God make known his will to any being destitute of reason? How\ncan any man accept as a revelation from God that which is unreasonable\nto him? God cannot make a revelation to another man for me. He must make\nit to me, and until he convinces my reason that it is true, I cannot\nreceive it.\n\nThe statement that in the beginning God created the heaven and the\nearth, I cannot accept. It is contrary to my reason, and I cannot\nbelieve it. It appears reasonable to me that force has existed from\neternity. Force cannot, as it appears to me, exist apart from matter.\nForce, in its nature, is forever active, and without matter it could\nnot act; and so I think matter must have existed forever. To conceive\nof matter without force, or of force without matter, or of a time when\nneither existed, or of a being who existed for an eternity without\neither, and who out of nothing created both, is to me utterly\nimpossible. I may be damned on this account, but I cannot help it. In my\njudgment, Moses was mistaken.\n\nIt will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell what God did,\nin making the heavens and the earth out of matter then in existence.\nHe distinctly states that in the _beginning_ God created them. If this\naccount is true, we must believe that God, existing in infinite space\nsurrounded by eternal nothing, naught and void, created, produced,\ncalled into being, willed into existence this universe of countless\nstars.\n\nThe next thing we are told by this inspired gentleman is, that God\ncreated light, and proceeded to divide it from the darkness.\n\nCertainly, the person who wrote this believed that darkness was a thing,\nan entity, a material that could get mixed and tangled up with light,\nand that these entities, light and darkness, had to be separated. In his\nimagination he probably saw God throwing pieces and chunks of darkness\non one side, and rays and beams of light on the other. It is hard for a\nman who has been born but once to understand these things. For my part,\nI cannot understand how light can be separated from darkness. I had\nalways supposed that darkness was simply the absence of light, and that\nunder no circumstances could it be necessary to take the darkness away\nfrom the light. It is certain, however, that Moses believed darkness to\nbe a form of matter, because I find that in another place he speaks of\na darkness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition at Rome a\nbottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt.\n\nYou cannot divide light from darkness any more than you can divide heat\nfrom cold. Cold is an absence of heat, and darkness is an absence of\nlight. I suppose that we have no conception of absolute cold. We know\nonly degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below zero is just twenty degrees\nwarmer than forty degrees below zero. Neither cold nor darkness are\nentities, and these words express simply either the absolute or partial\nabsence of heat or light. I cannot conceive how light can be divided\nfrom darkness, but I can conceive how a barbarian several thousand years\nago, writing upon a subject about which he knew nothing, could make a\nmistake. The creator of light could not have written in this way. If\nsuch a being exists, he must have known the nature of that \"mode of\nmotion\" that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments\nseven-hued this universe of worlds.\n\nVII. TUESDAY.\n\nWe are next informed by Moses that \"God of the waters, and let it divide\nthe waters from the waters;\" and that \"God made the firmament, and\ndivided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters\nwhich were above the firmament.\" What did the writer mean by the word\nfirmament? Theologians now tell us that he meant an \"expanse.\" This will\nnot do. How could an expanse divide the waters from the waters, so that\nthe waters above the expanse would not fall into and mingle with the\nwaters below the expanse? The truth is that Moses regarded the firmament\nas a solid affair. It was where God lived, and where water was kept. It\nwas for this reason that they used to pray for rain. They supposed that\nsome angel could with a lever raise a gate and let out the quantity of\nmoisture desired. It was with the water from this firmament that the\nworld was drowned when the windows of heaven were opened. It was in this\nsaid Let there be a firmament in the midst firmament that the sons of\nGod lived--the sons who \"saw the daughters of men that they were\nfair and took them wives of all which they chose.\" The issue of such\nmarriages were giants, and \"the same became mighty men which were of\nold, men of renown.\"\n\nNothing is clearer than that Moses regarded the firmament as a vast\nmaterial division that separated the waters of the world, and upon\nwhose floor God lived, surrounded by his sons. In no other way could he\naccount for rain. Where did the water come from? He knew nothing about\nthe laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun wooed with amorous\nkisses the waves of the sea, and that they, clad in glorified mist\nrising to meet their lover, were, by disappointment, changed to tears\nand fell as rain.\n\nThe idea that the firmament was the abode of the Deity must have been in\nthe mind of Moses when he related the dream of Jacob. \"And he dreamed,\nand behold, a ladder set upon the earth and the top of it reached to\nheaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it; and\nbehold the Lord stood above it and said, I am the Lord God.\"\n\nSo, when the people were building the tower of Babel \"the Lord came down\nto see the city, and the tower which the children of men builded. And\nthe Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language:\nand this they begin to do; and nothing will be restrained from them\nwhich they imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and confound their\nlanguage that they may not understand one another's speech.\"\n\nThe man who wrote that absurd account must have believed that God lived\nabove the earth, in the firmament. The same idea was in the mind of the\nPsalmist when he said that God \"bowed the heavens and came down.\"\n\nOf course, God could easily remove any person bodily to heaven, as it\nwas but a little way above the earth. \"Enoch walked with God, and he was\nnot, for God took him.\" The accounts in the Bible of the ascension of\nElijah, Christ and St. Paul were born of the belief that the firmament\nwas the dwelling-place of God. It probably never occurred to these\nwriters that if the firmament was seven or eight miles away, Enoch and\nthe rest would have been frozen perfectly stiff long before the journey\ncould have been completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the voyage,\nas he was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire \"by a whirlwind.\"\n\nThe truth is, that Moses was mistaken, and upon that mistake the\nChristians located their heaven and their hell. The telescope destroyed\nthe firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered\nthe ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely\nabsurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem,\nand in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds.\n\nVIII. WEDNESDAY.\n\nWe are next informed by the historian of creation, that after God had\nfinished making the firmament and had succeeded in dividing the waters\nby means of an \"expanse,\" he proceeded \"to gather the waters on the\nearth together in seas, so that the dry land might appear.\"\n\nCertainly the writer of this did not have any conception of the real\nform of the earth. He could not have known anything of the attraction of\ngravitation. He must have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that\nit required considerable force and power to induce the water to leave\nthe mountains and collect in the valleys. Just as soon as the water was\nforced to run down hill, the dry land appeared, and the grass began to\ngrow, and the mantles of green were thrown over the shoulders of the\nhills, and the trees laughed into bud and blossom, and the branches were\nladen with fruit. And all this happened before a ray had left the quiver\nof the sun, before a glittering beam had thrilled the bosom of a flower,\nand before the Dawn with trembling hands had drawn aside the curtains of\nthe East and welcomed to her arms the eager god of Day.\n\nIt does not seem to me that grass and trees could grow and ripen into\nseed and fruit without the sun. According to the account, this all\nhappened on the third day. Now, if, as the Christians say, Moses did not\nmean by the word day a period of twenty-four hours, but an immense and\nalmost measureless space of time, and as God did not, according to this\nview make any animals until the fifth day, that is, not for millions of\nyears after he made the grass and trees, for what purpose did he cause\nthe trees to bear fruit?\n\nMoses says that God said on the third day, \"Let the earth bring forth\ngrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after\nhis kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so. And the\nearth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the\ntree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind; and God saw\nthat it was good, and the evening and the morning were the third day.\"\n\nThere was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect with painted wings\nsought the honey of the flowers; not a single living, breathing thing\nupon the earth. Plenty of grass, a great variety of herbs, an abundance\nof fruit, but not a mouth in all the world. If Moses is right, this\nstate of things lasted only two days; but if the modern theologians are\ncorrect, it continued for millions of ages.\n\n\"It is now well known that the organic history of the earth can be\nproperly divided into five epochs--the Primordial, Primary, Secondary,\nTertiary, and Quaternary. Each of these epochs is characterized by\nanimal and vegetable life peculiar to itself. In the First will be found\nAlgae and Skulless Vertebrates, in the Second, Ferns and Fishes, in the\nThird, Pine Forests and Reptiles, in the Fourth, Foliaceous Forests and\nMammals, and in the Fifth, Man.\"\n\nHow much more reasonable this is than the idea that the earth was\ncovered with grass, and herbs, and trees loaded with fruit for millions\nof years before an animal existed.\n\nThere is, in Nature, an even balance forever kept between the total\namounts of animal and vegetable life. \"In her wonderful economy she must\nform and bountifully nourish her vegetable progeny--twin-brother life to\nher, with that of animals. The perfect balance between plant existences\nand animal existences must always be maintained, while matter courses\nthrough the eternal circle, becoming each in turn. If an animal be\nresolved into its ultimate constituents in a period according to the\nsurrounding circumstances, say, of four hours, of four months, of four\nyears, or even of four thousand years,--for it is impossible to deny\nthat there may be instances of all these periods during which the\nprocess has continued--those elements which assume the gaseous form\nmingle at once with the atmosphere and are taken up from it without\ndelay by the ever-open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand pores\nin every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the atmosphere unfit for\nanimal life is absorbed, the carbon being separated, and assimilated to\nform the vegetable fibre, which, as wood, makes and furnishes our houses\nand ships, is burned for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for\ncoal. All this carbon has played its part, and many parts in its time,\nas animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany of to-day has\nbeen many negroes in its turn, and before the African existed, was\nintegral portions of many a generation of extinct species.\"\n\nIt seems reasonable to suppose that certain kinds of vegetation-and\ncertain kinds of animals should exist together, and that as the\ncharacter of the vegetation changed, a corresponding change would take\nplace in the animal world. It may be that I am led to these conclusions\nby \"total depravity,\" or that I lack the necessary humility of spirit to\nsatisfactorily harmonize Haeckel and Moses; or that I am carried away by\npride, blinded by reason, given over to hardness of heart that I might\nbe damned, but I never can believe that the earth was covered with\nleaves, and buds, and flowers, and fruits before the sun with glittering\nspear had driven back the hosts of Night.\n\nIX. THURSDAY.\n\nAfter the world was covered with vegetation, it occurred to Moses that\nit was about time to make a sun and moon; and so we are told that on the\nfourth day God said, \"Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven\nto divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for\nseasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the\nfirmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And\nGod made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the\nlesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.\"\n\nCan we believe that the inspired writer had any idea of the size of the\nsun? Draw a circle five inches in diameter, and by its side thrust a pin\nthrough the paper. The hole made by the pin will sustain about the same\nrelation to the circle that the earth does to the sun. Did he know that\nthe sun was eight hundred and sixty thousand miles in diameter; that it\nwas enveloped in an ocean of fire thousands of miles in depth, hotter\neven than the Christian's hell, over which sweep tempests of flame\nmoving at the rate of one hundred miles a second, compared with which\nthe wildest storm that ever wrecked the forests of this world was but a\ncalm? Did he know that the sun every moment of time throws out as much\nheat as could be generated by the combustion of millions upon millions\nof tons of coal? Did he know that the volume of the earth is less than\none-millionth of that of the sun? Did he know of the one hundred and\nfour planets belonging to our solar system, all children of the sun? Did\nhe know of Jupiter eighty-five thousand miles in diameter, hundreds\nof times as large as our earth, turning on his axis at the rate of\ntwenty-five thousand miles an hour accompanied by four moons, making the\ntour of his orbit in fifty years, a distance of three thousand million\nmiles? Did he know anything about Saturn, his rings and his eight moons?\nDid he have the faintest idea that all these planets were once a part of\nthe sun; that the vast luminary was once thousands of millions of miles\nin diameter; that Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars were all\nborn before our earth, and that by no possibility could this world have\nexisted three days, nor three periods, nor three \"good whiles\" before\nits source, the sun?\n\nMoses supposed the sun to be about three or four feet in diameter and\nthe moon about half that size. Compared with the earth they were but\nsimple specks. This idea seems to have been shared by all the \"inspired\"\nmen. We find in the book of Joshua that the sun stood still, and the\nmoon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.\n\"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go\ndown about a whole day.\"\n\nWe are told that the sacred writer wrote in common speech as we do\nwhen we talk about the rising and setting of the sun, and that all he\nintended to say was that the earth ceased to turn on its axis \"for about\na whole day.\"\n\nMy own opinion is that General Joshua knew no more about the motions of\nthe earth than he did about mercy and justice. If he had known that the\nearth turned upon its axis at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and\nswept in its course about the sun at the rate of sixty-eight thousand\nmiles an hour, he would have doubled the hailstones, spoken of in the\nsame chapter, that the Lord cast down from heaven, and allowed the sun\nand moon to rise and set in the usual way.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive of a more absurd story than this about the\nstopping of the sun and moon, and yet nothing so excites the malice of\nthe orthodox preacher as to call its truth in question. Some endeavor\nto account for the phenomenon by natural causes, while others attempt\nto show that God could, by the refraction of light have made the sun\nvisible although actually shining on the opposite side of the earth. The\nlast hypothesis has been seriously urged by ministers within the last\nfew months. The Rev. Henry M. Morey of South Bend, Indiana, says \"that\nthe phenomenon was simply optical. The rotary motion of the earth was\nnot disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by the same laws\nof refraction and reflection by which the sun now appears to be above\nthe horizon when it is really below. The medium through which the sun's\nrays passed may have been miraculously influenced so as to have caused\nthe sun to linger above the horizon long after its usual time for\ndisappearance.\"\n\nThis is the latest and ripest product of Christian scholarship upon\nthis question no doubt, but still it is not entirely satisfactory to me.\nAccording to the sacred account the sun did not linger, merely, above\nthe horizon, but stood still \"in the midst of heaven for about a\nwhole day,\" that is to say, for about twelve hours. If the air was\nmiraculously changed, so that it would refract the rays of the sun while\nthe earth turned over as usual for \"about a whole day,\" then, at the\nend of that time the sun must have been visible in the east, that is,\nit must by that time have been the next morning. According to this, that\nmost wonderful day must have been at least thirty-six hours in length.\nWe have first, the twelve hours of natural light, then twelve hours of\n\"refracted and reflected\" light. By that time it would again be morning,\nand the sun would shine for twelve hours more in the natural way, making\nthirty-six hours in all.\n\nIf the Rev. Morey would depend a little less on \"refraction\" and a\nlittle more on \"reflection,\" he would conclude that the whole story is\nsimply a barbaric myth and fable.\n\nIt hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one, would either stop\nthe globe, change the constitution of the atmosphere or the nature of\nlight simply to afford Joshua an opportunity to kill people on that\nday when he could just as easily have waited until the next morning.\nIt certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe such\nchildish things.\n\nIt has been demonstrated that force is eternal; that it is forever\nactive, and eludes destruction by change of form. Motion is a form of\nforce, and all arrested motion changes instantly to heat. The earth\nturns upon its axis at about one thousand miles an hour. Let it be\nstopped and a force beyond our imagination is changed to heat. It has\nbeen calculated that to stop the world would produce as much heat as the\nburning of a solid piece of coal three times the size of the earth.\nAnd yet we are asked to believe that this was done in order that one\nbarbarian might defeat another. Such stories never would have been\nwritten, had not the belief been general that the heavenly bodies were\nas nothing compared with the earth.\n\nThe view of Moses was acquiesced in by the Jewish people and by the\nChristian world for thousands of years. It is supposed that Moses\nlived about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and although he was\n\"inspired,\" and obtained his information directly from God, he did not\nknow as much about our solar system as the Chinese did a thousand\nyears before he was born. \"The Emperor Chwenhio adopted as an epoch, a\nconjunction of the planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which has\nbeen shown by M. Bailly to have occurred no less than 2449 years before\nChrist.\" The ancient Chinese knew not only the motions of the planets,\nbut they could calculate eclipses. \"In the reign of the Emperor\nChow-Kang, the chief astronomers, Ho and Hi were condemned to death for\nneglecting to announce a solar eclipse which took place 2169 B. C., a\nclear proof that the prediction of eclipses was a part of the duty of\nthe imperial astronomers.\"\n\nIs it not strange that a Chinaman should find out by his own exertions\nmore about the material universe than Moses could when assisted by its\nCreator?\n\nAbout eight hundred years after God gave Moses the principal facts about\nthe creation of the \"heaven and the earth\" he performed another miracle\nfar more wonderful than stopping the world. On this occasion he not\nonly stopped the earth, but actually caused it to turn the other way.\nA Jewish king was sick, and God, in order to convince him that he would\nultimately recover, offered to make the shadow on the dial go forward,\nor backward ten degrees. The king thought it was too easy a thing to\nmake the shadow go forward, and asked that it be turned back. Thereupon,\n\"Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow\nten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.\" I\nhardly see how this miracle could be accounted for even by \"refraction\"\nand \"reflection.\"\n\nIt seems, from the account, that this stupendous miracle was performed\nafter the king had been cured. The account of the shadow going backward\nis given in the eleventh verse of the twentieth chapter of Second Kings,\nwhile the cure is given in the seventh verse of the same chapter. \"And\nIsaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil,\nand he recovered.\"\n\nStopping the world and causing it to turn back ten degrees after that,\nseems to have been, as the boil was already cured by the figs, a useless\ndisplay of power.\n\nThe easiest way to account for all these wonders is to say that the\n\"inspired\" writers were mistaken. In this way a fearful burden is lifted\nfrom the credulity of man, and he is left free to believe the evidences\nof his own senses, and the demonstrations of science. In this way he can\nemancipate himself from the slavery of superstition, the control of the\nbarbaric dead, and the despotism of the church.\n\nOnly about a hundred years ago, Buffon, the naturalist, was compelled by\nthe faculty of theology at Paris to publicly renounce fourteen \"errors\"\nin his work on Natural History because they were at variance with the\nMosaic account of creation. The Pentateuch is still the scientific\nstandard of the church, and ignorant priests, armed with that, pronounce\nsentence upon the vast accomplishments of modern thought.\n\nX. \"HE MADE THE STARS ALSO.\"\n\nMoses came very near forgetting about the stars, and only gave five\nwords to all the hosts of heaven. Can it be possible that he knew\nanything about the stars beyond the mere fact that he saw them shining\nabove him?\n\nDid he know that the nearest star, the one we ought to be the best\nacquainted with, is twenty-one billion of miles away, and that it is\na sun shining by its own light? Did he know of the next, that is\nthirty-seven billion miles distant? Is it possible that he was\nacquainted with Sirius, a sun two thousand six hundred and eighty-eight\ntimes larger than our own, surrounded by a system of heavenly bodies,\nseveral of which are already known, and distant from us eighty-two\nbillion miles? Did he know that the Polar star that tells the mariner\nhis course and guided slaves to liberty and joy, is distant from this\nlittle world two hundred and ninety-two billion miles, and that Capella\nwheels and shines one hundred and thirty-three billion miles beyond? Did\nhe know that it would require about seventy-two years for light to reach\nus from this star? Did he know that light travels one hundred and\neighty-five thousand miles a second? Did he know that some stars are so\nfar away in the infinite abysses that five millions of years are\nrequired for their light to reach this globe?\n\nIf this is true, and if as the Bible tells us, the stars were made after\nthe earth, then this world has been wheeling in its orbit for at least\nfive million years.\n\nIt may be replied that it was not the intention of God to teach geology\nand astronomy. Then why did he say anything upon these subjects? and if\nhe did say anything, why did he not give the facts?\n\nAccording to the sacred records God created, on the first day, the\nheaven and the earth, \"moved upon the face of the waters,\" and made\nthe light. On the second day he made the firmament or the \"expanse\" and\ndivided the waters. On the third day he gathered the waters into seas,\nlet the dry land appear and caused the earth to bring forth grass, herbs\nand fruit trees, and on the fourth day he made the sun, moon and stars\nand set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth.\nThis division of labor is very striking. The work of the other days is\nas nothing when compared with that of the fourth. Is it possible that\nit required the same time and labor to make the grass, herbs and fruit\ntrees, that it did to fill with countless constellations the infinite\nexpanse of space?\n\nXI. FRIDAY.\n\nWe are then told that on the next day \"God the moving creatures that hath\nlife, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of\nheaven. And God created great whales and every living creature which the\nwaters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged\nfowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them,\nsaying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and\nlet fowl multiply in the earth.\"\n\nIs it true that while the dry land was covered with grass, and herbs,\nand trees bearing fruit, the ocean was absolutely devoid of life, and so\nremained for millions of years?\n\nIf Moses meant twenty-four hours by the word day, then it would make but\nlittle difference on which of the six days animals were made; but if the\nword said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly day was used to express\nmillions of ages, during which life was slowly evolved from monad up to\nman, then the account becomes infinitely absurd, puerile and foolish.\nThere is not a scientist of high standing who will say that in his\njudgment the earth was covered with fruit-bearing trees before the\nmoners, the ancestors it may be of the human race, felt in Laurentian\nseas the first faint throb of life. Nor is there one who will declare\nthat there was a single spire of grass before the sun had poured upon\nthe world his flood of gold.\n\nWhy should men in the name of religion try to harmonize the\ncontradictions that exist between Nature and a book? Why should\nphilosophers be denounced for placing more reliance upon what they know\nthan upon what they have been told? If there is a God, it is reasonably\ncertain that he made the world, but it is by no means certain that he is\nthe author of the Bible. Why then should we not place greater confidence\nin Nature than in a book? And even if this God made not only the world\nbut the book besides, it does not follow that the book is the best part\nof creation, and the only part that we will be eternally punished for\ndenying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to know something\nof the solar system, something of the physical history of this globe,\nas it is to know the adventures of Jonah or the diet of Ezekiel. For my\npart, I would infinitely prefer to know all the results of scientific\ninvestigation, than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing the Bible to\nbe true; why is it any worse or more wicked for Freethinkers to deny\nit, than for priests to deny the doctrine of evolution, or the dynamic\ntheory of heat? Why should we be damned for laughing at Samson and his\nfoxes, while others, holding the Nebular Hypothesis in utter contempt,\ngo straight to heaven? It seems to me that a belief in the great truths\nof science are fully as essential to salvation, as the creed of any\nchurch. We are taught that a man may be perfectly acceptable to God\neven if he denies the rotundity of the earth, the Copernican system, the\nthree laws of Kepler, the indestructibility of matter and the attraction\nof gravitation. And we are also taught that a man may be right upon\nall these questions, and yet, for failing to believe in the \"scheme of\nsalvation,\" be eternally lost.\n\nXII. SATURDAY.\n\nOn this, the last day of creation, God said;--\n\n\"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle\nand creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was\nso. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after\ntheir kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind;\nand God saw that it was good.\"\n\nNow, is it true that the seas were filled with fish, the sky with fowls,\nand the earth covered with grass, and herbs, and fruit bearing trees,\nmillions of ages before there was a creeping thing in existence? Must\nwe admit that plants and animals were the result of the fiat of some\nincomprehensible intelligence independent of the operation of what are\nknown as natural causes? Why is a miracle any more necessary to account\nfor yesterday than for to-day or for to-morrow?\n\nIf there is an infinite Power, nothing can be more certain than that\nthis Power works in accordance with what we call law, that is, by and\nthrough natural causes. If anything can be found without a pedigree of\nnatural antecedents, it will then be time enough to talk about the fiat\nof creation. There must have been a time when plants and animals did not\nexist upon this globe. The question, and the only question is, whether\nthey were naturally produced. If the account given by Moses is true,\nthen the vegetable and animal existences are the result of certain\nspecial fiats of creation entirely independent of the operation of\nnatural causes. This is so grossly improbable, so at variance with the\nexperience and observation of mankind, that it cannot be adopted without\nabandoning forever the basis of scientific thought and action.\n\nIt may be urged that we do not understand the sacred record correctly.\nTo this it may be replied that for thousands of years the account of\nthe creation has, by the Jewish and Christian world, been regarded as\nliterally true. If it was inspired, of course God must have known just\nhow it would be understood, and consequently must have intended that\nit should be understood just as he knew it would be. One man writing to\nanother, may mean one thing, and yet be understood as meaning something\nelse. Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood, and also\nknew that he could use other words that would convey his real meaning,\nbut did not, we would say that he used words on purpose to mislead, and\nwas not an honest man.\n\nIf a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or caused it to be\nwritten, he must have known exactly how his words would be interpreted\nby all the world, and he must have intended to convey the very meaning\nthat was conveyed. He must have known that by reading that book, man\nwould form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity, and size of this\nworld; that he would be misled as to the time and order of creation;\nthat he would have the most childish and contemptible views of the\ncreator; that the \"sacred word\" would be used to support slavery and\npolygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good, and light fagots\nto consume the brave, and therefore he must have intended that these\nresults should follow. He also must have known that thousands and\nmillions of men and women never could believe his Bible, and that the\nnumber of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilization,\nand therefore, he must have intended that result.\n\nLet us understand this. An honest finite being uses the best words, in\nhis judgment, to convey his meaning. This is the best he can do, because\nhe cannot certainly know the exact effect of his words on others. But an\ninfinite being must know not only the real meaning of the words, but the\nexact meaning they will convey to every reader and hearer. He must know\nevery meaning that they are capable of conveying to every mind. He must\nalso know what explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If\nan infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use such words\nthat every person to whom a revelation is essential will understand\ndistinctly what that revelation is, then a revelation from God through\nthe instrumentality of language is impossible, or it is not essential\nthat all should understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions\nhave not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in\nthe plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a\nbeing of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence,\nthat he cannot by any means make known to them his will? We are told\nthat it is exceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool,\nneed not err therein. This statement is refuted by the religious history\nof the Christian world. Every sect is a certificate that God has not\nplainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a\ndifferent meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation,\nthere have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame. If\nwritten by an infinite God, he must have known that these results must\nfollow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible for all.\n\nIs it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work\nof man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes\nand facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the \"very form and\npressure of its time\"?\n\nIf there are mistakes in the Bible, certainly they were made by man. If\nthere is anything contrary to nature, it was written by man. If there is\nanything immoral, cruel, heartless or infamous, it certainly was never\nwritten by a being worthy of the adoration of mankind.\n\nXIII. LET US MAKE MAN.\n\nWe are next informed by the author of the Pentateuch that God said \"Let\nus make man in our image, after our likeness,\" and that \"God created man\nin his own image, in the image of God created he him--male and female\ncreated he them.\"\n\nIf this account means anything, it means that man was created in the\nphysical image and likeness of God. Moses while he speaks of man as\nhaving been made in the image of God, never speaks of God except as\nhaving the form of a man. He speaks of God as \"walking in the garden\nin the cool of the day;\" and that Adam and Eve \"heard his voice.\" He is\nconstantly telling what God said, and in a thousand passages he refers\nto him as not only having the human form, but as performing actions,\nsuch as man performs. The God of Moses was a God with hands, with feet,\nwith the organs of speech.\n\nA God of passion, of hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance; a\nGod who made mistakes:--in other words, an immense and powerful man.\n\nIt will not do to say that Moses meant to convey the idea that God made\nman in his mental or moral image. Some have insisted that man was made\nin the moral image of God because he was made pure. Purity cannot be\nmanufactured. A moral character cannot be made for man by a god.\nEvery man must make his own moral character. Consequently, if God\nis infinitely pure, Adam and Eve were not made in his image in that\nrespect. Others say that Adam and Eve were made in the mental image\nof God. If it is meant by that, that they were created with reasoning\npowers like, but not to the extent of those possessed by a god, then\nthis may be admitted. But certainly this idea was not in the mind of\nMoses. He regarded the human form as being in the image of God, and for\nthat reason always spoke of God as having that form. No one can read\nthe Pentateuch without coming to the conclusion that the author supposed\nthat man was created in the physical likeness of Deity. God said \"Go to,\nlet us go down.\" \"God smelled a sweet savor;\" \"God repented him that he\nhad made man;\" \"and God said;\" and \"walked;\" and \"talked;\" and \"rested.\"\nAll these expressions are inconsistent with any other idea than that the\nperson using them regarded God as having the form of man.\n\nAs a matter of fact, it is impossible for a man to conceive of a\npersonal God, other than as a being having the human form. No one can\nthink of an infinite being having the form of a horse, or of a bird, or\nof any animal beneath man. It is one of the necessities of the mind to\nassociate forms with intellectual capacities. The highest form of which\nwe have any conception is man's, and consequently, his is the only form\nthat we can find in imagination to give to a personal God, because all\nother forms are, in our minds, connected with lower intelligences.\n\nIt is impossible to think of a personal God as a spirit without form.\nWe can use these words, but they do not convey to the mind any real and\ntangible meaning. Every one who thinks of a personal God at all, thinks\nof him as having the human form. Take from God the idea of form; speak\nof him simply as an all pervading spirit--which means an all pervading\nsomething about which we know nothing--and Pantheism is the result.\n\nWe are told that God made man; and the question naturally arises, how\nwas this done? Was it by a process of \"evolution,\" \"development;\" the\n\"transmission of acquired habits;\" the \"survival of the fittest,\" or was\nthe necessary amount of clay kneaded to the proper consistency, and then\nby the hands of God moulded into form? Modern science tells that man has\nbeen evolved, through countless epochs, from the lower forms; that he\nis the result of almost an infinite number of actions, reactions,\nexperiences, states, forms, wants and adaptations. Did Moses intend\nto convey such a meaning, or did he believe that God took a sufficient\namount of dust, made it the proper shape, and breathed into it the\nbreath of life? Can any believer in the Bible give any reasonable\naccount of this process of creation? Is it possible to imagine what\nwas really done? Is there any theologian who will contend that man\nwas created directly from the earth? Will he say that man was made\nsubstantially as he now is, with all his muscles properly developed for\nwalking and speaking, and performing every variety of human action?\nThat all his bones were formed as they now are, and all the relations of\nnerve, ligament, brain and motion as they are to-day?\n\nLooking back over the history of animal life from the lowest to\nthe highest forms, we find that there has been a slow and gradual\ndevelopment; a certain but constant relation between want and\nproduction; between use and form. The Moner is said to be the simplest\nform of animal life that has yet been found. It has been described as\n\"an organism without organs.\" It is a kind of structureless structure;\na little mass of transparent jelly that can flatten itself out, and can\nexpand and contract around its food. It can feed without a mouth, digest\nwithout a stomach, walk without feet, and reproduce itself by simple\ndivision. By taking this Moner as the commencement of animal life, or\nrather as the first animal, it is easy to follow the development of the\norganic structure through all the forms of life to man himself. In this\nway finally every muscle, bone and joint, every organ, form and function\nmay be accounted for. In this way, and in this way only, can the\nexistence of rudimentary organs be explained. Blot from the human mind\nthe ideas of evolution, heredity, adaptation, and \"the survival of\nthe fittest,\" with which it has been enriched by Lamarck, Goethe,\nDarwin, Haeckel and Spencer, and all the facts in the history of animal\nlife become utterly disconnected and meaningless.\n\nShall we throw away all that has been discovered with regard to organic\nlife, and in its place take the statements of one who lived in the\nrude morning of a barbaric day? Will anybody now contend that man was a\ndirect and independent creation, and sustains and bears no relation to\nthe animals below him? Belief upon this subject must be governed at\nlast by evidence. Man cannot believe as he pleases. He can control his\nspeech, and can say that he believes or disbelieves; but after all, his\nwill cannot depress or raise the scales with which his reason finds the\nworth and weight of facts. If this is not so, investigation, evidence,\njudgment and reason are but empty words.\n\nI ask again, how were Adam and Eve created? In one account they are\ncreated male and female, and apparently at the same time. In the next\naccount, Adam is made first, and Eve a long time afterwards, and from a\npart of the man. Did God simply by his creative fiat cause a rib slowly\nto expand, grow and divide into nerve, ligament, cartilage and flesh?\nHow was the woman created from a rib? How was man created simply from\ndust? For my part, I cannot believe this statement.\n\nI may suffer for this in the world to come; and may, millions of years\nhence, sincerely wish that I had never investigated the subject, but had\nbeen content to take the ideas of the dead. I do not believe that any\ndeity works in that way. So far as my experience goes, there is an\nunbroken procession of cause and effect. Each thing is a necessary link\nin an infinite chain; and I cannot conceive of this chain being broken\neven for one instant. Back of the simplest moner there is a cause,\nand back of that another, and so on, it seems to me, forever. In my\nphilosophy I postulate neither beginning nor ending.\n\nIf the Mosaic account is true, we know how long man has been upon this\nearth. If that account can be relied on, the first man was made about\nfive thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago. Sixteen hundred\nand fifty-six years after the making of the first man, the inhabitants\nof the world, with the exception of eight people, were destroyed by\na flood. This flood occurred only about four thousand two hundred and\ntwenty-seven years ago. If this account is correct, at that time, only\none kind of men existed. Noah and his family were certainly of the same\nblood. It therefore follows that all the differences we see between the\nvarious races of men have been caused in about four thousand years. If\nthe account of the deluge is true, then since that event all the ancient\nkingdoms of the earth were founded, and their inhabitants passed through\nall the stages of savage, nomadic, barbaric and semi-civilized life;\nthrough the epochs of Stone, Bronze and Iron; established commerce,\ncultivated the arts, built cities, filled them with palaces and temples,\ninvented writing, produced a literature and slowly fell to shapeless\nruin. We must believe that all this has happened within a period of four\nthousand years.\n\nFrom representations found upon Egyptian granite made more than three\nthousand years ago, we know that the negro was as black, his lips as\nfull, and his hair as closely curled then as now. If we know anything,\nwe know that there was at that time substantially the same difference\nbetween the Egyptian and the Negro as now. If we know anything, we know\nthat magnificent statues were made in Egypt four thousand years before\nour era--that is to say, about six thousand years ago. There was at\nthe World's Exposition, in the Egyptian department, a statue of king\nCephren, known to have been chiseled more than six thousand years ago.\nIn other words, if the Mosaic account must be believed, this statue was\nmade before the world. We also know, if we know anything, that men lived\nin v Europe with the hairy mammoth, the cave bear, the rhinoceros, and\nthe hyena. Among the bones of these animals have been found the stone\nhatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the caves where they\nlived have been discovered the remains of these animals that had been\nconquered, killed and devoured as food, hundreds of thousands of years\nago.\n\nIf these facts are true, Moses was mistaken. For my part, I have\ninfinitely more confidence in the discoveries of to-day, than in the\nrecords of a barbarous people. It will not now do to say that man has\nexisted upon this earth for only about six thousand years. One can\nhardly compute in his imagination the time necessary for man to emerge\nfrom the barbarous state, naked and helpless, surrounded by animals far\nmore powerful than he, to progress and finally create the civilizations\nof India, Egypt and Athens. The distance from savagery to Shakespeare\nmust be measured not by hundreds, but by millions of years.\n\nXIV. SUNDAY.\n\n\"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he\nrested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God\nblessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had\nrested from all his work which God created and made.\"\n\nThe great work had been accomplished, the world, the sun, and moon, and\nall the hosts of heaven were finished; the earth was clothed in\ngreen, the seas were filled with life, the cattle wandered by the\nbrooks--insects with painted wings were in the happy air, Adam and Eve\nwere making each others acquaintance, and God was resting from his work.\nHe was contemplating the accomplishments of a week.\n\nBecause he rested on that day he sanctified it, and for that reason and\nfor that alone, it was by the Jews considered a holy day. If he only\nrested on that day, there ought to be some account of what he did the\nfollowing Monday. Did he rest on that day? What did he do after he\ngot rested? Has he done anything in the way of creation since Saturday\nevening of the first week?\n\nIt is now claimed by the \"scientific\" Christians that the \"days\" of\ncreation were not ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but immensely\nlong periods of time. If they are right, then how long was the seventh\nday? Was that, too, a geologic period covering thousands of ages?\nThat cannot be, because Adam and Eve were created the Saturday evening\nbefore, and according to the Bible that was about five thousand eight\nhundred and eighty-three years ago. I cannot state the time exactly,\nbecause there have been as many as one hundred and forty different\nopinions given by learned Biblical students as to the time between the\ncreation of the world and the birth of Christ. We are quite certain,\nhowever, that, according to the Bible, it is not more than six thousand\nyears since the creation of Adam. From this it would appear that the\nseventh day was not a geologic epoch, but was in fact a period of less\nthan six thousand years, and probably of only twenty-four hours.\n\nThe theologians who \"answer\" these things may take their choice. If they\ntake the ground that the \"days\" were periods of twenty-four hours, then\ngeology will force them to throw away the whole account. If, on the\nother hand, they admit that the days were vast \"periods,\" then the\nsacredness of the Sabbath must be given up.\n\nThere is found in the Bible no intimation that there was the least\ndifference in the days. They are all spoken of in the same way. It may\nbe replied that our translation is incorrect. If this is so, then only\nthose who understand Hebrew, have had a revelation from God, and all the\nrest have been deceived.\n\nHow is it possible to sanctify a space of time? Is rest holier than\nlabor? If there is any difference between days, ought not that to be\nconsidered best in which the most useful labor has been performed?\n\nOf all the superstitions of mankind, this insanity about the \"sacred\nSabbath\" is the most absurd. The idea of feeling it a duty to be solemn\nand sad one-seventh of the time! To think that we can please an infinite\nbeing by staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of walking in the\nperfumed fields! Why should God hate to see a man happy? Why should it\nexcite his wrath to see a family in the woods, by some babbling stream,\ntalking, laughing and loving? Nature works on that \"sacred\" day. The\nearth turns, the rivers run, the trees grow, buds burst into flower, and\nbirds fill the air with song. Why should we look sad, and think about\ndeath, and hear about hell? Why should that day be filled with gloom\ninstead of joy?\n\nA poor mechanic, working all the week in dust and noise, needs a day of\nrest and joy, a day to visit stream and wood--a day to live with wife\nand child; a day in which to laugh at care, and gather hope and strength\nfor toils to come. And his weary wife needs a breath of sunny air, away\nfrom street and wall, amid the hills or by the margin of the sea, where\nshe can sit and prattle with her babe, and fill with happy dreams the\nlong, glad day.\n\nThe \"Sabbath\" was born of asceticism, hatred of human joy, fanaticism,\nignorance, egotism of priests and the cowardice of the people. This\nday, for thousands of years, has been dedicated to superstition, to the\ndissemination of mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every\nFreethinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He should\nassert his independence, and do all within his power to wrest the\nSabbath from the gloomy church and give it back to liberty and joy.\nFreethinkers should make the Sabbath a day of mirth and music; a day to\nspend with wife and child--a day of games, and books, and dreams--a day\nto put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead--a day of memory and hope,\nof love and rest.\n\nWhy should we in this age of the world be dominated by the dead? Why\nshould barbarian Jews who went down to death and dust three thousand\nyears ago, control the living world? Why should we care for the\nsuperstition of men who began the Sabbath by paring their nails,\n\"beginning at the fourth finger, then going to the second, then to the\nfifth, then to the third, and ending with the thumb?\" How pleasing\nto God this must have been. The Jews were very careful of these nail\nparings. They who threw them upon the ground were wicked, because Satan\nused them to work evil upon the earth. They believed that upon the\nSabbath, souls were allowed to leave purgatory and cool their\nburning souls in water. Fires were neither allowed to be kindled nor\nextinguished, and upon that day it was a sin to bind up wounds. \"The\nlame might use a staff, but the blind could not.\" So strict was the\nSabbath kept, that at one time \"if a Jew on a journey was overtaken\nby the 'sacred day' in a wood, or on the highway, no matter where, nor\nunder what circumstances, he must sit down,\" and there remain until the\nday was gone. \"If he fell down in the dirt, there he was compelled to\nstay until the day was done.\" For violating the Sabbath, the punishment\nwas death, for nothing short of the offender's blood could satisfy the\nwrath of God. There are, in the Old Testament, two reasons given for\nabstaining from labor on the Sabbath:--the resting of God, and the\nredemption of the Jews from the bondage of Egypt.\n\nSince the establishment of the Christian religion, the day has been\nchanged, and Christians do not regard the day as holy upon which God\nactually rested, and which he sanctified. The Christian Sabbath, or\nthe \"Lord's day\" was legally established by the murderer Constantine,\nbecause upon that day Christ was supposed to have risen from the dead.\n\nIt is not easy to see where Christians got the right to disregard the\ndirect command of God, to labor on the day he sanctified, and keep as\nsacred, a day upon which he commanded men to labor. The Sabbath of God\nis Saturday, and if any day is to be kept holy, that is the one, and not\nthe Sunday of the Christian.\n\nLet us throw away these superstitions and take the higher, nobler\nground, that every day should be rendered sacred by some loving act,\nby increasing the happinesss of man, giving birth to noble thoughts,\nputting in the path of toil some flower of joy, helping the unfortunate,\nlifting the fallen, dispelling gloom, destroying prejudice, defending\nthe helpless and filling homes with light and love.\n\nXV. THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the creation\nin Genesis. The first account stops with the third verse of the second\nchapter. The chapters have been improperly divided. In the original\nHebrew the Pentateuch was neither divided into chapters nor verses.\nThere was not even any system of punctuation. It was written wholly with\nconsonants, without vowels, and without any marks, dots, or lines to\nindicate them.\n\nThese accounts are materially different, and both cannot be true. Let us\nsee wherein they differ.\n\nThe second account of the creation begins with the fourth verse of the\nsecond chapter, and is as follows:\n\n\"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they\nwere created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the\nheavens.\n\n\"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb\nof the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain\nupon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.\n\n\"But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of\nthe ground.\n\n\"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed\ninto his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.\n\n\"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put\nthe man whom he had formed.\n\n\"And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is\npleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the\nmidst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.\n\n\"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it\nwas parted and became into four heads.\n\n\"The name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole\nland of Havilah, where there is gold.\n\n\"And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx\nstone.\n\n\"And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that\ncompasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.\n\n\"And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth\ntoward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.\n\n\"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to\ndress it and to keep it.\n\n\"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden\nthou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof\nthou shalt surely die.\n\n\"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I\nwill make him an helpmeet for him.\n\n\"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and\nevery fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would\ncall them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was\nthe name thereof.\n\n\"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to\nevery beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helpmeet\nfor him.\n\n\"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept;\nand he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;\n\n\"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and\nbrought her unto the man.\n\n\"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she\nshall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.\n\n\"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave\nunto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.\n\n\"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.\"\n\nOrder of creation in the first account:\n\n1. The heaven and the earth, and light were made.\n\n2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided.\n\n3. The waters gathered into seas--and then came dry land, grass, herbs\nand fruit trees.\n\n4. The sun and moon. He made the stars also.\n\n5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales.\n\n6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman.\n\nOrder of creation in the second account:\n\n1. The heavens and the earth.\n\n2. A mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole face of the\nground.\n\n3. Created a man out of dust, by the name of Adam.\n\n4. Planted a garden eastward in Eden, and put the man in it.\n\n5. Created the beasts and fowls.\n\n6. Created a woman out of one of the man's ribs.\n\nIn the second account, man was made _before_ the beasts and fowls. If\nthis is true, the first account is false. And if the theologians of our\ntime are correct in their view that the Mosaic day means thousands of\nages, then, according to the second account, Adam existed millions of\nyears before Eve was formed. He must have lived one Mosaic day before\nthere were any trees, and another Mosaic day before the beasts and fowls\nwere created. Will some kind clergymen tell us upon what kind of food\nAdam subsisted during these immense periods?\n\nIn the second account a man is made, and the fact that he was without a\nhelpmeet did not occur to the Lord God until a couple \"of vast periods\"\nafterwards. The Lord God suddenly coming to an appreciation of the\nsituation said, \"It is not good that the man should be alone. I will\nmake him an helpmeet for him.\"\n\nNow, after concluding to make \"an helpmeet\" for Adam, what did the Lord\nGod do? Did he at once proceed to make a woman? No. What did he do? He\nmade the beasts, and tried to induce Adam to take one of them for \"an\nhelpmeet.\" If I am incorrect, read the following account, and tell me\nwhat it means:\n\n\"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I\nwill make him an helpmeet for him.\n\n\"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and\nevery fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would\ncall them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was\nthe name thereof.\n\n\"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to\nevery beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet\nfor him.\"\n\nUnless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet for Adam, why did\nhe cause the animals to pass before him? And why did he, after the\nmenagerie had passed by, pathetically exclaim, \"But for Adam there was\nnot found an helpmeet for him\"?\n\nIt seems that Adam saw nothing that struck his fancy. The fairest ape,\nthe sprightliest chimpanzee, the loveliest baboon, the most bewitching\norangoutang, the most fascinating gorilla failed to touch with love's\nsweet pain, poor Adam's lonely heart. Let us rejoice that this was so.\nHad he fallen in love then, there never would have been a Freethinker in\nthis world.\n\nDr. Adam Clarke, speaking of this remarkable proceeding says:--\"God\ncaused the animals to pass before Adam to show him that no creature yet\nformed could make him a suitable companion; that Adam was convinced that\nnone of these animals could be a suitable companion for him, and that\ntherefore he must continue in a state that was not good (celibacy)\nunless he became a further debtor to the bounty of his maker, for among\nall the animals which he had formed, there was not a helpmeet for Adam.\"\n\nUpon this same subject, Dr. Scott informs us \"that it was not conducive\nto the happiness of the man to remain without the consoling society,\nand endearment of tender friendship, nor consistent with the end of his\ncreation to be without marriage by which the earth might be replenished\nand worshipers and servants raised up to render him praise and glory.\nAdam seems to have been vastly better acquainted by intuition or\nrevelation with the distinct properties of every creature than the most\nsagacious observer since the fall of man.\n\n\"Upon this review of the animals, not one was found in outward form his\ncounterpart, nor one suited to engage his affections, participate in his\nenjoyments, or associate with him in the worship of God.\"\n\nDr. Matthew Henry admits that \"God brought all the animals together\nto see if there was a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous\nfamilies of the inferior creatures, but there was none. They were all\nlooked over, but Adam could not be matched among them all. Therefore God\ncreated a new thing to be a helpmeet for him.\"\n\nFailing to satisfy Adam with any of the inferior animals, the Lord God\ncaused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while in this sleep took out\none of Adam's ribs and \"closed up the flesh instead thereof.\" And out of\nthis rib, the Lord God made a woman, and brought her to the man.\n\nWas the Lord God compelled to take a part of the man because he had used\nup all the original \"nothing\" out of which the universe was made? Is it\npossible for any sane and intelligent man to believe this story? Must a\nman be born a second time before this account seems reasonable?\n\nImagine the Lord God with a bone in his hand with which to start\na woman, trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a\nbrunette!\n\nJust at this point it may be proper for me to warn all persons from\nlaughing at or making light of, any stories found in the \"Holy Bible.\"\nWhen you come to die, every laugh will be a thorn in your pillow. At\nthat solemn moment, as you look back upon the records of your life, no\nmatter how many men you may have wrecked and ruined; no matter how many\nwomen you have deceived and deserted, all that can be forgiven; but\nif you remember then that you have laughed at even one story in God's\n\"sacred book\" you will see through the gathering shadows of death the\nforked tongues of devils, and the leering eyes of fiends.\n\nThese stories must be believed, or the work of regeneration can never be\ncommenced. No matter how well you act your part, live as honestly as you\nmay, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, divide your last farthing\nwith the poor, and you are simply traveling the broad road that leads\ninevitably to eternal death, unless at the same time you implicitly\nbelieve the Bible to be the inspired word of God.\n\nLet me show you the result of unbelief. Let us suppose, for a moment,\nthat we are at the Day of Judgment, listening to the trial of souls\nas they arrive. The Recording Secretary, or whoever does the\ncross-examining, says to a soul:\n\nWhere are you from?\n\nI am from the Earth.\n\nWhat kind of a man were you?\n\nWell, I don't like to talk about myself. I suppose you can tell by\nlooking at your books.\n\nNo, sir. You must tell what kind of a man you were.\n\nWell, I was what you might call a first-rate fellow. I loved my wife and\nchildren. My home was my heaven. My fireside was a paradise to me. To\nsit there and see the lights and shadows fall upon the faces of those I\nloved, was to me a perfect joy.\n\nHow did you treat your family?\n\nI never said an unkind word. I never caused my wife, nor one of my\nchildren, a moments pain.\n\nDid you pay your debts?\n\nI did not owe a dollar when I died, and left enough to pay my funeral\nexpenses, and to keep the fierce wolf of want from the door of those I\nloved.\n\nDid you belong to any church?\n\nNo, sir. They were too narrow, pinched and bigoted for me, I never\nthought that I could be very happy if other folks were damned.\n\nDid you believe in eternal punishment?\n\nWell, no. I always thought that God could get his revenge in far less\ntime.\n\nDid you believe the rib story?\n\nDo you mean the Adam and Eve business?\n\nYes! Did you believe that?\n\nTo tell you the God's truth, that was just a little more than I could\nswallow.\n\nAway with him to hell!\n\nNext!\n\nWhere are you from?\n\nI am from the world too.\n\nDid you belong to any church?\n\nYes, sir, and to the Young Men's Christian Association besides.\n\nWhat was your business?\n\nCashier in a Savings Bank.\n\nDid you ever run away with any money?\n\nWhere I came from, a witness could not be compelled to criminate\nhimself.\n\nThe law is different here. Answer the question. Did you run away with\nany money?\n\nYes, sir.\n\nHow much?\n\nOne hundred thousand dollars.\n\nDid you take anything else with you?\n\nYes, sir.\n\nWell, what else?\n\nI took my neighbor's wife--we sang together in the choir.\n\nDid you have a wife and children of your own? Yes, sir.\n\nAnd you deserted them?\n\nYes, sir, but such was my confidence in God that I believed he would\ntake care of them.\n\nHave you heard of them since?\n\nNo, sir.\n\nDid you believe in the rib story?\n\nBless your soul, of course I did. A thousand times I regretted that\nthere were no harder stories in the Bible, so that I could have shown my\nwealth of faith.\n\nDo you believe the rib story yet?\n\nYes, with all my heart.\n\nGive him a harp!\n\nWell, as I was saying, God made a woman from Adam's rib. Of course, I do\nnot know exactly how this was done, but when he got the woman finished,\nhe presented her to Adam. He liked her, and they commenced house-keeping\nin the celebrated Garden of Eden.\n\nMust we, in order to be good, gentle and loving in our lives, believe\nthat the creation of woman was a second thought? That Jehovah really\nendeavored to induce Adam to take one of the lower animals as an\nhelpmeet for him? After all, is it not possible to live honest and\ncourageous lives without believing these fables? It is said that from\nMount Sinai God gave, amid thunderings and lightnings, ten commandments\nfor the guidance of mankind; and yet among them is not found--\"Thou\nshalt believe the Bible.\"\n\nXVI. THE GARDEN.\n\nIn the first account we are told that God made man, male and female,\nand said to them \"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and\nsubdue it.\"\n\nIn the second account only the man is made, and he is put in a garden\n\"to dress it and to keep it.\" He is not told to subdue the earth, but to\ndress and keep a garden.\n\nIn the first account man is given every herb bearing seed upon the face\nof the earth and the fruit of every tree for food, and in the second,\nhe is given only the fruit of all the trees in the garden with the\nexception \"of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil\" which was a\ndeadly poison.\n\nThere was issuing from this garden a river that was parted into four\nheads. The first of these, Pison, compassed the whole land of Havilah,\nthe second, Gihon, that compassed the whole land of Ethiopia.\n\nThe third, Heddekel, that flowed toward the east of Assyria, and the\nfourth, the Euphrates. Where are these four rivers now? The brave prow\nof discovery has visited every sea; the traveler has pressed with weary\nfeet the soil of every clime; and yet there has been found no place from\nwhich four rivers sprang. The Euphrates still journeys to the gulf, but\nwhere are Pison, Gihon and the mighty Heddekel? Surely by going to the\nsource of the Euphrates we ought to find either these three rivers or\ntheir ancient beds. Will some minister when he answers the \"Mistakes of\nMoses\" tell us where these rivers are or were? The maps of the world are\nincomplete without these mighty streams. We have discovered the sources\nof the Nile; the North Pole will soon be touched by an American; but\nthese three rivers still rise in unknown hills, still flow through\nunknown lands, and empty still in unknown seas.\n\nThe account of these four rivers is what the Rev. David Swing would call\n\"a geographical poem.\" The orthodox clergy cover the whole affair with\nthe blanket of allegory, while the \"scientific\" Christian folks talk\nabout cataclysms, upheavals, earthquakes, and vast displacements of the\nearth's crust.\n\nThe question, then arises, whether within the last six thousand years\nthere have been such upheavals and displacements? Talk as you will about\nthe vast \"creative periods\" that preceded the appearance of man; it\nis, according to the Bible, only about six thousand years since man was\ncreated. Moses gives us the generations of men from Adam until his day,\nand this account cannot be explained away by calling centuries, days.\n\nAccording to the second account of creation, these four rivers were\nmade after the creation of man, and consequently they must have been\nobliterated by convulsions of Nature within six thousand years.\n\nCan we not account for these contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods\nby simply saying that although the writer may have done his level best,\nhe failed because he was limited in knowledge, led away by tradition,\nand depended too implicitly upon the correctness of his imagination?\nIs not such a course far more reasonable than to insist that all these\nthings are true and must stand though every science shall fall to mental\ndust?\n\nCan any reason be given for not allowing man to eat of the fruit of the\ntree of knowledge? What kind of tree was that? If it is all an allegory,\nwhat truth is sought to be conveyed? Why should God object to that fruit\nbeing eaten by man? Why did he put it in the midst of the garden? There\nwas certainly plenty of room outside. If he wished to keep man and this\ntree apart, why did he put them together? And why, after he had eaten,\nwas he thrust out? The only answer that we have a right to give, is\nthe one given in the Bible. \"And the Lord God said, Behold the man has\nbecome as one of us to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth\nhis hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:\nTherefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till\nthe ground from whence he was taken.\"\n\nWill some minister, some graduate of Andover, tell us what this means?\nAre we bound to believe it without knowing what the meaning is? If it is\na revelation, what does it reveal? Did God object to education then, and\ndoes that account for the hostile attitude still assumed by theologians\ntoward all scientific truth? Was there in the garden a tree of life, the\neating of which would have rendered Adam and Eve immortal? Is it true,\nthat after the Lord God drove them from the garden that he placed upon\nits Eastern side \"Cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way\nto keep the way of the tree of life?\" Are the Cherubim and the flaming\nsword guarding that tree still, or was it destroyed, or did its rotting\ntrunk, as the Rev. Robert Collyer suggests, \"nourish a bank of violets\"?\n\nWhat objection could God have had to the immortality of man? You\nsee that after all, this sacred record, instead of assuring us of\nimmortality, shows us only how we lost it. In this there is assuredly\nbut little consolation.\n\nAccording to this story we have lost one Eden, but nowhere in the Mosaic\nbooks are we told how we may gain another. I know that the Christians\ntell us there is another, in which all true believers will finally be\ngathered, and enjoy the unspeakable happiness of seeing the unbelievers\nin hell; but they do not tell us where it is.\n\nSome commentators say that the Garden of Eden was in the third\nheaven--some in the fourth, others have located it in the moon, some\nin the air beyond the attraction of the earth, some on the earth, some\nunder the earth, some inside the earth, some at the North Pole, others\nat the South, some in Tartary, some in China, some on the borders of the\nGanges, some in the island of Ceylon, some in Armenia, some in Africa,\nsome under the Equator, others in Mesopotamia, in Syria, Persia, Arabia,\nBabylon, Assyria, Palestine and Europe. Others have contended that\nit was invisible, that it was an allegory, and must be spiritually\nunderstood.\n\nBut whether you understand these things or not, you must believe them.\nYou may be laughed at in this world for insisting that God put Adam into\na deep sleep and made a woman out of one of his ribs, but you will be\ncrowned and glorified in the next. You will also have the pleasure of\nhearing the gentlemen howl there, who laughed at you here. While you\nwill not be permitted to take any revenge, you will be allowed to\nsmilingly express your entire acquiescence in the will of God. But where\nis the new Eden? No one knows. The one was lost, and the other has not\nbeen found.\n\nIs it true that man was once perfectly pure and innocent, and that\nhe became degenerate by disobedience? No. The real truth is, and the\nhistory of man shows, that he has advanced. Events, like the pendulum of\na clock have swung forward and back ward, but after all, man, like\nthe hands, has gone steadily on. Man is growing grander. He is not\ndegenerating. Nations and individuals fail and die, and make room\nfor higher forms. The intellectual horizon of the world widens as the\ncenturies pass. Ideals grow grander and purer; the difference between\njustice and mercy becomes less and less; liberty enlarges, and love\nintensifies as the years sweep on. The ages of force and fear, of\ncruelty and wrong, are behind us and the real Eden is beyond. It is said\nthat a desire for knowledge lost us the Eden of the past; but whether\nthat is true or not, it will certainly give us the Eden of the future.\n\nXVII. THE FALL.\n\nWe are told that the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field,\nthat he had a conversation with Eve, in which he gave his opinion about\nthe effect of eating certain fruit; that he assured her it was good to\neat, that it was pleasant to the eye, that it would make her wise; that\nshe was induced to take some; that she persuaded her husband to try it;\nthat God found it out, that he then cursed the snake; condemning it to\ncrawl and eat the dust; that he multiplied the sorrows of Eve, cursed\nthe ground for Adam's sake, started thistles and thorns, condemned man\nto eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face, pronounced the\ncurse of death, \"Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,\" made\ncoats of skins for Adam and Eve, and drove them out of Eden.\n\nWho, and what was this serpent? Dr. Adam Clarke says:--\"The serpent must\nhave walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment.\nThat he was endued with the gift of speech, also with reason. That these\nthings were given to this creature. The woman no doubt having often seen\nhim walking erect, and talking and reasoning, therefore she testifies\nno sort of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in\nthe text. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or\norangoutang kind is here intended, and that Satan made use of this\ncreature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his\nmurderous purposes against the life of the soul of man. Under this\ncreature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents.\nSuch a creature answers to every part of the description in the text. It\nis evident from the structure of its limbs and its muscles that it might\nhave been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing else than\nthe sovereign controlling power could induce it to put down hands--in\nevery respect formed like those of man--and walk like those creatures\nwhose claw-armed parts prove them to have been designed to walk on\nall fours. The stealthy cunning, and endless variety of the pranks\nand tricks of these creatures show them even now to be wiser and more\nintelligent than any other creature, man alone excepted. Being obliged\nto walk on all fours and gather their food from the ground, they are\nliterally obliged to eat the dust; and though exceeding cunning,\nand careful in a variety of instances to separate that part which is\nwholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article\nof cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety. Add to this\ntheir utter aversion to walk upright; it requires the utmost discipline\nto bring them to it, and scarcely anything offends or irritates them\nmore than to be obliged to do it. Long observation of these animals\nenables me to state these facts. For earnest, attentive watching, and\nfor chattering and babbling they (the ape) have no fellows in the animal\nworld. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter, is all they have\nleft of their original gift of speech, of which they appear to have been\ndeprived at the fall as a part of their punishment.\"\n\nHere then is the \"connecting link\" between man and the lower creation.\nThe serpent was simply an orang-outang that spoke Hebrew with the\ngreatest ease, and had the outward appearance of a perfect gentleman,\nseductive in manner, plausible, polite, and most admirably calculated to\ndeceive.\n\nIt never did seem reasonable' to me that a long, cold and disgusting\nsnake with an apple in his mouth, could deceive anybody; and I am glad,\neven at this late date to know that the something that persuaded Eve to\ntaste the forbidden fruit was, at least, in the shape of a man.\n\nDr. Henry does not agree with the zoological explanation of Mr. Clark,\nbut insists that \"it is certain that the devil that beguiled Eve is the\nold serpent, a malignant by creation, an angel of light, an immediate\nattendant upon God's throne, but by sin an apostate from his first\nstate, and a rebel against God's crown and dignity. He who attacked\nour first parents was surely the prince of devils, the ring leader in\nrebellion. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is\na specious creature, has a spotted, dappled skin, and then, went erect.\nPerhaps it was a flying serpent which seemed to come from on high, as a\nmessenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; because the serpent\nis a subtile creature. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her,\nwe are not likely to tell, and, I believe, she herself did not know\nwhat to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good\nangel, and yet afterwards might suspect something amiss. The person\ntempted was a woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband,\nbut near the forbidden tree. It was the devil's subtlety to assault the\nweaker vessel with his temptations, as we may suppose her inferior to\nAdam in knowledge, strength and presence of mind. Some think that Eve\nreceived the command not immediately from God, but at second hand from\nher husband, and might, therefore, be the more easily persuaded to\ndiscredit it. It was the policy of the devil to enter into discussion\nwith her when she was alone. He took advantage by finding her near the\nforbidden tree. God permitted Satan to prevail over Eve, for wise and\nholy ends. Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then to deny. He makes\nskeptics first, and by degrees makes them atheists.\"\n\nWe are compelled to admit that nothing could be more attractive to a\nwoman than a snake walking erect, with a \"spotted, dappled skin,\" unless\nit were a serpent with wings. Is it not humiliating to know that our\nancestors believed these things? Why should we object to the Darwinian\ndoctrine of descent after this?\n\nOur fathers thought it their duty to believe, thought it a sin to\nentertain the slightest doubt, and really supposed that their credulity\nwas exceedingly, gratifying to God. To them, the story was entirely\nreal. They could see the garden, hear the babble of waters, smell the\nperfume of flowers. They believed there was a tree where knowledge grew\nlike plums or pears; and they could plainly see the serpent coiled amid\nits rustling leaves, coaxing Eve to violate the laws of God.\n\nWhere did the serpent come from? On which of the six days was he\ncreated? Who made him? Is it possible that God would make a successful\nrival? He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew what\na snake with a \"spotted, dappled skin\" could do with an inexperienced\nwoman. Why did he not defend his children? He knew that if the serpent\ngot into the garden, Adam and Eve would sin, that he would have to drive\nthem out, that afterwards the world would be destroyed, and that he\nhimself would die upon the cross.\n\nAgain, I ask what and who was this serpent? He was not a man, for only\none man had been made. He was not a woman. He was not a beast of the\nfield, because \"he was more subtile than any beast of the field which\nthe Lord God had made.\" He was neither fish nor fowl, nor snake, because\nhe had the power of speech, and did not crawl upon his belly until after\nhe was cursed. Where did this serpent come from? Why was he not kept out\nof the garden? Why did not the Lord God take him by the tail and snap\nhis head off? Why did he not put Adam and Eve on their guard about this\nserpent? They, of course, were not acquainted in the neighborhood, and\nknew nothing about the serpent's reputation for truth and veracity\namong his neighbors. Probably Adam saw him when he was looking for \"an\nhelpmeet\" and gave him a name, but Eve had never met him before. She was\nnot surprised to hear a serpent talk, as that was the first one she had\never met. Every thing being new to her, and her husband not being with\nher just at that moment, it need hardly excite our wonder that she\ntasted the fruit by way of experiment. Neither should we be surprised\nthat when she saw it was good and pleasant to the eye, and a fruit to\nbe desired to make one wise, she had the generosity to divide with her\nhusband.\n\nTheologians have filled thousands of volumes with abuse of this serpent,\nbut it seems that he told the exact truth. We are told that this serpent\nwas, in fact, Satan, the greatest enemy of mankind, and that he entered\nthe serpent, appearing to our first parents in its body. If this is\nso, why should the serpent have been cursed? Why should God curse the\nserpent for what had really been done by the devil? Did Satan remain\nin the body of the serpent, and in some mysterious manner share his\npunishment? Is it true that when we kill a snake we also destroy an evil\nspirit, or is there but one devil, and did he perish at the death of\nthe first serpent? Is it on account of that transaction in the Garden\nof Eden, that all the descendants of Adam and Eve known as Jews and\nChristians hate serpents?\n\nDo you account for the snake-worship in Mexico, Africa and India in the\nsame way?\n\nWhat was the form of the serpent when he entered the garden, and in what\nway did he move from place to place? Did he walk or fly? Certainly he\ndid not crawl, because that mode of locomotion was pronounced upon him\nas a curse. Upon what food did he subsist before his conversation with\nEve? We know that after that he lived upon dust, but what did he eat\nbefore? It may be that this is all poetic; and the truest poetry is,\naccording to Touchstone, \"the most feigning.\"\n\nIn this same chapter we are informed that \"unto Adam also and to his\nwife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them.\" Where did\nthe Lord God get those skins? He must have taken them from the animals;\nhe was a butcher. Then he had to prepare them; he was a tanner. Then\nhe made them into coats; he was a tailor. How did it happen that they\nneeded coats of skins, when they had been perfectly comfortable in a\nnude condition? Did the \"fall\" produce a change in the climate?\n\nIs it really necessary to believe this account in order to be happy\nhere, or hereafter? Does it tend to the elevation of the human race to\nspeak of \"God\" as a butcher, tanner and tailor?\n\nAnd here, let me say once for all, that when I speak of God, I mean\nthe being described by Moses; the Jehovah of the Jews. There may be for\naught I know, somewhere in the unknown shoreless vast, some being whose\ndreams are constellations and within whose thought the infinite exists.\nAbout this being, if such an one exists, I have nothing to say. He has\nwritten no books, inspired no barbarians, required no worship, and has\nprepared no hell in which to burn the honest seeker after truth.\n\nWhen I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting\nforth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that\nhe might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman,\nincreased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world--of\nthat god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes,\nviolated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and\ncrime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many,\nand who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and\ndamned.\n\nXVIII. DAMPNESS.\n\n\"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the\nearth, and daughters were born unto them.\n\n\"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and\nthey took them wives of all which they chose.\n\n\"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that\nhe also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.\n\n\"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that\nwhen the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare\nchildren to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of\nrenown.\n\n\"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and\nthat every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil\ncontinually.\n\n\"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it\ngrieved him at his heart.\n\n\"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face\nof the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls\nof the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.\"\n\nFrom this account it seems that driving Adam and Eve out of Eden did not\nhave the effect to improve them or their children. On the contrary, the\nworld grew worse and worse. They were under the immediate control and\ngovernment of God, and he from time to time made known his will; but in\nspite of this, man continued to increase in crime.\n\nNothing in particular seems to have been done. Not a school was\nestablished. There was no written language. There was not a Bible in the\nworld. The \"scheme of salvation\" was kept a profound secret. The five\npoints of Calvinism had not been taught. Sunday schools had not been\nopened. In short, nothing had been done for the reformation of the\nworld. God did not even keep his own sons at home, but allowed them to\nleave their abode in the firmament, and make love to the daughters\nof men. As a result of this, the world was filled with wickedness and\ngiants to such an extent that God regretted \"that he had made man on the\nearth, and it grieved him at his heart.\"\n\nOf course God knew when he made man, that he would afterwards regret\nit. He knew that the people would grow worse and worse until destruction\nwould be the only remedy. He knew that he would have to kill all except\nNoah and his family, and it is hard to see why he did not make Noah and\nhis family in the first place, and leave Adam and Eve in the original\ndust. He knew that they would be tempted, that he would have to drive\nthem out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life;\nthat the whole thing would be a failure; that Satan would defeat his\nplan; that he could not reform the people; that his own sons would\ncorrupt them, and that at last he would have to drown them all except\nNoah and his family. Why was the Garden of Eden planted? Why was the\nexperiment made? Why were Adam and Eve exposed to the seductive arts of\nthe serpent? Why did God wait until the cool of the day before looking\nafter his children? Why was he not on hand in the morning?\n\nWhy did he fill the world with his own children, knowing that he would\nhave to destroy them? And why does this same God tell me how to raise my\nchildren when he had to drown his?\n\nIt is a little curious that when God wished to reform the ante-diluvian\nworld he said nothing about hell; that he had no revivals, no\ncamp-meetings, no tracts, no outpourings of the Holy Ghost, no baptisms,\nno noon prayer meetings, and never mentioned the great doctrine of\nsalvation by faith. If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all\nthose people went to hell without ever having heard that such a place\nexisted. If eternal torment is a fact, surely these miserable wretches\nought to have been warned. They were threatened only with water when\nthey were in fact doomed to eternal fire!\n\nIs it not strange that God said nothing to Adam and Eve about a future\nlife; that he should have kept these \"infinite verities\" to himself and\nallowed millions to live and die without the hope of heaven, or the fear\nof hell?\n\nIt may be that hell was not made at that time. In the six days of\ncreation nothing is said about the construction of a bottomless pit, and\nthe serpent himself did not make his appearance until after the creation\nof man and woman. Perhaps he was made on the first Sunday, and from that\nfact came, it may be, the old couplet,\n\n     \"And Satan still some mischief finds\n     For idle hands to do.\"\n\nThe sacred historian failed also to tell us when the cherubim and the\nflaming sword were made, and said nothing about two of the persons\ncomposing the Trinity. It certainly would have been an easy thing to\nenlighten Adam and his immediate descendants. The world was then only\nabout fifteen hundred and thirty-six years old, and only about three\nor four generations of men had lived. Adam had been dead only about six\nhundred and six years, and some of his grandchildren must, at that time,\nhave been alive and well.\n\nIt is hard to see why God did not civilize these people. He certainly\nhad the power to use, and the wisdom to devise the proper means. What\nright has a god to fill a world with fiends? Can there be goodness in\nthis? Why should he make experiments that he knows must fail? Is there\nwisdom in this? And what right has a man to charge an infinite being\nwith wickedness and folly?\n\nAccording to Moses, God made up his mind not only to destroy the people,\nbut the beasts and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air. What\nhad the beasts, and the creeping things, and the birds done to excite\nthe anger of God? Why did he repent having made them? Will some\nChristian give us an explanation of this matter? No good man will\ninflict unnecessary pain upon a beast; how then can we worship a god who\ncares nothing for the agonies of the dumb creatures that he made?\n\nWhy did he make animals that he knew he would destroy? Does God delight\nin causing pain? He had the power to make the beasts, and fowls, and\ncreeping things in his own good time and way, and it is to be presumed\nthat he made them according to his wish. Why should he destroy them?\nThey had committed no sin. They had eaten no forbidden fruit, made no\naprons, nor tried to reach the tree of life. Yet this god, in blind\nunreasoning wrath destroyed \"all flesh wherein was the breath of life,\nand every living thing beneath the sky, and every substance wherein was\nlife that he had made.\"\n\nJehovah having made up his mind to drown the world, told Noah to make\nan Ark of gopher wood three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and\nthirty cubits high. A cubit is twenty-two inches; so that the ark was\nfive hundred and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet and eight inches wide\nand fifty-five feet high. This ark was divided into three stories, and\nhad on top, one window twenty-two inches square. Ventilation must have\nbeen one of Jehovah's hobbies. Think of a ship larger than the Great\nEastern with only one window, and that but twenty-two inches square!\n\nThe ark also had one door set in the side thereof that shut from the\noutside. As soon as this ship was finished, and properly victualed, Noah\nreceived seven days notice to get the animals in the ark.\n\nIt is claimed by some of the scientific theologians that the flood was\npartial, that the waters covered only a small portion of the world, and\nthat consequently only a few animals were in the ark. It is impossible\nto conceive of language that can more clearly convey the idea of a\nuniversal flood than that found in the inspired account. If the flood\nwas only partial, why did God say he would \"destroy all flesh wherein\nis the breath of life from under heaven, and that every thing that is\nin the earth shall die\"? Why did he say \"I will destroy man whom I have\ncreated from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping\nthing and the fowls of the air\"? Why did he say \"And every living\nsubstance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the\nearth\"? Would a partial, local flood have fulfilled these threats?\n\nNothing can be clearer than that the writer of this account intended to\nconvey, and did convey the idea that the flood was universal. Why should\nChristians try to deprive God of the glory of having wrought the most\nstupendous of miracles? Is it possible that the Infinite could not\noverwhelm with waves this atom called the earth? Do you doubt his power,\nhis wisdom or his justice?\n\nBelievers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them. There is but\none way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural\nagencies. The moment you explain a miracle, it disappears. You should\ndepend not upon explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven\nfrom the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. You\nshould reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither should you be\nin the least disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The possible\nis not miraculous. You should take the ground that if miracles were\nreasonable, and possible, there would be no reward paid for believing\nthem. The Christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner asks\nfor evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles without being called\nupon to substantiate them for the benefit of unbelievers.\n\nOnly a few years ago, the Christians believed implicitly in the literal\ntruth of every miracle recorded in the Bible. Whoever tried to explain\nthem in some natural way, was looked upon as an infidel in disguise,\nbut now he is regarded as a benefactor. The credulity of the church is\ndecreasing, and the most marvelous miracles are now either \"explained,\"\nor allowed to take refuge behind the mistakes of the translators, or\nhide in the drapery of allegory.\n\nIn the sixth chapter, Noah is ordered to take \"of every living thing\nof all flesh, two of every sort into the ark--male and female.\" In the\nseventh chapter the order is changed, and Noah is commanded, according\nto the Protestant Bible, as follows: \"Of every clean beast thou shalt\ntake to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are\nnot clean, by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by\nsevens, the male and the female.\"\n\nAccording to the Catholic Bible, Noah was commanded---\"Of all clean\nbeasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. But of the beasts\nthat are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also\nof the air seven and seven, the male and the female.\"\n\nFor the purpose of belittling this miracle, many commentators have\ntaken the ground that Noah was not ordered to take seven males and seven\nfemales of each kind of clean beasts, but seven in all. Many Christians\ncontend that only seven clean beasts of each kind were taken into the\nark--three and a half of each sex.\n\nIf the account in the seventh chapter means anything, it means _first_,\nthat of each kind of clean beasts, fourteen were to be taken, seven\nmales, and seven females; _second_, that of unclean beasts should be\ntaken, two of each kind, one of each sex, and _third_, that he should\ntake of every kind of fowls, seven of each sex.\n\nIt is equally clear that the command in the 19th and 20th verses of the\n6th chapter, is to take two of each sort, one male and one female. And\nthis agrees exactly with the account in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 14th, 15th,\nand 16th verses of the 7th chapter.\n\nThe next question is, how many beasts, fowls and creeping things did\nNoah take into the ark?\n\nThere are now known and classified at least twelve thousand five hundred\nspecies of birds. There are still vast territories in China, South\nAmerica, and Africa unknown to the ornithologist.\n\nOf the birds, Noah took fourteen of each species, according to the 3d\nverse of the 7th chapter, \"Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male\nand the female,\" making a total of 175,000 birds.\n\nAnd right here allow me to ask a question. If the flood was simply a\npartial flood, why were birds taken into the ark? It seems to me that\nmost birds, attending strictly to business, might avoid a partial flood.\n\nThere are at least sixteen hundred and fifty-eight kinds of beasts. Let\nus suppose that twenty-five of these are clean. Of the clean, fourteen\nof each kind--seven of each sex--were taken. These amount to 350. Of\nthe unclean--two of each kind, amounting to 3,266. There are some six\nhundred and fifty species of reptiles. Two of each kind amount to 1,300.\nAnd lastly, there are of insects including the creeping things, at least\none million species, so that Noah and his folks had to get of these into\nthe ark about 2,000,000.\n\nAnimalculae have not been taken into consideration. There are probably\nmany hundreds of thousands of species; many of them invisible; and\nyet Noah had to pick them out by pairs. Very few people have any just\nconception of the trouble Noah had.\n\nWe know that there are many animals on this continent not found in the\nOld World. These must have been carried from here to the ark, and then\nbrought back afterwards. Were the peccary, armadillo, ant-eater, sloth,\nagouti, vampire-bat, marmoset, howling and prehensile-tailed monkey, the\nraccoon and muskrat carried by the angels from America to Asia? How did\nthey get there? Did the polar bear leave his field of ice and journey\ntoward the tropics? How did he know where the ark was? Did the kangaroo\nswim or jump from Australia to Asia? Did the giraffe, hippopotamus,\nantelope and orang-outang journey from Africa in search of the ark? Can\nabsurdities go farther than this?\n\nWhat had these animals to eat while on the journey? What did they eat\nwhile in the ark? What did they drink? When the rain came, of course\nthe rivers ran to the seas, and these seas rose and finally covered the\nworld. The waters of the seas, mingled with those of the flood, would\nmake all salt. It has been calculated that it required, to drown the\nworld, about eight times as much water as was in all the seas. To find\nhow salt the waters of the flood must have been, take eight quarts of\nfresh water, and add one quart from the sea. Such water would create\ninstead of allaying thirst. Noah had to take in his ark fresh water for\nall his beasts, birds and living things. He had to take the proper food\nfor all. How long was he in the ark? Three hundred and seventy-seven\ndays! Think of the food necessary for the monsters of the ante-diluvian\nworld!\n\nEight persons did all the work. They attended to the wants of 175,000\nbirds, 3,616 beasts, 1,300 reptiles, and 2,000,000 insects, saying\nnothing of countless animalculae.\n\nWell, after they all got in, Noah pulled down the window, God shut the\ndoor, and the rain commenced.\n\nHow long did it rain?\n\nForty days.\n\nHow deep did the water get?\n\nAbout five miles and a half.\n\nHow much did it rain a day?\n\nEnough to cover the whole world to a depth of about seven hundred and\nforty-two feet.\n\nSome Christians say that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.\nWill they be kind enough to tell us what the fountains of the great deep\nare? Others say that God had vast stores of water in the center of the\nearth that he used on that occasion. How did these waters happen to run\nup hill?\n\nGentlemen, allow me to tell you once more that you must not try to\nexplain these things. Your efforts in that direction do no good, because\nyour explanations are harder to believe than the miracle itself. Take my\nadvice, stick to assertion, and let explanation alone.\n\nThen, as now, Dhawalagiri lifted its crown of snow twenty-nine thousand\nfeet above the level of the sea, and on the cloudless cliffs of\nChimborazo then, as now, sat the condor; and yet the waters rising seven\nhundred and twenty-six feet a day--thirty feet an hour, six inches\na minute,--rose over the hills, over the volcanoes, filled the vast\ncraters, extinguished all the fires, rose above every mountain peak\nuntil the vast world was but one shoreless sea covered with the\ninnumerable dead.\n\nWas this the work of the most merciful God, the father of us all? If\nthere is a God, can there be the slightest danger of incurring his\ndispleasure by doubting even in a reverential way, the truth of such a\ncruel lie? If we think that God is kinder than he really is, will our\npoor souls be burned for that?\n\nHow many trees can live under miles of water for a year? What became of\nthe soil washed, scattered, dissolved, and covered with the _debris_ of\na world? How were the tender plants and herbs preserved? How were the\nanimals preserved after leaving the ark? There was no grass except such\nas had been submerged for a year. There were no animals to be devoured\nby the carnivorous beasts. What became of the birds that fed on worms\nand insects? What became of the birds that devoured other birds?\n\nIt must be remembered that the pressure of the water when at the highest\npoint--say twenty-nine thousand feet, would have been about eight\nhundred tons on each square foot. Such a pressure certainly would have\ndestroyed nearly every vestige of vegetable life, so that when the\nanimals came out of the ark, there was not a mouthful of food in the\nwide world. How were they supported until the world was again clothed\nwith grass? How were those animals taken care of that subsisted on\nothers? Where did the bees get honey, and the ants seeds? There was not\na creeping thing upon the whole earth; not a breathing creature beneath\nthe whole heavens; not a living substance. Where did the tenants of the\nark get food?\n\nThere is but one answer, if the story is true. The food necessary\nnot only during the year of the flood, but sufficient for many months\nafterwards, must have been stored in the ark.\n\nThere is probably not an animal in the world that will not, in a year,\neat and drink ten times its weight. Noah must have provided food and\nwater for a year while in the ark, and food for at least six months\nafter they got ashore. It must have required for a pair of elephants,\nabout one hundred and fifty tons of food and water. A couple of mammoths\nwould have required about twice that amount. Of course there were other\nmonsters that lived on trees; and in a year would have devoured quite a\nforest.\n\nHow could eight persons have distributed this food, even if the ark had\nbeen large enough to hold it? How was the ark kept clean? We know how it\nwas ventilated; but what was done with the filth? How were the animals\nwatered? How were some portions of the ark heated for animals from the\ntropics, and others kept cool for the polar bears? How did the animals\nget back to their respective countries? Some had to creep back about\nsix thousand miles, and they could only go a few feet a day. Some of the\ncreeping things must have started for the ark just as soon as they were\nmade, and kept up a steady jog for sixteen hundred years. Think of\na couple of the slowest snails leaving a point opposite the ark and\nstarting for the plains of Shinar, a distance of twelve thousand miles.\nGoing at the rate of a mile a month, it would take them a thousand\nyears. How did they get there? Polar bears must have gone several\nthousand miles, and so sudden a change in climate must have been\nexceedingly trying upon their health. How did they know the way to go?\nOf course, all the polar bears did not go. Only two were required. Who\nselected these?\n\nTwo sloths had to make the journey from South America. These creatures\ncannot travel to exceed three rods a day. At this rate, they would make\na mile in about a hundred days. They must have gone about six thousand\nfive hundred miles, to reach the ark. Supposing them to have traveled by\na reasonably direct route, in order to complete the journey before Noah\nhauled in the plank, they must have started several years before the\nworld was created. We must also consider that these sloths had to board\nthemselves on the way, and that most of their time had to be taken up\ngetting food and water. It is exceedingly doubtful whether a sloth could\ntravel six thousand miles and board himself in less than three thousand\nyears.\n\nVolumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most\nincredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in that\nrepository of the impossible, called the Bible. To me it is a matter\nof amazement, that it ever was for a moment believed by any intelligent\nhuman being.\n\nDr. Adam Clarke says that \"the animals were brought to the ark by the\npower of God, and their enmities were so removed or suspended, that the\nlion could dwell peaceably with the lamb, and the wolf sleep happily by\nthe side of the kid. There is no positive evidence that animal food was\never used before the flood. Noah had the first grant of this kind.\"\n\nDr. Scott remarks, \"There seems to have been a very extraordinary\nmiracle, perhaps by the ministration of angels, in bringing two of every\nspecies to Noah, and rendering them submissive, and peaceful with each\nother. Yet it seems not to have made any impression upon the hardened\nspectators. The suspension of the ferocity of the savage beasts during\ntheir continuance in the ark, is generally considered as an apt figure\nof the change that takes place in the disposition of sinners when they\nenter the true church of Christ.\"\n\nHe believed the deluge to have been universal. In his day science had\nnot demonstrated the absurdity of this belief, and he was not compelled\nto resort to some theory not found in the Bible. He insisted that \"by\nsome vast convulsion, the very bowels of the earth were forced upwards,\nand rain poured down in cataracts and water-spouts, with no intermission\nfor forty days and nights, and until in every place a universal deluge\nwas effected.\n\n\"The presence of God was the only comfort of Noah in his dreary\nconfinement, and in witnessing the dire devastation of the earth and its\ninhabitants, and especially of the human species--of his companions, his\nneighbors, his relatives--all those to whom he had preached, for whom he\nhad prayed and over whom he had wept, and even of many who had helped to\nbuild the ark.\n\n\"It seems that by a peculiar providential interposition, no animal of\nany sort died, although they had been shut up in the ark above a year;\nand it does not appear that there had been any increase of them during\nthat time.\n\n\"The Ark was flat-bottomed--square at each end--roofed like a house so\nthat it terminated at the top in the breadth of a cubit. It was divided\ninto many little cabins for its intended inhabitants. Pitched within and\nwithout to keep it tight and sweet, and lighted from the upper part.\nBut it must, at first sight, be evident that so large a vessel, thus\nconstructed, with so few persons on board, was utterly unfitted to\nweather out the deluge, except it was under the immediate guidance and\nprotection of the Almighty.\"\n\nDr. Henry furnished the Christian world with the following:--\n\n\"As our bodies have in them the humors which, when God pleases, become\nthe springs and seeds of mortal disease, so the earth had, in its\nbowels, those waters which, at God's command, sprung up and flooded it.\n\n\"God made the world in six days, but he was forty days in destroying it,\nbecause he is slow to anger.\n\n\"The hostilities between the animals in the ark ceased, and ravenous\ncreatures became mild and manageable, so that the wolf lay down with the\nlamb, and the lion ate straw like an ox.\n\n\"God shut the door of the ark to secure Noah and to keep him safe, and\nbecause it was necessary that the door should be shut very close lest\nthe water should break in and sink the ark, and very fast lest others\nmight break it down.\n\n\"The waters rose so high that not only the low flat countries were\ndeluged, but to make sure work and that none might escape, the tops of\nthe highest mountains were overflowed fifteen cubits. That is, seven\nand a half yards, so that salvation was not hoped for from hills or\nmountains.\n\n\"Perhaps some of the people got to the top of the ark, and hoped to\nshift for themselves there. But either they perished there for want of\nfood, or the dashing rain washed them off the top. Others, it may be,\nhoped to prevail with Noah for admission into the ark, and plead old\nacquaintance.\n\n\"'Have we not eaten and drank in thy presence? Hast thou not preached in\nour streets?' 'Yea,' said Noah, 'many a time, but to little purpose. I\ncalled but ye refused; and now it is not in my power to help you. God\nhas shut the door and I cannot open it.'\n\n\"We may suppose that some of those who perished in the deluge had\nthemselves assisted Noah, or were employed by him in building the ark.\n\n\"Hitherto, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the\nearth. Fruits, herbs and roots, and all sorts of greens, and milk, which\nwas the first grant; but the flood having perhaps washed away much\nof the fruits of the earth, and rendered them much less pleasant and\nnourishing, God enlarged the grant and allowed him to eat flesh, which\nperhaps man never thought of until now, that God directed him to it. Nor\nhad he any more desire to it than the sheep has to suck blood like the\nwolf. But now, man is allowed to feed upon flesh as freely and safely as\nupon the green herb.\"\n\nSuch was the debasing influence of a belief in the literal truth of the\nBible upon these men, that their commentaries are filled with passages\nutterly devoid of common sense.\n\nDr. Clarke speaking of the mammoth says:\n\n\"This animal, an astonishing proof of God's power, he seems to have\nproduced merely to show what he could do. And after suffering a few of\nthem to propagate, he extinguished the race by a merciful providence,\nthat they might not destroy both man and beast.\n\n\"We are told that it would have been much easier for God to destroy all\nthe people and make new ones, but he would not want to waste anything\nand no power or skill should be lavished where no necessity exists.\n\n\"The animals were brought to the ark by the power of God.\"\n\nAgain gentlemen, let me warn you of the danger of trying to explain a\nmiracle. Let it alone. Say that you do not understand it, and do not\nexpect to until taught in the schools of the New Jerusalem. The more\nreasons you give, the more unreasonable the miracle will appear. Through\nwhat you say in defence, people are led to think, and as soon as they\nreally think, the miracle is thrown away.\n\nAmong the most ignorant nations you will find the most wonders, among\nthe most enlightened, the least. It is with individuals, the same as\nwith nations. Ignorance believes, Intelligence examines and explains.\n\nFor about seven months the ark, with its cargo of men, animals and\ninsects, tossed and wandered without rudder or sail upon a boundless\nsea. At last it grounded on the mountains of Ararat; and about three\nmonths afterward the tops of the mountains became visible. It must not\nbe forgotten that the mountain where the ark is supposed to have first\ntouched bottom, was about seventeen thousand feet high. How were the\nanimals from the tropics kept warm? When the waters were abated it would\nbe intensely cold at a point seventeen thousand feet above the level of\nthe sea. May be there were stoves, furnaces, fire places and steam coils\nin the ark, but they are not mentioned in the inspired narrative. How\nwere the animals kept from freezing? It will not do to say that Ararat\nwas not very high after all.\n\nIf you will read the fourth and fifth verses of the eight chapter you\nwill see that although \"the ark rested in the seventh month, on the\nseventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat, it was not\nuntil the first day of the tenth month that the tops of the mountains\ncould be seen.\" From this it would seem that the ark must have rested\nupon about the highest peak in that country. Noah waited forty days\nmore, and then for the first time opened the window and took a breath\nof fresh air. He then sent out a raven that did not return, then a dove\nthat returned. He then waited seven days and sent forth a dove that\nreturned not. From this he knew that the waters were abated. Is it\npossible that he could not see whether the waters had gone? Is it\npossible to conceive of a more perfectly childish way of ascertaining\nwhether the earth was dry?\n\nAt last Noah \"removed the covering of the ark, and looked and behold the\nface of the ground was dry,\" and thereupon God told him to disembark. In\nhis gratitude Noah built an altar and took of every clean beast and of\nevery clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings. And the Lord smelled a\nsweet savor and said in his heart that he would not any more curse the\nground for man's sake. For saying this in his heart the Lord gives as a\nreason, not that man is, or will be good, but because \"the imagination\nof man's heart is evil from his youth.\" God destroyed man because \"the\nwickedness of man was great in the earth, and _because every imagination\nof the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually_.\" And he\npromised for the same reason not to destroy him again. Will some\ngentleman skilled in theology give us an explanation?\n\nAfter God had smelled the sweet savor of sacrifice, he seems to have\nchanged his idea as to the proper diet for man. When Adam and Eve were\ncreated they were allowed to eat herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of\ntrees. When they were turned out of Eden, God said to them \"Thou shalt\neat the herb of the field.\" In the first chapter of Genesis the \"green\nherb\" was given for food to the beasts, fowls and creeping things. Upon\nbeing expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve, as to their food, were\nput upon an equality with the lower animals. According to this, the\nante-diluvians were vegetarians. This may account for their wickedness\nand longevity.\n\nAfter Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the sweet savor; he said--\"Every\nmoving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb\nhave I given you all things.\" Afterward this same God changed his mind\nagain, and divided the beasts and birds into clean and unclean, and made\nit a crime for man to eat the unclean. Probably food was so scarce when\nNoah was let out of the ark that Jehovah generously allowed him to eat\nanything and everything he could find.\n\nAccording to the account, God then made a covenant with Noah to the\neffect that he would not again destroy the world with a flood, and as\nthe attesting witness of this contract, a rainbow was set in the cloud.\nThis bow was placed in the sky so that it might perpetually remind God\nof his promise and covenant. Without this visible witness and reminder,\nit would seem that Jehovah was liable to forget the contract, and drown\nthe world again. Did the rainbow originate in this way? Did God put it\nin the cloud simply to keep his agreement in his memory?\n\nFor me it is impossible to believe the story of the deluge. It seems so\ncruel, so barbaric, so crude in detail, so absurd in all its parts,\nand so contrary to all we know of law, that even credulity itself is\nshocked.\n\nMany nations have preserved accounts of a deluge in which all people,\nexcept a family or two, were destroyed. Babylon was certainly a city\nbefore Jerusalem was founded. Egypt was in the height of her power when\nthere were only seventy Jews in the world, and India had a literature\nbefore the name of Jehovah had passed the lips of superstition. An\naccount of a general deluge \"was discovered by George Smith, translated\nfrom another account that was written about two thousand years before\nChrist.\" Of course it is impossible to tell how long the story had\nlived in the memory of tradition before it was reduced to writing by the\nBabylonians. According to this account, which is, without doubt, much\nolder than the one given by Moses, Tamzi built a ship at the command of\nthe god Hea, and put in it his family and the beasts of the field. He\npitched the ship inside and outside with bitumen, and as soon as it was\nfinished, there came a flood of rain and \"destroyed all life from the\nface of the whole earth. On the seventh day there was a calm, and the\nship stranded on the mountain Nizir.\" Tamzi waited for seven days more,\nand then let out a dove. Afterwards, he let out a swallow, and that, as\nwell as the dove returned. Then he let out a raven, and as that did not\nreturn, he concluded that the water had dried away, and thereupon\nleft the ship. Then he made an offering to god, or the gods, and \"Hea\ninterceded with Bel,\" so that the earth might never again be drowned.\n\nThis is the Babylonian story, told without the contradictions of the\noriginal. For in that, it seems, there are two accounts, as well as\nin the Bible. Is it not a strange coincidence that there should be\ncontradictory accounts mingled in both the Babylonian and Jewish\nstories?\n\nIn the Bible there are two accounts. In one account, Noah was to take\ntwo of all beasts, birds, and creeping things into the ark, while in the\nother, he was commanded to take of clean beasts, and all birds by\nsevens of each kind. According to one account, the flood only lasted\none hundred and fifty days--as related in the third verse of the eighth\nchapter; while the other account fixes the time at three hundred and\nseventy-seven days. Both of these accounts cannot be true. Yet in order\nto be saved, it is not sufficient to believe one of them--you must\nbelieve both.\n\nAmong the Egyptians there was a story to the effect that the great god\nRa became utterly maddened with the people, and deliberately made up his\nmind that he would exterminate mankind. Thereupon he began to destroy,\nand continued in the terrible work until blood flowed in streams, when\nsuddenly he ceased, and took an oath that he would not again destroy the\nhuman race. This myth was probably thousands of years old when Moses was\nborn.\n\nSo, in India, there was a fable about the flood. A fish warned Manu\nthat a flood was coming. Manu built a \"box\" and the fish towed it to a\nmountain and saved all hands.\n\nThe same kind of stories were told in Greece, and among our own Indian\ntribes. At one time the Christian pointed to the fact that many nations\ntold of a flood, as evidence of the truth of the Mosaic account; but\nnow, it having been shown that other accounts are much older, and\nequally reasonable, that argument has ceased to be of any great value.\n\nIt is probable that all these accounts had a common origin. They were\nlikely born of something in nature visible to all nations. The idea of a\nuniversal flood, produced by a god to drown the world on account of\nthe sins of the people, is infinitely absurd. The solution of all these\nstories has been supposed to be, the existence of partial floods in most\ncountries; and for a long time this solution was satisfactory. But the\nfact that these stories are greatly alike, that only one man is warned,\nthat only one family is saved, that a boat is built, that birds are sent\nout to find if the water had abated, tend to show that they had a common\norigin. Admitting that there were severe floods in all countries; it\ncertainly cannot follow that in each instance only one family would be\nsaved, or that the same story would in each instance be told. It may be\nurged that the natural tendency of man to exaggerate calamities, might\naccount for this agreement in all the accounts, and it must be admitted\nthat there is some force in the suggestion. I believe, though, that the\nreal origin of all these myths is the same, and that it was originally\nan effort to account for the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon\nwere the man and wife, or the god and goddess, and the stars were their\nchildren. From a celestial myth, it became a terrestrial one; the air,\nor ether-ocean became a flood, produced by rain, and the sun moon and\nstars became man, woman and children.\n\nIn the original story, the mountain was the place where in the far east\nthe sky was supposed to touch the earth, and it was there that the ship\ncontaining the celestial passengers finally rested from its voyage. But\nwhatever may be the origin of the stories of the flood, whether told\nfirst by Hindu, Babylonian or Hebrew, we may rest perfectly assured that\nthey are all equally false.\n\nXIX. BACCHUS AND BABEL.\n\nAs soon as Noah had disembarked, he proceeded to plant a vineyard, and\nbegan to be a husbandman; and when the grapes were ripe he made wine and\ndrank of it to excess; cursed his grandson, blessed Shem and Japheth, and\nafter that lived for three hundred and fifty years. What he did during\nthese three hundred and fifty years, we are not told. We never hear of\nhim again. For three hundred and fifty years he lived among his sons,\nand daughters, and their descendants. He must have been a venerable man.\nHe was the man to whom God had made known his intention of drowning the\nworld. By his efforts, the human race had been saved. He must have been\nacquainted with Methuselah for six hundred years, and Methuselah was\nabout two hundred and forty years old, when Adam died. Noah must himself\nhave known the history of mankind, and must have been an object of\nalmost infinite interest; and yet for three hundred and fifty years he\nis neither directly nor indirectly mentioned. When Noah died, Abraham\nmust have been more than fifty years old; and Shem, the son of Noah,\nlived for several hundred years after the death of Abraham; and yet he\nis never mentioned. Noah when he died, was the oldest man in the whole\nworld by about five hundred years; and everybody living at the time of\nhis death knew that they were indebted to him, and yet no account is\ngiven of his burial. No monument was raised to mark the spot. This,\nhowever, is no more wonderful than the fact that no account is given of\nthe death of Adam or of Eve, nor of the place of their burial. This may\nall be accounted for by the fact that the language of man was confounded\nat the building of the tower of Babel, whereby all tradition may have\nbeen lost, so that even the sons of Noah could not give an account of\ntheir voyage in the ark; and, consequently, some one had to be directly\ninspired to tell the story, after new languages had been formed.\n\nIt has always been a mystery to me how Adam, Eve, and the serpent were\ntaught the same language. Where did they get it? We know now, that\nit requires a great number of years to form a language; that it is of\nexceedingly slow growth. We also know that by language, man conveys to\nhis fellows the impressions made upon him by what he sees, hears, smells\nand touches. We know that the language of the savage consists of a few\nsounds, capable of expressing only a few ideas or states of the\nmind, such as love, desire, fear, hatred, aversion and contempt. Many\ncenturies are required to produce a language capable of expressing\ncomplex ideas. It does not seem to me that ideas can be manufactured by\na deity and put in the brain of man. These ideas must be the result of\nobservation and experience.\n\nDoes anybody believe that God directly taught a language to Adam and\nEve, or that he so made them that they, by intuition spoke Hebrew, or\nsome language capable of conveying to each other their thoughts? How did\nthe serpent learn the same language? Did God teach it to him, or did he\nhappen to overhear God, when he was teaching Adam and Eve? We are told\nin the second chapter of Genesis that God caused all the animals to pass\nbefore Adam to see what he would call them. We cannot infer from this\nthat God named the animals and informed Adam what to call them. Adam\nnamed them himself. Where did he get his words? We cannot imagine a man\njust made out of dust, without the experience of a moment, having the\npower to put his thoughts in language. In the first place, we cannot\nconceive of his having any thoughts until he has combined, through\nexperience and observation, the impressions that nature had made upon\nhim through the medium of his senses. We cannot imagine of his knowing\nanything, in the first instance, about different degrees of heat, nor\nabout darkness, if he was made in the day-time, nor about light, if\ncreated at night, until the next morning. Before a man can have what we\ncall thoughts, he must have had a little experience. Something must have\nhappened to him before he can have a thought, and before he can express\nhimself in language. Language is a growth, not a gift. We account now\nfor the diversity of language by the fact that tribes and nations have\nhad different experiences, different wants, different surroundings, and,\none result of all these differences is, among other things, a difference\nin language. Nothing can be more absurd than to account for the\ndifferent languages of the world by saying that the original language\nwas confounded at the tower of Babel.\n\nAccording to the Bible, up to the time of the building of that tower,\nthe whole earth was of one language and of one speech, and would have so\nremained until the present time had not an effort been made to build\na tower whose top should reach into heaven. Can any one imagine what\nobjection God would have to the building of such a tower? And how could\nthe confusion of tongues prevent its construction? How could language\nbe confounded? It could be confounded only by the destruction of memory.\nDid God destroy the memory of mankind at that time, and if so, how?\nDid he paralyze that portion of the brain presiding over the organs\nof articulation, so that they could not speak the words, although they\nremembered them clearly, or did he so touch the brain that they\ncould not hear? Will some theologian, versed in the machinery of the\nmiraculous, tell us in what way God confounded the language of mankind?\n\nWhy would the confounding of the language make them separate? Why would\nthey not stay together until they could understand each other? People\nwill not separate, from weakness. When in trouble they come together\nand desire the assistance of each other. Why, in this instance, did they\nseparate? What particular ones would naturally come together if nobody\nunderstood the language of any other person? Would it not have been just\nas hard to agree when and where to go, without any language to express\nthe agreement, as to go on with the building of the tower?\n\nIs it possible that any one now believes that the whole world would be\nof one speech had the language not been confounded at Babel? Do we not\nknow that every word was suggested in some way by the experience of men?\nDo we not know that words are continually dying, and continually being\nborn; that every language has its cradle and its cemetery--its buds, its\nblossoms, its fruits and its withered leaves? Man has loved, enjoyed,\nhated, suffered and hoped, and all words have been born of these\nexperiences.\n\nWhy did \"the Lord come down to see the city and the tower\"? Could he\nnot see them from where he lived or from where he was? Where did he come\ndown from? Did he come in the daytime, or in the night? We are taught\nnow that God is everywhere; that he inhabits immensity; that he is in\nevery atom, and in every star. If this is true, why did he \"come down to\nsee the city and the tower?\" Will some theologian explain this?\n\nAfter all, is it not much easier and altogether more reasonable to say\nthat Moses was mistaken, that he knew little of the science of language,\nand that he guessed a great deal more than he investigated?\n\nXX. FAITH IN FILTH.\n\nNo light whatever is shed upon what passed in the world after the\nconfounding of language at Babel, until the birth of Abraham. But,\nbefore speaking of the history of the Jewish people, it may be proper\nfor me to say that many things are recounted in Genesis, and other books\nattributed to Moses, of which I do not wish to speak. There are many\npages of these books unfit to read, many stories not calculated, in my\njudgment, to improve the morals of mankind. I do not wish even to call\nthe attention of my readers to these things, except in a general way. It\nis to be hoped that the time will come when such chapters and passages\nas cannot be read without leaving the blush of shame upon the cheek of\nmodesty, will be left out, and not published as a part of the Bible. If\nthere is a God, it certainly is blasphemous to attribute to him the\nauthorship of pages too obscene, beastly and vulgar to be read in the\npresence of men and women.\n\nThe believers in the Bible are loud in their denunciation of what they\nare pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; and yet few\nbooks have been published containing more moral filth than this inspired\nword of God. These stories are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or\nhumor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice. For one,\nI cannot afford to soil my pages with extracts from them; and all such\nportions of the Scriptures I leave to be examined, written upon, and\nexplained by the clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which they can\nextract honey from these flowers. Until these passages are expunged\nfrom the Old Testament, it is not a fit book to be read by either old\nor young. It contains pages that no minister in the United States would\nread to his congregation for any reward whatever. There are chapters\nthat no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There are\nchapters that no father would read to his child. There are narratives\nutterly unfit to be told; and the time will come when mankind will\nwonder that such a book was ever called inspired.\n\nI know that in many books besides the Bible, there are immodest lines.\nSome of the greatest writers have soiled their pages with indecent\nwords. We account for this by saying that the authors were human; that\nthey catered to the taste and spirit of their times. We make excuses,\nbut at the same time regret that in their works they left an impure\nword. But what shall we say of God? Is it possible that a being of\ninfinite purity--the author of modesty, would smirch the pages of his\nbook with stories lewd, licentious and obscene? If God is the author of\nthe Bible, it is, of course, the standard by which all other books can,\nand should be measured. If the Bible is not obscene, what book is? Why\nshould men be imprisoned simply for imitating God? The Christian world\nshould never say another word against immoral books until it makes the\ninspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were not written\nfor the purpose of conveying and enforcing moral truth, but seem to\nhave been written because the author loved an unclean thing. There is\nno moral depth below that occupied by the writer or publisher of obscene\nbooks, that stain with lust, the loving heart of youth. Such men should\nbe imprisoned and their books destroyed. The literature of the world\nshould be rendered decent, and no book should be published that cannot\nbe read by, and in the hearing of the best and purest people. But as\nlong as the Bible is considered as the work of God, it will be hard\nto make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long as it is\nimitated there will be vile and filthy books. The literature of our\ncountry will not be sweet and clean until the Bible ceases to be\nregarded as the production of a god.\n\nWe are continually told that the Bible is the very foundation of modesty\nand morality; while many of its pages are so immodest and immoral that\na minister, for reading them in the pulpit, would be instantly denounced\nas an unclean wretch. Every woman would leave the church, and if the men\nstayed, it would be for the purpose of chastising the minister.\n\nIs there any saving grace in hypocrisy? Will men become clean in speech\nby believing that God is unclean? Would it not be far better to admit\nthat the Bible was written by barbarians in a barbarous, coarse and\nvulgar age? Would it not be safer to charge Moses with vulgarity,\ninstead of God? Is it not altogether more probable that some ignorant\nHebrew would write the vulgar words? The Christians tell me that God is\nthe author of these vile and stupid things? I have examined the question\nto the best of my ability, and as to God my verdict is:--Not guilty.\nFaith should not rest in filth.\n\nEvery foolish and immodest thing should be expunged from the Bible.\nLet us keep the good. Let us preserve every great and splendid thought,\nevery wise and prudent maxim, every just law, every elevated idea, and\nevery word calculated to make man nobler and purer, and let us have the\ncourage to throw the rest away. The souls of children should not\nbe stained and soiled. The charming instincts of youth should not be\ncorrupted and defiled. The girls and boys should not be taught that\nunclean words were uttered by \"inspired\" lips. Teach them that these\nwords were born of savagery and lust. Teach them that the unclean is the\nunholy, and that only the pure is sacred.\n\nXXI. THE HEBREWS.\n\nAfter language had been confounded and the people scattered, there\nappeared in the land of Canaan a tribe of Hebrews ruled by a chief or\nsheik called Abraham. They had a few cattle, lived in tents, practiced\npolygamy, wandered from place to place, and were the only folks in the\nwhole world to whom God paid the slightest attention. At this time\nthere were hundreds of cities in India filled with temples and palaces;\nmillions of Egyptians worshiped Isis and Osiris, and had covered their\nland with marvelous monuments of industry, power and skill. But these\ncivilizations were entirely neglected by the Deity, his whole attention\nbeing taken up with Abraham and his family.\n\nIt seems, from the account, that God and Abraham were intimately\nacquainted, and conversed frequently upon a great variety of subjects.\nBy the twelfth chapter of Genesis it appears that he made the following\npromises to Abraham. \"I will make of thee a great nation, and I will\nbless thee, and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a blessing. And I\nwill bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.\"\n\nAfter receiving this communication from the Almighty, Abraham went into\nthe land of Canaan, and again God appeared to him and told him to take\na heifer three years old, a goat of the same age, a sheep of equal\nantiquity, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. Whereupon Abraham killed\nthe animals \"and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one\nagainst another.\" And it came to pass that when the sun went down and\nit was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed\nbetween the raw and bleeding meat. The killing of these animals was\na preparation for receiving a visit from God. Should an American\nmissionary in Central Africa find a negro chief surrounded by\na butchered heifer, a goat and a sheep, with which to receive a\ncommunication from the infinite God, my opinion is, that the missionary\nwould regard the proceeding as the direct result of savagery. And if\nthe chief insisted that he had seen a smoking furnace and a burning\nlamp going up and down between the pieces of meat, the missionary would\ncertainly conclude that the chief was not altogether right in his mind.\n\nIf the Bible is true, this same God told Abraham to take and sacrifice\nhis only son, or rather the only son of his wife, and a murder would\nhave been committed had not God, just at the right moment, directed him\nto stay his hand and take a sheep instead.\n\nGod made a great number of promises to Abraham, but few of them were\never kept. He agreed to make him the father of a great nation, but he\ndid not. He solemnly promised to give him a great country, including all\nthe land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, but he did not.\n\nIn due time Abraham passed away, and his son Isaac took his place at\nthe head of the tribe. Then came Jacob, who \"watered stock\" and enriched\nhimself with the spoil of Laban. Joseph was sold into Egypt by his\njealous brethren, where he became one of the chief men of the kingdom,\nand in a few years his father and brothers left their own country and\nsettled in Egypt. At this time there were seventy Hebrews in the world,\ncounting Joseph and his children. They remained in Egypt two hundred and\nfifteen years. It is claimed by some that they were in that country for\nfour hundred and thirty years. This is a mistake. Josephus says they\nwere in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years, and this statement is\nsustained by the best biblical scholars of all denominations. According\nto the 17th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians, it was four hundred\nand thirty years from the time the promise was made to Abraham to\nthe giving of the law, and as the Hebrews did not go to Egypt for two\nhundred and fifteen years after the making of the promise to Abraham,\nthey could in no event have been in Egypt more than two hundred and\nfifteen years. In our Bible the 40th verse of the 12th chapter of\nExodus, is as follows:--\n\n\"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was\nfour hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nThis passage does not say that the sojourning was all done in Egypt;\nneither does it say that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt four\nhundred and thirty years; but it does say that the sojourning of the\nchildren of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty\nyears. The Vatican copy of the Septuagint renders the same passage as\nfollows:--\n\n\"The sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt,\nand in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nThe Alexandrian version says:--\"The sojourning of the children of Israel\nwhich they and their fathers sojourned in Egypt, and in the land of\nCanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nAnd in the Samaritan Bible we have:--\"The sojourning of the children of\nIsrael and of their fathers which they sojourned in the land of Canaan,\nand in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nThere were seventy souls when they went down into Egypt, and they\nremained two hundred and fifteen years, and at the end of that time they\nhad increased to about three million. How do we know that there were\nthree million at the end of two hundred and fifteen years? We know it\nbecause we are informed by Moses that \"there were six hundred thousand\nmen of war.\" Now, to each man of war, there must have been at least five\nother people. In every State in this Union there will be to each voter,\nfive other persons at least, and we all know that there are always more\nvoters than men of war. If there were six hundred thousand men of war,\nthere must have been a population of at least three million. Is it\npossible that seventy people could increase to that extent in two\nhundred and fifteen years? You may say that it was a miracle; but\nwhat need was there of working a miracle? Why should God miraculously\nincrease the number of slaves? If he wished miraculously to increase the\npopulation, why did he not wait until the people were free?\n\nIn 1776, we had in the American Colonies about three millions of people.\nIn one hundred years we doubled four times: that is to say, six, twelve,\ntwenty-four, forty-eight million,--our present population.\n\nWe must not forget that during all these years there has been pouring\ninto our country a vast stream of emigration, and that this, taken\nin connection with the fact that our country is productive beyond all\nothers, gave us only four doubles in one hundred years. Admitting that\nthe Hebrews increased as rapidly without emigration as we, in this\ncountry, have with it, we will give to them four doubles each century,\ncommencing with seventy people, and they would have, at the end of\ntwo hundred years, a population of seventeen thousand nine hundred and\ntwenty. Giving them another double for the odd fifteen years and there\nwould be, provided no deaths had occurred, thirty-five thousand eight\nhundred and forty people. And yet we are told that instead of having\nthis number, they had increased to such an extent that they had six\nhundred thousand men of war; that is to say, a population of more than\nthree millions?\n\nEvery sensible man knows that this account is not, and cannot be true.\nWe know that seventy people could not increase to three million in two\nhundred and fifteen years.\n\nAbout this time the Hebrews took a census, and found that there were\ntwenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three first-born males.\nIt is reasonable to suppose that there were about as many first-born\nfemales. This would make forty-four thousand five hundred and forty-six\nfirst-born children. Now, there must have been about as many mothers\nas there were first-born children. If there were only about forty-five\nthousand mothers and three millions of people, the mothers must have had\non an average about sixty-six children apiece.\n\nAt this time, the Hebrews were slaves, and had been for two hundred and\nfifteen years. A little while before, an order had been made by the\nEgyptians that all the male children of the Hebrews should be killed.\nOne, contrary to this order, was saved in an ark made of bullrushes\ndaubed with slime. This child was found by the daughter of Pharaoh, and\nwas adopted, it seems, as her own, and, may be, was. He grew to be\na man, sided with the Hebrews, killed an Egyptian that was smiting a\nslave, hid the body in the sand, and fled from Egypt to the land of\nMidian, became acquainted with a priest who had seven daughters, took\nthe side of the daughters against the ill-mannered shepherds of that\ncountry, and married Zipporah, one of the girls, and became a shepherd\nfor her father. Afterward, while tending his flock, the Lord appeared to\nhim in a burning bush, and commanded him to go to the king of Egypt and\ndemand from him the liberation of the Hebrews. In order to convince him\nthat the something burning in the bush was actually God, the rod in his\nhand was changed into a serpent, which, upon being caught by the tail,\nbecame again a rod. Moses was also told to put his hand in his bosom,\nand when he took it out it was as leprous as snow. Quite a number of\nstrange things were performed, and others promised. Moses then agreed to\ngo back to Egypt provided his brother could go with him. Whereupon\nthe Lord appeared to Aaron, and directed him to meet Moses in the\nwilderness. They met at the mount of God, went to Egypt, gathered\ntogether all the elders of the children of Israel, spake all the words\nwhich God had spoken unto Moses, and did all the signs in the sight of\nthe people. The Israelites believed, bowed their heads and worshiped;\nand Moses and Aaron went in and told their message to Pharaoh the king.\n\nXXII. THE PLAGUES.\n\nThree millions of people were in slavery. They were treated with the\nutmost rigor, and so fearful were their masters that they might, in\ntime, increase in numbers sufficient to avenge themselves, that they\ntook from the arms of mothers all the male children and destroyed\nthem. If the account given is true, the Egyptians were the most cruel,\nheartless and infamous people of which history gives any record. God\nfinally made up his mind to free the Hebrews; and for the accomplishment\nof this purpose he sent, as his agents, Moses and Aaron, to the king\nof Egypt. In order that the king might know that these men had a divine\nmission, God gave Moses the power of changing a stick into a serpent,\nand water into blood. Moses and Aaron went before the king, stating that\nthe Lord God of Israel ordered the king of Egypt to let the Hebrews\ngo that they might hold a feast with God in the wilderness. Thereupon\nPharaoh, the king, enquired who the Lord was, at the same time stating\nthat he had never made his acquaintance, and knew nothing about him.\nTo this they replied that the God of the Hebrews had met with them, and\nthey asked to go a three days journey into the desert and sacrifice\nunto this God, fearing that if they did not he would fall upon them with\npestilence or the sword. This interview seems to have hardened Pharaoh,\nfor he ordered the tasks of the children of Israel to be increased; so\nthat the only effect of the first appeal was to render still worse the\ncondition of the Hebrews. Thereupon, Moses returned unto the Lord and\nsaid, \"Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? Why is\nit that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy\nname he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy\npeople at all.\"\n\nApparently stung by this reproach, God answered:--\n\n\"Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharoah; for with a strong hand\nshall he let them go; and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of\nhis land.\"\n\nGod then recounts the fact that he had appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob, that he had established a covenant with them to give them the\nland of Canaan, that he had heard the groanings of the children of\nIsrael in Egyptian bondage; that their groanings had put him in mind of\nhis covenant, and that he had made up his mind to redeem the children\nof Israel with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments. Moses then\nspoke to the children of Israel again, but they would listen to him no\nmore. His first effort in their behalf had simply doubled their trouble\nand they seemed to have lost confidence in his power. Thereupon Jehovah\npromised Moses that he would make him a god unto Pharaoh, and that\nAaron should be his prophet, but at the same time informed him that his\nmessage would be of no avail; that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh\nso that he would not listen; that he would so harden his heart that he\nmight have an excuse for destroying the Egyptians. Accordingly, Moses\nand Aaron again went before Pharaoh. Moses said to Aaron;--\"Cast down\nyour rod before Pharaoh,\" which he did, and it became a serpent. Then\nPharaoh not in the least surprised, called for his wise men and\nhis sorcerers, and they threw down their rods and changed them into\nserpents. The serpent that had been changed from Aaron's rod was, at\nthis time crawling upon the floor, and it proceeded to swallow the\nserpents that had been produced by the magicians of Egypt. What became\nof these serpents that were swallowed, whether they turned back into\nsticks again, is not stated. Can we believe that the stick was changed\ninto a real living serpent, or did it assume simply the appearance of a\nserpent? If it bore only the appearance of a serpent it was a deception,\nand could not rise above the dignity of legerdemain. Is it necessary to\nbelieve that God is a kind of prestigiator--a sleight-of-hand performer,\na magician or sorcerer? Can it be possible that an infinite being would\nendeavor to secure the liberation of a race by performing a miracle that\ncould be equally performed by the sorcerers and magicians of a barbarian\nking?\n\nNot one word was said by Moses or Aaron as to the wickedness of\ndepriving a human being of his liberty. Not a word was said in favor\nof liberty. Not the slightest intimation that a human being was justly\nentitled to the product of his own labor. Not a word about the cruelty\nof masters who would destroy even the babes of slave mothers. It seems\nto me wonderful that this God did not tell the king of Egypt that no\nnation could enslave another, without also enslaving itself; that it was\nimpossible to put a chain around the limbs of a slave, without putting\nmanacles upon the brain of the master. Why did he not tell him that a\nnation founded upon slavery could not stand? Instead of declaring these\nthings, instead of appealing to justice, to mercy and to liberty, he\nresorted to feats of jugglery. Suppose we wished to make a treaty with\na barbarous nation, and the President should employ a sleight-of-hand\nperformer as envoy extraordinary, and instruct him, that when he came\ninto the presence of the savage monarch, he should cast down an umbrella\nor a walking stick, which would change into a lizard or a turtle; what\nwould we think? Would we not regard such a performance as beneath the\ndignity even of a President? And what would be our feelings if the\nsavage king sent for his sorcerers and had them perform the same feat?\nIf such things would appear puerile and foolish in the President of a\ngreat republic, what shall be said when they were resorted to by the\ncreator of all worlds? How small, how contemptible such a God appears!\nPharaoh, it seems, took about this view of the matter, and he would not\nbe persuaded that such tricks were performed by an infinite being.\n\nAgain, Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh as he was going to the\nriver's bank, and the same rod which had changed to a serpent, and,\nby this time changed back, was taken by Aaron, who, in the presence of\nPharaoh, smote the water of the river, which was immediately turned to\nblood, as well as all the water in all the streams, ponds, and pools, as\nwell as all water in vessels of wood and vessels of stone in the entire\nland of Egypt. As soon as all the waters in Egypt had been turned\ninto blood, the magicians of that country did the same with their\nenchantments. We are not informed where they got the water to turn into\nblood, since all the water in Egypt had already been so changed. It\nseems from the account that the fish in the Nile died, and the river\nemitted a stench, and there was not a drop of water in the land of\nEgypt that had not been changed into blood. In consequence of this, the\nEgyptians digged \"around about the river\" for water to drink. Can we\nbelieve this story? Is it necessary to salvation to admit that all the\nrivers, pools, ponds and lakes of a country were changed into blood, in\norder that a king might be induced to allow the children of Israel the\nprivilege of going a three days journey into the wilderness to make\nsacrifices to their God?\n\nIt seems from the account that Pharaoh was told that the God of the\nHebrews would, if he refused to let the Israelites go, change all the\nwaters of Egypt into blood, and that, upon his refusal, they were so\nchanged. This had, however, no influence upon him, for the reason that\nhis own magicians did the same. It does not appear that Moses and Aaron\nexpressed the least surprise at the success of the Egyptian sorcerers.\nAt that time it was believed that each nation had its own god. The\nonly claim that Moses and Aaron made for their God was, that he was the\ngreatest and most powerful of all the gods, and that with anything like\nan equal chance he could vanquish the deity of any other nation.\n\nAfter the waters were changed to blood Moses and Aaron waited for seven\ndays. At the end of that time God told Moses to again go to Pharaoh and\ndemand the release of his people, and to inform him that, if he refused,\nGod would strike all the borders of Egypt with frogs. That he would make\nfrogs so plentiful that they would go into the houses of Pharaoh, into\nhis bedchamber, upon his bed, into the houses of his servants, upon his\npeople, into their ovens, and even into their kneading troughs.\nThis threat had no effect whatever upon Pharaoh. And thereupon Aaron\nstretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came\nup and covered the land. The magicians of Egypt did the same, and with\ntheir enchantments brought more frogs upon the land of Egypt.\n\nThese magicians do not seem to have been original in their ideas, but\nso far as imitation is concerned, were perfect masters of their art. The\nfrogs seem to have made such an impression upon Pharaoh that he sent\nfor Moses and asked him to entreat the Lord that he would take away the\nfrogs. Moses agreed to remove them from the houses and the land, and\nallow them to remain only in the rivers. Accordingly the frogs died out\nof the houses, and out of the villages, and out of the fields, and the\npeople gathered them together in heaps. As soon as the frogs had left\nthe houses and fields, the heart of Pharaoh became again hardened, and\nhe refused to let the people go.\n\nAaron then, according to the command of God, stretched out his hand,\nholding the rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in\nman and in beast, and all the dust became lice throughout the land of\nEgypt. Pharaoh again sent for his magicians, and they sought to do\nthe same with their enchantments, but they could not. Whereupon the\nsorcerers said unto Pharaoh: \"This is the finger of God.\"\n\nNotwithstanding this, however, Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go.\nGod then caused a grievous swarm of flies to come into the house of\nPharaoh and into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt,\nto such an extent that the whole land was corrupted by reason of the\nflies. But into that part of the country occupied by the children of\nIsrael there came no flies. Thereupon Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron\nand said to them: \"Go, and sacrifice to your God in this land.\" They\nwere not willing to sacrifice in Egypt, and asked permission to go on a\njourney of three days into the wilderness. To this Pharaoh acceded, and\nin consideration of this Moses agreed to use his influence with the Lord\nto induce him to send the flies out of the country. He accordingly told\nthe Lord of the bargain he had made with Pharaoh, and the Lord agreed to\nthe compromise, and removed the flies from Pharaoh and from his servants\nand from his people, and there remained not a single fly in the land of\nEgypt. As soon as the flies were gone, Pharaoh again changed his mind,\nand concluded not to permit the children of Israel to depart. The Lord\nthen directed Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not\nallow the children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle, his\nhorses, his camels and his sheep; that these animals would be afflicted\nwith a grievous disease, but that the animals belonging to the Hebrews\nshould not be so afflicted. Moses did as he was bid. On the next day all\nthe cattle of Egypt died; that is to say, all the horses, all the asses,\nall the camels, all the oxen and all the sheep; but of the animals owned\nby the Israelites, not one perished. This disaster had no effect upon\nPharaoh, and he still refused to let the children of Israel go. The Lord\nthen told Moses and Aaron to take some ashes out of a furnace, and\ntold Moses to sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh;\nsaying that the ashes should become small dust in all the land of Egypt,\nand should be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast\nthroughout all the land.\n\nHow these boils breaking out with blains, upon cattle that were already\ndead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little hard to understand. It must\nnot be forgotten that all the cattle and all beasts had died with the\nmurrain before the boils had broken out.\n\nThis was a most decisive victory for Moses and Aaron. The boils were\nupon the magicians to that extent that they could not stand before\nMoses. But it had no effect upon Pharaoh, who seems to have been a man\nof great firmness. The Lord then instructed Moses to get up early in the\nmorning and tell Pharaoh that he would stretch out his hand and smite\nhis people with a pestilence, and would, on the morrow, cause it to rain\na very grievous hail, such as had never been known in the land of Egypt.\nHe also told Moses to give notice, so that they might get all the cattle\nthat were in the fields under cover. It must be remembered that all\nthese cattle had recently died of the murrain, and their dead bodies had\nbeen covered with boils and blains. This, however, had no effect, and\nMoses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder,\nand hail and lightning, and fire that ran along the ground, and the hail\nfell upon all the land of Egypt, and all that were in the fields, both\nman and beast, were smitten, and the hail smote every herb of the field,\nand broke every tree of the country except that portion inhabited by the\nchildren of Israel; there, there was no hail.\n\nDuring this hail storm Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and admitted\nthat he had sinned, that the Lord was righteous, and that the Egyptians\nwere wicked, and requested them to ask the Lord that there be no more\nthunderings and hail, and that he would let the Hebrews go. Moses agreed\nthat as soon as he got out of the city he would stretch forth his hands\nunto the Lord, and that the thunderings should cease and the hail should\nstop. But, when the rain and the hail and the thundering ceased, Pharaoh\nconcluded that he would not let the children of Israel go.\n\nAgain, God sent Moses and Aaron, instructing them to tell Pharaoh that\nif he refused to let the people go, the face of the earth would be\ncovered with locusts, so that man would not be able to see the ground,\nand that these locusts would eat the residue of that which escaped from\nthe hail; that they would eat every tree out of the field; that they\nwould fill the houses of Pharaoh and the houses of all his servants, and\nthe houses of all the Egyptians. Moses delivered the message, and went\nout from Pharaoh. Some of Pharaoh's servants entreated their master\nto let the children of Israel go. Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and\nasked them, who wished to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. They\nreplied that they wished to go with the young and old; with their sons\nand daughters, with flocks and herds. Pharaoh would not consent to this,\nbut agreed that the men might go. Thereupon Pharaoh drove Moses and\nAaron out of his sight. Then God told Moses to stretch forth his hand\nupon the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they might come up and eat\nevery herb, even all that the hail had left. \"And Moses stretched out\nhis rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind all\nthat day and all that night; and when it was morning the east wind\nbrought the locusts; and they came up over all the land of Egypt and\nrested upon all the coasts covering the face of the whole earth, so that\nthe land was darkened; and they ate every herb and all the fruit of the\ntrees which the hail had left, and there remained not any green thing\non the trees or in the herbs of the field throughout the land of Egypt.\"\nPharaoh then called for Moses and Aaron in great haste, admitted that\nhe had sinned against the Lord their God and against them, asked their\nforgiveness and requested them to intercede with God that he might take\naway the locusts. They went out from his presence and asked the Lord to\ndrive the locusts away, \"And the Lord made a strong west wind which took\naway the locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea so that there remained\nnot one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.\"\n\nAs soon as the locusts were gone, Pharaoh changed his mind, and, in the\nlanguage of the sacred text, \"the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that\nhe would not let the children of Israel go.\"\n\nThe Lord then told Moses to stretch out his hand toward heaven that\nthere might be darkness over the land of Egypt, \"even darkness which\nmight be felt.\" \"And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and\nthere was a thick darkness over the land of Egypt for three days during\nwhich time they saw not each other, neither arose any of the people from\ntheir places for three days; but the children of Israel had light in\ntheir dwellings.\"\n\nIt strikes me that when the land of Egypt was covered with thick\ndarkness--so thick that it could be felt, and when light was in the\ndwellings of the Israelites, there could have been no better time for\nthe Hebrews to have left the country.\n\nPharaoh again called for Moses, and told him that his people could go\nand serve the Lord, provided they would leave their flocks and herds.\nMoses would not agree to this, for the reason that they needed the\nflocks and herds for sacrifices and burnt offerings, and he did not know\nhow many of the animals God might require, and for that reason he could\nnot leave a single hoof. Upon the question of the cattle, they divided,\nand Pharaoh again refused to let the people go. God then commanded Moses\nto tell the Hebrews to borrow, each of his neighbor, jewels of silver\nand gold. By a miraculous interposition the Hebrews found favor in the\nsight of the Egyptians so that they loaned the articles asked for. After\nthis, Moses again went to Pharaoh and told him that all the first-born\nin the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh upon the throne,\nunto the first-born of the maid-servant who was behind the mill, as well\nas the first-born of beasts, should die.\n\nAs all the beasts had been destroyed by disease and hail, it is\ntroublesome to understand the meaning of the threat as to their\nfirst-born.\n\nPreparations were accordingly made for carrying this frightful threat\ninto execution. Blood was put on the door-posts of all houses inhabited\nby Hebrews, so that God, as he passed through that land, might not be\nmistaken and destroy the first-born of the Jews. \"And it came to pass\nthat at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt,\nthe first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne, and the first-born of\nthe captive who was in the dungeon. And Pharaoh rose up in the night,\nand all his servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry\nin Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead.\"\n\nWhat had these children done? Why should the babes in the cradle be\ndestroyed on account of the crime of Pharaoh? Why should the cattle be\ndestroyed because man had enslaved his brother? In those days women and\nchildren and cattle were put upon an exact equality, and all considered\nas the property of the men; and when man in some way excited the wrath\nof God, he punished them by destroying all their cattle, their wives,\nand their little ones. Where can words be found bitter enough to\ndescribe a god who would kill wives and babes because husbands and\nfathers had failed to keep his law? Every good man, and every good\nwoman, must hate and despise such a deity.\n\nUpon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron,\nand not only gave his consent that they might go with the Hebrews into\nthe wilderness, but besought them to go at once.\n\nIs it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds and sustainer\nof all life, said to Pharaoh, \"If you do not let my people go, I will\nturn all the water of your country into blood,\" and that upon the\nrefusal of Pharaoh to release the people, God did turn all the waters\ninto blood? Do you believe this?\n\nDo you believe that Pharaoh even after all the water was turned to\nblood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and that thereupon God told him he\nwould cover his land with frogs? Do you believe this?\n\nDo you believe that after the land was covered with frogs Pharaoh still\nrefused to let the people go, and that God then said to him, \"I will\ncover you and all your people with lice?\" Do you believe God would make\nthis threat?\n\nDo you also believe that God told Pharaoh, \"It you do not let these\npeople go, I will fill all your houses and cover your country with\nflies?\" Do you believe God makes such threats as this?\n\nOf course God must have known that turning the waters into blood,\ncovering the country with frogs, infesting all flesh with lice, and\nfilling all houses with flies, would not accomplish his object, and that\nall these plagues would have no effect whatever upon the Egyptian king.\n\nDo you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by the flies, God\ntold Pharaoh that if he did not let the people go he would kill his\ncattle with murrain? Does such a threat sound God-like?\n\nDo you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing the cattle,\nthis same God then threatened to afflict all the people with boils,\nincluding the magicians who had been rivaling him in the matter of\nmiracles; and failing to do anything by boils, that he resorted to hail?\nDoes this sound reasonable? The hail experiment having accomplished\nnothing, do you believe that God murdered the first-born of animals and\nmen? Is it possible to conceive of anything more utterly absurd, stupid,\nrevolting, cruel and senseless, than the miracles said to have been\nwrought by the Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate\nthe children of Israel?\n\nIs it not altogether more reasonable to say that the Jewish people,\nbeing in slavery, accounted for the misfortunes and calamities, suffered\nby the Egyptians, by saying that they were the judgments of God?\n\nWhen the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered by the storm, the\nEnglish people believed that God had interposed in their behalf,\nand publicly gave thanks. When the battle of Lepanto was won, it was\nbelieved by the Catholic world that the victory was given in answer to\nprayer. So, our fore-fathers in their Revolutionary struggle saw, or\nthought they saw, the hand of God, and most firmly believed that they\nachieved their independence by the interposition of the Most High.\n\nNow, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians,\nthere were plagues of locusts and flies. It may be that there were\nsome diseases by which many of the cattle perished. It may be that a\npestilence visited that country so that in nearly every house there\nwas some one dead. If so, it was but natural for the enslaved and\nsuperstitious Jews to account for these calamities by saying that they\nwere punishments sent by their God. Such ideas will be found in the\nhistory of every country.\n\nFor a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they were handed from\nfather to son simply by tradition. By the time a written language had\nbeen produced, thousands of additions had been made, and numberless\ndetails invented; so that we have not only an account of the plagues\nsuffered by the Egyptians, but the whole woven into a connected story,\ncontaining the threats made by Moses and Aaron, the miracles wrought by\nthem, the promises of Pharaoh, and finally the release of the Hebrews,\nas a result of the marvelous things performed in their behalf by\nJehovah.\n\nIn any event it is infinitely more probable that the author was\nmisinformed, than that the God of this universe was guilty of these\nchildish, heartless and infamous things. The solution of the whole\nmatter is this:--Moses was mistaken.\n\nXXIII. THE FLIGHT.\n\nThree millions of people, with their flocks and herds, with borrowed\njewelry and raiment, with unleavened dough in kneading troughs bound in\ntheir clothes upon their shoulders, in one night commenced their journey\nfor the land of promise. We are not told how they were informed of the\nprecise time to start. With all the modern appliances, it would require\nmonths of time to inform three millions of people of any fact.\n\nIn this vast assemblage there were six hundred thousand men of war, and\nwith them were the old, the young, the diseased and helpless. Where were\nthose people going? They were going to the desert of Sinai, compared\nwith which Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava torn by\nstorm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon and changed\ninstantly to stone! Such was the desert of Sinai.\n\nAll of the civilized nations of the world could not feed and support\nthree millions of people on the desert of Sinai for forty years. It\nwould cost more than one hundred thousand millions of dollars, and would\nbankrupt Christendom. They had with them their flocks and herds, and the\nsheep were so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed, at one time, more\nthan one hundred and fifty thousand first-born lambs. How were these\nflocks supported? What did they eat? Where were meadows and pastures for\nthem? There was no grass, no forests--nothing! There is no account\nof its having rained baled hay, nor is it even claimed that they were\nmiraculously fed. To support these flocks, millions of acres of pasture\nwould have been required. God did not take the Israelites through the\nland of the Philistines, for fear that when they saw the people of that\ncountry they would return to Egypt, but he took them by the way of\nthe wilderness to the Red Sea, going before them by day in a pillar of\ncloud, and by night, in a pillar of fire.\n\nWhen it was told Pharaoh that the people had fled, he made ready\nand took six hundred chosen chariots of Egypt, and pursued after the\nchildren of Israel, overtaking them by the sea. As all the animals had\nlong before that time been destroyed, we are not informed where Pharaoh\nobtained the horses for his chariots. The moment the children of Israel\nsaw the hosts of Pharaoh, although they had six hundred thousand men\nof war, they immediately cried unto the Lord for protection. It is\nwonderful to me that a land that had been ravaged by the plagues\ndescribed in the Bible, still had the power to put in the field an army\nthat would carry terror to the hearts of six hundred thousand men of\nwar. Even with the help of God, it seems, they were not strong enough\nto meet the Egyptians in the open field, but resorted to strategy. Moses\nagain stretched forth his wonderful rod over the waters of the Red Sea,\nand they were divided, and the Hebrews passed through on dry land, the\nwaters standing up like a wall on either side. The Egyptians pursued\nthem; \"and in the morning watch the Lord looked into the hosts of the\nEgyptians, through the pillar of fire,\" and proceeded to take the wheels\noff their chariots. As soon as the wheels were off, God told Moses to\nstretch out his hand over the sea. Moses did so, and immediately \"the\nwaters returned and covered the chariots and horsemen and all the hosts\nof Pharaoh that came into the sea, and there remained not so much as one\nof them.\"\n\nThis account may be true, but still it hardly looks reasonable that God\nwould take the wheels off the chariots. How did he do it? Did he pull\nout the linch-pins, or did he just take them off by main force?\n\nWhat a picture this presents to the mind! God the creator of the\nuniverse, maker of every shining, glittering star, engaged in pulling\noff the wheels of wagons, that he might convince Pharaoh of his\ngreatness and power!\n\nWhere were these people going? They were going to the promised land.\nHow large a country was that? About twelve thousand square miles. About\none-fifth the size of the State of Illinois. It was a frightful country,\ncovered with rocks and desolation. How many people were in the promised\nland already? Moses tells us there were seven nations in that country\nmightier than the Jews. As there were at least three millions of Jews,\nthere must have been at least twenty-one millions of people already in\nthat country. These had to be driven out in order that room might be\nmade for the chosen people of God.\n\nIt seems, however, that God was not willing to take the children of\nIsrael into the promised land immediately. They were not fit to inhabit\nthe land of Canaan; so he made up his mind to allow them to wander upon\nthe desert until all except two, who had left Egypt, should perish. Of\nall the slaves released from Egyptian bondage, only two were allowed to\nreach the promised land!\n\nAs soon as the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, they found themselves\nwithout food, and with water unfit to drink by reason of its bitterness,\nand they began to murmur against Moses, who cried unto the Lord, and\n\"the Lord showed him a tree.\" Moses cast this tree into the waters,\nand they became sweet. \"And it came to pass in the morning the dew lay\naround about the camp; and when the dew that lay was gone, behold,\nupon the face of the wilderness lay a small round thing, small as the\nhoar-frost upon the ground. And Moses said unto them, this is the bread\nwhich the Lord hath given you to eat.\" This manna was a very peculiar\nthing. It would melt in the sun, and yet they could cook it by seething\nand baking. One would as soon think of frying snow or of broiling\nicicles. But this manna had another remarkable quality. No matter how\nmuch or little any person gathered, he would have an exact omer; if he\ngathered more, it would shrink to that amount, and if he gathered less,\nit would swell exactly to that amount. What a magnificent substance\nmanna would be with which to make a currency--shrinking and swelling\naccording to the great laws of supply and demand!\n\n\"Upon this manna the children of Israel lived for forty years, until\nthey came to a habitable land. With this meat were they fed until\nthey reached the borders of the land of Canaan.\" We are told in the\ntwenty-first chapter of Numbers, that the people at last became tired\nof' the manna, complained of God, and asked Moses why he brought\nthem out of the land of Egypt to die in the wilderness. And they\nsaid:--\"There is no bread, nor have we any water. Our soul loatheth this\nlight food.\"\n\nWe are told by some commentators that the Jews lived on manna for forty\nyears; by others that they lived upon it for only a short time. As\na matter of fact the accounts differ, and this difference is the\nopportunity for commentators. It also allows us to exercise faith in\nbelieving that both accounts are true. If the accounts agreed, and were\nreasonable, they would be believed by the wicked and unregenerated. But\nas they are different and unreasonable, they are believed only by the\ngood. Whenever a statement in the Bible is unreasonable, and you believe\nit, you are considered quite a good Christian. If the statement is\ngrossly absurd and infinitely impossible, and you still believe it, you\nare a saint.\n\nThe children of Israel were in the desert, and they were out of water.\nThey had nothing to eat but manna, and this they had had so long that\nthe soul of every person abhorred it. Under these circumstances they\ncomplained to Moses. Now, as God is infinite, he could just as well have\nfurnished them with an abundance of the purest and coolest of water, and\ncould, without the slightest trouble to himself, have given them three\nexcellent meals a day, with a generous variety of meats and vegetables,\nit is very hard to see why he did not do so. It is still harder to\nconceive why he fell into a rage when the people mildly suggested that\nthey would like a change of diet. Day after day, week after week, month\nafter month, year after year, nothing but manna. No doubt they did\nthe best they could by cooking it in different ways, but in spite of\nthemselves they began to loathe its sight and taste, and so they asked\nMoses to use his influence to secure a change in the bill of fare.\n\nNow, I ask, whether it was unreasonable for the Jews to suggest that a\nlittle meat would be very gratefully received? It seems, however, that\nas soon as the request was made, this God of infinite mercy became\ninfinitely enraged, and instead of granting it, went into partnership\nwith serpents, for the purpose of punishing the hungry wretches to whom\nhe had promised a land flowing with milk and honey.\n\nWhere did these serpents come from? How did God convey the information\nto the serpents, that he wished them to go to the desert of Sinai and\nbite some Jews? It may be urged that these serpents were created for the\nexpress purpose of punishing the children of Israel for having had the\npresumption, like Oliver Twist, to ask for more.\n\nThere is another account in the eleventh chapter of Numbers, of the\npeople murmuring because of their food. They remembered the fish, the\ncucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic of Egypt,\nand they asked for meat. The people went to the tent of Moses and asked\nhim for flesh. Moses cried unto the Lord and asked him why he did not\ntake care of the multitude. God thereupon agreed that they should have\nmeat, not for a day or two, but for a month, until the meat should come\nout of their nostrils and become loathsome to them. He then caused a\nwind to bring quails from beyond the sea, and cast them into the camp,\non every side of the camp around about for the space of a days journey.\nAnd the people gathered them, and while the flesh was yet between their\nteeth the wrath of God being provoked against them, struck them with\nan exceeding great plague. Serpents, also, were sent among them, and\nthousands perished for the crime of having been hungry.\n\nThe Rev. Alexander Cruden commenting upon this account says:--\n\n\"God caused a wind to rise that drove the quails within and about the\ncamp of the Israelites; and it is in this that the miracle consists,\nthat they were brought so seasonably to this place, and in so great\nnumbers as to suffice above a million of persons above a month. Some\nauthors affirm, that in those eastern and southern countries, quails\nare innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass of five\nmiles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every day for\na month together; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the sea,\nthat being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that\nthey sink them with their weight.\"\n\nNo wonder Mr. Cruden believed the Mosaic account.\n\nMust we believe that God made an arrangement with hornets for the\npurpose af securing their services in driving the Canaanites from\nthe land of promise? Is this belief necessary unto salvation? Must we\nbelieve that God said to the Jews that he would send hornets before them\nto drive out the Canaanites, as related in the twenty-third chapter of\nExodus, and the second chapter of Deuteronomy? How would the hornets\nknow a Canaanite? In what way would God put it in the mind of a hornet\nto attack a Canaanite? Did God create hornets for that especial purpose,\nimplanting an instinct to attack a Canaanite, but not a Hebrew? Can\nwe conceive of the Almighty granting letters of marque and reprisal to\nhornets? Of course it is admitted that nothing in the world would\nbe better calculated to make a man leave his native land than a few\nhornets. Is it possible for us to believe that an infinite being would\nresort to such expedients in order to drive the Canaanites from their\ncountry? He could just as easily have spoken the Canaanites out of\nexistence as to have spoken the hornets in. In this way a vast amount of\ntrouble, pain and suffering would have been saved. Is it possible that\nthere is, in this country, an intelligent clergyman who will insist that\nthese stories are true; that we must believe them in in order to be good\npeople in this world, and glorified souls in the next?\n\nWe are also told that God instructed the Hebrews to kill the Canaanites\nslowly, giving as a reason that the beasts of the field might increase\nupon his chosen people. When we take into consideration the fact that\nthe Holy Land contained only about eleven or twelve thousand square\nmiles, and was at that time inhabited by at least twenty-one millions of\npeople, it does not seem reasonable that the wild beasts could have been\nnumerous enough to cause any great alarm. The same ratio of population\nwould give to the State of Illinois at least one hundred and twenty\nmillions of inhabitants. Can anybody believe that, under such\ncircumstances, the danger from wild beasts could be very great? What\nwould we think of a general, invading such a State, if he should order\nhis soldiers to kill the people slowly, lest the wild beasts might\nincrease upon them? Is it possible that a God capable of doing the\nmiracles recounted in the Old Testament could not, in some way, have\ndisposed of the wild beasts? After the Canaanites were driven out, could\nhe not have employed the hornets to drive out the wild beasts? Think of\na God that could drive twenty-one millions of people out of the promised\nland, could raise up innumerable stinging flies, and could cover\nthe earth with fiery serpents, and yet seems to have been perfectly\npowerless against the wild beasts of the land of Canaan!\n\nSpeaking of these hornets, one of the good old commentators, whose\nviews have long been considered of great value by the believers in the\ninspiration of the Bible, uses the following language:--\"Hornets are a\nsort of strong flies, which the Lord used as instruments to plague\nthe enemies of his people. They are of themselves very troublesome and\nmischievous, and those the Lord made use of were, it is thought, of an\nextraordinary bigness and perniciousness. It is said they live as the\nwasps, and that they have a king or captain, and pestilent stings\nas bees, and that, if twenty-seven of them sting man or beast, it is\ncertain death to either. Nor is it strange that such creatures did drive\nout the Canaanites from their habitations; for many heathen writers give\ninstances of some people driven from their seats by frogs, others by\nmice, others by bees and wasps. And it is said that a Christian city,\nbeing besieged by Sapores, king of Persia, was delivered by hornets; for\nthe elephants and beasts being stung by them, waxed unruly, and so the\nwhole army fled.\"\n\nOnly a few years ago, all such stories were believed by the Christian\nworld; and it is a historical fact, that Voltaire was the third man of\nany note in Europe, who took the ground that the mythologies of Greece\nand Rome were without foundation. Until his time, most Christians\nbelieved as thoroughly in the miracles ascribed to the Greek and Roman\ngods as in those of Christ and Jehovah. The Christian world cultivated\ncredulity, not only as one of the virtues, but as the greatest of them\nall. But, when Luther and his followers left the Church of Rome, they\nwere compelled to deny the power of the Catholic Church, at that time,\nto suspend the laws of nature, but took the ground that such power\nceased with the apostolic age. They insisted that all things now\nhappened in accordance with the laws of nature, with the exception of a\nfew special interferences in favor of the Protestant Church in answer\nto prayer. They taught their children a double philosophy: by one, they\nwere to show the impossibility of Catholic miracles, because opposed to\nthe laws of nature; by the other, the probability of the miracles of the\napostolic age, because they were in conformity with the statements of\nthe Scriptures. They had two foundations: one, the law of nature, and\nthe other, the word of God. The Protestants have endeavored to carry\non this double process of reasoning, and the result has been a gradual\nincrease of confidence in the law of nature, and a gradual decrease of\nconfidence in the word of God.\n\nWe are told, in this inspired account, that the clothing of the Jewish\npeople did not wax old, and that their shoes refused to wear out. Some\ncommentators have insisted that angels attended to the wardrobes of the\nHebrews, patched their garments, and mended their shoes. Certain it is,\nhowever, that the same clothes lasted them for forty years, during the\nentire journey from Egypt to the Holy Land. Little boys starting out\nwith their first pantaloons, grew as they traveled, and their clothes\ngrew with them.\n\nCan it be necessary to believe a story like this? Will men make better\nhusbands, fathers, neighbors, and citizens, simply by giving credence\nto these childish and impossible things? Certainly an infinite God could\nhave transported the Jews to the Holy Land in a moment, and could, as\neasily, have removed the Canaanites to some other country. Surely there\nwas no necessity for doing thousands and thousands of petty miracles,\nday after day for forty years, looking after the clothes of three\nmillions of people, changing the nature of wool and linen and leather,\nso that they would not \"wax old.\" Every step, every motion, would wear\naway some part of the clothing, some part of the shoes. Were these\nparts, so worn away, perpetually renewed, or was the nature of things\nso changed that they could not wear away? We know that whenever matter\ncomes in contact with matter, certain atoms, by abrasion, are lost. Were\nthese atoms gathered up every night by angels, and replaced on the soles\nof the shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons, so\nthat the next morning they would be precisely in the condition they were\non the morning before? There must be a mistake somewhere.\n\nCan we believe that the real God, if there is one, ever ordered a man\nto be killed simply for making hair oil, or ointment? We are told in\nthe thirtieth chapter of Exodus, that the Lord commanded Moses to take\nmyrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus, cassia, and olive oil, and make a\nholy ointment for the purpose of anointing the tabernacle, tables,\ncandlesticks and other utensils, as well as Aaron and his sons; saying,\nat the same time, that whosoever compounded any like it, or whoever put\nany of it on a stranger, should be put to death. In the same chapter,\nthe Lord furnishes Moses with a recipe for making a perfume, saying,\nthat whoever should make any which smelled like it, should be cut off\nfrom his people. This, to me, sounds so unreasonable that I cannot\nbelieve it. Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made\nointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all\nthings threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having\nwashed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would\ndisgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne.\nThere must be some mistake. I cannot believe that an infinite\nIntelligence appeared to Moses upon Mount Sinai having with him a\nvariety of patterns for making a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes.\nNeither can I believe that God told Moses how to cut and trim a coat for\na priest. Why should a God care about such things? Why should he insist\non having buttons sewed in certain rows, and fringes of a certain color?\nSuppose an intelligent civilized man was to overhear, on Mount Sinai,\nthe following instructions from God to Moses:--\n\n\"You must consecrate my priests as follows:--You must kill a bullock\nfor a sin offering, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the\nhead of the bullock. Then you must take the blood and put it upon the\nhorns of the altar round about with your finger, and pour some blood at\nthe bottom of the altar to make a reconciliation; and of the fat that\nis upon the inwards, the caul above the liver and two kidneys, and\ntheir fat, and burn them upon the altar. You must get a ram for a burnt\noffering, and Aaron and his sons must lay their hands upon the head of\nthe ram. Then you must kill it and sprinkle the blood upon the altar,\nand cut the ram into pieces, and burn the head, and the pieces, and the\nfat, and wash the inwards and the lungs in water and then burn the whole\nram upon the altar for a sweet savor unto me. Then you must get another\nram, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of that,\nthen kill it and take of its blood, and put it on the top of Aaron's\nright ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of\nhis right foot. And you must also put a little of the blood upon the\ntop of the right ears of Aaron's sons, and on the thumbs of their right\nhands and on the great toes of their right feet. And then you must take\nof the fat that is on the inwards, and the caul above the liver and the\ntwo kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder, and out of a basket\nof unleavened bread you must take one unleavened cake and another of oil\nbread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat of the right shoulder. And\nyou must take of the anointing oil, and of the blood, and sprinkle it on\nAaron, and on his garments, and on his sons' garments, and sanctify\nthem and all their clothes.\"--Do you believe that he would have even\nsuspected that the creator of the universe was talking?\n\nCan any one now tell why God commanded the Jews, when they were upon the\ndesert of Sinai, to plant trees, telling them at the same time that they\nmust not eat any of the fruit of such trees until after the fourth year?\nTrees could not have been planted in that desert, and if they had been,\nthey could not have lived. Why did God tell Moses, while in the desert,\nto make curtains of fine linen? Where could he have obtained his flax?\nThere was no land upon which it could have been produced. Why did he\ntell him to make things of gold, and silver, and precious stones, when\nthey could not have been in possession of these things? There is but one\nanswer, and that is, the Pentateuch was written hundreds of years after\nthe Jews had settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of years after Moses\nwas dust and ashes.\n\nWhen the Jews had a written language, and that must have been long after\ntheir flight from Egypt, they wrote out their history and their laws.\nTradition had filled the infancy of the nation with miracles and special\ninterpositions in their behalf by Jehovah. Patriotism would not allow\nthese wonders to grow small, and priestcraft never denied a miracle.\nThere were traditions to the effect that God had spoken face to face\nwith Moses; that he had given him the tables of the law, and had, in a\nthousand ways, made known his will; and whenever the priests wished to\nmake new laws, or amend old ones, they pretended to have found something\nmore that God said to Moses at Sinai. In this way obedience was more\neasily secured. Only a very few of the people could read, and, as a\nconsequence, additions, interpolations and erasures had no fear of\ndetection. In this way we account for the fact that Moses is made to\nspeak of things that did not exist in his day, and were unknown for\nhundreds of years after his death.\n\nIn the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, we are told that the people, when\nnumbered, must give each one a half shekel after the shekel of the\n_sanctuary_. At that time no such money existed, and consequently the\naccount could not, by any possibility, have been written until after\nthere was a shekel of the sanctuary, and there was no such thing until\nlong after the death of Moses. If we should read that Caesar paid his\ntroops in pounds, shillings and pence, we would certainly know that the\naccount was not written by Caesar, nor in his time, but we would know\nthat it was written after the English had given these names to certain\ncoins.\n\nSo, we find, that when the Jews were upon the desert it was commanded\nthat every mother should bring, as a sin offering, a couple of doves to\nthe priests, and the priests were compelled to eat these doves in the\nmost holy place. At the time this law appears to have been given, there\nwere three million people, and only three priests, Aaron, Eleazer and\nIthamar. Among three million people there would be, at least, three\nhundred births a day. Certainly we are not expected to believe that\nthese three priests devoured six hundred pigeons every twenty-four\nhours.\n\nWhy should a woman ask pardon of God for having been a mother? Why\nshould that be considered a crime in Exodus, which is commanded as a\nduty in Genesis? Why should a mother be declared unclean? Why should\ngiving birth to a daughter be regarded twice as criminal as giving birth\nto a son? Can we believe that such laws and ceremonies were made and\ninstituted by a merciful and intelligent God? If there is anything in\nthis poor world suggestive of, and standing for, all that is sweet,\nloving and pure, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms\nher prattling babe. Read the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, and you will\nsee that when a woman became the mother of a boy she was so unclean\nthat she was not allowed to touch a hallowed thing, nor to enter the\nsanctuary for forty days. If the babe was a girl, then the mother was\nunfit for eighty days, to enter the house of God, or to touch the sacred\ntongs and snuffers. These laws, born of barbarism, are unworthy of our\nday, and should be regarded simply as the mistakes of savages.\n\nJust as low in the scale of intelligence are the directions given in the\nfifth chapter of Numbers, for the trial of a wife of whom the husband\nwas jealous. This foolish chapter has been the foundation of all appeals\nto God for the ascertainment of facts, such as the corsned, trial by\nbattle, by water, and by fire, the last of which is our judicial oath.\nIt is very easy to believe that in those days a guilty woman would\nbe afraid to drink the water of jealousy and take the oath, and that,\nthrough fear, she might be made to confess. Admitting that the deception\ntended not only to prevent crime, but to discover it when committed,\nstill, we cannot admit that an honest god would, for any purpose, resort\nto dishonest means. In all countries fear is employed as a means of\ngetting at the truth, and in this there is nothing dishonest, provided\nfalsehood is not resorted to for the purpose of producing the fear.\nProtestants laugh at Catholics because of their belief in the efficacy\nof holy water, and yet they teach their children that a little holy\nwater, in which had been thrown some dust from the floor of the\nsanctuary, would, work a miracle in a woman's flesh. For hundreds of\nyears our fathers believed that a perjurer could not swallow a piece of\nsacramental bread. Such stories belong to the childhood of our race, and\nare now believed only by mental infants and intellectual babes.\n\nI cannot believe that Moses had in his hands a couple of tables of\nstone, upon which God had written the Ten Commandments, and that when he\nsaw the golden calf, and the dancing, that he dashed the tables to the\nearth and broke them in pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a\ngolden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder, and made the people drink it\nwith water, as related in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus.\n\nThere is another account of the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses,\nin the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Exodus. In this account not\none word is said about the people having made a golden calf, nor about\nthe breaking of the tables of stone. In the thirty-fourth chapter of\nExodus, there is an account of the renewal of the broken tables of\nthe law, and the commandments are given, but they are not the same\ncommandments mentioned in the twentieth chapter. There are two accounts\nof the same transaction. Both of these stories cannot be true, and yet\nboth must be believed. Any one who will take the trouble to read\nthe nineteenth and twentieth chapters, and the last verse of the\nthirty-first chapter, the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth\nchapters of Exodus, will be compelled to admit that both accounts cannot\nbe true.\n\nFrom the last account it appears that while Moses was upon Mount Sinai\nreceiving the commandments from God, the people brought their jewelry\nto Aaron and he cast for them a golden calf. This happened before any\ncommandment against idolatry had been given. A god ought, certainly,\nto publish his laws before inflicting penalties for their violation. To\ninflict punishment for breaking unknown and unpublished laws is, in\nthe last degree, cruel and unjust. It may be replied that the Jews knew\nbetter than to worship idols, before the law was given. If this is so,\nwhy should the law have been given? In all civilized countries, laws are\nmade and promulgated, not simply for the purpose of informing the people\nas to what is right and wrong, but to inform them of the penalties to be\nvisited upon those who violate the laws. When the Ten Commandments\nwere given, no penalties were attached. Not one word was written on\nthe tables of stone as to the punishments that would be inflicted for\nbreaking any or all of the inspired laws. The people should not have\nbeen punished for violating a commandment before it was given. And yet,\nin this case, Moses commanded the sons of Levi to take their swords and\nslay every man his brother, his companion, and his neighbor. The brutal\norder was obeyed, and three thousand men were butchered.. The Levites\nconsecrated themselves unto the Lord by murdering their sons, and their\nbrothers, for having violated a commandment before it had been given.\n\nIt has been contended for many years that the Ten Commandments are the\nfoundation of all ideas of justice and of law. Eminent jurists have\nbowed to popular prejudice, and deformed their works by statements to\nthe effect that the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which sprang all\nideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly false than such\nassertions. Thousands of years before Moses was born, the Egyptians\nhad a code of laws. They had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery,\nlarceny, perjury, laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement\nof contracts, the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property\npawned, and upon nearly every subject of human interest. The Egyptian\ncode was far better than the Mosaic.\n\nLaws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. Industry objected\nto supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft. Laws were made\nagainst murder, because a very large majority of the people have always\nobjected to being murdered. All fundamental laws were born simply of the\ninstinct of self-defence. Long before the Jewish savages assembled at\nthe foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, not only in Egypt\nand India, but by every tribe that ever existed.\n\nIt is impossible for human beings to exist together, without certain\nrules of conduct, certain ideas of the proper and improper, of the right\nand wrong, growing out of the relation. Certain rules must be made,\nand must be enforced. This implies law, trial and punishment. Whoever\nproduces anything by weary labor, does not need a revelation from heaven\nto teach him that he has a right to the thing produced. Not one of\nthe learned gentlemen who pretend that the Mosaic laws are filled with\njustice and intelligence, would live, for a moment, in any country where\nsuch laws were in force.\n\nNothing can be more wonderful than the medical ideas of Jehovah. He\nhad the strangest notions about the cause and cure of disease. With\nhim everything was miracle and wonder. In the fourteenth chapter of\nLeviticus, we find the law for cleansing a leper:--\"Then shall the\npriest take for him that is to be cleansed, two birds, alive and clean,\nand cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command\nthat one of the birds be killed in an _earthen_ vessel, over _running_\nwater. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and\nthe scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them, and the living bird,\nin the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he\nshall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven\ntimes, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird\nloose into the open field.\"\n\nWe are told that God himself gave these directions to Moses. Does\nanybody believe this? Why should the bird be killed in an _earthen_\nvessel? Would the charm be broken if the vessel was of wood? Why over\n_running_ water? What would be thought of a physician now, who would\ngive a prescription like that?\n\nIs it not strange that God, although he gave hundreds of directions for\nthe purpose of discovering the presence of leprosy, and for cleansing\nthe leper after he was healed, forgot to tell how that disease could be\ncured? Is it not wonderful that while God told his people what animals\nwere fit for food, he failed to give a list of plants that man might\neat? Why did he leave his children to find out the hurtful and the\npoisonous by experiment, knowing that experiment, in millions of cases,\nmust be death?\n\nWhen reading the history of the Jewish people, of their flight from\nslavery to death, of their exchange of tyrants, I must confess that my\nsympathies are all aroused in their behalf. They were cheated,\ndeceived and abused. Their god was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel,\nrevengeful and dishonest. He was always promising but never performed.\nHe wasted time in ceremony and childish detail, and in the exaggeration\nof what he had done. It is impossible for me to conceive of a character\nmore utterly detestable than that of the Hebrew god. He had solemnly\npromised the Jews that he would take them from Egypt to a land flowing\nwith milk and honey. He had led them to believe that in a little while\ntheir troubles would be over, and that they would soon in the land of\nCanaan, surrounded by their wives and little ones, forget, the stripes\nand tears of Egypt. After promising the poor wanderers again and again\nthat he would lead them in safety to the promised land of joy and\nplenty, this God, forgetting every promise, said to the wretches in his\npower:--\"Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness and your children\nshall wander until your carcasses be wasted.\" This curse was the\nconclusion of the whole matter. Into this dust of death and night faded\nall the promises of God. Into this rottenness of wandering despair fell\nall the dreams of liberty and home. Millions of corpses were left to rot\nin the desert, and each one certified to the dishonesty of Jehovah. I\ncannot believe these things. They are so cruel and heartless, that my\nblood is chilled and my sense of justice shocked. A book that is equally\nabhorrent to my head and heart, cannot be accepted as a revelation from\nGod.\n\nWhen we think of the poor Jews, destroyed, murdered, bitten by serpents,\nvisited by plagues, decimated by famine, butchered by each other,\nswallowed by the earth, frightened, cursed, starved, deceived, robbed\nand outraged, how thankful we should be that we are not the chosen\npeople of God. No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and\nremembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they exchanged masters.\nCompared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was a benefactor, and the tyranny of\nEgypt was freedom to those who suffered the liberty of God.\n\nWhile reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indignation, pity and\nhorror. Nothing can be sadder than the history of the starved and\nfrightened wretches who wandered over the desolate crags and sands of\nwilderness and desert, the prey of famine, sword, and plague. Ignorant\nand superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood, plundered\nby hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests, and the food of fear. God\nwas their greatest enemy, and death their only friend.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful,\nand arrogant being, than the Jewish god. He is without a redeeming\nfeature. In the mythology of the world he has no parallel. He, only, is\nnever touched by agony and tears. He delights only in blood and pain.\nHuman affections are naught to him. He cares neither for love nor music,\nbeauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, hypocrite,\nand tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain, and revengeful, false in\npromise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, and changeable, infamous\nand hideous:--such is the God of the Pentateuch.\n\nXXIV. CONFESS AND AVOID\n\nThe scientific Christians now admit that the Bible is not inspired in\nits astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, nor in any science. In other\nwords, they admit that on these subjects, the Bible cannot be depended\nupon. If all the statements in the Scriptures were true, there would be\nno necessity for admitting that some of them are not inspired. A\nChristian will not admit that a passage in the Bible is uninspired,\nuntil he is satisfied that it is untrue. Orthodoxy itself has at last\nbeen compelled to say, that while a passage may be true and uninspired,\nit cannot be inspired if false.\n\nIf the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when\nthe Bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could\nhave been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of\nthe various parts of the Bible had known as much about the sciences as\nis now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have\nbeen written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and\ndefended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man\nhas gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the\nsettlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy\nconfess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice\nof authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now\nconsidered far better than the word of God. In the world of science,\nJehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God\ntold Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes\ncompared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In\nmatters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard.\nScience has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years\nago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the\nBible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to\nprove that the Bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has\nbeen changed.\n\nFor many ages, the Christians contended that the Bible, viewed simply as\na literary performance, was beyond all other books, and that man without\nthe assistance of God could not produce its equal. This claim was made\nwhen but few books existed, and the Bible, being the only book generally\nknown, had no rival. But this claim, like the other, has been abandoned\nby many, and soon will be, by all. Com pared with Shakespeare's \"book\nand volume of the brain,\" the \"sacred\" Bible shrinks and seems as feebly\nimpotent and vain, as would a pipe of Fan, when some great organ, voiced\nwith every tone, from the hoarse thunder of the sea to the winged warble\nof a mated bird, floods and fills cathedral aisles with all the wealth\nof sound.\n\nIt is now maintained--and this appears to be the last fortification\nbehind which the doctrine of inspiration skulks and crouches--that the\nBible, although false and mistaken in its astronomy, geology, geography,\nhistory and philosophy, is inspired in its morality. It is now claimed\nthat had it not been for this book, the world would have been inhabited\nonly by savages, and that had it not been for the Holy Scriptures, man\nnever would have even dreamed of the unity of God. A belief in one God\nis claimed to be a dogma of almost infinite importance, that with out\nthis belief civilization is impossible, and that this fact is the sun\naround which all the virtues revolve. For my part, I think it infinitely\nmore important to believe in man. Theology is a superstition--Humanity a\nreligion.\n\nXXV. \"INSPIRED\" SLAVERY\n\nPerhaps the Bible was inspired upon the subject of human slavery. Is\nthere, in the civilized world, to-day, a clergyman who believes in the\ndivinity of slavery? Does the Bible teach man to enslave his brother? If\nit does, is it not blasphemous to say that it is inspired of God? If\nyou find the institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been\nwritten by God, what would you expect to find in a book inspired by the\ndevil? Would you expect to find that book in favor of liberty? Modern\nChristians, ashamed of the God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to\nshow that slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah. Nothing\ncan be plainer than the following passages from the twenty-fifth chapter\nof Leviticus. \"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn\namong you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with\nyou, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.\nAnd ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to\ninherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever. Both\nthy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the\nheathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen, and\nbondmaids.\"\n\nCan we believe in this, the Nineteenth Century, that these infamous\npassages were inspired by God? that God approved not only of human\nslavery, but instructed his chosen people to buy the women, children and\nbabes of the heathen round about them? If it was right for the Hebrews\nto buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God, by\ncommanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling of sons and\ndaughters. The Canaanite who, tempted by gold, lured by avarice, sold\nfrom the arms of his wife the dimpled babe, simply made it possible for\nthe Hebrews to obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of\nthe Bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his cheeks with\nshame. I ask the Christian world to-day, was it right for the heathen\nto sell their children? Was it right for God not only to uphold, but to\ncommand the infamous traffic in human flesh? Could the most revengeful\nfiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink to a lower\nmoral depth than this?\n\nAccording to this God, his chosen people were not only commanded to buy\nof the heathen round about them, but were also permitted to buy each\nother for a term of years. The law governing the purchase of Jews is\nlaid down in the twenty-first chapter of Exodus. \"If thou buy a Hebrew\nservant, six years shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out\nfree for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself:\nif he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master\nhave given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the\nwife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by\nhimself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my\nwife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall\nbring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto\nthe door-post: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl:\nand he shall serve him forever.\"\n\nDo you believe that God was the author of this infamous law? Do you\nbelieve that the loving father of us all, turned the dimpled arms of\nbabes into manacles of iron? Do you believe that he baited the dungeon\nof servitude with wife and child? Is it possible to love a God who would\nmake such laws? Is it possible not to hate and despise him?\n\nThe heathen are not spoken of as human beings. Their rights are never\nmentioned. They were the rightful food of the sword, and their bodies\nwere made for stripes and chains.\n\nIn the same chapter of the same inspired book, we are told that, \"if a\nman smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies 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.\"\n\nMust we believe that God called some of his children the money of\nothers? Can we believe that God made lashes upon the naked back, a\nlegal tender for labor performed? Must we regard the auction block as an\naltar? Were blood hounds apostles? Was the slave-pen a temple? Were the\nstealers and whippers of babes and women the justified children of God?\n\nIt is now contended that while the Old Testament is touched with the\nbarbarism of its time, that the New Testament is morally perfect, and\nthat on its pages can be found no blot or stain. As a matter of fact,\nthe New Testament is more decidedly in favor of human slavery than the\nold.\n\nFor my part, I never will, I never can, worship a God who upholds the\ninstitution of slavery. Such a God I hate and defy. I neither want his\nheaven, nor fear his hell.\n\nXXXVI. \"INSPIRED\" MARRIAGE\n\nIs there an orthodox clergyman in the world, who will now declare that\nhe believes the institution of polygamy to be right? Is there one who\nwill publicly declare that, in his judgment, that institution ever was\nright? Was there ever a time in the history of the world when it was\nright to treat woman simply as property? Do not attempt to answer these\nquestions by saying, that the Bible is an exceedingly good book, that we\nare indebted for our civilization to the sacred volume, and that without\nit, man would lapse into savagery, and mental night. This is no answer.\nWas there a time when the institution of polygamy was the highest\nexpression of human virtue? Is there a Christian woman, civilized,\nintelligent, and free, who believes in the institution of polygamy? Are\nwe better, purer, and more intelligent than God was four thousand years\nago? Why should we imprison Mormons, and worship God? Polygamy is just\nas pure in Utah, as it could have been in the promised land. Love and\nVirtue are the same the whole world round, and Justice is the same in\nevery star. All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express\nthe filth of polygamy. It makes of man, a beast, of woman, a trembling\nslave. It destroys the fireside, makes virtue an outcast, takes from\nhuman speech its sweetest words, and leaves the heart a den, where crawl\nand hiss the slimy serpents of most loathsome lust. Civilization rests\nupon the family. The good family is the unit of good government. The\nvirtues grow about the holy hearth of home--they cluster, bloom, and\nshed their perfume round the fireside where the one man loves the one\nwoman. Lover--husband--wife--mother--father--child--home!--? without\nthese sacred words, the world is but a lair, and men and women merely\nbeasts.\n\nWhy should the innocent maiden and the loving mother worship the\nheartless Jewish God? Why should they, with pure and stainless lips,\nread the vile record of inspired lust?\n\nThe marriage of the one man to the one woman is the citadel and fortress\nof civilization. Without this, woman becomes the prey and slave of lust\nand power, and man goes back to savagery and crime. From the bottom of\nmy heart I hate, abhor and execrate all theories of life, of which the\npure and sacred home is not the corner-stone. Take from the world the\nfamily, the fireside, the children born of wedded love, and there is\nnothing left. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with\na heart of fire--the fairest flower in all the world.\n\nXXVII. \"INSPIRED\" WAR\n\nIf the Bible be true, God commanded his chosen people to destroy men\nsimply for the crime of defending their native land. They were not\nallowed to spare trembling and white-haired age, nor dimpled babes\nclasped in the mothers' arms. They were ordered to kill women, and to\npierce, with the sword of war, the unborn child. \"Our heavenly Father\"\ncommanded the Hebrews to kill the men and women, the fathers, sons and\nbrothers, but to preserve the girls alive. Why were not the maidens also\nkilled? Why were they spared? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers,\nand you will find that the maidens were given to the soldiers and the\npriests. Is there, in all the history of war, a more infamous thing than\nthis? Is it possible that God permitted the violets of modesty, that\ngrow and shed their perfume in the maiden's heart, to be trampled\nbeneath the brutal feet of lust? If this was the order of God, what,\nunder the same circumstances, would have been the command of a devil?\nWhen, in this age of the world, a woman, a wife, a mother, reads this\nrecord, she should, with scorn and loathing, throw the book away. A\ngeneral, who now should make such an order, giving over to massacre\nand rapine a conquered people, would be held in execration by the whole\ncivilized world. Yet, if the Bible be true, the supreme and infinite God\nwas once a savage.\n\nA little while ago, out upon the western plains, in a little path\nleading to a cabin, were found the bodies of two children and their\nmother. Her breast was filled with wounds received in the defence of her\ndarlings. They had been murdered by the savages. Suppose when looking at\ntheir lifeless forms, some one had said, \"This was done by the command\nof God!\" In Canaan there were countless scenes like this. There was\nno pity in inspired war. God raised the black flag, and commanded his\nsoldiers to kill even the smiling infant in its mother's arms. Who\nis the blasphemer; the man who denies the existence of God, or he who\ncovers the robes of the Infinite with innocent blood?\n\nWe are told in the Pentateuch, that God, the father of us all, gave\nthousands of maidens, after having killed their fathers, their mothers,\nand their brothers, to satisfy the brutal lusts of savage men. If there\nbe a God, I pray him to write in his book, opposite my name, that I\ndenied this lie for him.\n\nXXVIII. \"INSPIRED\" RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.\n\nAccording to the Bible, God selected the Jewish people through whom to\nmake known the great fact, that he was the only true and living God. For\nthis purpose, he appeared on several occasions to Moses--came down to\nSinai's top clothed in cloud and fire, and wrought a thousand miracles\nfor the preservation and education of the Jewish people. In their\npresence he opened the waters of the sea. For them he caused bread to\nrain from heaven. To quench their thirst, water leaped from the dry and\nbarren rock. Their enemies were miraculously destroyed; and for forty\nyears, at least, this God took upon himself the government of the Jews.\nBut, after all this, many of the people had less confidence in him than\nin gods of wood and stone. In moments of trouble, in periods of\ndisaster, in the darkness of doubt, in the hunger and thirst of famine,\ninstead of asking this God for aid, they turned and sought the help of\nsenseless things. This God, with all his power and wisdom, could not\neven convince a few wandering and wretched savages that he was more\npotent than the idols of Egypt. This God was not willing that the Jews\nshould think and investigate for themselves. For heresy, the penalty was\ndeath. Where this God reigned, intellectual liberty was unknown. He\nappealed only to brute force; he collected taxes by threatening plagues;\nhe demanded worship on pain of sword and fire; acting as spy,\ninquisitor, judge and executioner.\n\nIn the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, we have the ideas of God as to\nmental freedom. \"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or\nthe wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice\nthee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast\nnot known, thou nor thy fathers; namely of the gods of the people which\nare around about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one\nend of the earth even unto the other end of the earth, Thou shalt not\nconsent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity\nhim, neither shalt thou spare him, neither shalt thou conceal him. But\nthou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put\nhim to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou shalt\nstone him with stones that he die.\"\n\nThis is the religious liberty of God; the toleration of Jehovah. If\nI had lived in Palestine at that time, and my wife, the mother of my\nchildren, had said to me, \"I am tired of Jehovah, he is always asking\nfor blood; he is never weary of killing; he is always telling of his\nmight and strength; always telling what he has done for the Jews,\nalways asking for sacrifices; for doves and lambs--blood, nothing\nbut blood.--Let us worship the sun. Jehovah is too revengeful, too\nmalignant, too exacting. Let us worship the sun. The sun has clothed the\nworld in beauty; it has covered the earth with flowers; by its divine\nlight I first saw your face, and my beautiful babe.\"--If I had obeyed\nthe command of God, I would have killed her. My hand would have been\nfirst upon her, and after that the hands of all the people, and she\nwould have been stoned with stones until she died. For my part, I would\nnever kill my wife, even if commanded so to do by the real God of this\nuniverse. Think of taking up some ragged rock and hurling it against the\nwhite bosom filled with love for you; and when you saw oozing from\nthe bruised lips of the death wound, the red current of her sweet\nlife--think of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratulations of\nthe infinite fiend whose commandment you had obeyed!\n\nCan we believe that any such command was ever given by a merciful and\nintelligent God? Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the\nJews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or\nproposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose\nthat afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this\nvery chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon\nthe Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he\nhad sown? What right would this God have to complain of a crucifixion\nsuffered in accordance with his own command?\n\nNothing can be more infamous than intellectual tyranny. To put chains\nupon the body is as nothing compared with putting shackles on the brain.\nNo god is entitled to the worship or the respect of man who does not\ngive, even to the meanest of his children, every right that he claims\nfor himself.\n\nIf the Pentateuch be true, religious persecution is a duty. The dungeons\nof the Inquisition were temples, and the clank of every chain upon\nthe limbs of heresy was music in the ear of God. If the Pentateuch was\ninspired, every heretic should be destroyed; and every man who advocates\na fact inconsistent with the sacred book, should be consumed by sword\nand flame.\n\nIn the Old Testament no one is told to reason with a heretic, and not\none word is said about relying upon argument, upon education, nor upon\nintellectual development--nothing except simple brute force. Is there\nto-day a Christian who will say that four thousand years ago, it was\nthe duty of a husband to kill his wife if she differed with him upon\nthe subject of religion? Is there one who will now say that, under such\ncircumstances, the wife ought to have been killed? Why should God be so\njealous of the wooden idols of the heathen? Could he not compete with\nBaal? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian magicians? Was it\nnot possible for him to make such a convincing display of his power as\nto silence forever the voice of unbelief? Did this God have to resort to\nforce to make converts? Was he so ignorant of the structure of the human\nmind as to believe all honest doubt a crime? If he wished to do away\nwith the idolatry of the Canaanites, why did he not appear to them? Why\ndid he not give them the tables of the law? Why did he only make known\nhis will to a few wandering savages in the desert of Sinai? Will some\ntheologian have the kindness to answer these questions? Will some\nminister, who now believes in religious liberty, and eloquently\ndenounces the intolerance of Catholicism, explain these things; will he\ntell us why he worships an intolerant God? Is a god who will burn a soul\nforever in another world, better than a Christian who burns the body for\na few hours in this? Is there no intellectual liberty in heaven? Do the\nangels all discuss questions on the same side? Are all the investigators\nin perdition? Will the penitent thief, winged and crowned, laugh at the\nhonest folks in hell? Will the agony of the damned increase or decrease\nthe happiness of God? Will there be, in the universe, an eternal _auto\nda fe?_\n\nXXIX. CONCLUSION\n\nIf the Pentateuch is not inspired in its astronomy, geology, geography,\nhistory or philosophy, if it is not inspired concerning slavery,\npolygamy, war, law, religious or political liberty, or the rights of\nmen, women and children, what is it inspired in, or about? The unity\nof God?--that was believed long before Moses was born. Special\nprovidence?--that has been the doctrine of ignorance in all ages.\nThe rights of property?--theft was always a crime. The sacrifice of\nanimals?--that was a custom thousands of years before a Jew existed.\nThe sacredness of life?--there have always been laws against murder.\nThe wickedness of perjury?--truthfulness has always been a virtue.\nThe beauty of chastity?--the Pentateuch does not teach it. Thou shalt\nworship no other God?--that has been the burden of all religions.\n\nIs it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been written by\nuninspired men? that the assistance of God was necessary to produce\nthese books? Is it possible that Galileo ascertained the mechanical\nprinciples of \"Virtual Velocity,\" the laws of falling bodies and of all\nmotion; that Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and\naccounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler discovered his three\nlaws--discoveries of such importance that the 8th of May, 1618, may be\ncalled the birthday of modern science; that Newton gave to the world\nthe Method of Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the\nDecomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes, and Leibnitz,\nalmost completed the science of mathematics; that all the discoveries\nin optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and chemistry, the experiments,\ndiscoveries, and inventions of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of\nTrevethick, Watt and Fulton and of all the pioneers of progress--that\nall this was accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the\nPentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God? Is it possible\nthat the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece and Rome were made by man,\nand that the laws recorded in the Pentateuch were alone given by\nGod? Is it possible that AEschylus and Shakespeare, Burns, and Beranger,\nGoethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the world, and all their\nwondrous tragedies and songs, are but the work of men, while no\nintelligence except the infinite God could be the author of the\nPentateuch? Is it possible that of all the books that crowd the\nlibraries of the world, the books of science, fiction, history and song,\nthat all save only one, have been produced by man? Is it possible that\nof all these, the Bible only is the work of God?\n\nIf the Pentateuch is inspired, the civilization of our day is a mistake\nand crime. There should be no political liberty. Heresy should be\ntrodden out beneath the bigot's brutal feet. Husbands should divorce\ntheir wives at will, and make the mothers of their children houseless\nand weeping wanderers. Polygamy ought to be practiced; women should\nbecome slaves; we should buy the sons and daughters of the heathen and\nmake them bondmen and bondwomen forever. We should sell our own flesh\nand blood, and have the right to kill our slaves. Men and women should\nbe stoned to death for laboring on the seventh day. \"Mediums,\" such\nas have familiar spirits, should be burned with fire. Every vestige of\nmental liberty should be destroyed, and reason's holy torch extinguished\nin the martyr's blood.\n\nIs it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch while\ncontaining some good laws, some truths, some wise and useful things is,\nafter all, deformed and blackened by the savagery of its time? Is it not\nfar better and wiser to take the good and throw the bad away?\n\nLet us admit what we know to be true; that Moses was mistaken about a\nthousand things; that the story of creation is not true; that the Garden\nof Eden is a myth; that the serpent and the tree of knowledge, and the\nfall of man are but fragments of old mythologies lost and dead; that\nwoman was not made out of a rib; that serpents never had the power of\nspeech; that the sons of God did not marry the daughters of men; that\nthe story of the flood and ark is not exactly true; that the tower of\nBabel is a mistake; that the confusion of tongues is a childish thing;\nthat the origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy; that Methuselah did\nnot live nine hundred and sixty-nine years; that Enoch did not leave\nthis world, taking with him his flesh and bones; that the story of Sodom\nand Gomorrah is somewhat improbable; that burning brimstone never fell\nlike rain; that Lot's wife was not changed into chloride of sodium; that\nJacob did not, in fact, put his hip out of joint wrestling with God;\nthat the history of Tamar might just as well have been left out; that a\nbelief in Pharaoh's dreams is not essential to salvation; that it makes\nbut little difference whether the rod of Aaron was changed to a serpent\nor not; that of all the wonders said to have been performed in Egypt,\nthe greatest is, that anybody ever believed the absurd account; that\nGod did not torment the innocent cattle on account of the sins of their\nowners; that he did not kill the first born of the poor maid behind\nthe mill because of Pharaoh's crimes; that flies and frogs were not\nministers of God's wrath; that lice and locusts were not the executors\nof his will; that seventy people did not, in two hundred and fifteen\nyears, increase to three million; that three priests could not eat\nsix hundred pigeons in a day; that gazing at a brass serpent could not\nextract poison from the blood; that God did not go in partnership with\nhornets; that he did not murder people simply because they asked for\nsomething to eat; that he did not declare the making of hair oil\nand ointment an offence to be punished with death; that he did not\nmiraculously preserve cloth and leather; that he was not afraid of wild\nbeasts; that he did not punish heresy with sword and fire; that he was\nnot jealous, revengeful, and unjust; that he knew all about the sun,\nmoon, and stars; that he did not threaten to kill people for eating the\nfat of an ox; that he never told Aaron to draw cuts to see which of two\ngoats should be killed; that he never objected to clothes made of woolen\nmixed with linen; that if he objected to dwarfs, people with flat noses\nand too many fingers, he ought not to have created such folks; that\nhe did not demand human sacrifices as set forth in the last chapter\nof Leviticus; that he did not object to the raising of horses; that he\nnever commanded widows to spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law;\nthat several contradictory accounts of the same transaction cannot all\nbe true; that God did not talk to Abraham as one man talks to another;\nthat angels were not in the habit of walking about the earth eating veal\ndressed with milk and butter, and making bargains about the destruction\nof cities; that God never turned himself into a flame of fire, and lived\nin a bush; that he never met Moses in a hotel and tried to kill him;\nthat it was absurd to perform miracles to induce a king to act in a\ncertain way and then harden his heart so that he would refuse; that God\nwas not kept from killing the Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would\nlaugh at him; that he did not secretly bury a man and then allow the\ncorpse to write an account of the funeral; that he never believed the\nfirmament to be solid; that he knew slavery was and always would be a\nfrightful crime; that polygamy is but stench and filth; that the brave\nsoldier will always spare an unarmed foe; that only cruel cowards\nslay the conquered and the helpless; that no language can describe the\nmurderer of a smiling babe; that God did not want the blood of doves and\nlambs; that he did not love the smell of burning flesh; that he did not\nwant his altars daubed with blood; that he did not pretend that the sins\nof a people could be transferred to a goat; that he did not believe in\nwitches, wizards, spooks, and devils; that he did not test the virtue of\nwoman with dirty water; that he did not suppose that rabbits chewed the\ncud; that he never thought there were any four-footed birds; that he did\nnot boast for several hundred years that he had vanquished an Egyptian\nking; that a dry stick did not bud, blossom, and bear almonds in one\nnight; that manna did not shrink and swell, so that each man could\ngather only just one omer; that it was never wrong to \"countenance the\npoor man in his cause;\" that God never told a people not to live in\npeace with their neighbors; that he did not spend forty days with Moses\non Mount Sinai giving him patterns for making clothes, tongs, basins,\nand snuffers; that maternity is not a sin; that physical deformity is\nnot a crime; that an atonement cannot be made for the soul by shedding\ninnocent blood; that killing a dove over running water will not make its\nblood a medicine; that a god who demands love knows nothing of the human\nheart; that one who frightens savages with loud noises is unworthy the\nlove of civilized men; that one who destroys children on account of\nthe sins of their fathers is a monster; that an infinite god never\nthreatened to give people the itch; that he never sent wild beasts to\ndevour babes; that he never ordered the violation of maidens; that\nhe never regarded patriotism as a crime; that he never ordered the\ndestruction of unborn children; that he never opened the earth and\nswallowed wives and babes because husbands and fathers had displeased\nhim; that he never demanded that men should kill their sons and\nbrothers, for the purpose of sanctifying themselves; that we cannot\nplease God by believing the improbable; that credulity is not a virtue;\nthat investigation is not a crime; that every mind should be free;\nthat all religious persecution is infamous in God, as well as man; that\nwithout liberty, virtue is impossible; that without freedom, even love\ncannot exist; that every man should be allowed to think and to express\nhis thoughts; that woman is the equal of man; that children should be\ngoverned by love and reason; that the family relation is sacred; that\nwar is a hideous crime; that all intolerance is born of ignorance and\nhate; that the freedom of today is the hope of to-morrow; that the\nenlightened present ought not to fall upon its knees and blindly worship\nthe barbaric past; and that every free, brave and enlightened man should\npublicly declare that all the ignorant, infamous, heartless, hideous\nthings recorded in the \"inspired\" Pentateuch are not the words of God,\nbut simply \"Some Mistakes of Moses.\"\n\n\n\n\nSOME REASONS WHY\n\nI.\n\nRELIGION makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, \"religion,\"\ncovers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of\npersecution, of tyranny, and death. That one word brings to the mind\nevery instrument with which man has tortured man. In that one word are\nall the fagots and flames and dungeons of the past, and in that word is\nthe infinite and eternal hell of the future.\n\nIn the name of universal benevolence Christians have hated their\nfellow-men. Although they have been preaching universal love, the\nChristian nations are the warlike nations of the world. The most\ndestructive weapons of war have been invented by Christians. The\nmusket, the revolver, the rifled canon, the bombshell, the torpedo, the\nexplosive bullet, have been invented by Christian brains.\n\nAbove all other arts, the Christian world has placed the art of war.\n\nA Christian nation has never had the slightest respect for the rights of\nbarbarians; neither has any Christian sect any respect for the rights\nof other sects. Anciently, the sects discussed with fire and sword, and\neven now, something happens almost every day to show that the old spirit\nthat was in the Inquisition still slumbers in the Christian breast.\n\nWhoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in\ncontempt.\n\nWhenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is\nin that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of\nthe imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological\ncertainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself\nto be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the\nworst is a slave in power.\n\nWhen a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing\nto be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure\neternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides\nthe whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers,\ninto God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified\nand people who will be damned.\n\nA Christian nation can make no compromise with one not Christian; it\nwill either compel that nation to accept its doctrine, or it will wage\nwar. If Christ, in fact, said \"I came not to bring peace but a sword,\"\nit is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally\nfulfilled.\n\nII. DUTIES TO GOD.\n\nRELIGION is supposed to consist in a discharge of the duties we owe to\nGod. In other words, we are taught that God is exceedingly anxious that\nwe should believe a certain thing. For my part, I do not believe that\nthere is any infinite being to whom we owe anything. The reason I say\nthis is, we can not owe any duty to any being who requires nothing--to\nany being that we cannot possibly help, to any being whose happiness we\ncannot increase. If God is infinite, we cannot make him happier than\nhe is. If God is infinite, we can neither give, nor can he receive,\nanything. Anything that we do or fail to do, cannot, in the slightest\ndegree, affect an infinite God; consequently, no relations can exist\nbetween the finite and the Infinite, if by relations is meant mutual\nduties and obligations.\n\nSome tell us that it is the desire of God that we should worship him.\nWhat for? Why does he desire worship? Others tell us that we should\nsacrifice something to him. What for? Is he in want? Can we assist him?\nIs he unhappy? Is he in trouble? Does he need human sympathy? We cannot\nassist the Infinite, but we can assist our fellow-men. We can feed the\nhungry and clothe the naked, and enlighten the ignorant, and we can\nhelp, in some degree at least, toward covering this world with the\nmantle of joy.\n\nI do not believe there is any being in this universe who gives rain\nfor praise, who gives sunshine for prayer, or who blesses a man simply\nbecause he kneels.\n\nThe Infinite cannot receive praise or worship.\n\nThe Infinite can neither hear nor answer prayer.\n\nAn Infinite personality is an infinite impossibility.\n\nIII. INSPIRATION.\n\nWE are told that we have in our possession the inspired will of God. What\nis meant by the word \"inspired\" is not exactly known; but whatever else\nit may mean, certainly it means that the \"inspired\" must be the true. If\nit is true, there is, in fact, no need of its being inspired--the truth\nwill take care of itself.\n\nThe church is forced to say that the Bible differs from all other books;\nit is forced to say that it contains the actual will of God. Let us then\nsee what inspiration really is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea\nsays something to him. It makes an impression upon his mind. It awakens\nmemory, and this impression depends upon the man's experience--upon\nhis intellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a\ndifferent brain; he has had a different experience. The sea may speak\nto him of joy, to the other of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the\nsame thing to any two human beings, because no two human beings have had\nthe same experience.\n\nA year ago, while the cars were going from Boston to Gloucester, we\npassed through Manchester. As the cars stopped, a lady sitting opposite,\nspeaking to her husband, looking out of the window and catching, for the\nfirst time, a view of the sea, cried out, \"Is it not beautiful!\" and the\nhusband replied, \"I'll bet you could dig clams right here!\"\n\nAnother, standing upon the shore, listening to what the great Greek\ntragedian called \"the multitudinous laughter of the sea,\" may say: Every\ndrop has visited all the shores of the earth; every one has been frozen\nin the vast and icy North; every one has fallen in snow, has been\nwhirled by storms around mountain peaks; every one has been kissed to\nvapor by the sun; every one has worn the seven-hued garment of light;\nevery one has fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from springs and laughed\nin brooks while lovers wooed upon the banks, and every one has rushed\nwith mighty rivers back to the sea's embrace. Everything in nature tells\na different story to all eyes that see and to all ears that hear.\n\nOnce in my life, and once only, I heard Horace Greeley deliver a\nlecture. I think its title was, \"Across the Continent.\" At last he\nreached the mammoth trees of California, and I thought \"Here is an\nopportunity for the old man to indulge his fancy. Here are trees that\nhave outlived a thousand human governments. There are limbs above his\nhead older than the pyramids. While man was emerging from barbarism\nto something like civilization, these trees were growing. Older than\nhistory, every one appeared to be a memory, a witness, and a prophecy.\nThe same wind that filled the sails of the Argonauts had swayed these\ntrees.\" But these trees said nothing of this kind to Mr. Greeley. Upon\nthese subjects not a word was told to him. Instead, he took his pencil,\nand after figuring awhile, remarked: \"One of these trees, sawed into\ninch-boards, would make more than three hundred thousand feet of\nlumber.\"\n\nI was once riding on the cars in Illinois. There had been a violent\nthunder-storm. The rain had ceased, the sun was going down. The\ngreat clouds had floated toward the west, and there they assumed most\nwonderful architectural shapes. There were temples and palaces domed\nand turreted, and they were touched with silver, with amethyst and gold.\nThey looked like the homes of the Titans, or the palaces of the gods.\nA man was sitting near me. I touched him and said, \"Did you ever see\nanything so beautiful!\" He looked out. He saw nothing of the cloud,\nnothing of the sun, nothing of the color; he saw only the country and\nreplied, \"Yes, it is beautiful; I always did like rolling land.\" On\nanother occasion I was riding in a stage. There had been a snow, and\nafter the snow a sleet, and all the trees were bent, and all the boughs\nwere arched. Every fence, every log cabin had been transfigured, touched\nwith a glory almost beyond this world. The great fields were a pure and\nperfect white; the forests, drooping beneath their load of gems, made\nwonderful caves, from which one almost expected to see troops of fairies\ncome. The whole world looked like a bride, jewelled from head to foot.\nA German on the back seat, hearing our talk, and our exclamations of\nwonder leaned forward, looked out of the stage window and said: \"Yes, it\nlooks like a clean table cloth!\"\n\nSo, when we look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or a\nviolet, the more we know, the more we have experienced, the more we\nhave thought, the more we remember, the more the statue, the star,\nthe painting, the violet has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am\ncapable of understanding--gives all that I can receive.\n\nAs with star, or flower, or sea, so with a book. A man reads\nShakespeare. What does he get from him? All that he has the mind to\nunderstand. He gets his little cup full. Let another read him who knows\nnothing of the drama, nothing of the impersonations of passion, and what\ndoes he get? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a different story for each\nreader. He is a world in which each recognizes his acquaintances--he may\nknow a few, he may know all.\n\nThe impression that nature makes upon the mind, the stories told by sea\nand star and flower, must be the natural food of thought. Leaving out\nfor the moment the impression gained from ancestors, the hereditary\nfears and drifts and trends--the natural food of thought must be the\nimpression made upon the brain by coming in contact through the medium\nof the five senses with what we call the outward world. The brain is\nnatural. Its food is natural. The result, thought, must be natural. The\nsupernatural can be constructed with no material except the natural. Of\nthe supernatural we can have no conception. Thought may be deformed, and\nthe thought of one may be strange to, and denominated as unnatural\nby, another; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be weak, it may be\ninsane, but it is not supernatural. Above the natural man cannot rise,\neven with the aid of fancy's wings. There can can be deformed ideas,\nas there are deformed persons. There can be religions monstrous and\nmisshapen, but they must be naturally produced. Some people have ideas\nabout what they are pleased to call the supernatural; but what they\ncall the supernatural is simply the deformed. The world is to each man\naccording to each man. It takes the world as it really is and that man\nto make that man's world, and that man's world cannot exist without that\nman.\n\nYou may ask, and what of all this? I reply, as with everything in\nnature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is\nthen the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It\nis. Can God then, through the Bible, make the same revelation to two\npersons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads it is the man who\ninspires. Inspiration is in the man, as well as in the book. God should\nhave inspired readers as well as writers.\n\nYou may reply: \"God knew that his book would be understood differently\nby each one, and that he really intended that it should be understood as\nit is understood by each.\" If this is so, then my understanding of the\nBible is the real revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right to\ntake the understanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me\nthrough my understanding, and by that revelation I must stand. Suppose\nthen, that I do read this Bible honestly, fairly, and when I get through\nI am compelled to say, \"The book is not true.\" If this is the honest\nresult, then you are compelled to say, either that God has made no\nrevelation to me, or that the revelation that it is not true, is the\nrevelation made to me, and by which I am bound. If the book and my brain\nare both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the\nbook and the brain do not agree? Either God should have written a book\nto fit my brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book.\n\nThe inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of him who\nreads. There was a time when its geology, its astronomy, its natural\nhistory, were inspired. That time has passed. There was a time when\nits morality satisfied the men who ruled mankind. That time has passed.\nThere was a time when the tyrant regarded its laws as good; when the\nmaster believed in its liberty; when strength gloried in its passages;\nbut these laws never satisfied the oppressed, they were never quoted by\nthe slave.\n\nWe have a sacred book, an inspired Bible, and I am told that this book\nwas written by the same being who made every star, and who peopled\ninfinite space with infinite worlds. I am also told that God created\nman, and that man is totally depraved. It has always seemed to me that\nan infinite being has no right to make imperfect things. I may be\nmistaken; but this is the only planet I have ever been on; I live in\nwhat might be called one of the rural districts of this universe,\nconsequently I may be mistaken; I simply give the best and largest\nthought I have.\n\nIV. GOD'S EXPERIMENT WITH THE JEWS\n\nTHE Bible tells us that men became so bad that God destroyed them all\nwith the exception of eight persons; that afterwards he chose Abraham\nand some of his kindred, a wandering tribe, for the purpose of seeing\nwhether or no they could be civilized. He had no time to waste with all\nthe world. The Egyptians at that time, a vast and splendid nation,\nhaving a system of laws and free schools, believing in the marriage of\nthe one man to the one woman; believing, too, in the rights of woman--a\nnation that had courts of justice and understood the philosophy of\ndamages--these people had received no revelation from God,--they were\nleft to grope in Nature's night. He had no time to civilize India,\nwherein had grown a civilization that fills the world with wonder\nstill--a people with a language as perfect as ours, a people who had\nproduced philosophers, scientists, poets. He had no time to waste on\nthem; but he took a few, the tribe of Abraham. He established a perfect\ndespotism--with no schools, with no philosophy, with no art, with no\nmusic--nothing but the sacrifices of dumb beasts--nothing but the abject\nworship of a slave. Not a word upon geology, upon astronomy; nothing,\neven, upon the science of medicine. Thus God spent hours and hours with\nMoses upon the top of Sinai, giving directions for ascertaining the\npresence of leprosy and for preventing its spread, but it never occurred\nto Jehovah to tell Moses how it could be cured. He told them a few\nthings about what they might eat--prohibiting among other things\nfour-footed birds, and one thing upon the subject of cooking. From the\nthunders and lightnings of Sinai he proclaimed this vast and wonderful\nfact: \"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.\" He took these\npeople, according to our sacred Scriptures, under his immediate care,\nand for the purpose of controlling them he wrought wonderful miracles in\ntheir sight.\n\nIs it not a little curious that no priest of one religion has ever been\nable to astonish a priest of another religion by telling a miracle? Our\nmissionaries tell the Hindoos the miracles of the Bible, and the Hindoo\npriests, without the movement of a muscle, hear them and then recite\ntheirs, and theirs do not astonish our missionaries in the least! Is it\nnot a little curious that the priests of one religion never believe the\npriests of another? Is it not a little strange that the believers\nin sacred books regard all except their own as having been made by\nhypocrites and fools?\n\nI heard the other day a story. A gentleman was telling some wonderful\nthings and the listeners, with one exception, were saying, as he\nproceeded with his tale, \"Is it possible?\" \"Did you ever hear anything\nso wonderful?\" and when he had concluded, there was a kind of chorus\nof \"Is it possible?\" and \"Can it be?\" One man, however, sat perfectly\nquiet, utterly unmoved. Another listener said to him \"Did you hear\nthat?\" and he replied \"Yes.\" \"Well,\" said the other, \"You did not\nmanifest much astonishment.\" \"Oh, no,\" was the answer, \"I am a liar\nmyself.\"\n\nI am told by the sacred Scriptures that, as a matter of fact, God, even\nwith the help of miracles, failed to civilize the Jews, and this shows\nof how little real benefit, after all, it is, to have a ruler much above\nthe people, or to simply excite the wonder of mankind. Infinite wisdom,\nif the account be true, could not civilize a single tribe. Laws made by\nJehovah himself were not obeyed, and every effort of Jehovah failed.\nIt is claimed that God made known his law and inspired men to write\nand teach his will, and yet, it was found utterly impossible to reform\nmankind.\n\nV. CIVILIZED COUNTRIES\n\nIN all civilized countries, it is now passionately asserted that slavery\nis a crime; that a war of conquest is murder; that polygamy enslaves\nwoman, degrades man and destroys home; that nothing is more infamous\nthan the slaughter of decrepit men, of helpless mothers, and of\nprattling babes; that captured maidens should not be given to their\ncaptors; that wives should not be stoned to death for differing with\ntheir husbands on the subject of religion. We know that there was\na time, in the history of most nations, when all these crimes were\nregarded as divine institutions. Nations entertaining this view now are\nregarded as savage, and, with the exception of the South Sea Islanders,\nFeejees, a few tribes in Central Africa, and some citizens of Delaware,\nno human beings are found degraded enough to agree upon these subjects\nwith Jehovah.\n\nThe only evidence we can have that a nation has ceased to be savage, is\nthat it has abandoned these doctrines of savagery.\n\nTo every one except a theologian, it is easy to account for these\nmistakes and crimes by saying that civilization is a painful growth;\nthat the moral perceptions are cultivated through ages of tyranny, of\ncrime, and of heroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the\neyes of self and hold in lofty and in equal poise the golden scales\nof Justice. Conscience is born of suffering. Mercy is the child of\nthe imagination. Man advances as he becomes acquainted with his\nsurroundings, with the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take\nadvantage of the forces of nature.\n\nThe believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to say, that\nthere was a time when slavery was right, when women could sell their\nbabes, when polygamy was the highest form of virtue, when wars of\nextermination 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 is compelled to insist that Jehovah is\nas bad now as he was then; that he is as good now as he was then. Once,\nall the crimes that I have mentioned were commanded by God; now they are\nprohibited. Once, God was in favor of them all; now the Devil is their\ndefender. In other words, the Devil entertains the same opinion to-day\nthat God held four thousand years ago. The Devil is as good now as\nJehovah was then, and God was as bad then as the Devil is now. Other\nnations besides the Jews had similar laws and ideas--believed in and\npracticed the same crimes, and yet, it is not claimed that they received\na revelation. They had no knowledge of the true God, and yet they\npracticed the same crimes, of their own motion, that the Jews did by\ncommand of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man can do wrong\nwithout a special revelation.\n\nThe passages upholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution\nare certainly not evidences of the inspiration of that book. Suppose\nnothing had been in the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would\nthe modern Christian suspect that it was not inspired on that account?\nSuppose nothing had been in the Old Testament except laws in favor of\nthese crimes, would it still be insisted that it was inspired? If the\nDevil had inspired a book, will some Christian tell us in what respect,\non the subjects of slavery, polygamy, war and liberty, it would have\ndiffered from some parts of the Old Testament? Suppose we knew\nthat after inspired men had finished the Bible the Devil had gotten\npossession of it and had written a few passages, what part would\nChristians now pick out as being probably his work? Which of the\nfollowing passages would be selected as having been written by the\nDevil: \"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\" or \"Kill all the males among the\nlittle ones, and kill every woman, but all the women children keep alive\nfor yourselves\"?\n\nIs there a believer in the Bible who does not now wish that God, amid\nthe thunders and lightnings of Sinai, had said to Moses that man should\nnot own his fellow-man; that women should not sell their babes; that all\nmen should be allowed to think and investigate for themselves, and that\nthe sword never should be unsheathed to shed innocent blood? Is there\na believer who would not be delighted to find that every one of the\ninfamous passages are interpolations, and that the skirts of God were\nnever reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe? Is there an honest\nman who does not regret that God commanded a husband to stone his wife\nfor suggesting the worship of some other God? Surely we do not need\nan inspired book to teach us that slavery is right, that polygamy is\nvirtue, and that intellectual liberty is a crime.\n\nVI. A COMPARISON OF BOOKS\n\nLET us compare the gems of Jehovah with Pagan paste. It may be that\nthe best way to illustrate what I have said, is to compare the supposed\nteachings of Jehovah with those of persons who never wrote an inspired\nline. In all ages of which any record has been preserved, men have given\ntheir ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love and law. If the Bible is\nthe work of God, it should contain the sublimest truths, it should excel\nthe works of man, it should contain the loftiest definitions of justice,\nthe best conceptions of human liberty, the clearest outlines of duty,\nthe tenderest and noblest thoughts. Upon every page should be found the\nluminous evidence of its divine origin. It should contain grander and\nmore wonderful things than man has written.\n\nIt may be said that it is unfair to call attention to bad things in the\nBible. To this it may be replied that a divine being ought not to put\nbad things in his book. If the Bible now upholds what we call crimes,\nit will not do to say that it is not verbally inspired. If the words are\nnot inspired, what is? It may be said, that the thoughts are inspired.\nThis would include only thoughts expressed without words. If ideas are\ninspired, they must be expressed by inspired words--that is to say, by\nan inspired arrangement of words. If a sculptor were inspired of God to\nmake a statue, we would not say that the marble was inspired, but\nthe statue--that is to say, the relation of part to part, the married\nharmony of form and function. The language, the words, take the place of\nthe marble, and it is the arrangement of the words that Christians claim\nto be inspired. If there is an uninspired word, or a word in the wrong\nplace, until that word is known a doubt is cast on every word the book\ncontains.\n\nIf it was worth God's while to make a revelation at all, it was\ncertainly worth his while to see that it was correctly made--that it was\nabsolutely preserved.\n\nWhy should God allow an inspired book to be interpolated? If it was\nworth while to inspire men to write it, it was worth while to\ninspire men to preserve it; and why should he allow another person to\ninterpolate in it that which was not inspired? He certainly would not\nhave allowed the man he inspired to write contrary to the inspiration.\nHe should have preserved his revelation. Neither will it do to say that\nGod adapted his revelation to the prejudices of man. It was necessary\nfor him to adapt his revelation to the capacity of man, but certainly\nGod would not confirm a barbarian in his prejudices. He would not\nfortify a heathen in his crimes....\n\nIf a revelation is of any importance, it is to eradicate prejudice.\nThey tell us now that the Jews were so ignorant, so bad, that God was\ncompelled to justify their crimes, in order to have any influence\nwith them. They say that if he had declared slavery and polygamy to be\ncrimes, the Jews would have refused to receive the Ten Commandments.\nThey tell us that God did the best he could; that his real intention was\nto lead them along slowly, so that in a few hundred years they would be\ninduced to admit that larceny and murder and polygamy and slavery were\nnot virtues. I suppose if we now wished to break a cannibal of the bad\nhabit of devouring missionaries, we would first induce him to cook\nthem in a certain way, saying: \"To eat cooked missionary is one step\nin advance of eating your missionary raw. After a few years, a little\nmutton could be cooked with missionary, and year after year the amount\nof mutton could be increased and the amount of missionary decreased,\nuntil in the fullness of time the dish could be entirely mutton, and\nafter that the missionaries would be absolutely safe.\"\n\nIf there is anything of value, it is liberty--liberty of body, liberty\nof mind. The liberty of body is the reward of labor. Intellectual\nliberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of the mind, and without\nit, the world is a prison, the universe a 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 bondmen\nand bondmaids.\" 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:\n\"And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under\nhis hand, he shall be sorely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue\na day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\" And yet\nZeno, founder 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.\n\nJehovah ordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others,\nthis command: \"When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou\nshalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant\nwith them, nor show mercy unto them.\" And yet Epictetus, whom we have\nalready quoted, gave this marvelous rule for the guidance of human\nconduct: \"Live with thy inferiors as thou wouldst have thy superiors\nlive with thee.\"\n\nIs it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and wisdom\nsaid: \"I will heap mischief upon them; I will send mine arrows upon\nthem; they shall be burned with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,\nand with bitter destruction. I will send the tooth of beasts upon 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 gray 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 fulfill it perfectly.\"\n\nCan we believe that God ever said to 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 labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let\nthere be any to favor his fatherless children.\" If he ever said these\nwords, surely he had never heard this line, this strain of music from\nthe Hindu: \"Sweet is the lute to those who have not heard the prattle of\ntheir own children.\"\n\nJehovah, \"from the clouds and darkness of Sinai,\" said to the Jews:\n\"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.... Though shalt not bow down\nthyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous\nGod, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the\nthird and fourth generation of them that hate me.\" Contrast this with\nthe words 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 partakest of all worship, and I am the reward of all\nworshipers.\"\n\nCompare these passages; the first a dungeon where crawl the things begot\nof jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with\nsuns. Is it possible that the real God ever said:\n\n\"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the\nLord, have deceived that prophet; and I will stretch out my hand upon\nhim and will destroy him from the midst of my people.\" Compare that\npassage with one from a Pagan.\n\n\"It is better to keep silence for the remainder of your life than to\nspeak falsely.\"\n\nCan we believe that a being of infinite mercy gave this command:\n\n\"Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to\ngate, throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man\nhis companion, and every man his neighbor; consecrate yourselves to-day\nto the Lord, even every man upon his son and upon his brother, that he\nmay bestow a blessing upon you this day.\"\n\nSurely, that God was not animated by so great and magnanimous a spirit\nas was Antoninus, a Roman emperor, who declared that, \"he had rather\nkeep a single Roman citizen alive than slay a thousand enemies.\"\n\nCompare the laws given to the children of Israel, as it is claimed by\nthe Creator of us all, with the following from Marcus Aurelius:\n\n\"I have formed the ideal of a state, in which there is the same law\nfor all, and equal rights, and equal liberty of speech established; an\nempire where nothing is honored so much as the freedom of the citizen.\"\n\nIn the Avesta I find this: \"I belong to five: to those who think good,\nto those who speak good, to those who do good, to those who hear, and to\nthose who are pure.\"\n\n\"Which is the one prayer which in greatness, goodness, and beauty is\nworth all that is between heaven and earth and between this earth and\nthe stars? And he replied: To renounce all evil thoughts and words and\nworks.\"\n\nVII.\n\nIT is claimed by the Christian world that one of the great reasons for\ngiving an inspired book to the Jews was, that through them the world\nmight learn that there is but one God. This piece of information has\nbeen supposed to be of infinite value. As a matter of fact, long before\nMoses was born, the Egyptians believed and taught that there was but\none God--that is to say, that above all intelligences there was the one\nSupreme. They were guilty, too, of the same inconsistencies of modern\nChristians. They taught the doctrine of the Trinity--God the Father, God\nthe Mother, and God the Son. God was frequently represented as father,\nmother and babe. They also taught that the soul had a divine origin;\nthat after death it was to be judged according to the deeds done in the\nbody; that those who had done well passed into perpetual joy, and those\nwho had done evil into endless pain. In this they agreed with the most\napproved divine of the nineteenth century. Women were the equals of\nmen, and Egypt was often governed by queens. In this, her government\nwas vastly better than the one established by God. The laws were\nadministered by courts much like ours. In Egypt there was a system of\nschools that gave the son of poverty a chance of advancement, and\nthe highest offices were open to the successful scholar. The Egyptian\nmarried one wife. The wife was called \"the lady of the house.\" The women\nwere not secluded. The people were not divided into castes. There was\nnothing to prevent the rise of able and intelligent Egyptians. But like\nthe Jehovah of the Jews, they made slaves of the captives of war.\n\nThe ancient Persians believed in one God; and women helped to found the\nParsee religion. Nothing can exceed some of the maxims of Zoroaster. The\nHindoos taught that above all, and over all, was one eternal Supreme.\nThey had a code of laws. They understood the philosophy of evidence and\nof damages. They knew better than to teach the doctrine of an eye for an\neye, and a tooth for a tooth.\n\nThey knew that when one man maimed another, it was not to the interest\nof society to have that man maimed, thus burdening the people with two\ncripples, but that it was better to make the man who maimed the other\nwork to support him. In India, upon the death of a father, the daughters\nreceived twice as much from the estate as the sons.\n\nThe Romans built temples to Truth, Faith, Valor, Concord, Modesty, and\nCharity, in which they offered sacrifices to the highest conceptions of\nhuman excellence. Women had rights; they presided in the temple; they\nofficiated in holy offices; they guarded the sacred fires upon which the\nsafety of Rome depended; and when Christ came, the grandest figure in\nthe known world was the Roman mother.\n\nIt will not do to say that some rude statue was made by an inspired\nsculptor, and that the Apollo of Belvidere, Venus de Milo, and the\nGladiator were made by unaided men; that the daubs of the early ages\nwere painted by divine assistance, while the Raphaels, the Angelos, and\nthe Rembrandts did what they did without the help of heaven. It will not\ndo to say, that the first hut was built by God, and the last palace by\ndegraded man; that the hoarse songs of the savage tribes were made by\nthe Deity, but that Hamlet and Lear were written by man; that the pipes\nof Pan were invented in heaven, and all other musical instruments on the\nearth.\n\nIf the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a\nman among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his\nown teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a\nbeater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would\nhave killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his\nsword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and\nwould have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of\nreligion.\n\nVIII. THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nNE great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to have been\ncommanded by God. All these cruelties ceased with death. The vengeance\nof Jehovah stopped at the tomb. He never threatened to punish the dead;\nand there is not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last\ncurse of Malachi, containing the slightest intimation that God will take\nhis revenge in another world. It was reserved for the New Testament\nto make known the doctrine of eternal pain. The teacher of universal\nbenevolence rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the\nhorrified gaze of man upon the lurid gulf of hell. Within the breast of\nnon-resistance coiled the worm that never dies. Compared with this,\nthe doctrine of slavery, the wars of extermination, the curses, the\npunishments of the Old Testament were all merciful and just.\n\nThere is no time to speak of the conflicting statements in the various\nbooks composing the New Testament--no time to give the history of the\nmanuscripts, the errors in translation, the interpolations made by the\nfathers and by their successors, the priests, and only time to speak of\na few objections, including some absurdities and some contradictions.\n\nWhere several witnesses testify to the same transaction, no matter how\nhonest they may be, they will disagree upon minor matters, and such\ntestimony is generally considered as evidence that the witnesses\nhave not conspired among themselves. The differences in statement are\naccounted for from the facts that all do not see alike, and that all\nhave not equally good memories; but when we claim that the witnesses are\ninspired, we must admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what\noccurred, and consequently there should be no disagreement, even in the\nminutest detail. The accounts should not only be substantially, but they\nshould be actually, the same. The differences and contradictions can be\naccounted for by the weaknesses of human nature, but these weaknesses\ncannot be predicated of divine wisdom.\n\nAnd here let me ask: Why should there have been more than one correct\naccount of what really happened? Why were four gospels necessary? It\nseems to me that one inspired gospel, containing all that happened, was\nenough. Copies of the one correct one could have been furnished to any\nextent. According to Doctor Davidson, Irenaeus argues that the gospels\nwere four in number, because there are four universal winds, four\ncorners of the globe. Others have said, because there are four seasons;\nand these gentlemen might have added, because a donkey has four legs.\nFor my part, I cannot even conceive of a reason for more than one\ngospel.\n\nAccording to one of these gospels, and according to the prevalent\nChristian belief, the Christian religion rests upon the doctrine of the\natonement. If this doctrine is without foundation, the fabric falls; and\nit is without foundation, for it is repugnant to justice and mercy.\nThe church tells us that the first man committed a crime for which all\nothers are responsible. This absurdity was the father and mother of\nanother--that a man can be rewarded for the good action of another. We\nare told that God made a law, with the penalty of eternal death. All\nmen, they tell us, have broken this law. The law had to be vindicated.\nThis could be done by damning everybody, but through what is known as\nthe atonement the salvation of a few was made possible. They insist that\nthe law demands the extreme penalty, that justice calls for its victim,\nthat mercy ceases to plead, and that God by allowing the innocent to\nsuffer in the place of the guilty settled satisfactory with the law. To\ncarry out this scheme God was born as a babe, grew in stature, increased\nin knowledge, and at the age of thirty-three years having lived a life\nfilled with kindness, having practiced every virtue, he was sacrificed\nas an atonement for man. It is claimed that he took our place, bore our\nsins, our guilt, and in this way satisfied the justice of God.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation there was no remission of sin except\nthrough the shedding of blood. When a man sinned he must bring to the\npriest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a pair of turtle-doves.\n\nThe priest would lay his hand upon the animal and the sin of the man\nwould be transferred to the beast. Then the animal would be killed in\nplace of the sinner, and the blood thus shed would be sprinkled upon\nthe altar. In this way Jehovah was satisfied. The greater the crime, the\ngreater the sacrifice. There was a ratio between the value of the animal\nand the enormity of the sin.\n\nThe most minute directions were given as to the killing of\nthese animals. Every priest became a butcher, every synagogue a\nslaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking to a refined\nsoul, nothing better calculated to harden the heart, than the continual\nshedding of innocent blood. This terrible system culminated in the\nsacrifice of Christ. His blood took the place of all other. It is not\nnecessary to shed any more. The law at last is satisfied, satiated,\nsurfeited.\n\nThe idea that God wants blood is at the bottom of the atonement, and\nrests upon the most fearful savagery; and yet the Mosaic dispensation\nwas better adapted to prevent the commission of sin than the Christian\nsystem. Under that dispensation, if you committed a sin, you had\nto bring a sacrifice--dove, sheep, or bullock, now, when a sin is\ncommitted, the Christian says, \"Charge it,\" \"Put it on the slate, If\nI don't pay it the Savior will.\" In this way, rascality is sold on a\ncredit, and the credit system of religion breeds extravagance in sin.\nThe Mosaic dispensation was based upon far better business principles.\nThe debt had to be paid, and by the man who owed it. We are told that\nthe sinner is in debt to God, and that the obligation is discharged by\nthe Savior. The best that can be said of such a transaction is that the\ndebt is transferred, not paid. As a matter of fact, the sinner is in\ndebt to the person he has injured. If you injure a man, it is not enough\nto get the forgiveness of God--you must get the man's forgiveness, you\nmust get your own. If a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives\nhim, his hand will smart just as badly. You must reap what you sow. No\nGod can give you wheat when you sow tares, and no Devil can give you\ntares when you sow wheat. We must remember that in nature there are\nneither rewards nor punishments--there are consequences. The life and\ndeath of Christ do not constitute an atonement. They are worth the\nexample, the moral force, the heroism of benevolence, and in so far as\nthe life of Christ produces emulation in the direction of goodness, it\nhas been of value to mankind.\n\nTo make innocence suffer is the greatest sin, and it may be the only\nsin. How, then, is it possible to make the consequences of sin an\natonement for sin, when the consequences of sin are to be borne by one\nwho has not sinned, and the one who has sinned is to reap the reward of\nvirtue? No honorable man should be willing that another should suffer\nfor him. No good law can accept the sufferings of innocence as an\natonement for the guilty; and besides, if there was no atonement until\nthe crucifixion of Christ, what became of the countless millions who\ndied before that time? We must remember that the Jews did not kill\nanimals for the Gentiles. Jehovah hated foreigners. There was no way\nprovided for the forgiveness of a heathen. What has become of the\nmillions who have died since, without having heard of the atonement?\nWhat becomes of those who hear and do not believe? Can there be a law\nthat demands that the guilty be rewarded. And yet, to reward the guilty\nis far nearer justice than to punish the innocent. If the doctrine of\nthe atonement is true, there would have been no heaven had no atonement\nbeen made.\n\nIf Judas had understood the Christian system, if he knew that Christ\nmust be betrayed, and that God was depending on him to betray him, and\nthat without the betrayal no human soul could be saved, what should\nJudas have done?\n\nJehovah took special charge of the Jewish people. He did this for the\npurpose of civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing them,\nhe would have made the damnation of the entire human race a certainty;\nbecause if the Jews had been a civilized people when Christ appeared--a\npeople who had not been hardened by the laws of Jehovah--they would not\nhave crucified Christ, and as a consequence, the world would have been\nlost. If the Jews had believed in religious freedom, in the rights of\nthought and speech, if the Christian religion is true, not a human soul\never could have been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary,\nsome brave soul had rescued him from the pious mob, he would not only\nhave been damned for his pains, but would have rendered impossible the\nsalvation of any human being.\n\nThe Christian world has been trying for nearly two thousand years to\nexplain the atonement, and every effort has ended in an admission that\nit cannot be understood, and a declaration that it must be believed. Has\nthe promise and hope of forgiveness ever prevented the commission of\na sin? Can men be made better by being taught that sin gives happiness\nhere; that to live a virtuous life is to bear a cross; that men can\nrepent between the last sin and the last breath; and that repentance\nwashes every stain of the soul away? Is it good to teach that the\nserpent of regret will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the saved\nwill not even pity the victims of their crimes; and that sins forgiven\ncease to affect the unhappy wretches sinned against?\n\nAnother objection is, that a certain belief is necessary to save the\nsoul. This doctrine, I admit, is taught in the gospel according to John,\nand in many of the epistles; I deny that it is taught in Matthew, Mark,\nor Luke. It is, however, asserted by the church that to believe is the\nonly safe way. To this, I reply: Belief is not a voluntary thing. A man\nbelieves or disbelieves in spite of himself. They tell us that to\nbelieve is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest.\nNothing can be safer than that. No man in the hour of death ever\nregretted having been honest. No man when the shadows of the last day\nwere gathering about the pillow of death, ever regretted that he had\ngiven to his fellow-man his honest thought. No man, in the presence of\neternity, ever wished that he had been a hypocrite. No man ever then\nregretted that he did not throw away his reason. It certainly cannot be\nnecessary to throw away your reason to save your soul, because after\nthat, your soul is not worth saving. The soul has a right to defend\nitself. My brain is my castle; and when I waive the right to defend it,\nI become an intellectual serf and slave.\n\nI do not admit that a man by doing me an injury can place me under\nobligations to do him a service. To render benefits for injuries is\nto ignore all distinctions between actions. He who treats friends and\nenemies alike has neither love nor justice. The idea of non-resistance\nnever occurred to a man with power to defend himself. The mother of this\ndoctrine was weakness. To allow a crime to be committed, even against\nyourself, when you can prevent it, is next to committing the crime\nyourself. The church has preached the doctrine of non-resistance, and\nunder that banner has shed the blood of millions. In the folds of\nher sacred vestments have gleamed for centuries the daggers of\nassassination. With her cunning hands she wove the purple for hypocrisy\nand placed the crown upon the brow of crime. For more than a thousand\nyears larceny held the scales of justice, hypocrisy wore the mitre and\ntiara, while beggars scorned the royal sons of toil, and ignorant fear\ndenounced the liberty of thought.\n\nXI. CHRIST'S MISSION.\n\nHE came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal?\n\"Love thy neighbor as thyself\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Love\nGod with all thy heart\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Return good for\nevil\"? That was said by Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ was\nborn. \"Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you\"? That\nwas the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action?\nZoroaster had done this long before: \"Whenever thou art in doubt as to\nwhether an action is good or bad, abstain from it.\" Did he come to tell\nus of another world? The immortality of the soul had been taught by the\nHindoos, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before he was\nborn. What argument did he make in favor of immortality? What facts\ndid he furnish? What star of hope did he put above the darkness of\nthis world? Did he come simply to tell us that we should not revenge\nourselves upon our enemies? Long before, Socrates had said: \"One who\nis injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be\nright to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to\ndo evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him.\" And Cicero\nhad said: \"Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry\nwith our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing\nis so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as\nclemency and readiness to forgive.\" Is there anything in the literature\nof the world more nearly perfect than this thought?\n\nWas it from Christ the world learned the first lesson of forbearance,\nwhen centuries and centuries before, Chrishna had said, \"If a man strike\nthee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him\nagain?\" Is it possible that the son of God threatened to say to a vast\nmajority, of his children, \"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting\nfire prepared for the devil and his angels,\" while the Buddhist was\ngreat and tender enough to say:\n\n\"Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never\nenter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live\nand strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout\nall worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle\nuntil all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I\nam?\"\n\nIs there anything in the New Testament as beautiful as this, from a\nSufi?--\"Better one moment of silent contemplation and inward love than\nseventy thousand years of outward worship.\"\n\nIs there anything comparable to this?--\"Whoever carelessly treads on\na worm that crawls on the earth, that heartless one is darkly alienate\nfrom God.\"\n\nIs there anything in the New Testament more beautiful than the story of\nthe Sufi?\n\nFor seven years a Sufi practised every virtue, and then he mounted the\nthree steps that lead to the doors of Paradise. He knocked and a voice\nsaid: \"Who is there?\" The Sufi replied: \"Thy servant, O God.\" But the\ndoors remained closed.\n\nYet seven other years the Sufi engaged in every good work. He comforted\nthe sorrowing and divided his substance with the poor. Again he mounted\nthe three steps, again knocked at the doors of Paradise, and again\nthe voice asked: \"Who is there?\" and the Sufi replied: \"Thy slave, O\nGod.\"--But the doors remained closed.\n\nYet seven other years the Sufi spent in works of charity, in visiting\nthe imprisoned and the sick. Again he mounted the steps, again knocked\nat the celestial doors. Again he heard the question: \"Who is there?\" and\nhe replied: \"Thyself, O God.\"--The gates wide open flew.\n\nIs it possible that St. Paul was inspired of God, when he said: \"Let the\nwomen learn in silence, with all subjection.\"--\"Neither was the man\ncreated for the woman, but the woman for the man?\"\n\nAnd is it possible that Epictetus, without the slightest aid from\nheaven, gave to the world this gem of love:\n\n\"What is more delightful than to be so dear to your wife, as to be on\nthat account dearer to yourself?\"\n\nDid St. Paul express the sentiments of God when he wrote--\n\n\"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the\nhead of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Wives,\nsubmit yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord?\"\n\nAnd was the author of this, a poor despised heathen?--\n\n\"In whatever house the husband is contented with the wife, and the wife\nwith the husband, in that house will fortune dwell; but upon the house\nwhere women are not honored, let a curse be pronounced. Where the wife\nis honored, there the gods are truly worshiped.\"\n\nIs there anything in the New Testament as beautiful as this?--\n\n\"Shall I tell thee where nature is most blest and fair? It is where\nthose we love abide. Though that space be small, it is ample above\nkingdoms; though it be a desert, through it run the rivers of Paradise.\"\n\nAfter reading the curses pronounced in the Old\n\nTestament upon Jew and heathen, the descriptions of slaughter, of\ntreachery and of death, the destruction of women and babes; after you\nshall have read all the chapters of horror in the New Testament, the\nthreatenings of fire and flame, then read this, from the greatest of\nhuman beings:\n\n     \"The quality of mercy is not strained:\n     It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven\n     Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed;\n     It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.\n     'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes\n     The throned monarch better than his crown.\"\n\nX. ETERNAL PAIN\n\nUPON passages in the New Testament rests the doctrine of eternal pain.\nThis doctrine subverts every idea of justice. A finite being can neither\ncommit an infinite sin, nor a sin against the Infinite. A being of\ninfinite goodness and wisdom has no right to create any being whose life\nis not a blessing. Infinite wisdom has no right to create a failure,\nand surely a man destined to everlasting failure is not a conspicuous\nsuccess. The doctrine of eternal punishment is the most infamous of\nall doctrines--born of ignorance, cruelty and fear. Around the angel of\nimmortality, Christianity has coiled this serpent.\n\nUpon Love's breast the church has placed the eternal asp. And yet in\nthe same book in which is taught this most frightful of dogmas, we are\nassured that \"the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over\nall his works.\"\n\nA few days ago upon the wide sea, was found a barque called \"The\nTiger,\" Captain Kreuger, in command. The vessel had been one hundred and\ntwenty-six days upon the sea. For days the crew had been without water,\nwithout food, and were starving. For nine days not a drop had passed\ntheir lips. The crew consisted of the captain, a mate, and eleven men.\nAt the end of one hundred and eighteen days from Liverpool they killed\nthe captain's Newfoundland dog. This lasted them four days. During the\nnext five days they had nothing. For weeks they had had no light\nand were unable to see the compass at night. On the one hundred and\ntwenty-fifth day Captain Kreuger, a German, took a revolver in his hand,\nstood up before the men, and placing the weapon at his temple said:\n\"Boys, we can't stand this much longer, and to save you all, I am\nwilling to die.\" The mate grasped the revolver and begged the captain to\nwait another day. The next day, upon the horizon of their despair, they\nsaw the smoke of the steamship Nebo. They were rescued.\n\nSuppose that Captain Kreuger was not a Christian, and suppose that he\nhad sent the ball crashing through his brain, and had done so simply\nto keep the crew from starvation, do you tell me that a God of infinite\nmercy would forever damn that man?\n\nDo not misunderstand me. I insist that every passage in the Bible\nupholding crime was written by savage man. I insist that if there is\na God, he is not, never was, and never will be in favor of slavery,\npolygamy, wars of extermination, or religious persecution. Does any\nChristian believe that if the real 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?\n\nWILL any one claim that the passages upholding slavery have liberated\nmankind? Are we indebted to polygamy for our modern homes? Was religious\nliberty born of that infamous verse in which the husband is commanded to\nkill his wife for worshiping an unknown God?\n\nThe usual answer to these objections is, that no country has ever been\ncivilized without a Bible. The Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah\nmade his will directly known. Were they better than other nations? They\nread the Old Testament and one of the effects of such reading was, that\nthey crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly innocent man. Certainly\nthey could not have done worse, without a Bible. In crucifying Christ\nthe Jews followed the teachings of his Father. If Jehovah was in fact\nGod, and if that God took upon himself flesh and came among the Jews,\nand preached what the Jews understood to be blasphemy; and if the Jews\nin accordance with the laws given by this same Jehovah to Moses,\ncrucified him, then I say, and I say it with infinite reverence, he\nreaped what he had sown. He became the victim of his own injustice.\n\nBut I insist that these things are not true. I insist that the real God,\nif there is one, never commanded man to enslave his fellow-man, never\ntold a mother to sell her babe, never established polygamy, never urged\none nation to exterminate another, and never told a husband to kill his\nwife because she suggested the worship of another God.\n\nFrom the aspersions of the pulpit, from the slanders of the church,\nI seek to rescue the reputation of the Deity. I insist that the Old\nTestament would be a better book with all these passages left out; and\nwhatever may be said of the rest of the Bible, the passages to which I\nhave called attention can, with vastly more propriety, be attributed to\na devil than to a god.\n\nTake from the New Testament the idea that belief is necessary to\nsalvation; that Christ was offered as an atonement for the sins of\nmankind; that heaven is the reward of faith, and hell the penalty of\nhonest investigation, and that the punishment of the human soul will go\non forever; take from it all miracles and foolish stories, and I most\ncheerfully admit that the good passages are true. If they are true, it\nmakes no difference whether they are inspired or not. Inspiration is\nonly necessary to give authority to that which is repugnant to human\nreason. Only that which never happened needs to be substantiated by a\nmiracle.\n\nThe universe is natural.\n\nThe church must cease to insist that passages upholding the institutions\nof savage men were inspired of God. The dogma of atonement must be\nabandoned. Good deeds must take the place of faith. The savagery of\neternal punishment must be renounced. It must be admitted that credulity\nis not a virtue, and that investigation is not a crime. It must be\nadmitted that miracles are the children of mendacity, and that nothing\ncan be more wonderful than the majestic, unbroken, sublime, and eternal\nprocession of causes and effects. Reason must be the arbiter. Inspired\nbooks attested by miracles cannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A\nreligion that does not command the respect of the greatest minds will,\nin a little while, excite the mockery of all.\n\nA man who does not believe in intellectual liberty is a barbarian. Is\nit possible that God is intolerant? Could there be any progress, even\nin heaven, without intellectual liberty? Is the freedom of the future\nto exist only in perdition? Is it not, after all, barely possible that\na man acting like Christ can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded\nfor believing according to evidence, without evidence, or against\nevidence? Are we to be saved because we are good, or because another was\nvirtuous? Is credulity to be winged and crowned, whilst honest doubt is\nchained and damned.\n\nIf Jehovah, was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning. He\nknew that his Bible would be a breast-work behind which all tyranny\nand hypocrisy would crouch. He knew that his Bible would be the\nauction-block on which women would stand while their babes were sold\nfrom their arms. He knew that this Bible would be quoted by tyrants;\nthat it would be the defence of robbers called kings, and of hypocrites\ncalled priests. He knew that he had taught the Jewish people nothing of\nimportance. He knew that he had found them free and left them slaves. He\nknew that he had never fulfilled a single promise made to them. He knew\nthat while other nations had advanced in art and science his chosen\npeople were savage still. He promised them the world, and gave them a\ndesert. He promised them liberty and he made them slaves. He promised\nthem victory and he gave them defeat. He said they should be kings and\nhe made them serfs. He promised them universal empire and gave them\nexile. When one finishes the Old Testament he is compelled to say:\n\"Nothing can add to the misery of a nation whose king is Jehovah!\"\n\nThe Old Testament filled this world with tyranny and injustice, and the\nNew gives us a future filled with pain for nearly all of the sons of\nmen.\n\nThe Old Testament describes the hell of the past, and the New the hell\nof the future.\n\nThe Old Testament tells us the frightful things that God has done, the\nNew the frightful things that he will do.\n\nThese two books give us the sufferings of the past and the future--the\ninjustice, the agony and the tears of both worlds.\n\n\n\n\nORTHODOXY.\n\nA LECTURE.\n\nIT is utterly inconceivable that any man believing in the truth of the\nChristian religion should publicly deny it, because he who believes in\nthat religion would believe that, by a public denial, he would peril the\neternal salvation of his soul. It is conceivable, and without any great\neffort of the mind, that millions who do not believe in the Christian\nreligion should openly say that they did. In a country where religion\nis supposed to be in power--where it has rewards for pretence, where it\npays a premium upon hypocrisy, where it at least is willing to purchase\nsilence--it is easily conceivable that millions pretend to believe what\nthey do not. And yet I believe it has been charged against myself not\nonly that I was insincere, but that I took the side I am on for the sake\nof popularity; and the audience to-night goes far toward justifying the\naccusation.\n\nOrthodox Religion Dying Out.\n\nIt gives me immense pleasure to say to this audience that orthodox\nreligion is dying out of the civilized world. It is a sick man. It has\nbeen attacked with two diseases--softening of the brain and ossification\nof the heart. It is a religion that no longer satisfies the intelligence\nof this country; that no longer satisfies the brain; a religion against\nwhich the heart of every civilized man and woman protests. It is a\nreligion that gives hope only to a few; that puts a shadow upon the\ncradle; that wraps the coffin in darkness and fills the future of\nmankind with flame and fear. It is a religion that I am going to do what\nlittle I can while I live to destroy. In its place I want humanity,\nI want good fellowship, I want intellectual liberty--free lips, the\ndiscoveries and inventions of genius, the demonstrations of science--the\nreligion of art, music and poetry--of good houses, good clothes, good\nwages--that is to say, the religion of this world.\n\nReligious Deaths and Births.\n\nWe must remember that this is a world of progress, a world of perpetual\nchange--a succession of coffins and cradles. There is perpetual death,\nand there is perpetual birth. By the grave of the old, forever stand\nyouth and joy; and when an old religion dies, a better one is born. When\nwe find out that an assertion is a falsehood a shining truth takes its\nplace, and we need not fear the destruction of the false. The more false\nwe destroy the more room there will be for the true.\n\nThere was a time when the astrologer sought to read in the stars the\nfate of men and nations. The astrologer has faded from the world, but\nthe astronomer has taken his place. There was a time when the poor\nalchemist, bent and wrinkled and old, over his crucible endeavored to\nfind some secret by which he could change the baser metals into purest\ngold. The alchemist has gone; the chemist took his place; and, although\nhe finds nothing to change metals into gold, he finds something that\ncovers the earth with wealth. There was a time when the soothsayer and\naugur flourished. After them came the parson and the priest; and the\nparson and the priest must go. The preacher must go, and in his place\nmust come the teacher--the real interpreter of Nature. We are done with\nthe supernatural. We are through with the miraculous and the impossible.\nThere was once the prophet who pretended to read the book of the future.\nHis place has been taken by the philosopher, who reasons from cause to\neffect--who finds the facts by which we are surrounded and endeavors\nto reason from these premises and to tell what in all probability will\nhappen. The prophet has gone, the philosopher is here. There was a time\nwhen man sought aid from heaven--when he prayed to the deaf sky. There\nwas a time when everything depended on the supernaturalist. That time in\nChristendom is passing away. We now depend upon the naturalist--not upon\nthe believer in ancient falsehoods, but on the discoverer of facts--on\nthe demonstrater of truths. At last we are beginning to build on a\nsolid foundation, and as we progress, the supernatural dies. The leaders\nof the intellectual world deny the existence of the supernatural. They\ntake from all superstition its foundation.\n\nThe Religion of Reciprocity.\n\nSupernatural religion will fade from this world, and in its place we\nshall have reason. In the place of the worship of something we know\nnot of, will be the religion of mutual love and assistance--the great\nreligion of reciprocity. Superstition must go. Science will remain. The\nchurch dies hard. The brain of the world is not yet developed. There\nare intellectual diseases as well as physical--there are pestilences and\nplagues of the mind.\n\nWhenever the new comes the old protests, and fights for its place as\nlong as it has a particle of power. We are now having the same warfare\nbetween superstition and science that there was between the stage coach\nand the locomotive. But the stage coach had to go. It had its day of\nglory and power, but it is gone. It went West. In a little while it will\nbe driven into the Pacific. So we find that there is the same conflict\nbetween the different sects and different schools not only of philosophy\nbut of medicine.\n\nRecollect that everything except the demonstrated truth is liable\nto die. That is the order of Nature. Words die. Every language has a\ncemetery. Every now and then a word dies and a tombstone is erected, and\nacross it is written \"obsolete.\" New words are continually being born.\nThere is a cradle in which a word is rocked. A thought is married to a\nsound, and a child-word is born. And there comes a time when the word\ngets old, and wrinkled, and expressionless, and is carried mournfully\nto the grave. So in the schools of medicine. You can remember, so can I,\nwhen the old allopathists, the bleeders and blisterers, reigned supreme.\nIf there was anything the matter with a man they let out his blood.\nCalled to the bedside, they took him on the point of a lancet to the\nedge of eternity, and then practiced all their art to bring him back.\nOne can hardly imagine how perfect a constitution it took a few years\nago to stand the assault of a doctor. And long after the old practice\nwas found to be a mistake hundreds and thousands of the ancient\nphysicians clung to it, carried around with them, in one pocket a bottle\nof jalap, and in the other a rusty lancet, sorry that they could not\nfind some patient with faith enough to allow the experiment to be made\nagain.\n\nSo these schools, and these theories, and these religions die hard. What\nelse can they do? Like the paintings of the old masters, they are kept\nalive because so much money has been invested in them. Think of the\namount of money that has been invested in superstition! Think of the\nschools that have been founded for the more general diffusion of useless\nknowledge! Think of the colleges wherein men are taught that it is\ndangerous to think, and that they must never use their brains except\nin the act of faith! Think of the millions and billions of dollars that\nhave been expended in churches, in temples, and in cathedrals! Think of\nthe thousands and thousands of men who depend for their living upon the\nignorance of mankind! Think of those who grow rich on credulity and\nwho fatten on faith! Do you suppose they are going to die without a\nstruggle? What are they to do? From the bottom of my heart I sympathize\nwith the poor clergyman that has had all his common sense educated out\nof him, and is now to be thrown upon the cold and unbelieving world. His\nprayers are not answered; he gets no help from on high, and the pews are\nbeginning to criticise the pulpit. What is the man to do? If he suddenly\nchanges he is gone. If he preaches what he really believes he will get\nnotice to quit. And yet, if he and the congregation would come together\nand be perfectly honest, they would all admit that they believe little\nand know nothing.\n\nOnly a little while ago a couple of ladies were riding together from a\nrevival, late at night, and one said to the other, as they rode along:\n\"I am going to say something that will shock you, and I beg of you never\nto tell it to anybody else. I am going to tell it to you.\" \"Well, what\nis it?\" Said she: \"I do not believe the Bible.\" The other replied:\n\"Neither do I.\"\n\nI have often thought how splendid it would be if the ministers could but\ncome together and say: \"Now, let us be honest. Let us tell each other,\nhonor bright\"--like Dr. Curry, of Chicago, did in the meeting the other\nday--\"just what we believe.\" They tell a story that in the old time a\nlot of people, about twenty, were in Texas in a little hotel, and one\nfellow got up before the fire, put his hands behind him, and said:\n\"Boys, let us all tell our real names.\" If the ministers and their\ncongregations would only tell their real thoughts they would find that\nthey are nearly as bad as I am, and that they believe as little.\n\nOrthodoxy dies hard, and its defenders tell us that this fact shows that\nit is of divine origin. Judaism dies hard. It has lived several thousand\nyears longer than Christianity. The religion of Mohammed dies hard.\n\nBuddhism dies hard. Why do all these religions die hard? Because\nintelligence increases slowly.\n\nLet me whisper in the ear of the Protestant: Catholicism dies hard. What\ndoes that prove? It proves that the people are ignorant and that the\npriests are cunning.\n\nLet me whisper in the ear of the Catholic: Protestantism dies hard. What\ndoes that prove? It proves that the people are superstitious and the\npreachers stupid.\n\nLet me whisper in all your ears: Infidelity is not dying--it is\ngrowing--it increases every day. And what does that prove? It\nproves that the people are learning more and more--that they are\nadvancing--that the mind is getting free, and that the race is being\ncivilized.\n\nThe clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know.\n\nThe Blows That Have Shattered the Shield and Shivered the Lance of\nSuperstition.\n\nMohammed.\n\nMohammed wrested from the disciples of the cross the fairest part of\nEurope. It was known that he was an impostor, and that fact sowed the\nseeds of distrust and infidelity in the Christian world. Christians made\nan effort to rescue from the infidels the empty sepulchre of Christ.\nThat commenced in the eleventh century and ended at the close of the\nthirteenth. Europe was almost depopulated. The fields were left waste,\nthe villages were deserted, nations were impoverished, every man who\nowed a debt was discharged from payment if he put a cross upon his\nbreast and joined the Crusades. No matter what crime he had committed,\nthe doors of the prison were open for him to join the hosts of the\ncross. They believed that God would give them victory, and they carried\nin front of the first Crusade a goat and a goose, believing that both\nthose animals were blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. And I\nmay say that those same animals are in the lead to-day in the orthodox\nworld. Until the year 1291 they endeavored to gain possession of that\nsepulchre, and finally the hosts of Christ were driven back, baffled and\nbeaten,--a poor, miserable, religious rabble. They were driven back, and\nthat fact sowed the seeds of distrust in Christendom. You know that at\nthat time the world believed in trial by battle--that God would take\nthe side of the right--and there had been a trial by battle between the\ncross and the crescent, and Mohammed had been victorious. Was God at\nthat time governing the world? Was he endeavoring to spread his gospel?\n\nThe Destruction of Art.\n\nYou know that when Christianity came into power it destroyed every\nstatue it could lay its ignorant hands upon. It defaced and obliterated\nevery painting; it destroyed every beautiful building; it burned the\nmanuscripts, both Greek and Latin; it destroyed all the history, all\nthe poetry, all the philosophy it could find, and reduced to ashes every\nlibrary that it could reach with its torch. And the result was, that the\nnight of the Middle Ages fell upon the human race. But by accident,\nby chance, by oversight, a few of the manuscripts escaped the fury of\nreligious zeal; and these manuscripts became the seed, the fruit of\nwhich is our civilization of to-day. A few statues had been buried; a\nfew forms of beauty were dug from the earth that had protected them, and\nnow the civilized world is filled with art, the walls are covered with\npaintings, and the niches filled with statuary. A few manuscripts were\nfound and deciphered. The old languages were learned, and literature\nwas again born. A new day dawned upon mankind. Every effort at mental\nimprovement had been opposed by the church, and yet, the few things\nsaved from the general wreck--a few poems, a few works of the ancient\nthinkers, a few forms wrought in stone, produced a new civilization\ndestined to overthrow and destroy the fabric of superstition.\n\nThe Discovery of America.\n\nWhat was the next blow that this church received? The discovery of\nAmerica. The Holy Ghost who inspired men to write the Bible did not\nknow of the existence of this continent, never dreamed of the Western\nHemisphere. The Bible left out half the world. The Holy Ghost did not\nknow that the earth is round. He did not dream that the earth is round.\nHe believed it was flat, although he made it himself. At that time\nheaven was just beyond the clouds. It was there the gods lived, there\nthe angels were, and it was against that heaven that Jacob's ladder\nleaned when the angels went up and down. It was to that heaven that\nChrist ascended after his resurrection. It was up there that the New\nJerusalem was, with its streets of gold, and under this earth was\nperdition. There was where the devils lived; where a pit was dug for\nall unbelievers, and for men who had brains. I say that for this reason:\nJust in proportion that you have brains, your chances for eternal joy\nare lessened, according to this religion. And just in proportion that\nyou lack brains your chances are increased. At last they found that the\nearth is round. It was circumnavigated by Magellan. In 1519 that brave\nman set sail. The church told him: \"The earth is flat, my friend; don't\ngo, you may fall off the edge.\" Magellan said: \"I have seen the shadow\nof the earth upon the moon, and I have more confidence in the shadow\nthan I have in the church.\" The ship went round. The earth was\ncircumnavigated. Science passed its hand above it and beneath it, and\nwhere was the old heaven and where was the hell? Vanished forever! And\nthey dwell now only in the religion of superstition. We found there was\nno place there for Jacob's ladder to lean against; no place there for\nthe gods and angels to live; no place to hold the waters of the deluge;\nno place to which Christ could have ascended. The foundations of the\nNew Jerusalem crumbled. The towers and domes fell, and in their places\ninfinite space, sown with an infinite number of stars; not with New\nJerusalems, but with countless constellations.\n\nCopernicus and Kepler.\n\nThen man began to grow great, and with that came Astronomy, In 1473\nCopernicus was born. In 1543 his great work appeared. In 1616 the system\nof Copernicus was condemned by the pope, by the infallible Catholic\nChurch, and the church was about as near right upon that subject as upon\nany other. The system of Copernicus was denounced. And how long do you\nsuppose the church fought that? Let me tell you. It was revoked by Pius\nVII. in the year of grace 1821. For two hundred and seventy-eight years\nafter the death of Copernicus the church insisted that his system was\nfalse, and that the old Bible astronomy was true. Astronomy is the first\nhelp that we ever received from heaven. Then came Kepler in 1609, and\nyou may almost date the birth of science from the night that Kepler\ndiscovered his first law. That was the break of the day. His first law,\nthat the planets do not move in circles but in ellipses; his second law,\nthat they describe equal spaces in equal times; his third law, that the\nsquares of their periodic times are proportional to the cubes of their\ndistances. That man gave us the key to the heavens. He opened the\ninfinite book, and in it read three lines.\n\nI have not time to speak of Galileo, of Leonardo da Vinci, of Bruno, and\nof hundreds of others who contributed to the intellectual wealth of the\nworld.\n\nSpecial Providence.\n\nThe next thing that gave the church a blow was Statistics. We found by\ntaking statistics that we could tell the average length of human life;\nthat this human life did not depend upon infinite caprice; that it\ndepended upon conditions, circumstances, laws and facts, and that these\nconditions, circumstances, and facts were during long periods of time\nsubstantially the same. And now, the man who depends entirely upon\nspecial providence gets his life insured. He has more confidence even\nin one of these companies than he has in the whole Trinity. We found by\nstatistics that there were just so many crimes on an average committed;\njust so many crimes of one kind and so many of another; just so many\nsuicides, so many deaths by drowning, so many accidents on an average,\nso many men marrying women, for instance, older than themselves; so many\nmurders of a particular kind; just the same number of mistakes; and\nI say to-night, statistics utterly demolish the idea of special\nprovidence.\n\nOnly the other day a gentleman was telling me of a case of special\nprovidence. He knew it. He had been the subject of it. A few years ago\nhe was about to go on a ship when he was detained. He did not go, and\nthe ship was lost with all on board.\n\n\"Yes!\" I said, \"Do you think the people who were drowned believed in\nspecial providence?\" Think of the infinite egotism of such a doctrine.\nHere is a man that fails to go upon a ship with five hundred passengers\nand they go down to the bottom of the sea--fathers, mothers, children,\nand loving husbands and wives waiting upon the chores of expectation.\nHere is one poor little wretch that did not happen to go! And he thinks\nthat God, the Infinite Being, interfered in his poor little withered\nbehalf and let the rest all go. That is special providence. Why does\nspecial providence allow all the crimes? Why are the wife-beaters\nprotected, and why are the wives and children left defenceless if the\nhand of God is over us all? Who protects the insane? Why does Providence\npermit insanity? But the church cannot give up special providence. If\nthere is no such thing, then no prayers, no worship, no churches, no\npriests. What would become of National Thanksgiving?\n\nYou know we have a custom every year of issuing a proclamation of\nthanksgiving. We say to God, \"Although you have afflicted all the other\ncountries, although you have sent war, and desolation, and famine on\neverybody else, we have been such good children that you have been\nkind to us, and we hope you will keep on.\" It does not make a bit of\ndifference whether we have good times or not--the thanksgiving is always\nexactly the same. I remember a few years ago a governor of Iowa got out\na proclamation of that kind. He went on to tell how thankful the people\nwere and how prosperous the State had been. There was a young fellow in\nthat State who got out another proclamation, saying that he feared the\nLord might be misled by official correspondence; that the governor's\nproclamation was entirely false; that the State was not prosperous; that\nthe crops had been an almost utter failure; that nearly every farm in\nthe State was mortgaged, and that if the Lord did not believe him, all\nhe asked was that he would send some angel in whom he had confidence, to\nlook the matter over and report.\n\nCharles Darwin.\n\nThis century will be called Darwin's century. He was one of the greatest\nmen who ever touched this globe. He has explained more of the phenomena\nof life than all of the religious teachers. Write the name of Charles\nDarwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived\non the other, and from that name has come more light to the world\nthan from all of those. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the\nsurvival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species,\nhas removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox\nChristianity. He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the\ninspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of\nman, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that\nthe Bible is a book written by ignorance--at the instigation of fear.\nThink of the men who replied to him. Only a few years ago there was no\nperson too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more\nignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task. He was held\nup to the ridicule, the scorn and contempt of the Christian world, and\nyet when he died, England was proud to put his dust with that of her\nnoblest and her grandest. Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual\nworld, and his doctrines are now accepted facts. His light has broken\nin on some of the clergy, and the greatest man who to-day occupies\nthe pulpit of one of the orthodox: churches, Henry Ward Beecher, is a\nbeliever in the theories of Charles Darwin--a man of more genius than\nall the clergy of that entire church put together.\n\nAnd yet we are told in this little creed that orthodox religion is about\nto conquer the world! It will be driven to the wilds of Africa. It must\ngo to some savage country; it has lost its hold upon civilization. It is\nunfortunate to have a religion that cannot be accepted by the intellect\nof a nation. It is unfortunate to have a religion against which every\ngood and noble heart protests. Let us have a good religion or none. My\npity has been excited by seeing these ministers endeavor to warp and\ntwist the passages of Scripture to fit the demonstrations of science. Of\ncourse, I have not time to recount all the discoveries and events that\nhave assisted in the destruction of superstition. Every fact is an\nenemy of the church. Every fact is a heretic. Every demonstration is\nan infidel. Everything that ever really happened testifies against the\nsupernatural.\n\nThe church teaches that man was created perfect, and that for six\nthousand years he has degenerated. Darwin demonstrated the falsity\nof this dogma. He shows that man has for thousands of ages steadily\nadvanced; that the Garden of Eden is an ignorant myth; that the doctrine\nof original sin has no foundation in fact; that the atonement is an\nabsurdity; that the serpent did not tempt, and that man did not \"fall.\"\n\nCharles Darwin destroyed the foundation of orthodox Christianity. There\nis nothing left but faith in what we know could not and did not happen.\nReligion and science are enemies. One is a superstition; the other is\na fact. One rests upon the false, the other upon the true. One is the\nresult of fear and faith, the other of investigation and reason.\n\nThe Creeds.\n\nI have been talking a great deal about the orthodox religion. Often,\nafter having delivered a lecture, I have met some good, religious person\nwho has said to me:\n\n\"You do not tell it as we believe it.\"\n\n\"Well, but I tell it as you have it written in your creed.\"\n\n\"Oh, we don't mind the creed any more.\"\n\n\"Then, why do you not change it?\"\n\n\"Oh, well, we understand it as it is, and if we tried to change it,\nmaybe we would not agree.\"\n\nPossibly the creeds are in the best condition now. There is a tacit\nunderstanding that they do not believe them, that there is a way to\nget around them, and that they can read between the lines; that if they\nshould meet now to form new creeds they would fail to agree; and that\nnow they can say as they please, except in public. Whenever they do so\nin public the church, in self-defence, must try them; and I believe in\ntrying every minister that does not preach the doctrine he agrees to.\nI have not the slightest sympathy with a Presbyterian preacher who\nendeavors to preach infidelity from a Presbyterian pulpit and receives\nPresbyterian money. When he changes his views he should step down and\nout like a man, and say, \"I do not believe your doctrine, and I will not\npreach it. You must hire some other man.\" The Latest Creed.\n\nBut I find that I have correctly interpreted the creeds. There was put\ninto my hands the new Congregational creed. I have read it, and I will\ncall your attention to it to-night, to find whether that church has made\nany advance; to find whether the sun of science has risen in the heavens\nin vain; whether they are still the children of intellectual darkness;\nwhether they still consider it necessary for you to believe something\nthat you by no possibility can understand, in order to be a winged angel\nforever. Now, let us see what their creed is. I will read a little of\nit.\n\nThey commence by saying that they\n\n\"_Believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,\nand of all things visible and invisible_.\"\n\nThey say, now, that there is the one personal God; that he is the maker\nof the universe and its ruler. I again ask the old question, Of what did\nhe make it? If matter has not existed through eternity, then this God\nmade it. Of what did he make it? What did he use for the purpose? There\nwas nothing in the universe except this God. What had the God been doing\nfor the eternity he had been living? He had made nothing--called nothing\ninto existence; never had had an idea, because it is impossible to have\nan idea unless there is something to excite an idea. What had he been\ndoing? Why does not the Congregational Church tell us? How do they know\nabout this Infinite Being? And if he is infinite how can they comprehend\nhim? What good is it to believe in something that you know you do not\nunderstand, and that you never can understand?\n\nIn the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows:\n\n\"_There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts\nor passions_.\"\n\nThink of that!--without body, parts, or passions.\n\nI defy any man in the world to write a better description of nothing.\nYou cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than \"without\nbody, parts, or passions.\" And yet this God, without passions, is angry\nat the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a jealous God,\nwhose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God, without passions,\nloves the whole human race; and this God, without passions, damns a\nlarge majority of mankind. This God without body, walked in the Garden\nof Eden, in the cool of the day. This God, without body, talked with\nAdam and Eve. This God, without body, or parts met Moses upon Mount\nSinai, appeared at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses\nface to face as a man speaketh to his friend. This description of God is\nsimply an effort of the church to describe a something of which it has\nno conception.\n\nGod as a Governor.\n\nSo, too, I find the following:\n\n\"_We believe that the Providence of God, by which he executes his\neternal purposes in the government of the world, is in and over all\nevents._\"\n\nIs God the governor of the world? Is this established by the history of\nnations? What evidence can you find, if you are absolutely honest and\nnot frightened, in the history of the world, that this universe is\npresided over by an infinitely wise and good God?\n\nHow do you account for Russia? How do you account for Siberia? How do\nyou account for the fact that whole races of men toiled beneath the\nmaster's lash for ages without recompense and without reward? How do you\naccount for the fact that babes were sold from the arms of mothers--arms\nthat had been reached toward God in supplication? How do you account for\nit? How do you account for the existence of martyrs? How do you account\nfor the fact that this God allows people to be burned simply for loving\nhim? Is justice always done? Is innocence always acquitted? Do the\ngood succeed? Are the honest fed? Are the charitable clothed? Are the\nvirtuous shielded? How do you account for the fact that the world has\nbeen filled with pain, and grief, and tears? How do you account for the\nfact that people have been swallowed by earthquakes, overwhelmned by\nvolcanoes, and swept from the earth by storms? Is it easy to account\nfor famine, for pestilence and plague if there be above us all a Ruler\ninfinitely good, powerful and wise?\n\nI do not say there is none. I do not know. As I have said before, this\nis the only planet I was ever on. I live in one of the rural districts\nof the universe, and do not know about these things as much as the\nclergy pretend to, but if they know no more about the other world than\nthey do about this, it is not worth mentioning.\n\nHow do they answer all this? They say that God \"permits\" it. What would\nyou say to me if I stood by and saw a ruffian beat out the brains of a\nchild, when I had full and perfect power to prevent it? You would say\ntruthfully that I was as bad as the murderer. Is it possible for this\nGod to prevent it? Then, if he does not he is a fiend; he is no god.\nBut they say he \"permits\" it. What for? So that we may have freedom of\nchoice. What for? So that God may find, I suppose, who are good and who\nare bad. Did he not know that when he made us? Did he not know exactly\njust what he was making? Why should he make those whom he knew would be\ncriminals? If I should make a machine that would walk your streets and\ntake the lives of people you would hang me. And if God made a man whom\nhe knew would commit murder, then God is guilty of that murder. If God\nmade a man knowing that he would beat his wife, that he would starve\nhis children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life the\nwrecks of ruined homes, then I say the being who knowingly called that\nwretch into existence is directly responsible. And yet we are to find\nthe providence of God in the history of nations. What little I have read\nshows me that when man has been helped, man has done it; when the\nchains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when\nsomething bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to\ntrace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings. You\nneed not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame upon\ngods; you can find the efficient causes nearer home--right here.\n\nThe Love of God.\n\nWhat is the next thing I find in this creed?\n\n\"_We believe that man was made in the image of God, that he might know,\nlove, and obey God, and enjoy him forever._\"\n\nI do not believe that anybody ever did love God, because nobody ever\nknew anything about him. We love each other. We love something that we\nknow. We love something that our experience tells us is good and great\nand beautiful. We cannot by any possibility love the unknown. We can\nlove truth, because truth adds to human happiness. We can love justice,\nbecause it preserves human joy. We can love charity. We can love every\nform of goodness that we know, or of which we can conceive, but we\ncannot love the infinitely unknown. And how can we be made in the image\nof something that has neither body, parts, nor passions?\n\nThe Fall of Man.\n\nThe Congregational Church has not outgrown the doctrine of \"original\nsin.\" We are told that:\n\n\"_Our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation\nof God, and that all men are so alienated from God that there is no\nsalvation from the guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming\npower._\"\n\nIs there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in\nthe Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike\nhis forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Does any\nintelligent man now believe that God made man of dust, and woman of a\nrib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the midst of it? Was\nthere not room outside of the garden to put his tree, if he did not want\npeople to eat his apples?\n\nIf I did not want a man to eat my fruit, I would not put him in my\norchard.\n\nDoes anybody now believe in the story of the serpent? I pity any man or\nwoman who, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable.\nWhy did Adam and Eve disobey? Why, they were tempted. By whom? The\ndevil. Who made the devil? God. What did God make him for? Why did\nhe not tell Adam and Eve about this serpent? Why did he not watch the\ndevil, instead of watching Adam and Eve? Instead of turning them out,\nwhy did he not keep him from getting in? Why did he not have his flood\nfirst, and drown the devil, before he made a man and woman.\n\nAnd yet, people who call themselves intelligent--professors in colleges\nand presidents of venerable institutions--teach children and young men\nthat the Garden of Eden story is an absolute historical fact. I defy\nany man to think of a more childish thing. This God, waiting around\nEden--knowing all the while what would happen--having made them on\npurpose so that it would happen, then does what? Holds all of us\nresponsible, and we were not there. Here is a representative before the\nconstituency had been born. Before I am bound by a representative I want\na chance to vote for or against him; and if I had been there, and known\nall the circumstances, I should have voted \"No!\" And yet, I am held\nresponsible.\n\nWe are told by the Bible and by the churches that through this fall of\nman \"_Sin and death entered the world?_\"\n\nAccording to this, just as soon as Adam and Eve had partaken of the\nforbidden fruit, God began to contrive ways by which he could destroy\nthe lives of his children. He invented all the diseases--all the fevers\nand coughs and colds--all the pains and plagues and pestilences--all the\naches and agonies, the malaria and spores; so that when we take a breath\nof air we admit into our lungs unseen assassins; and, fearing that some\nmight live too long, even under such circumstances, God invented the\nearthquake and volcano, the cyclone and lightning, animalcules to infest\nthe heart and brain, so small that no eye can detect--no instrument\nreach. This was all owing to the disobedience of Adam and Eve!\n\nIn his infinite goodness, God invented rheumatism and gout and\ndyspepsia, cancers and neuralgia, and is still inventing new diseases.\nNot only this', but he decreed the pangs of mothers, and that by the\ngates of love and life should crouch the dragons of death and pain.\nFearing that some might, by accident, live too long, he planted\npoisonous vines and herbs that looked like food. He caught the serpents\nhe had made and gave them fangs and curious organs, ingeniously devised\nto distill and deposit the deadly drop. He changed the nature of the\nbeasts, that they might feed on human flesh. He cursed a world, and\ntainted every spring and source of joy. He poisoned every breath of air;\ncorrupted even light, that it might bear disease on every ray; tainted\nevery drop of blood in human veins; touched every nerve, that it\nmight bear the double fruit of pain and joy; decreed all accidents and\nmistakes that maim and hurt and kill, and set the snares of life-long\ngrief, baited with present pleasure,--with a moment's joy. Then and\nthere he foreknew and foreordained all human tears. And yet all this is\nbut the prelude, the introduction, to the infinite revenge of the good\nGod. Increase and multiply all human griefs until the mind has reached\nimagination's farthest verge, then add eternity to time, and you may\nfaintly tell, but never can conceive, the infinite horrors of this\ndoctrine called \"The Fall of Man.\" The Atonement.\n\nWe are further told that:\n\n\"_All men are so alienated from God that there is no alleviation from\nthe guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming grace;_\"\n\nAnd that:\n\n\"_We believe that the love of God to sinful man has found its highest\nexpression in the redemptive work of his Son, who became man, uniting\nhis divine nature with our human nature in one person; who was tempted\nlike other men and yet without sin, and by his humiliation, his holy\nobedience, his sufferings, his death on the cross, and his resurrection,\nbecame a perfect redeemer; whose sacrifice of himself for the sins\nof the world declares the righteousness of God, and is the sole and\nsufficient ground of forgiveness and of reconciliation with him_.\"\n\nThe absurdity of the doctrine known as \"The Fall of Man,\" gave birth\nto that other absurdity known as \"The Atonement.\" So that now it is\ninsisted that, as we are rightfully charged with the sin of somebody\nelse, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another. Let us\nleave out of our philosophy both these absurdities. Our creed will read\na great deal better with both of them out, and will make far better\nsense.\n\nNow, in consequence of Adam's sin, everybody is alienated from God. How?\nWhy? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all do wrong. Well, why?\nIs that because we are depraved? No. Why do we make so many mistakes?\nBecause there is only one right way, and there is an almost infinite\nnumber of wrong ways; and as long as we are not perfect in our\nintellects we must make mistakes. \"There is no darkness but ignorance,\"\nand alienation, as they call it, from God, is simply a lack of\nintellect. Why were we not given better brains? That may account for the\nalienation.\n\nThe church teaches that every soul that finds its way to the shore of\nthis world is against God--naturally hates God; that the little dimpled\nchild in the cradle is simply a chunk of depravity. Everybody against\nGod! It is a libel upon the human race; it is a libel upon all the men\nwho have worked for wife and child; upon all mothers who have suffered\nand labored, wept and worked; upon all the men who have died for their\ncountry; upon all who have fought for human liberty. Leave out the\nhistory of religion and there is little left to prove the depravity of\nman.\n\nEverybody that comes is against God! Every soul, they think, is like the\nwrecked Irishman, who drifted to an unknown island, and as he climbed\nthe shore saw a man and said to him, \"Have you a Government here?\" The\nman replied \"We have.\" \"Well,\" said he, \"I'm forninst it!\"\n\nThe church teaches us that such is the attitude of every soul in the\nuniverse of God. Ought a god to take any credit to himself for making\ndepraved people? A god that cannot make a soul that is not totally\ndepraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And\nif a god has made us, knowing that we are totally depraved, why should\nwe go to the same being to be \"born again?\"\n\nThe Second Birth.\n\nThe church insists that we must be \"born again\" and that all who are not\nthe subjects of this second birth are heirs of everlasting fire. Would\nit not have been much better to have made another Adam and Eve? Would it\nnot have been better to change Noah and his people, so that after that a\nsecond birth would not have been necessary? Why not purify the fountain\nof all human life? Why allow the earth to be peopled with depraved and\nmonstrous beings, each one of whom must be re-made, re-formed, and born\nagain?\n\nAnd yet, even reformation is not enough. If the man who steals\nbecomes perfectly honest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his\nfellow-man, changes and loves his fellow-man, that is not enough; he\nmust go through that mysterious thing called the second birth; he must\nbe born again. He must have faith; he must believe something that\nhe does not understand, and experience what they call \"conversion.\"\nAccording to the church, nothing so excites the wrath of God--nothing so\ncorrugates the brows of Jehovah with hatred--as a man relying on his own\ngood works. He must admit that he ought to be damned, and that of the\ntwo he prefers it, before God will consent to save him.\n\nI met a man the other day, who said to me, \"I am a Unitarian\nUniversalist.\" \"What do you mean by that?\" I asked. \"Well,\" said he,\n\"this is what I mean: the Unitarian thinks he is too good to be damned,\nand the Universalist thinks God is too good to damn him, and I believe\nthem both.\"\n\nIs it possible that the sacrifice of a perfect being was acceptable to\nGod? Will he accept the agony of innocence for the punishment of guilt?\nWill he release Barabbas and crucify Christ?\n\nInspiration.\n\nWhat is the next thing in this great creed?\n\n\"_We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the\nrecord of God's revelation of Himself, the work of redemption; that\nthey were written by men under the special guidance of the holy spirit;\nthat they are able to make wise unto salvation; and that they constitute\nan authoritative standard by which religious teaching and human conduct\nare to be regulated and judged._\"\n\nThis is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, the result\nreached by a high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for\ntheir churches; and there we have the statement that the Bible was\nwritten \"by men under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit.\"\n\nWhat part of the Bible? All of it? All of it. And yet what is this Old\nTestament that was written by an infinitely good God? The being who\nwrote it did not know the shape of the world he had made; knew nothing\nof human nature. He commands men to love him, as if one could love upon\ncommand. The same God upheld the institution of human slavery; and the\nchurch says that the Bible that upholds that institution was written by\nmen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then I disagree with the Holy\nSpirit.\n\nThis church tells us that men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit\nupheld the institution of polygamy--I deny it; that under the\nguidance of the Holy Spirit these men upheld wars of extermination and\nconquest--I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these\nmen wrote that it was right for a man to destroy the life of his wife if\nshe happened to differ with him on the subject of religion--I deny it.\nAnd yet that is the book now upheld in this creed of the Congregational\nChurch.\n\nIf the devil had written upon the subject of slavery, which side would\nhe have taken? Let every minister answer. If you knew the devil had\nwritten a work on human slavery, in your judgment, would he uphold\nslavery, or denounce it? Would you regard it as any evidence that he\never wrote it, if it upheld slavery? And yet, here you have a work\nupholding slavery, and you say that it was written by an infinitely good\nGod! If the devil upheld polygamy, would you be surprised? If the devil\nwanted to kill men for differing with him would you be astonished? If\nthe devil told a man to kill his wife, would you be shocked? And yet,\nyou say, that is exactly what God did. If there be a God, then that\ncreed is blasphemy. That creed is a libel upon him who sits on heaven's\nthrone. If there be a God, I ask him to write in the book in which my\naccount is kept, that I denied these lies for him.\n\nI do not believe in a slaveholding God! I do not worship a polygamous\nHoly Ghost, nor a Son who threatens eternal pain; I will not get upon my\nknees before any being who commands a husband to slay his wife because\nshe expresses her honest thought. Suppose a book should be found old as\nthe Old Testament in which slavery, polygamy and war are all denounced,\nwould Christians think that it was written by the devil?\n\nDid it ever occur to you that if God wrote the Old Testament, and\ntold the Jews to crucify or kill anybody that disagreed with them on\nreligion, and that this God afterward took upon himself flesh and came\nto Jerusalem, and taught a different religion, and the Jews killed\nhim--did it ever occur to you that he reaped exactly what he had sown?\nDid it ever occur to you that he fell a victim to his own tyranny, and\nwas destroyed by his own hand? Of course I do not believe that any God\never was the author of the Bible, or that any God was ever crucified,\nor that any God was ever killed, or ever will be, but I want to ask you\nthat question.\n\nTake this Old Testament, then, with all its stories of murder and\nmassacre; with all its foolish and cruel fables; with all its infamous\ndoctrines; with its spirit of caste; with its spirit of hatred, and\ntell me whether it was written by a good God. If you will read the\nmaledictions and curses of that book, you will think that God, like\nLear, had divided heaven among his daughters, and then, in the insanity\nof despair, had launched his curses on the human race.\n\nAnd yet, I must say--I must admit--that the Old Testament is better\nthan the New. In the Old Testament, when God had a man dead, he let\nhim alone. When he saw him quietly in his grave he was satisfied. The\nmuscles relaxed, and the frown gave place to a smile. But in the New\nTestament the trouble commences at death. In the New Testament God is\nto wreak his revenge forever and ever. It was reserved for one who said,\n\"Love your enemies,\" to tear asunder the veil between time and eternity\nand fix the horrified gaze of man upon the gulfs of eternal fire. The\nNew Testament is just as much worse than the Old, as hell is worse than\nsleep; just as much worse, as infinite cruelty is worse than dreamless\nrest; and yet, the New Testament is claimed to be a gospel of love and\npeace.\n\nIs it possible that: \"_The Scriptures constitute the authoritative\nstandard by which religious teaching and human conduct are to be\nregulated and judged\"?_\n\nAre we to judge of conduct by the Old Testament, by the New, or by both?\nAccording to the Old, the slaveholder was a just and generous man; a\npolygamist was a model of virtue. According to the New, the worst can be\nforgiven and the best can be lost. How can any book be a standard,\nwhen the standard itself must be measured by human reason? Is there a\nstandard of a standard? Must not the reason be convinced? and, if so, is\nnot the reason of each man the final arbiter of that man? If he takes a\nbook as a standard, does he so take it because it is to him reasonable?\nIn what way is the human reason to be ignored? Why should a book take\nits place, unless the reason has been convinced that the book is the\nproper standard? If this is so, the book rests upon the reason of those\nwho adopt it. Are they to be saved because they act in accordance with\ntheir reason, and are others to be damned because they act by the same\nstandard--their reason? No two are alike. Can we demand of all the same\nresult? Suppose the compasses were not constant to the pole--no two\ncompasses exactly alike--would you expect all ships to reach the same\nharbor?\n\nThe Reign of Truth and Love.\n\nI also find in this creed the following:\n\n\"_We believe that Jesus Christ came to establish among men the Kingdom\nof God, the reign of truth and love, of righteousness and peace!_\"\n\nWell, that may have been the object of Jesus Christ. I do not deny it.\nBut what was the result? The Christian world has caused more war than\nall the rest of the world beside. Most of the cunning instruments of\ndeath have been devised by Christians. All the wonderful machinery by\nwhich the life is blown from men, by which nations are conquered and\nenslaved--all these machines have been born in Christian brains. And yet\nhe came to bring peace, they say; but the Testament says otherwise: \"I\ncame not to bring peace, but a sword.\" And the sword was brought. What\nare the Christian nations doing to-day in Europe? Is there a solitary\nChristian nation that will trust any other? How many millions of\nChristians are in the uniform of forgiveness, armed with the muskets of\nlove?\n\nThere was an old Spaniard on the bed of death, who sent for a priest,\nand the priest told him that he would have to forgive his enemies before\nhe died. He said, \"I have none.\" \"What! no enemies?\" \"Not one,\" said the\ndying man; \"I killed the last one three months ago.\"\n\nHow many millions of Christians are now armed and equipped to destroy\ntheir fellow-Christians? Who are the men in Europe crying against war?\nWho wishes to have the nations disarmed? Is it the church? No; the men\nwho do not believe in what they call this religion of peace. When there\nis a war, and when they make a few thousand widows and orphans; when\nthey strew the plain with dead patriots, Christians assemble in their\nchurches and sing \"Te Deum Laudamus.\" Why? Because he has enabled a\nfew of his children to kill some others of his children. This is the\nreligion of peace--the religion that invented the Krupp gun, that will\nhurl a ball weighing two thousand pounds through twenty-four inches\nof solid steel. This is the religion of peace that covers the sea with\nmen-of-war, clad in mail, in the name of universal forgiveness. This is\nthe religion that drills and uniforms five millions of men to kill their\nfellows.\n\nThe Wars It Brought.\n\nWhat effect has this religion had upon the nations of the earth? What\nhave the nations been fighting about? What was the Thirty Years' War\nin Europe for? What was the war in Holland for? Why was it that England\npersecuted Scotland? Why is it that England persecutes Ireland even to\nthis day? At the bottom of every one of these conflicts you will find\na religious question. The religion of Jesus Christ, as preached by his\nchurch, causes war, bloodshed, hatred, and all uncharitableness; and\nwhy? Because, they say, a certain belief is necessary to salvation. They\ndo not say, if you behave yourself you will get there; they do not say,\nif you pay your debts and love your wife and love your children, and are\ngood to your friends, and your neighbors, and your country, you will\nget there; that will do you no good; you have got to believe a certain\nthing. No matter how bad you are, you can instantly be forgiven; and no\nmatter how good you are, if you fail to believe that which you cannot\nunderstand, the moment you get to the day of judgment nothing is left\nbut to damn you, and all the angels will shout \"hallelujah.\"\n\nWhat do they teach to-day? Nearly every murderer goes to heaven; there\nis only one step from the gallows to God, only one jerk between the\nhalter and heaven. That is taught by this church.\n\nI believe there ought to be a law to prevent the giving of the slightest\nreligious consolation to any man who has been found guilty of murder.\nLet a Catholic understand that if he imbrues his hands in his brother's\nblood, he can have no extreme unction. Let it be understood that he\ncan have no forgiveness through the church; and let the Protestant\nunderstand that when he has committed that crime the community will not\npray him into heaven. Let him go with his victim. The victim, dying in\nhis sins, goes to hell, and the murderer has the happiness of seeing him\nthere. If heaven grows dull and monotonous, the murderer can again give\nlife to the nerve of pleasure by watching the agony of his victim.\n\nThe truth is, Christianity has not made friends; it has made enemies. It\nis not, as taught, the religion of peace, it is the religion of war.\nWhy should a Christian hesitate to kill a man that his God is waiting\nto damn? Why should a Christian not destroy an infidel who is trying to\nassassinate his soul? Why should a Christian pity an unbeliever--one who\nhas rejected the Bible--when he knows that God will be pitiless forever?\nAnd yet we are told, in this creed, that \"_we believe in the ultimate\nprevalence of the Kingdom of Christ over all the earth._\"\n\nWhat makes you? Do you judge from the manner in which you are getting\nalong now? How many people are being born a year? About fifty millions.\nHow many are you converting a year, really, truthfully? Five or six\nthousand. I think I have overstated the number. Is orthodox Christianity\non the increase? No. There are a hundred times as many unbelievers in\northodox Christianity as there were ten years ago. What are you doing in\nthe missionary world? How long is it since you converted a Chinaman?\nA fine missionary religion, to send missionaries with their Bibles and\ntracts to China, but if a Chinaman comes here, mob him, simply to show\nhim the difference between the practical and theoretical workings of the\nChristian religion. How long since you have had an intelligent convert\nin India? In my judgment, never; there never has been an intelligent\nHindoo converted from the time the first missionary put his foot on\nthat soil; and never, in my judgment, has an intelligent Chinaman been\nconverted since the first missionary touched that shore. Where are they?\nWe hear nothing of them, except in the reports. They get money from poor\nold ladies, trembling on the edge of the grave, and go and tell them\nstories, how hungry the average Chinaman is for a copy of the New\nTestament, and paint the sad condition of a gentleman in the interior\nof Africa without the works of Dr. McCosh, longing for a copy of _The\nPrinceton Review_,--in my judgment, a pamphlet that would suit a savage.\nThus money is scared from the dying, and frightened from the old and\nfeeble.\n\nAbout how long is it before this kingdom is to be established? No one\nobjects to the establishment of peace and good will. Every good man\nlongs for the time when war shall cease. We are all hoping for a day of\nuniversal justice--a day of universal freedom--when man shall control\nhimself, when the passions shall become obedient to the intelligent\nwill. But the coming of that day will not be hastened by preaching the\ndoctrines of total depravity and eternal revenge. That sun will not rise\nthe quicker for preaching salvation by faith. The star that shines\nabove that dawn, the herald of that day, is Science, not\nsuperstition,--Reason, not religion.\n\nTo show you how little advance has been made, how many intellectual bats\nand mental owls still haunt the temple, still roost above the altar,\nI call your attention to the fact that the Congregational Church,\naccording to this creed; still believes in the resurrection of the dead,\nand in their Confession of Faith, attached to the creed, I find that\nthey also believe in the literal resurrection of the body.\n\nThe Resurrection.\n\nDoes anybody believe that, who has the courage to think for himself?\nHere is a man, for instance, that weighs 200 pounds and gets sick\nand dies weighing 120; how much will he weigh in the morning of the\nresurrection? Here is a cannibal, who eats another man; and we know that\nthe atoms you eat go into your body and become a part of you. After\nthe cannibal has eaten the missionary, and appropriated his atoms to\nhimself, and then dies, to whom will the atoms belong in the morning of\nthe resurrection? Could the missionary maintain an action of replevin,\nand if so, what would the cannibal do for a body? It has been\ndemonstrated, in so far as logic can demonstrate anything, that there\nis no creation and no destruction in Nature. It has been demonstrated,\nagain and again, that the atoms in us have been in millions of other\nbeings; have grown in the forests and in the grass, have blossomed in\nflowers, and been in the metals. In other words, there are atoms in each\none of us that have been in millions of others; and when we die, these\natoms return to the earth, again appear in grass and trees, are again\neaten by animals, and again devoured by countless vegetable mouths and\nturned into wood; and yet this church, in the nineteenth century,'in a\ncouncil composed of, and presided over by, professors and presidents\nof colleges and theologians, solemnly tells us that it believes in the\nliteral resurrection of the body. This is almost enough to make\none despair of the future--almost enough to convince a man of the\nimmortality of the absurd. They know better. There is not one so\nignorant but knows better.\n\nThe Judgment-Day.\n\nAnd what is the next thing?\n\n\"_We believe in a final judgment, the issues of which are everlasting\npunishment and everlasting life!_\"\n\nAt the final judgment all of us will be there. The thousands, and\nmillions, and billions, and trillions, and quadrillions that have died\nwill be there. The books will be opened, and each case will be called.\nThe sheep and the goats will be divided. The unbelievers will be sent to\nthe left, while the faithful will proudly walk to the right. The saved,\nwithout a tear, will bid an eternal farewell to those who loved them\nhere--to those they loved. Nearly all the human race will go away to\neverlasting punishment, and the fortunate few to eternal life. This\nis the consolation of the Congregational Church! This is the hope that\ndispels the gloom of life!\n\nPious Evasions.\n\nWhen the clergy are caught, they give a different meaning to the\nwords and say the world was not made in seven days. They say \"good\nwhiles\"--\"epochs.\"\n\nAnd in this same Confession of Faith and in this creed they say that the\nLord's day is holy--every seventh day. Suppose you lived near the North\nPole where the day is three months long. Then which day would you keep?\nIf you could get to the North Pole you could prevent Sunday from ever\novertaking you. You could walk around the other way faster than the\nworld could revolve. How would you keep Sunday then? Suppose we invent\nsomething that can go one thousand miles an hour? We can chase Sunday\nclear around the globe. Is there anything that can be more perfectly\nabsurd than that a space of time can be holy? You might as well talk\nabout a virtuous vacuum. We are now told that the Bible is not a\nscientific book, and that after all we cannot depend on what God said\nfour thousand years ago--that his ways are not as our ways--that we must\naccept without evidence, and believe without understanding.\n\nI heard the other night of an old man. He was not very well educated,\nand he got into the notion that he must have reading of the Bible and\nfamily worship. There was a bad boy in the family, and they were reading\nthe Bible by course. In the fifteenth chapter of Corinthians is this\npassage: \"Behold, brethren, I show you a mystery; we shall not all\ndie, but we shall all be changed.\" This boy had rubbed out the \"c\" in\n\"changed.\" So when the old man put on his spectacles, and got down his\nBible, he read: \"Behold, brethren, I show you a mystery, we shall not\nall die, but we shall all be hanged.\" The old lady said, \"Father, I\ndon't think it reads that way.\" He said, \"Who is reading this?\" \"Yes\nmother, it says 'hanged,' and, more than that, I see the sense of it.\nPride is the besetting sin of the human heart, and if there is anything\ncalculated to take the pride out of a man it is hanging.\" It is in this\nway that ministers avoid and explain the discoveries of Science.\n\nPeople ask me, if I take away the Bible what are we going to do? How can\nwe get along without the revelation that no one understands? What are\nwe going to do if we have no Bible to quarrel about What are we to do\nwithout hell? What are we going to do with our enemies? What are we\ngoing to do with the people we love but don't like?\n\n\"No Bible, No Civilization.\"\n\nThey tell me that there never would have been any civilization if it had\nnot been for this Bible. The Jews had a Bible; the Romans had not. Which\nhad the greater and the grander government? Let us be honest. Which of\nthose nations produced the greatest poets, the greatest soldiers, the\ngreatest orators, the greatest statesmen, the greatest sculptors? Rome\nhad no Bible. God cared nothing for the Roman Empire. He let the men\ncome up by chance. His time was taken up with the Jewish people. And\nyet Rome conquered the world, including the chosen people of God. The\npeople who had the Bible were defeated by the people who had not. How\nwas it possible for Lucretius to get along without the Bible?--how did\nthe great and glorious of that empire? And what shall we say of Greece?\nNo Bible. Compare Athens with Jerusalem. From Athens come the beauty and\nintellectual grace of the world. Compare the mythology of Greece with\nthe mythology of Judea; one covering the earth with beauty, and the\nother filling heaven with hatred and injustice. The Hindoos had no\nBible; they had been forsaken by the Creator, and yet they became the\ngreatest metaphysicians of the world. Egypt had no Bible. Compare Egypt\nwith Judea. What are we to do without the Bible? What became of the Jews\nwho had a Bible? Their temple was destroyed and their city was taken;\nand they never found real prosperity until their God deserted them. The\nTurks attributed all their victories to the Koran. The Koran gave them\ntheir victories over the believers in the Bible. The priests of each\nnation have accounted for the prosperity of that nation by its religion.\n\nThe Christians mistake an incident for a cause, and honestly imagine\nthat the Bible is the foundation of modern liberty and law. They forget\nphysical conditions, make no account of commerce, care nothing for\ninventions and discoveries, and ignorantly give the credit to their\ninspired book.\n\nThe foundations of our civilization were laid centuries before\nChristianity was known. The intelligence of courage, of self-government,\nof energy, of industry, that uniting made the civilization of this\ncentury, did not come alone from Judea, but from every nation of the\nancient world.\n\nMiracles of the New Testament.\n\nThere are many things in the New Testament that I cannot accept as true.\n\nI cannot believe in the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ. I believe he\nwas the son of Joseph and Mary; that Joseph and Mary had been duly and\nlegally married; that he was the legitimate offspring of that union.\nNobody ever believed the contrary until he had been dead at least one\nhundred and fifty years. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke ever dreamed\nthat he was of divine origin. He did not say to either Matthew, Mark,\nor Luke, or to any one in their hearing, that he was the Son of God,\nor that he was miraculously conceived. He did not say it. It may be\nasserted that he said it to John, but John did not write the gospel\nthat bears his name. The angel Gabriel, who, they say, brought the news,\nnever wrote a word upon the subject. The mother of Christ never wrote\na word upon the subject. His alleged father never wrote a word upon\nthe subject, and Joseph never admitted the story. We are lacking in\nthe matter of witnesses. I would not believe such a story now. I cannot\nbelieve that it happened then. I would not believe people I know, much\nless would I believe people I do not know.\n\nAt that time Matthew and Luke believed that Christ was the son of Joseph\nand Mary. And why? they say he descended from David, and in order to\nshow that he was of the blood of David, they gave the genealogy of\nJoseph. And if Joseph was not his father, why did they not give the\ngenealogy of Pontius Pilate or of Herod? Could they, by giving the\ngenealogy of Joseph, show that he was of the blood of David if Joseph\nwas in no way related to Christ? And yet that is the position into which\nthe Christian world is driven. In the New Testament we find that in\ngiving the genealogy of Christ it says, \"who was the son of Joseph?\" and\nthe church has interpolated the words \"as was supposed.\" Why did they\ngive a supposed genealogy? It will not do. And that is a thing that\ncannot in any way, by any human testimony, be established.\n\nIf it is important for us to know that he was the Son of God, I say,\nthen, that it devolves upon God to give us the evidence. Let him write\nit across the face of the heavens, in every language of mankind. If it\nis necessary for us to believe it, let it grow on every leaf next\nyear. No man should be damned for not believing, unless the evidence is\noverwhelming. And he ought not to be made to depend upon say so, or upon\n\"as was supposed.\" He should have it directly, for himself. A man says\nthat God told him a certain thing, and he tells me, and I have only his\nword. He may have been deceived. If God has a message for me he ought\nto tell it to me, and not to somebody that has been dead four or five\nthousand years, and in another language.\n\nBesides, God may have changed his mind on many things; he has on\nslavery, and polygamy at least, according to the church; and yet his\nchurch now wants to go and destroy polygamy in Utah with the sword. Why\ndo they not send missionaries there with copies of the Old Testament?\nBy reading the lives of Abraham and Isaac, and Lot, and a few other\npatriarchs who ought to have been in the penitentiary, maybe they can\nsoften their hearts.\n\nMore Miracles.\n\nThere is another miracle I do not believe,--the resurrection. I want to\nspeak about it as we would about any ordinary transaction. In the first\nplace, I do not believe that any miracle was ever performed, and if\nthere was, you cannot prove it. Why? Because it is altogether more\nreasonable to believe that the people were mistaken about it than that\nit happened. And why? Because, according to human experience, we know\nthat people will not always tell the truth, and we never saw a miracle\nourselves, and we must be governed by our experience; and if we go by\nour experience, we must say that the miracle never happened--that the\nwitnesses were mistaken.\n\nA man comes into Jerusalem, and the first thing he does is to cure the\nblind. He lets the light of day visit the night of blindness. The eyes\nare opened, and the world is again pictured upon the brain. Another man\nis clothed with leprosy. He touches him and the disease falls from\nhim, and he stands pure, and clean, and whole. Another man is deformed,\nwrinkled, and bent. He touches him, and throws around him again the\ngarment of youth. A man is in his grave, and he says, \"Come forth!\"\nAnd the man walks in life, feeling his heart throb and his blood going\njoyously through his veins. They say that actually happened. I do not\nknow.\n\nThere is one wonderful thing about the dead people that were raised--we\ndo not hear of them any more. What became of them? If there was a man\nin this city who had been raised from the dead, I would go to see him\nto-night. I would say, \"Where were you when you got the notice to come\nback? What kind of a country is it? What kind of opening there for a\nyoung man? How did you like it? Did you meet there the friends you had\nlost? Is there a world without death, without pain, without a tear? Is\nthere a land without a grave, and where good-bye is never heard?\" Nobody\never paid the slightest attention to the dead who had been raised. They\ndid not even excite interest when they died the second time. Nobody\nsaid, \"Why, that man is not afraid. He has been there once. He has\nwalked through the valley of the shadow.\" Not a word. They pass quietly\naway.\n\nI do not believe these miracles. There is something wrong somewhere\nabout that business. I may suffer eternal punishment for all this, but I\ncannot, I do not, believe.\n\nThere was a man who did all these things, and thereupon they crucified\nhim. Let us be honest. Suppose a man came into this city and should meet\na funeral procession, and say, \"Who is dead?\" and they should reply,\n\"The son of a widow; her only support.\" Suppose he should say to the\nprocession, \"Halt!\" and to the undertaker, \"Take out that coffin,\nunscrew that lid. Young man, I say unto thee, arise!\" and the dead\nshould step from the coffin and in a moment afterward hold his mother in\nhis arms. Suppose this stranger should go to your cemetery and find some\nwoman holding a little child in each hand, while the tears fell upon a\nnew-made grave, and he should say to her, \"Who lies buried here?\"\nand she should reply, \"My husband;\" and he should cry, \"I say unto\nthee, oh grave, give up thy dead!\" and the husband should rise, and in a\nmoment after have his lips upon his wife's, and the little children with\ntheir arms around his neck; do you think that the people of this city\nwould kill him? Do you think any one would wish to crucify him? Do\nyou not rather believe that every one who had a loved one out in that\ncemetery would go to him, even upon their knees, and beg him to give\nback their dead? Do you believe that any man was ever crucified who was\nthe master of death?\n\nLet me tell you to-night if there shall ever appear upon this earth the\nmaster, the monarch, of death, all human knees will touch the earth. He\nwill not be crucified. All the living who fear death; all the living who\nhave lost a loved one, will bow to him. And yet we are told that this\nworker of miracles, this man who could clothe the dead dust in the\nthrobbing flesh of life, was crucified. I do not believe that he worked\nthe miracles, I do not believe that he raised the dead, I do not believe\nthat he claimed to be the Son of God, These things were told long after\nhe was dead; told because the ignorant multitude demanded mystery and\nwonder; told, because at that time the miraculous was believed of all\nthe illustrious dead. Stories that made Christianity powerful then,\nweaken it now. He who gains a triumph in a conflict with a devil, will\nbe defeated by science.\n\nThere is another thing about these foolish miracles. All could have\nbeen imitated. Men could pretend to be blind; confederates could feign\nsickness, and even death.\n\nIt is not very difficult to limp or to hold an arm as though it were\nparalyzed; or to say that one is afflicted with \"an issue of blood.\" It\nis easy to say that the son of a widow was raised from the dead, and\nif you fail to give the name of the son, or his mother, or the time and\nplace where the wonder occurred, it is quite difficult to show that it\ndid not happen.\n\nNo one can be called upon to disprove anything that has not apparently\nbeen established. I say apparently, because there can be no real\nevidence in support of a miracle.\n\nHow could we prove, for instance, the miracle of the loaves and fishes?\nThere were plenty of other loaves and other fishes in the world? Each\none of the five thousand could have had a loaf and a fish with him. We\nwould have to show that there was no other possible way for the people\nto get the bread and fish except by miracle, and then we are only half\nthrough. We must then show that they did, in fact, get enough to\nfeed five thousand people, and that more was left than was had in the\nbeginning.\n\nOf course this is simply impossible. And let me ask, why was not the\nmiracle substantiated by some of the multitude?\n\nWould it not have been a greater wonder if Christ had _created_ instead\nof multiplied the loaves and fishes?\n\nHow can we now prove that a certain person more than eighteen hundred\nyears ago was possessed by seven devils?\n\nHow was it ever possible to prove a thing like that?\n\nHow can it be established that some evil spirits could talk while others\nwere dumb, and that the dumb ones were the hardest to control?\n\nIf Christ wished to convince his fellow-men by miracles, why did he not\ndo something that could not by any means have been a counterfeit?\n\nInstead of healing a withered arm, why did he not find some man whose\narm had been cut off, and make another grow?\n\nIf he wanted to raise the dead, why did he not raise some man of\nimportance, some one known to all?\n\nWhy did he do his miracles in the obscurity of the village, in the\ndarkness of the hovel?\n\nWhy call back to life people so insignificant that the public did not\nknow of their death?\n\nSuppose that in May, 1865, a man had pretended to raise some person by\nthe name of Smith from the dead, and suppose a religion had been founded\non that miracle, would it not be natural for people, hundreds of years\nafter the pretended miracle, to ask why the founder of that religion\ndid not raise from the dead Abraham Lincoln, instead of the unknown and\nobscure Mr. Smith?\n\nHow could any man now, in any court, by any known rule of evidence,\nsubstantiate one of the miracles of Christ?\n\nMust we believe anything that cannot in any way be substantiated?\n\nIf miracles were necessary to convince men eighteen centuries ago, are\nthey not necessary now?\n\nAfter all, how many men did Christ convince with his miracles? How many\nwalked beneath the standard of the master of Nature?\n\nHow did it happen that so many miracles convinced so few? I will\ntell you. The miracles were never performed. No other explanation is\npossible.\n\nIt is infinitely absurd to say that a man who cured the sick, the halt\nand blind, raised the dead, cast out devils, controlled the winds and\nwaves, created food and held obedient to his will the forces of the\nworld, was put to death by men who knew his superhuman power and who\nhad seen his wondrous works. If the crucifixion was public, the miracles\nwere private. If the miracles had been public, the crucifixion could not\nhave been. Do away with the miracles, and the superhuman character of\nChrist is destroyed. He becomes what he really was--a man. Do away with\nthe wonders, and the teachings of Christ cease to be authoritative. They\nare then worth the reason, the truth that is in them, and nothing more.\nDo away with the miracles, and then we can measure the utterances of\nChrist with the standard of our reason. We are no longer intellectual\nserfs, believing what is unreasonable in obedience to the command of a\nsupposed god. We no longer take counsel of our fears, of our cowardice,\nbut boldly defend what our reason maintains.\n\nChrist takes his appropriate place with the other teachers of mankind.\nHis life becomes reasonable and admirable. We have a man who hated\noppression; who despised and denounced superstition and hypocrisy; who\nattacked the heartless church of his time; who excited the hatred of\nbigots and priests, and who rather than be false to his conception of\ntruth, met and bravely suffered even death.\n\nThe Resurrection.\n\nThe miracle of the resurrection I do not and cannot believe. If it was\nthe fact, if the dead Christ rose from the grave, why did he not appear\nto his enemies? Why did he not visit Pontius Pilate? Why did he not call\nupon Caiaphas, the high priest? upon Herod? Why did he not again enter\nthe temple and end the old dispute with demonstration? Why did he not\nconfront the Roman soldiers who had taken money to falsely swear that\nhis body had been stolen by his friends? Why did he not make another\ntriumphal entry into Jerusalem? Why did he not say to the multitude:\n\"Here are the wounds in my feet, and in my hands, and in my side. I am\nthe one you endeavored to kill, but Death is my slave\"? Simply because\nthe resurrection is a myth. It makes no difference with his teachings.\nThey are just as good whether he wrought miracles or not. Twice two are\nfour; that needs no miracle. Twice two are five--a miracle can not help\nthat. Christ's teachings are worth their effect upon the human race.\nIt makes no difference about miracle or wonder. In that day every\none believed in the impossible. Nobody had any standing as teacher,\nphilosopher, governor, king, general, about whom there was not supposed\nto be something miraculous. The earth was covered with the sons and\ndaughters of gods and goddesses.\n\nIn Greece, in Rome, in Egypt, in India, every great man was supposed to\nhave had either a god for his father, or a goddess for his mother. They\naccounted for genius by divine origin. Earth and heaven were at that\ntime near together. It was but a step for the gods from the blue arch\nto the green earth. Every lake and valley and mountain top was made rich\nwith legends of the loves of gods. How could the early Christians have\nmade converts to a man, among a people who believed so thoroughly in\ngods--in gods that had lived upon the earth; among a people who had\nerected temples to the sons and daughters of gods? Such people could not\nhave been induced to worship a man--a man born among barbarous people,\ncitizen of a nation weak and poor and paying tribute to the Roman power.\nThe early Christians therefore preached the gospel of a god.\n\nThe Ascension.\n\nI cannot believe in the miracle of the ascension, in the bodily\nascension of Jesus Christ. Where was he going? In the light shed upon\nthis question by the telescope, I again ask, where was he going?\n\nThe New Jerusalem is not above us. The abode of the gods is not there.\nWhere was he going? Which way did he go? Of course that depends upon\nthe time of day he left. If he left in the evening, he went exactly\nthe opposite way from that he would have gone had he ascended in the\nmorning. What did he do with his body? How high did he go? In what way\ndid he overcome the intense cold? The nearest station is the moon, two\nhundred and forty thousand miles away. Again I ask, where did he go? He\nmust have had a natural body, for it was the same body that died. His\nbody must have been material, otherwise he would not as he rose have\ncircled with the earth, and he would have passed from the sight of his\ndisciples at the rate of more than a thousand miles per hour.\n\nIt may be said that his body was \"spiritual.\" Then what became of the\nbody that died? Just before his ascension we are told that he partook of\nbroiled fish with his disciples. Was the fish \"spiritual?\"\n\nWho saw this miracle?\n\nThey say the disciples saw it. Let us see what they say. Matthew did not\nthink it was worth mentioning. He does not speak of it. On the contrary,\nhe says that the last words of Christ were:\n\n\"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.\" Is it\npossible that Matthew saw this, the most miraculous of miracles, and\nyet forgot to put it in his life of Christ? Think of the little miracles\nrecorded by this saint, and then determine whether it is probable that\nhe witnessed the ascension of Jesus Christ.\n\nMark says: \"So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them he was\nreceived up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God.\" This is all\nhe says about the most wonderful vision that ever astonished human eyes,\na miracle great enough to have stuffed credulity to bursting; and yet\nall we have is this one, poor, meagre verse. We know now that most of\nthe last chapter of Mark is an interpolation, and as a matter of fact,\nthe author of Mark's gospel said nothing about the ascension one way or\nthe other.\n\nLuke says: \"And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from\nthem and was carried up into Heaven.\"\n\nJohn does not mention it. He gives as Christ's last words this address\nto Peter: \"Follow thou Me.\" Of course, he did not say that as he\nascended. It seems to have made very little impression upon him; he\nwrites the account as though tired of the story. He concludes with an\nimpatient wave of the hand.\n\nIn the Acts we have another account. A conversation is given not\nspoken of in any of the others, and we find there two men clad in white\napparel, who said: \"Ye men of Galilee why stand ye here gazing up into\nheaven? This same Jesus that was taken up into heaven shall so come in\nlike manner as ye have seen him go up into heaven.\"\n\nMatthew did not see the men in white apparel, did not see the ascension.\nMark forgot the entire transaction, and Luke did not think the men in\nwhite apparel worth mentioning. John had not confidence enough in the\nstory to repeat it. And yet, upon such evidence, we are bound to believe\nin the bodily ascension, or suffer eternal pain.\n\nAnd here let me ask, why was not the ascension in public?\n\nCasting out Devils.\n\nMost of the miracles said to have been wrought by Christ were recorded\nto show his power over evil spirits. On many occasions, he is said to\nhave \"cast out devils\"--devils who could speak, and devils who were\ndumb.\n\nFor many years belief in the existence of evil spirits has been fading\nfrom the mind, and as this belief grew thin, ministers endeavored to\ngive new meanings to the ancient words. They are inclined now to put\n\"disease\" in the place of \"devils,\" and most of them say, that the\npoor wretches supposed to have been the homes of fiends, were simply\nsuffering from epileptic fits! We must remember that Christ and these\ndevils often conversed together. Is it possible that fits can talk?\nThese devils often admitted that Christ was God. Can epilepsy certify to\ndivinity? On one occasion the fits told their name, and made a contract\nto leave the body of a man provided they would be permitted to take\npossession of a herd of swine. Is it possible that fits carried Christ\nhimself to the pinnacle of a temple? Did fits pretend to be the owner\nof the whole earth? Is Christ to be praised for resisting such a\ntemptation? Is it conceivable that fits wanted Christ to fall down and\nworship them?\n\nThe church must not abandon its belief in devils. Orthodoxy cannot\nafford to put out the fires of hell. Throw away a belief in the devil,\nand most of the miracles of the New Testament become impossible, even\nif we admit the supernatural. If there is no devil, who was the original\ntempter in the garden of Eden? If there is no hell, from what are\nwe saved; to what purpose is the atonement? Upon the obverse of the\nChristian shield is God, upon the reverse, the devil. No devil, no hell.\nNo hell, no atonement. No atonement, no preaching, no gospel.\n\nNecessity of Belief.\n\nDoes belief depend upon evidence? I think it does somewhat in some\ncases. How is it when a jury is sworn to try a case, hearing all the\nevidence, hearing both sides, hearing the charge of the judge, hearing\nthe law, are upon their oaths equally divided, six for the plaintiff and\nsix for the defendant? Evidence does not have the same effect upon all\npeople. Why? Our brains are not alike. They are not the same shape. We\nhave not the same intelligence, or the same experience, the same sense.\nAnd yet I am held accountable for my belief. I must believe in the\nTrinity--three times one is one, once one is three, and my soul is to be\neternally damned for failing to guess an arithmetical conundrum. That\nis the poison part of Christianity--that salvation depends upon\nbelief. That is the accursed part, and until that dogma is discarded\nChristianity will be nothing but superstition.\n\nNo man can control his belief. If I hear certain evidence I will believe\na certain thing. If I fail to hear it I may never believe it. If it is\nadapted to my mind I may accept it; if it is not, I reject it. And what\nam I to go by? My brain. That is the only light I have from Nature, and\nif there be a God it is the only torch that this God has given me to\nfind my way through the darkness and night called life. I do not depend\nupon hearsay for that. I do not have to take the word of any other man\nnor get upon my knees before a book. Here in the temple of the mind I\nconsult the God, that is to say my reason, and the oracle speaks to me\nand I obey the oracle. What should I obey? Another man's oracle? Shall\nI take another man's word--not what he thinks, but what he says some God\nhas said to him?\n\nI would not know a god if I should see one. I have said before, and I\nsay again, the brain thinks in spite of me, and I am not responsible for\nmy thoughts. I cannot control the beating of my heart. I cannot stop\nthe blood that flows through the rivers of my veins. And yet I am held\nresponsible for my belief. Then why does not God give me the evidence?\nThey say he has. In what? In an inspired book. But I do not understand\nit as they do. Must I be false to my understanding? They say: \"When you\ncome to die you will be sorry if you do not.\" Will I be sorry when I\ncome to die that I did not live a hypocrite? Will I be sorry that I\ndid not say I was a Christian when I was not? Will the fact that I was\nhonest put a thorn in the pillow of death? Cannot God forgive me for\nbeing honest? They say that when he was in Jerusalem he forgave his\nmurderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing from\nhim on the subject of the Trinity.\n\nThey say that God says to me, \"Forgive your enemies.\" I say, \"I do;\" but\nhe says, \"I will damn mine.\" God should be consistent. If he wants me to\nforgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies\nwho can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt\nhim. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be. And I\nwant no God to forgive me unless I am willing to forgive others, and\nunless I do forgive others. All I ask, if that be true, is that this God\nshould act according to his own doctrine. If I am to forgive my enemies,\nI ask him to forgive his. I do not believe in the religion of faith,\nbut of kindness, of good deeds. The idea that man is responsible for his\nbelief is at the bottom of religious intolerance and persecution.\n\nHow inconsistent these Christians are! In St. Louis the other day I read\nan interview with a Christian minister--one who is now holding a\nrevival. They call him the boy preacher--a name that he has borne for\nfifty or sixty years. The question was whether in these revivals, when\nthey were trying to rescue souls from eternal torture, they would allow\ncolored people to occupy seats with white people; and that revivalist,\npreaching the unsearchable riches of Christ, said he would not allow the\ncolored people to sit with white people; they must go to the back of the\nchurch. These same Christians tell us that in heaven there will be no\ndistinction. That Christ cares nothing for the color of the skin. That\nin Paradise white and black will sit together, swap harps, and cry\nhallelujah in chorus; yet this minister, believing as he says he does,\nthat all men who fail to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will eternally\nperish, was not willing that a colored man should sit by a white man and\nhear the gospel of everlasting peace.\n\nAccording to this revivalist, the ship of the world is going down;\nChrist is the only life-boat; and yet he is not willing that a colored\nman, with a soul to save, shall sit by the side of a white brother,\nand be rescued from eternal death. He admits that the white brother\nis totally depraved; that if the white brother had justice done him he\nwould be damned; that it is only through the wonderful mercy of God that\nthe white man is not in hell; and yet such a being, totally depraved,\nis too good to sit by a colored man! Total depravity becomes arrogant;\ntotal depravity draws the color line in religion, and an ambassador of\nChrist says to the black man, \"Stand away; let your white brother hear\nfirst about the love of God.\"\n\nI believe in the religion of humanity. It is far better to love our\nfellow-men than to love God. We can help them. We cannot help him. We\nhad better do what we can than to be always pretending to do what we\ncannot.\n\nVirtue is of no color; kindness, justice and love, of no complexion.\n\nEternal Punishment.\n\nNow I come to the last part of this creed--the doctrine of eternal\npunishment. I have concluded that I will never deliver a lecture in\nwhich I will not attack the doctrine of eternal pain. That part of the\nCongregational creed would disgrace the lowest savage that crouches\nand crawls in the jungles of Africa. The man who now, in the nineteenth\ncentury, preaches the doctrine of eternal punishment, the doctrine of an\neternal hell, has lived in vain. Think of that doctrine! The eternity of\npunishment! I find in this same creed--in this latest utterance of\nCongregationalism--that Christ is finally going to triumph in this world\nand establish his kingdom. This creed declares that \"we believe in the\nultimate prevalence of the kingdom of God over all the earth.\" If\ntheir doctrine is true he will never triumph in the other world. The\nCongregational Church does not believe in the ultimate prevalence of the\nkingdom of Christ in the world to come. There he is to meet with eternal\nfailure. He will have billions in hell forever.\n\nIn this world we never will be perfectly civilized as long as a gallows\ncasts its shadow upon the earth. As long as there is a penitentiary,\nwithin the walls of which a human being is immured, we are not a\nperfectly civilized people. We shall never be perfectly civilized until\nwe do away with crime. And yet, according to this Christian religion,\nGod is to have an eternal penitentiary; he is to be an everlasting\njailer, an everlasting turnkey, a warden of an infinite dungeon, and\nhe is going to keep prisoners there forever, not for the purpose of\nreforming them--because they are never going to get any better, only\nworse--but for the purpose of purposeless punishment. And for what?\nFor something they failed to believe in this world. Born in ignorance,\nsupported by poverty, caught in the snares of temptation, deformed by\ntoil, stupefied by want--and yet held responsible through the countless\nages of eternity! No man can think of a greater horror; no man can dream\nof a greater absurdity. For the growth of that doctrine ignorance was\nsoil and fear was rain. It came from the fanged mouths of serpents, and\nyet it is called \"glad tidings of great joy.\" Some Who are Damned.\n\nWe are told \"God so loved the world\" that he is going to damn almost\neverybody. If this orthodox religion be true, some of the greatest, and\ngrandest, and best who ever lived are suffering God's torments to-night.\nIt does not appear to make much difference with the members of the\nchurch. They go right on enjoying themselves about as well as ever. If\nthis doctrine is true, Benjamin Franklin, one of the wisest and best of\nmen, who did so much to give us here a free government, is suffering\nthe tyranny of God to-night, although he endeavored to establish freedom\namong men. If the churches were honest, their preachers would tell their\nhearers: \"Benjamin Franklin is in hell, and we warn all the youth not to\nimitate Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration\nof Independence, with its self-evident truths, has been damned these\nmany years.\"\n\nThat is what all the ministers ought to have the courage to say. Talk\nas you believe. Stand by your creed, or change it. I want to impress it\nupon your minds, because the thing I wish to do in this world is to put\nout the fires of hell. I will keep on as long as there is one little red\ncoal left in the bottomless pit. As long as the ashes are warm I shall\ndenounce this infamous doctrine.\n\nI want you to know that according to this creed the men who founded this\ngreat and splendid Government are in hell to-night. Most of the men who\nfought in the Revolutionary war, and wrested from the clutch of Great\nBritain this continent, have been rewarded by the eternal wrath of God.\nThousands of the old Revolutionary soldiers are in torment tonight. Let\nthe preachers have the courage to say so. The men who fought in 1812,\nand gave to the United States the freedom of the seas, have nearly all\nbeen damned. Thousands of heroes who served our country in the Civil\nwar, hundreds who starved in prisons, are now in the dungeons of God,\ncompared with which, Andersonville was Paradise. The greatest of heroes\nare there; the greatest of poets, the greatest scientists, the men who\nhave made the world beautiful--they are all among the damned if this\ncreed is true.\n\nHumboldt, who shed light, and who added to the intellectual wealth\nof mankind; Goethe, and Schiller, and Lessing, who almost created the\nGerman language--all gone--all suffering the wrath of God tonight, and\nevery time an angel thinks of one of those men he gives his harp an\nextra twang. Laplace, who read the heavens like an open book--he is\nthere. Robert Burns, the poet of human love--he is there. He wrote\nthe \"Prayer of Holy Willie.\" He fastened on the cross the Presbyterian\ncreed, and there it is, a lingering crucifixion. Robert Burns increased\nthe tenderness of the human heart. Dickens put a shield of pity before\nthe flesh of childhood--God is getting even with him. Our own Ralph\nWaldo Emerson, although he had a thousand opportunities to hear\nMethodist clergymen, scorned the means of grace, lived to his highest\nideal, gave to his fellow-men his best and truest thought, and yet his\nspirit is the sport and prey of fiends to-night.\n\nLongfellow, who has refined thousands of homes, did not believe in the\nmiraculous origin of the Savior, doubted the report of Gabriel, loved\nhis fellow-men, did what he could to free the slaves, to increase the\nhappiness of man, yet God was waiting for his soul--waiting to cast\nhim out and down forever. Thomas Paine, author of the \"Rights of Man;\"\noffering his life in both hemispheres for the freedom of the human race;\none of the founders of this Republic, is now among the damned; and yet\nit seems to me that if he could only get God's attention long enough\nto point him to the American flag he would let him out. Auguste Comte,\nauthor of the \"Positive Philosophy,\" who loved his fellow-men to that\ndegree that he made of humanity a god, who wrote his great work in\npoverty, with his face covered with tears--they are getting their\nrevenge on him now.\n\nVoltaire, who abolished torture in France; who did more for human\nliberty than any other man, living or dead; who was the assassin\nof superstition, and whose dagger still rusts in the heart of\nCatholicism--he is with the rest. All the priests who have been\ntranslated have had their happiness increased by looking at Voltaire.\n\nGiordano Bruno, the first star of the morning after the long night;\nBenedict Spinoza, the pantheist, the metaphysician, the pure and\ngenerous man; Diderot, the encyclopedist, who endeavored to get all\nknowledge in a small compass, so that he could put the peasant on an\nequality intellectually with the prince; Diderot, who wished to sow all\nover the world the seed of knowledge, and loved to labor for mankind,\nwhile the priests wanted to burn; who did all he could to put out the\nfires--he was lost, long, long ago. His cry for water has become so\ncommon that his voice is now recognized through all the realms of\nheaven, and the angels laughing, say to one another, \"That is Diderot.\"\n\nDavid Hume, the Scotch philosopher, is there, with his inquiry about\nthe \"Human Understanding\" and his argument against miracles. Beethoven,\nmaster of music, and Wagner, the Shakespeare of harmony, who made the\nair of this world rich forever, they are there; and to-night they have\nbetter music in hell than in heaven!\n\nShelley, whose soul, like his own \"Skylark,\" was a winged joy, has been\ndamned for many, many years; and Shakespeare, the greatest of the human\nrace, who did more to elevate mankind than all the priests who ever\nlived and died, he is there; but founders of inquisitions, builders\nof dungeons, makers of chains, inventors of instruments of torture,\ntearers, and burners, and branders of human flesh, stealers of babes,\nand sellers of husbands and wives and children, and they who kept the\nhorizon lurid with the fagot's flame for a thousand years--are in heaven\nto-night. I wish heaven joy!\n\nThat is the doctrine with which we are polluting the souls of children.\nThat is the doctrine that puts a fiend by the dying bed and a prophecy\nof hell over every cradle. That is \"glad tidings of great joy.\"\n\nOnly a little while ago, when the great flood came upon the Ohio, sent\nby him who is ruling the world and paying particular attention to the\naffairs of nations, just in the gray of the morning they saw a house\nfloating down and on its top a human being. A few men went out to the\nrescue. They found there a woman, a mother, and they wished to save her\nlife. She said: \"No, I am going to stay where I am. In this house I\nhave three dead babes; I will not desert them.\" Think of a love so\nlimitless--stronger and deeper than despair and death! And yet, the\nChristian religion says, that if that woman, that mother, did not happen\nto believe in their creed God would send her soul to eternal fire! If\nthere is another world, and if in heaven they wear hats, when such a\nwoman climbs the opposite bank of the Jordan, Christ should lift his to\nher.\n\nThe doctrine of eternal pain is my trouble with this Christian religion.\nI reject it on account of its infinite heartlessness. I cannot tell them\ntoo often, that during our last war Christians, who knew that if they\nwere shot they would go right to heaven, went and hired wicked men to\ntake their places, perfectly willing that these men should go to hell\nprovided they could stay at home. You see they are not honest in it,\nor they do not believe it, or as the people say, \"they don't sense it.\"\nThey have not imagination enough to conceive what it is they believe,\nand what a terrific falsehood they assert. And I beg of every one\nwho hears me to-night, I beg, I implore, I beseech you, never to give\nanother dollar to build a church in which that lie is preached. Never\ngive another cent to send a missionary with his mouth stuffed with\nthat falsehood to a foreign land. Why, they say, the heathen will go to\nheaven, any way, if you let them alone. What is the use of sending them\nto hell by enlightening them? Let them alone. The idea of going and\ntelling a man a thing that if he does not believe, he will be damned,\nwhen the chances are ten to one that he will not believe it, is\nmonstrous. Do not tell him here, and as quick as he gets to the other\nworld and finds it is necessary to believe, he can say \"Yes.\" Give him a\nchance.\n\nAnother Objection.\n\nMy objection to orthodox religion is that it destroys human love, and\ntells us that the love of this world is not necessary to make a heaven\nin the next.\n\nNo matter about your wife, your children, your brother, your sister--no\nmatter about all the affections of the human heart--when you get there,\nyou will be with the angels. I do not know whether I would like the\nangels. I do not know whether the angels would like me. I would rather\nstand by the ones who have loved me and whom I know; and I can conceive\nof no heaven without the loved of this earth. That is the trouble with\nthis Christian relief-ion. Leave your father, leave your mother, leave\nyour wife, leave your children, leave everything and follow Jesus\nChrist. I will not. I will stay with my people. I will not sacrifice on\nthe altar of a selfish fear all the grandest and noblest promptings of\nmy heart.\n\nDo away with human love and what are we? What would we be in another\nworld, and what would we be here? Can any one conceive of music without\nhuman love? Of art, or joy? Human love builds every home. Human love is\nthe author of all beauty. Love paints every picture, and chisels every\nstatue. Love builds every fireside. What could heaven be without human\nlove? And yet that is what we are promised--a heaven with your wife\nlost, your mother lost, some of your children gone. And you expect to be\nmade happy by falling in with some angel! Such a religion is infamous.\nChristianity holds human love for naught; and yet Love is the only bow\non Life's dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines\nupon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the\nmother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher. It is the air\nand light of every heart--builder of every home, kindler of every fire\non every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the\nworld with melody--for music is the voice of love. Love is the magician,\nthe enchanter, that changes worthless things to joy, and makes right\nroyal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that\nwondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine\nswoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are\ngods.\n\nAnd how are you to get to this heaven? On the efforts of another.\nYou are to be a perpetual heavenly pauper, and you will have to admit\nthrough all eternity that you never would have been there if you had not\nbeen frightened. \"I am here,\" you will say, \"I have these wings, I have\nthis musical instrument, because I was scared. I am here. The ones who\nloved me are among the damned; the ones I loved are also there--but I am\nhere, that is enough.\"\n\nWhat a glorious' world heaven must be! No reformation in that world--not\nthe slightest. If you die in Arkansas that is the end of you! Think of\ntelling a boy in the next world, who lived and died in Delaware, that he\nhad been fairly treated! Can anything be more infamous?\n\nAll on an equality--the rich and the poor, those with parents loving\nthem, those with every opportunity for education, on an equality with\nthe poor, the abject and the ignorant--and this little day called life,\nthis moment with a hope, a shadow and a tear, this little space between\nyour mother's arms and the grave, balances eternity.\n\nGod can do nothing for you when you get there. A Methodist preacher can\ndo more for the soul here than its creator can there. The soul goes to\nheaven, where there is nothing but good society; no bad examples; and\nthey are all there, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet they can do\nnothing for that poor unfortunate except to damn him. Is there any sense\nin that?\n\nWhy should this be a period of probation? It says in the Bible, I\nbelieve, \"Now is the accepted time.\" When does that mean? That means\nwhenever the passage is pronounced. \"Now is the accepted time.\" It will\nbe the same to-morrow, will it not? And just as appropriate then\nas to-day, and if appropriate at any time, appropriate through all\neternity.\n\nWhat I say is this: There is no world--there can be no world--in which\nevery human being will not have the eternal opportunity of doing right.\n\nThat is my objection to this Christian religion; and if the love\nof earth is not the love of heaven, if those we love here are to be\nseparated from us there, then I want eternal sleep. Give me a good cool\ngrave rather than the furnace of Jehovah's wrath. I pray the angel of\nthe resurrection to let me sleep. Gabriel, do not blow! Let me alone!\nIf, when the grave bursts, I am not to meet the faces that have been my\nsunshine in this life, let me sleep. Rather than that this doctrine of\nendless punishment should be true, I would gladly see the fabric of our\ncivilization crumbling fall to unmeaning chaos and to formless dust,\nwhere oblivion broods and even memory forgets. I would rather that the\nblind Samson of some imprisoned force, released by chance, should so\nwreck and strand the mighty world that man in stress and strain of want\nand fear should shudderingly crawl back to savage and barbaric night. I\nwould rather that every planet should in its orbit wheel a barren star!\n\nWhat I Believe.\n\nI think it is better to love your children than to love God, a thousand\ntimes better, because you can help them, and I am inclined to think that\nGod can get along without you. Certainly we cannot help a being without\nbody, parts, or passions!\n\nI believe in the religion of the family. I believe that the roof-tree is\nsacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft cool clasp of earth,\nto the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to the sun, and like a\nspendthrift gives its perfume to the air. The home where virtue dwells\nwith love is like a lily with a heart of fire--the fairest flower in all\nthe world. And I tell you God cannot afford to damn a man in the next\nworld who has made a happy family in this. God cannot afford to cast\nover the battlements of heaven the man who has a happy home upon this\nearth. God cannot afford to be unpitying to a human heart capable of\npity. God cannot clothe with fire the man who has clothed the naked\nhere; and God cannot send to eternal pain a man who has done something\ntoward improving the condition of his fellow-man. If he can, I had\nrather go to hell than to heaven and keep the company of such a god.\n\nImmortality.\n\nThey tell me that the next terrible thing I do is to take away the hope\nof immortality! I do not, I would not, I could not. Immortality was\nfirst dreamed of by human love; and yet the church is going to take\nhuman love out of immortality. We love, therefore we wish to live. A\nloved one dies and we wish to meet again; and from the affection of the\nhuman heart grew the great oak of the hope of immortality. Around\nthat oak has climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. Theologians,\npretenders, soothsayers, parsons, priests, popes, bishops, have taken\nadvantage of that. They have stood by graves and promised heaven. They\nhave stood by graves and prophesied a future filled with pain. They have\nerected their toll-gates on the highway of life and have collected money\nfrom fear.\n\nNeither the Bible nor the church gave us the idea of immortality. The\nOld Testament tells us how we lost immortality, and it does not say a\nword about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last\ncurse in Malachi. There is not in the Old Testament a burial service.\n\nNo man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, \"We shall meet\nagain.\" From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world.\n\nAnd when we get to the New Testament, what do we find? \"They that are\naccounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead.\"\nAs though some would be counted unworthy to obtain the resurrection of\nthe dead. And in another place. \"Seek for honor, glory, immortality.\"\nIf you have it, why seek it? And in another place, \"God, who alone hath\nimmortality.\" Yet they tell us that we get our idea of immortality from\nthe Bible. I deny it.\n\nI would not destroy the faintest ray of human hope, but I deny that\nwe got our idea of immortality from the Bible. It existed long before\nMoses. We find it symbolized through all Egypt, through all India.\nWherever man has lived he has made another world in which to meet the\nlost of this.\n\nThe history of this belief we find in tombs and temples wrought and\ncarved by those who wept and hoped. Above their dead they laid the\nsymbols of another life.\n\nWe do not know. We do not prophesy a life of pain. We leave the dead\nwith Nature, the mother of us all. Under the bow of hope, under the\nseven-hued arch, let the dead sleep.\n\nIf Christ was in fact God, why did he not plainly say there is another\nlife? Why did he not tell us something about it? Why did he not turn\nthe tear-stained hope of immortality into the glad knowledge of another\nlife? Why did he go dumbly to his death and leave the world in darkness\nand in doubt? Why? Because he was a man and did not know.\n\nWhat consolation has the orthodox religion for the widow of the\nunbeliever, the widow of a good, brave, kind man? What can the orthodox\nminister say to relieve the bursting heart of that woman? What can he\nsay to relieve the aching hearts of the orphans as they kneel by the\ngrave of that father, if that father did not happen to be an orthodox\nChristian? What consolation have they? When a Christian loses a friend\nthe tears spring from his eyes as quickly as from the eyes of others.\nTheir tears are as bitter as ours. Why? The echoes of the words spoken\neighteen hundred years ago are so low, and the sounds of the clods upon\nthe coffin are so loud; the promises are so far away, and the dead are\nso near.\n\nWe do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the\nbeginning or end of a day; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the\nfolding forever of wings; the rise or the set of a sun, or an endless\nlife that brings the rapture of love to everyone. A Fable.\n\nThere is the fable of Orpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice had been captured\nand taken to the infernal regions, and Orpheus went after her, taking\nwith him his harp and playing as he went. When he came to Pluto's realm\nhe began to play, and Sysiphus, charmed by the music, sat down upon the\nstone that he had been heaving up the mountain's side for so many years,\nand which continually rolled back upon him; Ixion paused upon his wheel\nof fire; Tantalus ceased his vain efforts for water; the daughters of\nthe Danaides left off trying to fill their sieves with water; Pluto\nsmiled, and for the first time in the history of hell the cheeks of the\nFuries were wet with tears. The god relented, and said, \"Eurydice may\ngo with you, but you must not look back.\" So Orpheus again threaded the\ncaverns, playing as he went, and as he reached the light he failed to\nhear the footsteps of Eurydice. He looked back, and in a moment she was\ngone. Again and again Orpheus sought his love. Again and again looked\nback.\n\nThis fable gives the idea of the perpetual effort made by the human mind\nto rescue truth from the clutch of error.\n\nSome time Orpheus will not look back. Some day Eurydice will reach the\nblessed light, and at last there will fade from the memory of men the\nmonsters of superstition.\n\n\n\n\nMYTH AND MIRACLE.\n\nI.\n\nHAPPINESS is the true end and aim of life. It is the task of\nintelligence to ascertain the conditions of happiness, and when found\nthe truly wise will live in accordance with them. By happiness is meant\nnot simply the joy of eating and drinking--the gratification of the\nappetite--but good, wellbeing, in the highest and noblest forms. The joy\nthat springs from obligation discharged, from duty done, from generous\nacts, from being true to the ideal, from a perception of the beautiful\nin nature, art and conduct. The happiness that is born of and gives\nbirth to poetry and music, that follows the gratification of the highest\nwants.\n\nHappiness is the result of all that is really right and sane.\n\nBut there are many people who regard the desire to be happy as a very\nlow and degrading ambition. These people call themselves spiritual. They\npretend to care nothing for the pleasures of \"sense.\" They hold this\nworld, this life, in contempt. They do not want happiness in this\nworld--but in another. Here, happiness degrades--there, it purifies and\nennobles.\n\nThese spiritual people have been known as prophets, apostles, augurs,\nhermits, monks, priests, popes, bishops and parsons. They are devout and\nuseless. They do not cultivate the soil. They produce nothing. They\nlive on the labor of others. They are pious and parasitic. They pray\nfor others, if the others will work for them. They claim to have been\nselected by the Infinite to instruct and govern mankind. They are \"meek\"\nand arrogant, \"long-suffering\" and revengeful.\n\nThey ever have been, now are, and always will be the enemies of liberty,\nof investigation and science. They are believers in the supernatural,\nthe miraculous and the absurd. They have filled the world with hatred,\nbigotry and fear. In defence of their creeds they have committed every\ncrime and practiced every cruelty.\n\nThey denounce as worldly and sensual those who are gross enough to love\nwives and children, to build homes, to fell the forests, to navigate the\nseas, to cultivate the earth, to chisel statues, to paint pictures and\nfill the world with love and art.\n\nThey have denounced and maligned the thinkers, the poets, the\ndramatists, the composers, the actors, the orators, the workers--those\nwho have conquered the world for man.\n\nAccording to them this world is only the vestibule of the next, a kind\nof school, an ordeal, a place of probation. They have always insisted\nthat this life should be spent in preparing for the next; that those\nwho supported and obeyed the \"spiritual guides\"--the shepherds, would\nbe rewarded with an eternity of joy, and that all others would suffer\neternal pain.\n\nThese spiritual people have always hated labor. They have added nothing\nto the wealth of the world. They have always lived on alms--on the labor\nof others. They have always been the enemies of innocent pleasure, and\nof human love.\n\nThese spiritual people have produced a literature. The books they have\nwritten are called sacred. Our sacred books are called the Bible.\nThe Hindoos have the Vedas and many others, the Persians the Zend\nAvesta--the Egyptians had the Book of the Dead--the Aztecs the Popol\nVuh, and the Mohammedans have the Koran.\n\nThese books, for the most part, treat of the unknowable. They describe\ngods and winged phantoms of the air. They give accounts of the origin\nof the universe, the creation of man and the worlds beyond this. They\ncontain nothing of value. Millions and millions of people have wasted\ntheir lives studying these absurd and ignorant books.\n\nThe \"spiritual people\" in each country claimed that their books had been\nwritten by inspired men--that God was the real author, and that all men\nand women who denied this would be, after death, tormented forever.\n\nAnd yet, the worldly people, the uninspired, the wicked, have produced a\nfar greater literature than the spiritual and the inspired.\n\nNot all the sacred books of the world equal Shakespeare's \"volume of\nthe brain.\" A purer philosophy, grander, nobler, fell from the lips of\nShakespeare's clowns than the Old Testament, or the New, contains.\n\nThe Declaration of Independence is nobler far than all the utterances\nfrom Sinai's cloud and flame. \"A Man's a Man for a' That,\" by Robert\nBurns, is better than anything the sacred books contain. For my part, I\nwould rather hear Beethoven's Sixth Symphony than to read the five books\nof Moses. Give me the Sixth Symphony--this sound-wrought picture of\nthe fields and woods, of flowering hedge and happy home, where thrushes\nbuild and swallows fly, and mothers sing to babes; this echo of the\nbabbled lullaby of brooks that, dallying, wind and fall where meadows\nbare their daisied bosoms to the sun; this joyous mimicry of summer\nrain, the laugh of children, and the rhythmic rustle of the whispering\nleaves; this strophe of peasant life; this perfect poem of content and\nlove.\n\nI would rather listen to Tristan and Isolde--that Mississippi of\nmelody--where the great notes, winged like eagles, lift the soul above\nthe cares and griefs of this weary world--than to all the orthodox\nsermons ever preached. I would rather look at the Venus de Milo than to\nread the Presbyterian creed.\n\nThe spiritual have endeavored to civilize the world through fear and\nfaith--by the promise of reward and the threat of pain in other worlds.\nThey taught men to hate and persecute their fellow-men. In all ages they\nhave appealed to force. During all the years they have practiced fraud.\nThey have pretended to have influence with the gods--that their prayers\ngave rain, sunshine and harvest--that their curses brought pestilence\nand famine, and that their blessings filled the world with plenty. They\nhave subsisted on the fears their falsehoods created. Like poisonous\nvines, they have lived on the oak of labor. They have praised charity,\nbut they never gave. They have denounced revenge, but they never\nforgave.\n\nWhenever the spiritual have had power, art has died, learning has\nlanguished, science has been despised, liberty destroyed, the thinkers\nhave been imprisoned, the intelligent and honest have been outcasts, and\nthe brave have been murdered.\n\nThe \"spiritual\" have been, are, and always will be the enemies of the\nhuman race.\n\nFor all the blessings that we now enjoy--for progress in every form, for\nscience and art--for all that has lengthened life, that has conquered\ndisease, that has lessened pain, for raiment, roof and food, for music\nin its highest forms--for the poetry that has ennobled and enriched our\nlives--for the marvellous machines now working for the world--for all\nthis we are indebted to the worldly--to those who turned their attention\nto the affairs of this life. They have been the only benefactors of our\nrace.\n\nII.\n\nAND yet all of these religions--these \"sacred books,\" these priests,\nhave been naturally produced. From the dens and caves of savagery to\nthe palaces of civilization men have traveled by the necessary paths and\nroads. Back of every step has been the efficient cause. In the history\nof the world there has been no chance, no interference from without,\nnothing miraculous. Everything in accordance with and produced by the\nfacts in nature.\n\nWe need not blame the hypocritical and cruel. They thought and acted as\nthey were compelled to think and act.\n\nIn all ages man has tried to account for himself and his surroundings.\nHe did the best he could. He wondered why the water ran, why the trees\ngrew, why the clouds floated, why the stars shone, why the sun and moon\njourneyed through the heavens. He was troubled about life and death,\nabout darkness and dreams. The seas, the volcanoes, the lightning and\nthunder, the earthquake and cyclone, filled him with fear. Behind all\nlife and growth and motion, and even inanimate things, he placed\na spirit--an intelligent being--a fetich, a person, something like\nhimself--a god, controlled by love and hate. To him causes and effects\nbecame gods--supernatural beings. The Dawn was a maiden, wondrously\nfair, the Sun, a warrior and lover; the Night, a serpent, a wolf--the\nWind, a musician; Winter, a wild beast; Autumn, Proserpine gathering\nflowers.\n\nPoets were the makers of these myths. They were the first to account for\nwhat they saw and felt. The great multitude mistook these fancies\nfor facts. Myths strangely alike, were produced by most nations, and\ngradually took possession of the world.\n\nThe Sleeping Beauty, a myth of the year, has been found among most\npeoples. In this myth, the Earth was a maiden--the Sun was her lover,\nShe had fallen asleep in winter. Her blood was still and her breath had\ngone. In the Spring the lover came, clasped her in his arms, covered her\nlips and cheeks with kisses. She was thrilled, her heart began to beat,\nshe breathed, her blood flowed, and she awoke to love and joy. This myth\nhas made the circuit of the globe.\n\nSo, Red Riding-Hood is the history of a day. Little Red Riding-Hood--the\nmorning, touched with red, goes to visit her kindred, a day that is\npast. She is attacked by the wolf of night and is rescued by the hunter,\nApollo, who pierces the heart of the beast with an arrow of light.\n\nThe beautiful myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is the story of the year.\nEurydice has been captured and carried to the infernal world. Orpheus,\nplaying upon his harp, goes after her. Such is the effect of his music\nwhen he reaches the realm of Pluto, the laughterless, that Tantalus\nceases his efforts to slake his thirst. He listens and forgets his\nwithered lips, the daughters of the Danaides cease their vain efforts\nto fill the sieve with water, Sisyphus sits down on the stone that he\nso often had heaved against the mountain's misty side, Ixion pauses\nupon his wheel of fire, even Pluto smiles, and for the first time in the\nhistory of hell the cheeks of the Furies are wet with tears.\n\n\"Give me back Eurydice,\" cried Orpheus, and Pluto said: \"Take her, but\nlook not back.\" Orpheus led the way and Eurydice followed. Just as he\nreached the upper world, he missed her footsteps, turned, looked, and\nshe vanished.\n\nAnd thus the summer comes, is lost, and comes again through all the\nyears.\n\nSo, our ancestors believed in the Garden of Eden, in the Golden Age, in\nthe blessed time when all were good and pure--when nature satisfied the\nwants of all. The race, like the old man, has golden dreams of youth.\nThe morning was filled with light and life and joy, and the evening is\nalways sad. When the old man was young, girls were beautiful and men\nwere honest. He remembers his Eden. And so the whole world has had its\nage of gold.\n\nOur fathers were believers in the Elysian Fields. They were in the far,\nfar West. They saw them at the setting of the sun. They saw the floating\nisles of gold in sapphire seas; the templed mist with spires and domes\nof emerald and amethyst; the magic caverns of the clouds, resplendent\nwith the rays of every gem. And as they looked, they thought the curtain\nhad been drawn aside and that their eyes had for a moment feasted on the\nglories of another world.\n\nThe myth of the Flood has also been universal. Finding shells of the\nseas on plain and mountain, and everywhere some traces of the waves,\nthey thought the world had been submerged--that God in wrath had drowned\nthe race, except a few his mercy saved.\n\nThe Hindus say that Menu, a holy man, dipped from the Ganges some water,\nand in the basin saw a little fish. The fish begged him to throw him\nback into the river, and Menu, having pity, cast him back. The fish then\ntold Menu that there was to be a flood--told him to build an ark, to\ntake on board, people, animals and food, and that when the flood came,\nhe, the fish, would save him. The saint did as he was told, the flood\ncame, the fish returned. By that time he had grown to be a whale with\na horn in his head. About this horn Menu fastened a rope, attached the\nother end to the ark, and the fish towed the boat across the raging\nwaves to a mountain's top, where it rested until the waters subsided.\nThe name of this wonderful fish was Matsaya.\n\nMany other nations told similar stories of floods and arks and the\nsending forth of doves.\n\nIn all these myths and legends of the past we find philosophies and\ndreams and efforts, stained with tears, of great and tender souls who\ntried to pierce the mysteries of life and death, to answer the questions\nof the whence and whither, and who vainly sought with bits of shattered\nglass to make a mirror that would in very truth reflect the face and\nform of Nature's perfect self. These myths were born of hopes and fears,\nof tears and smiles, and they were touched and colored by all there is\nof joy and grief between the rosy dawn of birth and death's sad night.\nThey clothed even the stars with passion, and gave to gods the faults\nand frailties of the sons of men. In them the winds and waves were\nmusic, and all the springs, the mountains, woods and perfumed dells were\nhaunted by a thousand fairy forms. They thrilled the veins of Spring\nwith tremulous desire, made tawny Summer's billowy breast the throne and\nhome of love, filled Autumn's arms with sun-kissed grapes and gathered\nsheaves, and pictured Winter as a weak old king, who felt, like Lear,\nupon his withered face, Cordelia's tears.\n\nThese myths, though false in fact, are beautiful and true in thought,\nand have for many ages and in countless ways enriched the heart and\nkindled thought.\n\nIII.\n\nIN all probability the first religion was Sun-worship. Nothing could\nhave been more natural. Light was life and warmth and love. The sun\nwas the fireside of the world. The sun was the \"all-seeing\"--the \"Sky\nFather.\" Darkness was grief and death, and in the shadows crawled the\nserpents of despair and fear.\n\nThe sun was a great warrior, fighting the hosts of Night. Apollo was\nthe sun, and he fought and conquered the serpent of Night. Agni, the\ngenerous, who loved the lowliest and visited the humblest, was the sun.\nHe was the god of fire, and the crossed sticks that by friction leaped\ninto flame were his emblem. It was said that, in spite of his goodness,\nhe devoured his father and mother, the two pieces of wood being his\nparents. Baldur was the sun. He was in love with the Dawn--a maiden--he\ndeserted her and traveled through the heavens alone. At the twilight\nthey met, were reconciled, and the drops of dew were the tears of joy\nthey shed.\n\nChrishna was the sun. At his birth the Ganges thrilled from its source\nto the sea. All the trees, the dead as well as the living, burst into\nleaf and bud and flower.\n\nHercules was a sun-god.\n\nJonah the same, rescued from the fiends of Night and carried by the fish\nthrough the under world. Samson was a sun-god. His strength was in\nhis hair--in his beams. He was shorn of his strength by Delilah, the\nshadow--the darkness. So, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Buddha,\nQuelzalcoatle, Prometheus, Zoroaster, Perseus, Codom Lao-tsze Fo-hi,\nHorus and Rameses were all sun-gods.\n\nAll these gods had gods for fathers and all their mothers were virgins.\n\nThe births of nearly all were announced by stars.\n\nWhen they were born there was celestial music--voices declared that a\nblessing had come upon the earth.\n\nWhen Buddha was born, the celestial choir sang: \"This day is born\nfor the good of men Buddha, and to dispel the darkness of their\nignorance--to give joy and peace to the world.\"\n\nChrishna was born in a cave, and protected by shepherds. Bacchus,\nApollo, Mithra and Hermes were all born in caves. Buddha was born in an\ninn--according to some, under a tree.\n\nTyrants sought to kill all of these gods when they were babes.\n\nWhen Chrishna was born, a tyrant killed the babes of the neighborhood.\n\nBuddha was the child of Maya, a virgin, in the kingdom of Madura. The\nking arrested Maya before the child was born, imprisoned her in a tower.\nDuring the night when the child was born, a great wind wrecked the\ntower, and carried mother and child to a place of safety. The next\nmorning the king sent his soldiers to kill the babes, and when they came\nto Buddha and his mother, the babe appeared to be about twelve years of\nage, and the soldiers passed on.\n\nSo Typhon sought in many ways to destroy the babe Horus. The king\npursued the infant Zoroaster. Cadmus tried to kill the infant Bacchus.\n\nAll of these gods were born on the 25th of December.\n\nNearly all were worshiped by \"wise men.\"\n\nAll of them fasted for forty days.\n\nAll met with a violent death.\n\nAll rose from the dead.\n\nThe history of these gods is the history of our Christ. He had a god for\na father, a virgin for a mother. He was born in a manger, or a cave--on\nthe 2 5th of December. His birth was announced by angels. He was\nworshiped by wise men, guided by a star. Herod, seeking his life, caused\nthe death of many babes. Christ fasted for forty days. So, it rained for\nforty days before the flood--Moses was on Mt. Sinai for forty days. The\ntemple had forty pillars and the Jews wandered in the wilderness for\nforty years. Christ met with a violent death, and rose from the dead.\n\nThese things are not accidents--not coincidences. Christ was a sun-god.\nAll religions have been born of sun-worship. To-day, when priests\npray, they shut their eyes. This is a survival of sun-worship. When men\nworshiped the sun, they had to shut their eyes. Afterwards, to flatter\nidols, they pretended that the glory of their faces was more than the\neyes could bear.\n\nIn the religion of our day there is nothing original. All of its\ndoctrines, its symbols and ceremonies are but the survivals of creeds\nthat perished long ago. Baptism is far older than Christianity--than\nJudaism. The Hindus, the Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans had holy\nwater. The eucharist was borrowed from the Pagans. Ceres was the goddess\nof the fields, Bacchus the god of the vine. At the harvest festival they\nmade cakes of wheat and said: \"These are the flesh of the goddess.\" They\ndrank wine and cried: \"This is the blood of our god.\"\n\nThe cross has been a symbol for many thousands of years. It was a symbol\nof immortality--of life, of the god Agni, the form of the grave of a\nman. An ancient people of Italy, who lived long before the Romans, long\nbefore the Etruscans, so long that not one word of their language is\nknown, used the cross, and beneath that emblem, carved on stone, their\ndead still rest. In the forests of Central America, ruined temples have\nbeen found, and on the walls the cross with the bleeding victim. On\nBabylonian cylinders is the impression of the cross. The Trinity came\nfrom Egypt. Osiris, Isis and Horus were worshiped thousands of years\nbefore our Father, Son and Holy Ghost were thought of. So the Tree of\nLife grew in India, China and among the Aztecs long before the Garden\nof Eden was planted. Long before our Bible was known, other nations\nhad their sacred books, temples and altars, sacrifices, ceremonies and\npriests. The \"Fall of Man\" is far older than our religion, and so are\nthe \"Atonement\" and the Scheme of Redemption.\n\nIn our blessed religion there is nothing new, nothing original.\n\nAmong the Egyptians the cross was a symbol of the life to come. And\nyet the first religion was, and all religions growing out of that, were\nnaturally produced. Every brain was a field in which Nature sowed the\nseeds of thought. The rise and set of sun, the birth and death of day,\nthe dawns of silver and the dusks of gold, the wonders of the rain and\nsnow, the shroud of Winter and the many colored robe of Spring, the\nlonely moon with nightly loss or gain, the serpent lightning and the\nthunder's voice, the tempest's fury and the zephyr's sigh, the threat\nof storm and promise of the bow, cathedral clouds with dome and spire,\nearthquake and strange eclipse, frost and fire, the snow-crowned\nmountains with their tongues of flame, the fields of space sown thick\nwith stars, the wandering comets hurrying past the fixed and sleepless\nsentinels of night, the marvels of the earth and air, the perfumed\nflower, the painted wing, the waveless pool that held within its magic\nbreast the image of the startled face, the mimic echo that made a record\nin the viewless air, the pathless forests and the boundless seas,\nthe ebb and flow of tides--the slow, deep breathing of some vague and\nmonstrous life--the miracle of birth, the mystery of dream and death,\nand over all the silent and immeasurable dome. These were the warp and\nwoof, and at the loom sat Love and Fancy, Hope and Fear, and wove the\nwondrous tapestries whereon we find pictures of gods and fairy lands\nand all the legends that were told when Nature rocked the cradle of the\ninfant world.\n\nIV.\n\nWE must remember that there is a great difference. Myth is the\nidealization of a fact. A miracle is the counterfeit of a fact. There is\nthe same difference between a myth and a miracle that there is between\nfiction and falsehood--between poetry and perjury. Miracles belong to\nthe far past and the far future. The little line of sand, called the\npresent, between the seas, belongs to common sense, to the natural.\n\nIf you should tell a man that the dead were raised two thousand years\nago, he would probably say: \"Yes, I know that.\" If you should say that\na hundred thousand years from now all the dead will be raised, he might\nsay: \"Probably they will.\" But if you should tell him that you saw a\ndead man raised and given life that day, he would likely ask the name of\nthe insane asylum from which you had escaped.\n\nOur Bible is filled with accounts of miracles and yet they always fail\nto convince.\n\nJehovah, according to the Scriptures, wrought hundreds of miracles for\nthe benefit of the Jews. With many miracles he rescued them from\nslavery, guided them on their journey with a miraculous cloud by day and\na miraculous pillar of fire by night--divided the sea that they might\nescape from the Egyptians, fed them with miraculous manna and\nsupernatural quails, raised up hornets to attack their enemies, caused\nwater to follow them wherever they wandered and in countless ways\nmanifested his power, and yet the Jews cared nothing for these wonders.\nNot one of them seems to have been convinced that Jehovah had done\nanything for the people.\n\nIn spite of all these miracles, the Jews had more confidence in a golden\ncalf, made by themselves, than in Jehovah. The reason of this is, that\nthe miracles were never performed, and never invented until hundreds of\nyears after those, who had wandered over the desert of Sinai, were dust.\n\nThe miracles attributed to Christ had no effect. No human being seems to\nhave been convinced by them. Those whom he raised from the dead, cured\nof leprosy, or blindness, failed to become his followers. Not one of\nthem appeared at his trial. Not one offered to bear witness of his\nmiraculous power.\n\nTo this there is but one explanation: The miracles were never performed.\nThese stories were the growth of centuries. The casting out of devils,\nthe changing of water into wine, feeding the multitude with a few loaves\nand fishes, resisting the devil, using a fish for a pocketbook, curing\nthe blind with clay and saliva, stilling the tempest, walking on the\nwater, the resurrection and ascension, happened and only happened, in\nthe imaginations of men, who were not born until several generations\nafter Christ was dead.\n\nIn those days the world was filled with ignorance and fear. Miracles\nhappened every day. The supernatural was expected. Gods were continually\ninterfering with the affairs of this world. Everything was told\nexcept the truth, everything believed except the facts. History was a\ncircumstantial account of occurrences that never occurred. Devils and\ngoblins and ghosts were as plentiful as saints. The bones of the dead\nwere used to cure the living. Cemeteries were hospitals and corpses were\nphysicians. The saints practiced magic, the pious communed with God in\ndreams, and the course of events was changed by prayer. The credulous\ndemanded the marvelous, the miraculous, and the priests supplied the\ndemand. The sky was full of signs, omens of death and disaster, and the\ndarkness thick with devils endeavoring to mislead and enslave the souls\nof men.\n\nOur fathers thought that everything had been made for man, and that\ndemons and gods gave their entire attention to this world. The people\nbelieved that they were the sport and prey, the favorites or victims, of\nthese phantoms. And they also believed that the Creator, the God, could\nbe influenced by sacrifice, by prayers and ceremonies.\n\nThis has been the mistake of the world. All the temples have been\nreared, all the altars erected, all the sacrifices offered, all the\nprayers uttered in vain. No god has interfered, no prayer has been\nanswered, no help received from heaven. Nothing was created, nothing has\nhappened for, or with reference to man. If not a human being lived,--if\nall Were in' their graves, the sun would continue to shine, the wheeling\nworld would still pursue its flight, violets would spread their velvet\nbosoms to the day, the spendthrift roses give their perfume to the air,\nthe climbing vines would hide with leaf and flower the fallen and the\ndead, the changing seasons would come-and go,-time would repeat the poem\nof the year, storms would wreck and whispering rains repair, Spring\nwith deft and unseen hands would weave her robes of green, life with\ncountless lips would seek fair Summer's swelling breasts, Autumn would\nreap the wealth of leaf and fruit and seed, Winter, the artist, would\netch in frost the pines and ferns, while Wind and Wave and Fire, old\narchitects, with ceaseless toil would still destroy and build, still\nwreck and change, and from the dust of death produce again the throb and\nbreath of life.\n\nV.\n\nA FEW years ago a few men began to think, to investigate, to reason.\nThey began to doubt the legends of the church, the miracles of the past.\nThey began to notice what happened. They found that eclipses came at\ncertain intervals and that their coming could be foretold. They became\nsatisfied that the conduct of men had nothing to do with eclipses--and\nthat the stars moved in their orbits unconscious of the sons of men.\nGalileo, Copernicus, and Kepler' destroyed the astronomy of the Bible,\nand demonstrated that the \"inspired\" story of creation could not be\ntrue, and that the church was as ignorant as the priests were dishonest.\n\nThey found that the myth-makers were mistaken, that the sun and stars\ndid not revolve about the earth, that the firmament was not solid,\nthat the earth was not flat, and that the so-called philosophy of the\ntheologians was absurd and idiotic.\n\nThe stars became witnesses against the creeds of superstition.\n\nWith the telescope the heavens were explored. The New Jerusalem could\nnot be found.\n\nIt had faded away.\n\nThe church persecuted the astronomers and denied the facts. In\nFebruary, in the year of grace sixteen hundred, the Catholic Church, the\n\"Triumphant Beast,\" having in her hands, her paws, the keys of heaven\nand hell, accused Giordano Bruno of having declared that there were\nother worlds than this. He was tried, convicted, imprisoned in a dungeon\nfor seven years. He was offered his liberty if he would recant. Bruno,\nthe atheist, the philosopher, refused to stain his soul by denying what\nhe believed to be true. He was taken from his cell by the priests, by\nthose who loved their enemies, led to the place of execution. He was\nclad in a robe on which representations of devils had been painted--the\ndevils that were soon to claim his soul. He was chained to a stake and\nabout his body the wood was piled. Then priests, followers of Christ,\nlighted the fagots and flames consumed the greatest, the most perfect\nmartyr, that ever suffered death.\n\nAnd yet the Italian agent of God, the infallible Leo XIII., only a few\nyears ago, denounced Bruno, the \"bravest of the brave,\" as a coward.\n\nThe church murdered him, and the pope maligned his memory. Fagot and\nfalsehood--two weapons of the church.\n\nA little while ago a few men began to examine rocks and soils,\nmountains, islands, reefs and seas. They noticed the valleys and deltas\nthat had been formed by rivers, the many strata of lava that had been\nchanged to soil, the vast deposits of metals and coal, the immense reefs\nthat the coral had formed, the work of glaciers in the far past, the\nproduction of soil by the disintegration of rock, by the growth and\ndecay of vegetation and the countless evidences of the countless ages\nthrough which the Earth has passed. The geologists read the history\nof the world written by wave and flame, attested by fossils, by the\nformation of rocks, by mountain ranges, by volcanoes, by rivers,\nislands, continents and seas.\n\nThe geology of the Bible--of the \"divinely inspired\" church, of the\n\"infallible\" pope, was found to be utterly false and foolish.\n\nThe Earth became a witness against the creeds of superstition.\n\nThen came Watt and Galvani with the miracles of steam and electricity,\nwhile countless inventors created the wonderful machines that do the\nwork of the world. Investigation took the place of credulity. Men became\ndissatisfied with huts and rags, with crusts and creeds. They longed for\nthe comforts, the luxuries of life. The intellectual horizon enlarged,\nnew truths were discovered, old ideas were thrown aside, the brain was\ndeveloped, the heart civilized and science was born. Humboldt, Laplace\nand hundreds of others explained the phenomena of nature, called\nattention to the ancient and venerable mistakes of sanctified ignorance\nand added to the sum of knowledge. Darwin and Haeckel gave their\nconclusions to the world. Men began to really think, the myths began\nto fade, the miracles to grow mean and small, and the great structure,\nknown as theology, fell with a crash.\n\nScience denies the truth of myth and miracle, denies that human\ntestimony can substantiate the miraculous, denies the existence of the\nsupernatural. Science asserts the absolute, the unvarying uniformity\nof nature. Science insists that the present is the child of all the\npast,--that no power can change the past, and that nature is forever the\nsame.\n\nThe chemist has found that just so many atoms of one kind unite with\njust so many of another--no more, no less, always the same. No caprice\nin chemistry; no interference from without.\n\nThe astronomers know that the planets remain in their orbits--that their\nforces are constant. They know that light is forever the same,\nalways obeying the angle of incidence, traveling with the same\nrapidity,--casting the same shadow, under the same circumstances in\nall worlds. They know that the eclipses will occur at the times\nforetold--neither hastening nor delaying. They know that the attraction\nof gravitation is always the same, always in perfect proportion to mass\nand distance, neither weaker nor stronger, unvarying forever. They know\nthat the facts in nature cannot be changed or destroyed, and that the\nqualities of all things are eternal.\n\nThe men of science know that the atomic integrity of the metals is\nalways the same, that each metal is true to its nature and that the\nparticles cling to each other with the same tenacity,--the same force.\nThey have demonstrated the persistence of force, that it is forever\nactive, forever the same, and that it cannot be destroyed.\n\nThese great truths have revolutionized the thought of the world.\n\nEvery art, every employment, all study, all experiment, the value of\nexperience, of judgment, of hope, all rest on a belief in the uniformity\nof nature, on the eternal persistence and indestructibility of force.\n\nBreak one link in the infinite chain of cause and effect, and the Master\nof Nature appears. The broken link would become the throne of a god.\n\nThe uniformity of Nature denies the supernatural and demonstrates that\nthere is no interference from without. There is no place, no office left\nfor gods. Ghosts fade from the brain and the shrivelled deities fall\npalsied from their thrones.\n\nThe uniformity of Nature renders a belief in \"special providence\"\nimpossible. Prayer becomes a useless agitation of the air, and religious\nceremonies are but motions, pantomimes, mindless and meaningless.\n\nThe naked savage, worshiping a wooden god, is the religious equal of the\nrobed pope kneeling before an image of the Virgin. The poor African who\ncarries roots and bark to protect himself from evil spirits is on the\nsame intellectual plane of one who sprinkles his body with \"holy water.\"\n\nAll the creeds of Christendom, all the religions of the heathen world\nare equally absurd. The cathedral, the mosque and the joss house have\nthe same foundation. Their builders do not believe in the uniformity\nof Nature, and the business of all priests is to induce a so-called\ninfinite being to change the order of events, to make causes barren of\neffects and to produce effects without, and in spite of, natural causes.\nThey all believe in the unthinkable and pray for the impossible.\n\nScience teaches us that there was no creation and that there can be no\ndestruction. The infinite denies creation and defies destruction. An\ninfinite person, an \"infinite being\" is an infinite impossibility.\nTo conceive of such a being is beyond the power of the mind. Yet all\nreligions rest upon the supposed existence of the unthinkable, the\ninconceivable. And the priests of these religions pretend to be\nperfectly familiar with the designs, will, and wishes of this\nunthinkable, this inconceivable.\n\nScience teaches that that which really is has always been, that behind\nevery effect is the efficient and necessary cause, that there is in the\nuniverse neither chance nor interference, and that energy is eternal.\nDay by day the authority of the theologian grows weaker and weaker. As\nthe people become intelligent they care less for preachers and more for\nteachers. Their confidence in knowledge, in thought and investigation\nincreases. They are eager to know the discoveries, the useful truths,\nthe important facts made, ascertained and demonstrated by the explorers\nin the domain of the natural. They are no longer satisfied with the\nplatitudes of the pulpit, and the assertions of theologians. They are\nlosing confidence in the \"sacred Scriptures\" and in the protecting power\nand goodness of the supernatural. They are satisfied that credulity is\nnot a virtue and that investigation is not a crime.\n\nScience is the providence of man, the worker of true miracles, of\nreal wonders. Science has \"read a little in Nature's infinite book of\nsecrecy.\" Science knows the circuits of the winds, the courses of the\nstars. Fire is his servant, and lightning his messenger. Science freed\nthe slaves and gave liberty to their masters. Science taught man to\nenchain, not his fellows, but the forces of nature, forces that have no\nbacks to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat, forces that\nhave no hearts to break, forces that never know fatigue, forces that\nshed no tears. Science is the great physician. His touch has given\nsight. He has made the lame to leap, the deaf to hear, the dumb to\nspeak, and in the pallid face his hand has set the rose of health.\nScience has given his beloved sleep and wrapped in happy dreams the\nthrobbing nerves of pain. Science is the destroyer of disease, builder\nof happy homes, the preserver of life and love. Science is the teacher\nof every virtue, the enemy of every vice. Science has given the true\nbasis of morals, the origin and office of conscience, revealed the\nnature of obligation, of duty, of virtue in its highest, noblest forms,\nand has demonstrated that true happiness is the only possible good.\nScience has slain the monsters of superstition, and destroyed the\nauthority of inspired books. Science has read the records of the rocks,\nrecords that priestcraft cannot change, and on his wondrous scales has\nweighed the atom and the star.\n\nScience has founded the only true religion. Science is the only Savior\nof this world.\n\nVI.\n\nFOR many ages religion has been tried. For countless centuries man\nhas sought for help from heaven. To soften the heart of God, mothers\nsacrificed their babes! but the God did not hear, did not see, and did\nnot help. Naked savages were devoured by beasts, bitten by serpents,\nkilled by flood and frost. They prayed for help, but their God was\ndeaf. They built temples and altars, employed priests and gave of their\nsubstance, but the volcano destroyed and the famine came. For the sake\nof God millions murdered their fellow-men, but the God was silent.\nMillions of martyrs died for the honor of God, but the God was blind. He\ndid not see the flames, the scaffolds. He did not hear the prayers,\nthe groans. Thousands of priests in the name of God tortured their\nfellow-men, stretched them on racks, crushed their feet in iron boots,\ntore out their tongues, extinguished their eyes. The victims implored\nthe protection of God, but their god did not hear, did not see. He\nwas deaf and blind. He was willing that his enemies should torture his\nfriends.\n\nNations tried to destroy each other for the sake of God, and the banner\nof the cross dripping with blood floated over a thousand fields--but the\ngod was silent. He neither knew nor cared. Pestilence covered the earth\nwith dead, the priests prayed, the altars were heaped with sacrifices,\nbut the god did not see, did not hear. The miseries of the world did\nnot lessen the joys of heaven. The clouds gave no rain, the famine came,\nwithered babes with pallid lips sought the breasts of dead mothers,\nwhile starving fathers knelt and prayed, but the god did not hear.\nThrough many centuries millions were enslaved, babes were sold from\nmothers, husbands from wives, backs were scarred with the lash. The\npoor wretches lifted their clasped hands toward heaven and prayed for\njustice, for liberty--but their god did not hear. He cared nothing for\nthe sufferings of slaves, nothing for the tears of wives and mothers,\nnothing for the agony of men. He answered no prayers. He broke no\nchains. He freed no slaves.\n\nThe miserable wretches appealed to the priests of God, but they were on\nthe other side. They defended the masters. The slaves had nothing to\ngive.\n\nDuring all these years it was claimed by the theologians that their\nGod was governing the world, that he was infinitely powerful, wise and\ngood--and that the \"powers\" of the earth were \"ordained\" by him. During\nall these years the church was the enemy of progress. It hated all\nphysicians and told the people to rely on prayer, amulets and relics.\nIt persecuted the astronomers and geologists, denounced them as infidels\nand atheists, as enemies of the human race. It poisoned the fountains of\nlearning and insisted that teachers should distort the facts in nature\nto the end that they might harmonize with the \"inspired\" book. During\nall these years the church misdirected the energies of man, and when it\nreached the zenith of its power, darkness fell upon the world.\n\nIn all nations and in all ages, religion has failed. The gods have never\ninterfered. Nature has produced and destroyed without mercy and without\nhatred. She has cared no more for man than for the leaves of the forest,\nno more for nations than for hills of ants, nothing for right or wrong,\nfor life or death, for pain or joy.\n\nMan through his intelligence must protect himself. He gets no help from\nany other world. The church has always claimed and still claims that\nit is the only reforming power, that it makes men honest, virtuous\nand merciful, that it prevents violence and war, and that without its\ninfluence the race would return to barbarism.\n\nNothing can exceed the absurdity of these claims.\n\nIf we wish to improve the condition of mankind--if we wish for nobler\nmen and women we must develop the brain, we must encourage thought\nand investigation. We must convince the world that credulity is\na vice,--that there is no virtue in believing without, or against\nevidence, and that the really honest man is true to himself. We must\nfill the world with intellectual light. We must applaud mental courage.\nWe must educate the children, rescue them from ignorance and crime.\nSchool-houses are the real temples, and teachers are the true priests.\nWe must supply the wants of the mind, satisfy the hunger of the brain.\nThe people should be familiar with the great poets, with the tragedies\nof AEschylus, the dramas of Shakespeare, with the poetry of Homer and\nVirgil. Shakespeare should be taught in every school, found in every\nhouse.\n\nThrough photography the whole world may become acquainted with the great\nstatues, the great paintings, the victories of art. In this way the mind\nis enlarged, the sympathies quickened, the appreciation of the beautiful\nintensified, the taste refined and the character ennobled.\n\nThe great novels should be read by all. All should be acquainted with\nthe men and women of fiction, with the ideal world. The imagination\nshould be developed, trained and strengthened. Superstition has degraded\nart and literature. It gave us winged monsters, scenes from heaven and\nhell, representations of gods and devils, sculptured the absurd and\npainted the impossible in the name of Art. It gave us the dreams of the\ninsane, the lives of fanatical saints, accounts of miracles and wonders,\nof cures wrought by the bones of the dead, descriptions of Paradise,\npurgatory and the eternal dungeon, discourses on baptism, on changing\nwine and wafers into the the blood and flesh of God, on the\nforgiveness of sins by priests, on fore-ordination and accountability,\npredestination and free will, on devils, ghosts and goblins, the\nministrations of guardian angels, the virtue of belief and the\nwickedness of doubt. And this was called \"sacred literature.\"\n\nThe church taught that those who believed, counted beads, mumbled\nprayers, and gave their time or property for the support of the gospel\nwere the good and that all others were traveling the \"broad road\" to\neternal pain. According to the theologians, the best people, the\nsaints, were dead, and real beauty was to be found only in heaven. They\ndenounced the joys of life as husks and filthy rags, declared that the\nworld had been cursed, and that it brought forth thistles and thorns\nbecause of the sins of man. They regarded the earth as a kind of dock,\nrunning out into the sea of eternity,--on which the pious waited for the\nship on which they were to be transported to another world.\n\nBut the real poets and the real artists clung to this world, to this\nlife. They described and represented things that exist. They expressed\nthoughts of the brain, emotions of the heart, the griefs and joys, the\nhope and despair of men and women. They found strength and beauty\non every hand. They found their angels here. They were true to human\nexperience and they touched the brain and heart of the world. In\nthe tragedies and comedies of life, in the smiles and tears, in the\necstasies of love, in the darkness of death, in the dawn of hope, they\nfound their materials for statue and song, for poem and painting. Poetry\nand art are the children of this world, born and nourished here. They\nare human. They have left the winged monsters of heaven, the malicious\ndeformities of hell, and have turned their attention to men and women,\nto the things of this life.\n\nThere is a poem called \"The Skylark,\" by Shelley, graceful as the\nmotions of flames. Another by Robert Burns, called \"The Daisy,\"\nexquisite, perfect as the pearl of virtue in the beautiful breast of a\nloving girl. Between this lark and this daisy, neither above nor below,\nyou will find all the poetry of the world. Eloquence, sublimity, poetry\nand art must have the foundation of fact, of reality. Imaginary worlds\nand beings are nothing to us.\n\nAt last the old creeds are becoming cruel and vulgar. We now have\nimagination enough to put ourselves in the place of others. Believers\nin hell, in eternal pain, like murderers, lack imagination. The murderer\nhas not imagination enough to see his victim dead. He does not see the\nsightless and pathetic eyes. He does not see the widow's arms about the\ncorpse, her lips upon the dead. He does not hear the sobs of children.\nHe does not see the funeral. He does not hear the clods as they fall on\nthe coffin. He does not feel the hand of arrest, the scene of the trial\nis not before him. He does not hear the awful verdict, the sentence of\nthe court, the last words. He does not see the scaffold, nor feel about\nhis throat the deadly noose.\n\nLet us develop the brain, civilize the heart, and give wings to the\nimagination.\n\nVII.\n\nIF we abandon myth and miracle, if we discard the supernatural and the\nscheme of redemption, how are we to civilize the world?\n\nIs falsehood a reforming power? Is credulity the mother of virtue? Is\nthere any saving grace in the impossible and absurd? Did wisdom perish\nwith the dead? Must the civilized accept the religion of savages?\n\nIf we wish to reform the world we must rely on truth, on fact, on\nreason. We must teach men that they are good or bad for themselves, that\nothers cannot be good or bad for them, that they cannot be charged with\nthe crimes, or credited with the virtues of others. We must discard the\ndoctrine of the atonement, because it is absurd and immoral. We are not\naccountable for the sins of \"Adam\" and the virtues of Christ cannot be\ntransferred to us. There can be no vicarious virtue, no vicarious vice.\nWhy should the sufferings of the innocent atone for the crimes of the\nguilty. According to the doctrine of the atonement right and wrong do\nnot exist in the nature of things, but in the arbitrary will of the\nInfinite. This is a subversion of all ideas of justice and mercy.\n\nAn act is good, bad, or indifferent, according to its consequences. No\npower can step between an act and its natural consequences. A governor\nmay pardon the criminal, but the natural consequences of the crime\nremain untouched. A god may forgive, but the consequences of the\nact forgiven, are still the same. We must teach the world that the\nconsequences of a bad action cannot be avoided, that they are the\ninvisible police, the unseen avengers, that accept no gifts, that hear\nno prayers, that no cunning can deceive.\n\nWe do not need the forgiveness of gods, but of ourselves and the ones\nwe injure. Restitution without repentance is far better than repentance\nwithout restitution.\n\nWe know nothing of any god who rewards, punishes or forgives.\n\nWe must teach our fellow-men that honor comes from within, not from\nwithout, that honor must be earned, that it is not alms, that even an\ninfinite God could not enrich the beggar's palm with the gem of honor.\n\nTeach them also that happiness is the bud, the blossom and the fruit of\ngood and noble actions, that it is not the gift of any god; that it must\nbe earned by man--must be deserved.\n\nIn this world of ours there is no magic, no sleight-of-hand, by which\nconsequences can be made to punish the good and reward the bad.\n\nTeach men not to sacrifice this world for some other, but to turn their\nattention to the natural, to the affairs of this life. Teach them that\ntheology has no known foundation, that it was born of ignorance and\nfear, that it has hardened the heart, polluted the imagination and made\nfiends of men.\n\nTheology is not for this world. It is no part of real religion. It has\nnothing to do with goodness or virtue. Religion does not consist in\nworshiping gods, but in adding to the well-being, the happiness of man.\nNo human being knows whether any god exists or not, and all that has\nbeen said and written about \"our god,\" or the gods of other people, has\nno known fact for a foundation. Words without thoughts, clouds without\nrain.\n\nLet us put theology out of religion.\n\nChurch and state should be absolutely divorced. Priests pretend that\nthey have been selected by, and that they get their power from God.\nKings occupy their thrones in accordance with the will of God. The pope\ndeclares that he is the agent, the deputy of God and that by right\nhe should rule the world. All these pretentions and assertions are\nperfectly absurd and yet they are acknowledged and believed by millions.\nGet theology out of government and kings will descend from their\nthrones. All will admit that governments get their powers from the\nconsent of the governed, and that all persons in office are the servants\nof the people. Get theology out of government and chaplains will be\ndismissed from Legislatures, from Congress, from the army and navy. Get\ntheology out of government and people will be allowed to express their\nhonest thoughts about \"inspired books\" and superstitious creeds. Get\ntheology out of government and priests will no longer steal a seventh of\nour time. Get theology out of government and the clergy will soon\ntake their places with augurs and soothsayers, with necromancers and\nmedicine-men.\n\nGet theology out of education. Nothing should be taught in a school that\nsomebody does not know.\n\nThere are plenty of things to be learned about this world, about this\nlife. Every child should be taught to think, and that it is dangerous\nnot to think. Children should not be taught the absurdities, the\ncruelties and imbecilities of superstition. No church should be allowed\nto control the common school, and public money should not be divided\nbetween the hateful and warring sects. The public school should be\nsecular, and only the useful should be taught. Many of our colleges\nare under the control of churches. Presidents and professors are mostly\nministers of the gospel and the result is that all facts inconsistent\nwith the creeds are either suppressed or denied. Only those professors\nwho are naturally stupid or mentally dishonest can retain their places.\nThose who tell the truth, who teach the facts, are discharged.\n\nIn every college truth should be a welcome guest. Every professor\nshould be a finder, and every student a learner, of facts. Theology and\nintellectual dishonesty go together. The teacher of children should be\nintelligent and perfectly sincere.\n\nLet us get theology out of education.\n\nThe pious denounce the secular schools as godless. They should be. The\nsciences are all secular, all godless. Theology bears the same relation\nto science that the black art does to chemistry, that magic does to\nmathematics. It is something that cannot be taught, because it cannot\nbe known. It has no foundation in fact. It neither produces, nor accords\nwith, any image in the mind. It is not only unknowable but unthinkable.\nThrough hundreds and thousands of generations men have been discussing,\nwrangling and fighting about theology. No advance has been made. The\nrobed priest has only reached the point from which the savage tried to\nstart.\n\nWe know that theology always has and always will make enemies. It sows\nthe seeds of hatred in families and nations. It is selfish, cruel,\nrevengeful and malicious. It has heaven for the few and perdition\nfor the many. We now know that credulity is not a virtue and that\nintellectual courage is. We must stop rewarding hypocrisy and bigotry.\nWe must stop persecuting the thinkers, the investigators, the creators\nof light, the civilizers of the world.\n\nVIII.\n\nWILL the unknown, the mysteries of life and itiations of the mind,\nforever furnish food for superstition? Will the gods and ghosts perish\nor simply retreat before the advancing hosts of science, and continue to\ncrouch and lurk just beyond the horizon of the known? Will darkness\nforever be the womb and mother of the supernatural?\n\nA little while ago priests told peasants that the New Jerusalem, the\ncelestial city was just above the clouds. They said that its walls\nand domes and spires were just beyond the reach of human sight. The\ntelescope was invented and those who looked at the wilderness of stars,\nsaw no city, no throne. They said to the priests: \"Where is your New\nJerusalem?\" The priests cheerfully and confidently replied. \"It is just\nbeyond where you see.\"\n\nAt one time it was believed that a race of men existed \"with their heads\nbeneath their shoulders.\" Returning travelers from distant lands were\nasked about these wonderful people and all replied that they had not\nseen them. \"Oh,\" said the believers in the monsters, \"the men with heads\nbeneath their shoulders live in a country that you did not visit.\" And\nso the monsters lived and flourished until all the world was known. We\ncannot know the universe. We cannot travel infinite distances, and so,\nsomewhere in shoreless space there will always be room for gods and\nghosts, for heavens and hells. And so it may be that superstition will\nlive and linger until the world becomes intelligent enough to build upon\nthe foundation of the known, to keep the imagination within the domain\nof the probable, and to believe in the natural--_until the supernatural\nshall have been demonstrated_.\n\nSavages knew all about gods, about heavens and hells before they knew\nanything about the world in which they lived. They were perfectly\nfamiliar with evil spirits, with the invisible phantoms of the air, long\nbefore they had any true conception of themselves. So, they knew all\nabout the origin and destiny of the human race. They were absolutely\ncertain about the problems, the solution of which, philosophers know, is\nbeyond the limitations of the mind. They understood astrology, but not\nastronomy, knew something of magic, but nothing about chemistry. They\nwere wise only as to those things about which nothing can be known.\n\nThe poor Indian believed in the \"Great Spirit\" and saw \"design\" on every\nhand.--Trees were made that he might have bows and arrows, wood for his\nfire and bark for his wigwam--rivers and lakes to give him fish, wild\nbeasts and corn that he might have food, and the animals had skins that\nhe might have clothes.\n\nPrimitive peoples all reasoned in the same way, and modern Christians\nfollow their example. They knew but little of the world and thought that\nit had been made expressly for the use of man. They did not know that it\nwas mostly water, that vast regions were locked in eternal ice and that\nin most countries the conditions were unfavorable to human life. They\nknew nothing of the countless enemies of man that live unseen in water,\nfood and air. Back of the little good they knew they put gods and back\nof the evil, devils. They thought it of the greatest importance to gain\nthe good will of the gods, who alone could protect them from the devils.\nThose who worshiped these gods, offered sacrifices, and obeyed priests,\nwere considered loyal members of the tribe or community, and those who\nrefused to worship were regarded as enemies and traitors. The believers,\nin order to protect themselves from the anger of the gods, exiled or\ndestroyed the infidels.\n\nBelieving as they did, the course they pursued was natural. They\nnot only wished to protect themselves from disease and death, from\npestilence and famine in this world but the souls of their children from\neternal pain in the next. Their gods were savages who demanded flattery\nand worship not only, but the acceptance of a certain creed. As long\nas Christians believe in eternal punishment they will be the enemies of\nthose who investigate and contend for the authority of reason, of those\nwho demand evidence, who care nothing for the unsupported assertions of\nthe dead or the illogical inferences of the living.\n\nScience always has been, is, and always will be modest, thoughtful,\ntruthful. It has but one object: The ascertainment of truth. It has no\nprejudice, no hatred. It is in the realm of the intellect and cannot\nbe swayed or changed by passion. It does not try to please God, to gain\nheaven or avoid hell. It is for this world, for the use of man. It is\nperfectly candid. It does not try to conceal, but to reveal. It is the\nenemy of mystery, of pretence and canc. It does not ask people to be\nsolemn, but sensible. It calls for and insists on the use of all the\nsenses, of all the faculties of the mind. It does not pretend to be\n\"holy\" or \"inspired.\" It courts investigation, criticism and even\ndenial. It asks for the application of every test, for trial by every\nstandard. It knows nothing of blasphemy and does not ask for the\nimprisonment of those who ignorantly or knowingly deny the truth. The\ngood that springs from a knowledge of the truth is the only reward it\noffers, and the evil resulting from ignorance is the only punishment it\nthreatens. Its effort is to reform the world through intelligence.\n\nOn the other hand theology is, always has been, and always will be,\nignorant, arrogant, puerile and cruel. When the church had power,\nhypocrisy was crowned and honesty imprisoned. Fraud wore the tiara and\ntruth was a convict, Liberty was in chains, Theology has always sent the\nworst to heaven, the best to hell.\n\nLet me give you a scene from the day of judgment. Christ is upon\nhis throne, his secretary by his side. A soul appears. This is what\nhappens--\n\n\"What is your name?\"\n\nTorquemada.\n\n\"Were you a Christian?\"\n\nI was.\n\n\"Did you endeavor to convert your fellow-men?\"\n\nI did. I tried to convert them by persuasion, by preaching and praying\nand even by force.\n\n\"What did you do?\"\n\nI put the heretics in prison, in chains. I tore out their tongues, put\nout their eyes, crushed their bones, stretched them upon racks, roasted\ntheir feet, and if they remained obdurate I flayed them alive or burned\nthem at the stake.\n\n\"And did you do all this for my glory?\"\n\nYes, all for you. I wanted to save some, I wanted to protect the young\nand the weak minded.\n\n\"Did you believe the Bible, the miracles--that I was God, that I was\nborn of a virgin and kept money in the mouth of a fish?\"\n\nYes, I believed it all. My reason was the slave of faith.\n\n\"Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joys of thy\nLord. I was hungry and you gave me meat, naked and you clothed me..\"\nAnother soul arises.\n\n\"What is your name?\"\n\nGiordano Bruno.\n\n\"Were you a Christian?\"\n\nAt one time I was, but for many years I was a philosopher, a seeker\nafter truth.\n\n\"Did you seek to convert your fellow-men?\"\n\nNot to Christianity, but to the religion of reason. I tried to\ndevelop their minds, to free them from the slavery of ignorance and\nsuperstition. In my day the church taught the holiness of credulity--the\nvirtue of unquestioning obedience, and in your name tortured and\ndestroyed the intelligent and courageous. I did what I could to civilize\nthe world, to make men tolerant and merciful, to soften the hearts\nof priests, and banish torture from the world. I expressed my honest\nthoughts and walked in the light of reason.\n\n\"Did you believe the Bible, the miracles? Did you believe that I was\nGod, that I was born of a virgin and that I suffered myself to be killed\nby the Jews to appease the wrath of God--that is, of myself--so that God\ncould save the souls of a few?\"\n\n\"No, I did not. I did not believe that God was ever born into my world,\nor that God learned the trade of a carpenter, or that he 'increased\nin knowledge,' or that he cast devils out of men, or that his garments\ncould cure diseases, or that he allowed himself to be murdered, and in\nthe hour of death \"forsook\" himself. These things I did not and could\nnot believe. But I did all the good I could. I enlightened the ignorant,\ncomforted the afflicted, defended the innocent, divided even my poverty\nwith the poor, and did the best I could to increase the happiness of my\nfellow-men. I was a soldier in the army of progress.--I was arrested,\nimprisoned, tried and convicted by the church--by the 'Triumphant\nBeast.' I was burned at the stake by ignorant and heartless priests and\nmy ashes given to the winds.\"\n\nThen Christ, his face growing dark, his brows contracted with wrath,\nwith uplifted hands, with half averted face, cries or rather shrieks:\n\"Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil\nand his angels.\"\n\nThis is the justice of God--the mercy of the compassionate Christ.\nThis is the belief, the dream and hope of the orthodox theologian--\"the\nconsummation devoutly to be wished.\"\n\nTheology makes God a monster, a tyrant, a savage; makes man a servant,\na serf, a slave; promises heaven to the obedient, the meek, the\nfrightened, and threatens the self-reliant with the tortures of hell.\n\nIt denounces reason and appeals to the passions--to hope and fear.\nIt does not answer the arguments of those who attack, but resorts to\nsophistry, falsehood and slander. It is incapable of advancement. It\nkeeps its back to the sunrise, lives on myth and miracle, and guards\nwith a misers care the \"sacred\" superstitions of the past.\n\nIn the great struggle between the supernatural and the natural, between\ngods and men, we have passed midnight. All the forces of civilization,\nall the facts that have been found, all the truths that have been\ndiscovered are the allies of science--the enemies of the supernatural.\n\nWe need no myths, no miracles, no gods, no devils.\n\nIX.\n\nFOR thousands of generations the myths have been taught and the miracles\nbelieved. Every mother was a missionary and told with loving care the\nfalsehoods of \"faith\" to her babe. The poison of superstition was in the\nmother's milk. She was honest and affectionate and her character, her\ngoodness, her smiles and kisses, entered into, mingled with, and became\na part of the superstition that she taught. Fathers, friends and priests\nunited with the mothers, and the children thus taught, became the\nteachers of their children and so the creeds were kept alive.\n\nChildhood loves the romantic, the mysterious, the monstrous. It lives in\na world where cause has nothing to do with effect, where the fairy waves\nher hand and the prince appears. Where wish creates the thing desired\nand facts become the slaves of amulet and charm. The individual lives\nthe life of the race, and the child is charmed with what the race in its\ninfancy produced.\n\nThere seems to be the same difference between mistakes and facts\nthat there is between weeds and corn. Mistakes seem to take care of\nthemselves, while the facts have to be guarded with all possible care.\nFalsehoods like weeds flourish without care. Weeds care nothing for soil\nor rain. They not only ask no help but they almost defy destruction. In\nthe minds of children, superstitions, legends, myths and miracles find a\nnatural, and in most instances a lasting home. Thrown aside in manhood,\nforgotten or denied, in old age they oft return and linger to the end.\n\nThis in part accounts for the longevity of religious lies. Ministers\nwith clasped hands and uplifted eyes ask the man who is thinking for\nhimself how he can be wicked and heartless enough to attack the religion\nof his mother. This question is regarded by the clergy as unanswerable.\nOf course it is not to be asked by the missionaries, of the Hindus and\nthe Chinese. The heathen are expected to desert the religion of their\nmothers as Christ and his apostles deserted the religion of their\nmothers. It is right for Jews and heathen, but not for thinkers and\nphilosophers.\n\nA cannibal was about to kill a missionary for food.\n\nThe missionary objected and asked the cannibal how he could be so cruel\nand wicked.\n\nThe cannibal replied that he followed the example of his mother. \"My\nmother,\" said he, \"was good enough for me. Her religion is my religion.\nThe last time I saw her she was sitting, propped up against a tree,\neating cold missionary.\"\n\nBut now the mother argument has mostly lost its force, and men of mind\nare satisfied with nothing less than truth.\n\nThe phenomena of nature have been investigated and the supernatural has\nnot been found. The myths have faded from the imagination, and of them\nnothing remains but the poetic. The miraculous has become the absurd,\nthe impossible. Gods and phantoms have been driven from the earth and\nsky. We are living in a natural world.\n\nOur fathers, some of them, demanded the freedom of religion. We have\ntaken another step. We demand the Religion of Freedom.\n\nO Liberty, thou art the god of my idolatry! Thou art the only deity\nthat hateth bended knees. In thy vast and unwalled temple, beneath the\nroofless dome, star-gemmed and luminous with suns, thy worshipers stand\nerect! They do not cringe, or crawl, or bend their foreheads to the\nearth. The dust has never borne the impress of their lips. Upon thy\naltars mothers do not sacrifice their babes, nor men their rights. Thou\naskest naught from man except the things that good men hate--the whip,\nthe chain, the dungeon key. Thou hast no popes, no priests, who stand\nbetween their fellow-men and thee. Thou carest not for foolish forms,\nor selfish prayers. At thy sacred shrine hypocrisy does not bow, virtue\ndoes not tremble, superstition's feeble tapers do not burn, but Reason\nholds aloft her inextinguishable torch whose holy light will one day\nflood the world.","title":"The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 02 (of 12): Dresden Edition\u2014Lectures","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":95720}